K3 - high ISO noise

I suppose it's obvious that the 24 megapixels of the K3 being crammed into the same space as the 16 megapixels of the K5 family is bound to introduce more noise. It was one of the I considered when deciding between a K5-iis (I already have a K5) and the K3. My main need for high ISO is gig photography but in the end I decided that I take far more photos at ISO400 than I do at ISO6400 and for cropping and posters that extra resolution would be very, very handy.

So, with K3 and my 2 new f2.8 Sigma zooms, I went to a gig on Friday. Although it's difficult to be precise about this sort of thing, my initial reaction is that ISO3200 on the K3 is about as noisy as ISO6400 on the K5. Not really an issue as this is offset by the faster glass. And all taken in RAW and Lightroom tends to clean the photos up quite nicely. albeit at the cost of some fine detail,

I'll have to try some side by side comparisons of the 2 cameras to see whether my hypothesis holds true.

Does anyone here shoot using high ISO and what is your experience. As I say, mine is just a first impression so I could be wrong.

Cheers

Keith

I sold my K-3 after a couple of months and bought a new K-5IIs instead, * I found it to be noisier and the dynamic range was also not as good.

Most owners of the K-3 told me I was seeing things and must be mad to give it up for the 5IIs but I'm a lot happier, saying that I will buy another when they really come down in price as the extra mega-pixels were handy for cropping when doing airshows.

* So much so when I mentioned it to the salesman at SRS as I was buying a 55-300mm WR I got a deadly (and rather long) silence, followed by a gasp and then something along the lines of "I have never heard anything like that before"

This is an interesting question...I agonised about the K3 vs K5IIs (I already have a K5) I shoot a lot of high ISO stuff and I must say that I haven't found the K3 to be that much noisier (though it is) or have that much less dynamic range (though it does) compared to my K5. Overall the K3 noise is slightly finer, you get more cropping power with the K3 but you can't push the shadows quite as much... I thing perhaps half a stop difference? The auto-focussing is miles better on the K3 though!
My experience only of course....

Certainly better than the K-5 but not much better than the K-5IIs, although the extra points are handy.

Fair point.

I've never used a K5 but I'm quite happy with the noise levels of my K3. I shot a gig using it and my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and had it set to ISO 3200 almost the whole time.

I like how the shots came out and that's just with the basic Silkypix noise reduction processing which I'm sure is far inferior to photoshop or lightroom.

I definitely agree with that! My K5 plus Sigma 70-300 would take a noisy age trying to find focus at gigs. The K3 plus Sigma 70-200 fixed focus much more quickly, accurately, and noiselessly!

Two processed RAWs shot in similar light....

K3 ISO6400 1/30 f2.2

Steaming through the dark by Arle Images, on Flickr

K5 ISO6400 1/100 f2

Lord Nelson enters Ropley by Arle Images, on Flickr

that's because the K-5II/K-5IIs/K-3 focus down to -3 EV .
Still not many cameras that do that even now.

If you have desribed the two lenses correctly then to compare the CAMERA AF speeds is like comparing apples with stage coaches !
The Sigma 70-300 has a simple screw drive AF whereas the 70-200 (costing around 8 x as much !) has the HSM fast motor driven AF.

If you do, indeed, have BOTH lenses then it would be instructive to compare the AF speeds with the lenses and cameras the other way around ?

Just a thought ?
Peter

I was shocked at just how much noisier the K-3 seemed to be compared to the K-5 at any ISO. There is a big but however, the Noise is quite nice as noise goes and it does clear up very nicely. The K-3 also demolishes the K-5 for cropping ability.

K-3 @ ISO6400, I/80s, f/2.8 - 4


Petal of a Lilly

I

Sorry, the lens noise was more an observation than a real comparison. As you say, screw v HSM - no contest really. I assumed the speed that the K3 found focus and the lack of hunting was down to the K3's superior autofocus engine. However, as I do have both lenses and both cameras I can do a side by side comparison. Will have a go at that this week.

Cheers

Keith