Pentax K-3iii test images

Went for a short walk this afternoon after I finished editing a paper and took the K-3iii and a selection of lenses.

SMC Pentax-FA 31mm Ltd



Tree at Lamer par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity



This way! par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity



Proto-sloe gin par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

SMC Pentax "K" 50mm f/4 macro



Blossom par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

SMC Pentax-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8



Ayot Place par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

SMC Pentax "K" 28mm f/3.5 shift (hand held)



Ayot Old Church par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

The next one at ISO 6,400



Ayot New Church par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

SMC Pentax-A 100mm f/2.8



Blossom again par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity



New leaves par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity



Bride Hall over the fields par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity



Detail of Lamer par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

So it's clearly working OK. Any different from what you'd expect from, say, the original K3 with the same lenses in the same light?

Nice pictures, irrespective of the camera!

Steve

Lovely selection Kris - Blosson & Blosson Again being my favourites

Congrats by the way

High ISO images are much cleaner. 6,400 easily usable and that is as high as I tried. Much easier to focus manual lenses through the viewfinder (I often rely on live-view for MF lenses). Some quirks, such as the slightly annoying issue with shutter speed indication when using Av and preset lenses (there may be a setting for that). Exposure is pretty spot on. Recovery of burnt out highlights pretty good (on the last one no detail was visible on the sunlit wall when I first looked at it). It'll take me a little while to get all the settings the way I like them, but so far a big thumbs-up.

The Ayot New Church interior is fab and that ISO Also Ayot Place, that tree, looks like it's been chopped in half and missing the top?

I'll second Kris' initial comments. Some lovely images too.

Just been having a quick play in LR with some indoor natural light images to see how things go as you head up the ISO scale, and also to compare raw vs JPEG just for interest. The images themselves are not of great interest but my takeaways are:

ISO 1600 is astonishingly good and you have to look hard to see much difference in terms of noise and colour from images taken at ISO 100
ISO 6400 is still very usable and there is very little impact on colour at this setting
I think you could go to ISO 25,600 and still get decent prints at smaller sizes (perhaps up to A4) but ISO 51200 is beyond usable for reasonable quality and the remaining options beyond that seem pretty pointless in my view. That said, I will be using the camera in part for theatre rehearsal shots and the images at 51200 outperform the previous FF body I was using for this purpose when that was set to ISO6400 - a Leica Typ240 (don't hate me!) which by that ISO had awful banding issues.

In short, I'm impressed.

Interesting looking at the JPEGs too - I had them in Natural mode with a touch of additional fine sharpness and clarity, and they were coming out very well (perhaps need just a bit more of a tweak as they lack a tiny bit of punch). Obviously raw is better for post processing, dynamic range etc, but I think the JPEGs will be very usable at least up to ISO1600, possibly 3200 - after that, the raws start to include more fine detail that the JPEG processing has taken away.

In the meantime, here's my quick 'test scene' - ISO100 DNG on the left, ISO6400 DNG on the right. No PP:




And same again but viewed at 100%:




Cheers,

Jon

Eek my comparison is ISO100 with 6400 not 1600 as per text above - can’t find option to edit on my phone but will correct on the computer when I’m back home....

Original post now corrected.