K-3 Vs. K-5iis

I've just done some tests on the relative performance of the K-3 versus the K-5iis, on the following basis, both cameras on a tripod, using the same lens (100 DFA Macro WR) at the same aperture (F4), the same ISO, the same WB and shot in RAW with no processing except for auto levels, auto contrast and white balance adjustment. The objective was to test the relative noise levels and overall picture quality in dim light, at 100, 1600 and 3200 ISO (I rarely shoot above 3200, so anything higher is largely irrelevant to me).

Before I tell you the results, I will add a few 'caveats':

- Tiny focussing errors can produce misleading results as I found tonight - especially when viewing at 100% or more

- Auto WB on both cameras was pretty variable, hence I have adjusted the WB on both images to make it as similar as possible. Overall the K-3 did the best to reproduce accurate WB under difficult light, but neither was perfect.

- Even trying to be as consistent as possible there are detectable differences in the levels and colours after adjustment of these, also the Forum is applying slightly more compression to the image you see here from the K-3 as it is larger in overall proportions when scaled to 100%; this has the effect of slightly lessening the quality of the K-3 image you see here compared to what I see on my PC screen

My conclusions are as follows:

ISO 100: K-3 is a clear winner due to clarity from the additional resolution and a nicer overall picture quality (both are superb though)

ISO 1600: Boy it's close! K-3 just shades it for me - greater clarity, still very little noise in both images. What noise is there is unobtrusive and could easily be cleaned up. The noise is different in character on the two cameras, but not very different in actual noise levels

ISO 3200: The K-5iis blows the K-3 away completely. If you need to shoot at 3200 ISO the K-5iis is a better camera. This may change with firmware improvements to the K-3 over time. I am running latest firmware on the K-5iis.

See below the ISO 1600 images, both cropped at 100%. I'm not going to post the ISO 100 and ISO 3200 as I did not manage to get two that are comparable enough on the focussing so you will have to take my word for the above conclusions! Also, bear in mind that I have not applied any post processing noise reduction or sharpening to these images.

K-3



K-5iis



I thin I may have lit the blue touch-paper on this one!! Your comments and observations please!

Regards
David

---

Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

I would have to agree 100% with you on this David. The K3 was never going to outdo a K5 for high ISO noise levels.

Smeggy beware!

Best regards

---

When something goes wrong in the circus, they send clowns into the arena to distract the audience.

The noise in the whites looks better on the k-3 but the noise in the shadow to the right hand vertical corner looks worse on the k-3

Interesting...

---

PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

I already compared the noise levels between the K-5 and the K-3 at ISO6400 and ISO51200. I posted the pics on on the "K-3 studio test shots now on Imaging Resource" thread. I'll repost them here for reference....

---

[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

OK, downloaded the ISO 51200 DNG's of K3 and K-5 from Imaging resource....

Imported into Lightroom 4.2 and applied my standard NR settings for ISO52100 to each. I have to say the K-5 beats the K-3 hands down. And it's not just colour noise. the colour noise setting in LR4.2 on these 21/100. Even wacking it up to 100/100 on the k3 version, still left loads more luminance noise than the K-5 version.

The next step was to increase the luminance setting ( which is on 47/100 for these examples ) so that the K-3's luminance noise levels roughly equalled that of the K-5. Somewhere around 70/100 did the trick but left that hideous 69th generation VHS copy smear that high NR gives.

So far I conclude that the K-3's ISO performance has suffered because of the marketing need to keep up with the MegaPixel race. I hate this damn MP race, and would rather have better IQ than more MP. However before making a solid conclusion I aim to repeat his test at mid range ISO values, i.e ISO6400. I wager it will be the same proportional difference given Dynamic range/ISO specs are pretty linear. i.e you roughly lose 1 stop of dynamic range for 1 stop of ISO



Here's the full image and 100% pixel peep versions for each ( click on pics to avoid annoying dinosaur 800px restriction )


K3 ISO51200 - full pic





K5 ISO51200 - full pic





K3 ISO51200 - 100% pixel peep





K5 ISO51200 - 100% pixel peep

---

[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

OK, compared the ISO 6400 DNG's of K3 and K-5 from Imaging resource....

Imported into Lightroom 4.2 and applied my standard NR settings for ISO6400 to each. I have to say again the K-5 beats the K-3 hands down.

Luminance NR 20/100
Colour NR 16/100

Here's the full image and 100% pixel peep versions for each ( click on pics to avoid annoying dinosaur 800px restriction )


K3 ISO6400 - full pic





K5 ISO6400 - full pic





K3 ISO6400 - 100% pixel peep





K5 ISO6400 - 100% pixel peep





K-3 v. K-5 ISO51200 Comparuison here

---

[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

So basically David's findings are not surprising and just what I'd expect after doing my own tests from the IR DNG's













.

---

[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Thanks David/Smeggy! I have to admit that I have never shot above ISO 800 in my life, even when I shot Nikon as a Pro but it's good to know these things in case I ever need to. That being the case before I did I'd be buying another IIs to replace the one I had to let go recently but stop posting stuff like this as I want the price of the K5IIs to actually fall a bit!

---

Cheers Jules...

My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.

www.exaggeratedperspectives.com

This don't make sense. The K-3 appears to be a step backwards in image quality at higher ASA settings. Do you think it's because Lightroom isn't geared up for the K-3 yet?

Does the K-3 come with a new dedicated version of PDCU and what are images like when processed through that? I'd like to see.

Is there any chance that firmware updates will improve this apparent downgrade in high ASA quality on the K-3 or is it inherent to the high pixel smaller sensor? Certainly the lower ASA images look to be an improvement over the K-5 shots.

I wont jump to conclusions just yet, but maybe i'll just keep my wallet in my pocket for another year and wait to see what comes along.

---

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.

what about in-camera JPEGs from both- has the K3 got some internal NR cleverness that software converters currently lack?

I've found Raw files from the K3 need higher colour noise settings in LR5, for the K5 I could leave the colour noise settings to the default 25 setting, I think the K3 images require a higher setting. I haven't had time to work out the best settings for the K3 yet.

This will probably be addressed in a future LR upgrade

Just a thought on this...

Comparing in LR without having the K3 profile isn't comparing like-for-like AFAIK

Seem to remember reading somewhere that Adobe create a base profile for the noise floor of the camera, detailing the 'quality' of the noise. And then the controls work on top of that.

So with no K3 profile available you've got 'really raw' settings.


Perhaps if you took the K5 DNG into a hex editor and changed any "K5" strings to "K3" you'd get a more representative comparison?

Matt

---

http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Physics I suppose. 30% less light per sensor site.

I think Matt has a point. There's a problem at this moment in that nobody's software will have been updated for the K-3.

I've been working with JPEG files and they are by definition already updated for the respective cameras.

---

Best regards, John

Yes I think JPeg comparisons would be fairer at the moment, or Raw files that have been processed to specific settings for each camera not just left at default setting as I don't think they are optimized for the K3 at the moment.