K-3 studio test shots now on Imaging Resource

The evidence in this thread (thanks Smeggy) shows what a great camera the K-5 series was, still is, and will continue to be, as well as being great value for money.

Philip

Of course the total experience of a camera is more than just it's Sensor IQ. We all know that.

But by previously shouting down anyone's opinion of viewing images taken by a camera that they don't own but are able to view through Imaging Resource, DpReview or any other Website that offers controlled comparison images for the convenience of prospective buyers you've shot yourself in the foot.

We all know that general day to day images taken in the field by cameras are valuable in giving a general personality of that camera and more importantly the lens that was attached to it while taking those pics.

But the only way to properly compare technical attributes of the Camera's sensor IQ is to do controlled shots that remove as many variables as possible/ Imaging resource's shots are particularly good at this. Because those controlled tests showed the K-5IIs wasn't any significant and practical improvement over the AA-filtered K-5/K-5II models you decided to claim that just looking at images from imaging resource/DPreview wasn't good enough and that only people who owned the cameras could have a credible opinion.

The whole point of controlled image comparisons is to give a service to those who do not yet own the camera but want to do some research so they can make a decision in order to buy it or not.

Of course it's good to listen to those who've actually bought the camera in question, but you have to bear in mind they might be defending their purchase and this has to be factored into the equation.

It's a shame as the Imaging Resource and other controlled studio shots from DPreview, et al, are very valuable for those of us who are researching into our next camera upgrade

From smeggy's research I doubt I'll be buying a K-3 based on those K-3/K-5 image comparisons. Thanks for that smeg.

Most of my photography nowadays is motorsport in poor lighting other than in the summer months, and gigs where the lighting can at best be described as abysmal. Even a 1:2.8 lens is not fast enough, I have to use 55mm/f1.4 or 31mm/f1.8. I sometimes wish I'd kept my K50/f1.2 lens. I did use flash once but as these gigs are in bars, It upset a few people, I prefer the atmosphere of the non-flash shots anyway.

24MP or not, if it's going to give me a noisier result, I can't use it, irrespective of all the new gismos it has. I prefer less noisy 16MP images which are more than adequate for me.

So for the moment I'm sticking with the K-5 series, I might even sell my K20D + DA*60-250 to fund a K-5 IIs body when they've hit rock bottom price.

Yes indeed. I've owned three original K-5 cameras. The first one SRS, in their superb service replaced it for me because it's low light AF was f**ked and couldn't be fixed by the 1.03 firmware. Only a few days after getting that camera replaced I ordered a second K-5 from SRS and near;y two years later I still love them to bits.

I admit I'd like the better AF the K-5II/K-5IIs but I've seen nothing in IQ that would make any financial sense in upgrading to a K-5II.

Early anecdotes claim the AF on the K-3 is even better than any K-5 and that's great, but what else excites me about the K-3????

Not a lot really. The biggest handicap to my creative photography are two main issues..


1] Discretion - I love capturing life that is unaware it's being captured. A DSLR is useless for this and I use a Nokia 808 phone cam for this purpose.


2] the amount of light dictating exposure settings

Yeah it's great having a choice of shutter speeds and aperture for creative purposes in strong daylight, but once you get into low light situations ( evening street light scenes for example )your restricted to wide apertures and high ISOs. Getting a K-5 to replace my K20D/K-10D was a revolution in this respect, but it still wasn't enough. I was hoping the successor to the K-5 was goign to give some increase in DR and IQ, but it seems it's a step backward as the priority was to go for 24MP at the expense of IQ.

Please stop this thread. I need a lot of good publicity about the K-3,so I can pick up a K-5ii (perhaps s) at a rock bottom price. This discussion is going to push the prices back up

The MP race is killing IQ IMO.


I use a Nokia 808 phone as an "always in my pocket" compact camera. Although it's dynamic range, and thus it's noise performance, is nowhere near the capabilities of Pentax K-5, it can take pics at 38MP and the detail far surpasses what you can get get out of a k-5 or K-3. but I use it in it's 8MP mode which pixel bins to provide and image that is less noisy and more dynamic range.

So even though I have a choice to shoot at 38MP already I choose not to as it's overkill and not worth it. I'd be quite happy with a DSLR that was no more than 10MP, but had exceptional IQ performance.

Perhaps the K-£ isn't aimed at DSLR upgrader's, but has been built for the next generation of photographers who are transitioning from mobile phones and might mistakenly believe that more megapixels means better pictures. Old hands on here will be aware that its not necessarily the camera but the intent and imagination of the photographer that makes great images.

That was presumably tongue in cheek, but anyway you probably don't need to worry - the marketing around the 24MP sensor, the controllable AA "filter", the movie capabilities, etc., is likely to sell the camera to many new and existing Pentax consumers around the world, and prices will fall as they always do.

However, there could be many here on PU who are well-informed users of a K-5 series body for shooting still images, who will prefer to invest in good lenses or lighting rather than upgrading the body, as well as many others who will see the benefits of stepping up to a K-5.

Philip

+1

With that K3/k5 bake off, don't you need to scale the K3's image to the same size/field of view as the K5? Otherwise it's not a fair comparison? At least I think that's what dpreview and the like do.

Not seeing anything too concerning with my (admittedly limited) test shots so far.

It has suddenly gone a bit one sided! From what I've read and seen I am more likely (although not definitely)going to skip K5 from my K30 and go straight to K3 but will wait for more info. As a wildlife shooter there didn't seem any massive advantage to a K5 over a K30 except the quieter shutter. Having read the overview I am amazed how much new stuff is packed into the K3. There must have been a massive amount of R&D to make so many big jumps in the time. I would say the most changes between two consecutive DSLR releases. Of course this does not necessarily translate into easier use or better IQ so I will bide my time and wait for things to unfold.

All the discussion so far has been around comparing the IQ at high ISOs. How does the IQ compare at lower ISOs for, say, landscape shots around the 100-400 ISO range? Do the extra MPs come into their own here or do we need to wait for a 24MP full frame to get the extra benefit?

John K

If downsampling the 24MP to 16MP makes the noise levels comparable, then if the AF is as much better as we're all hoping, you're still likely to end up with more keepers with the K-3 if you're shooting motorsport in poor light.

What's the IQ like at the medium 14MP setting?

John K

But its not just about how much noise is visible at capture - what's more important is how the images holds up under good and effective noise reuction processing. This is not just about eliminating the noise, the second stage of that is the detail restoration.

It doesn't matter what the numerical figure is on the noise reduction sliders - what matters is how the image responds to the compensatory 'micro-contrast' boosting at different levels to bring the important detail back.

It may be the case that the additional pixels in the K3 images will in fact help in this process and give the advantage.