worth upgrade k5IIs to K-3
Posted 27/05/2014 - 20:01
Link
ChrisA wrote:
Toddler crawling around in a not-very well-lit room, and you want to keep the exposure short?
Anything really - it's not necessarily about actual darkness, it's keeping the shutter speed up for any number of reasons.
tyronet2000 wrote:
As someone who doesn't take photos in the dark, what circumstances would an iso of 12800 and above be used.
As someone who doesn't take photos in the dark, what circumstances would an iso of 12800 and above be used.
Toddler crawling around in a not-very well-lit room, and you want to keep the exposure short?
Anything really - it's not necessarily about actual darkness, it's keeping the shutter speed up for any number of reasons.
I understand increasing shutter speed via ISO, what I was wondering was, will the noise generated at these high ISO's eventually begin to mar the shot although I do realise there would be times when "getting a shot at all costs" would come into it.
Posted 25/11/2014 - 00:23
Link
[quoteI also find the WB a bit awkward to get right on aerial images][/quote]
This brings up a few questions for myself...
1. Have you noticed it with just one lens or a variety of lenses?
2. Since I use filters myself; do you happen to use filters as well?
3. Since you mentioned aerial; I'm assuming they were taken from an aerial platform such as (perhaps) a private plane.
In reference to item three; and to the general audience. I would strongly suggest that anyone ever shooting photographs from items such as: a plane, a boat, even a vehicle in general... To make sure to turn off any and all forms of SR/image stabilization. Cannot begin to mention how many cameras I've seen damaged by this
This brings up a few questions for myself...
1. Have you noticed it with just one lens or a variety of lenses?
2. Since I use filters myself; do you happen to use filters as well?
3. Since you mentioned aerial; I'm assuming they were taken from an aerial platform such as (perhaps) a private plane.
In reference to item three; and to the general audience. I would strongly suggest that anyone ever shooting photographs from items such as: a plane, a boat, even a vehicle in general... To make sure to turn off any and all forms of SR/image stabilization. Cannot begin to mention how many cameras I've seen damaged by this
Posted 25/11/2014 - 06:24
Link
tyronet2000 wrote:
I understand increasing shutter speed via ISO, what I was wondering was, will the noise generated at these high ISO's eventually begin to mar the shot although I do realise there would be times when "getting a shot at all costs" would come into it.
ChrisA wrote:
Toddler crawling around in a not-very well-lit room, and you want to keep the exposure short?
Anything really - it's not necessarily about actual darkness, it's keeping the shutter speed up for any number of reasons.
Quote:
As someone who doesn't take photos in the dark, what circumstances would an iso of 12800 and above be used.
As someone who doesn't take photos in the dark, what circumstances would an iso of 12800 and above be used.
Toddler crawling around in a not-very well-lit room, and you want to keep the exposure short?
Anything really - it's not necessarily about actual darkness, it's keeping the shutter speed up for any number of reasons.
I understand increasing shutter speed via ISO, what I was wondering was, will the noise generated at these high ISO's eventually begin to mar the shot although I do realise there would be times when "getting a shot at all costs" would come into it.
It will. I tried for a shot of children jumping in the air at the same time at my daughters birthday. Indoor shot, on camera flash available only and I hate that thing. Cranked up the ISO but the end result was terribly noisy. Had to up the shutter speed to freeze them mid air sharply.
Higher ISO ability, with low noise, really is high on my wish list. Flash is the answer when you can use it to control your environment, but this isn't always possible.
Does the S/R system remain active continually? From memory I thought this only kicked in when the shot was actually taken. In which case a typical flight would be an ideal time to use it I would have thought?
Posted 25/11/2014 - 07:35
Link
SR will slow the camera down slightly, while it locks on, so maybe for action shots where the moment is important it should be switched off. In any event, SR helps with camera shake and does nothing for subject movement.
Best regards, John
Posted 26/11/2014 - 10:30
Link
Wanted to stay out of this! Doh Cant!
For me I had a bit of a shock coming back to the K3, I initially found the noise pretty objectionable and was pretty narked about it, after being spoiled by the D610 and the Fuji X-T1 (Fuji crushes the blacks in it's film simulations, it won't look so noisy but then you lose a hell of a lot of shadow detail, the D610? Well it's a good sensor wrapped up in a peice of placcy crap, there I said it I've wanted to for a while and now it's out there...
Right then...
K3 sort of Vs K5 and K5IIs:
I upgraded from a K-5IIs to a K-3 (Via some other stuff...Well quite a lot of other stuff actually!) and if you pixel peep at 100%, there does seem to be a bit more noise, but it's luminance, not chroma. and it cleans up very well. The big caveat for me is hat I print and without NR you still would not notice it in print, (up to aourd ISO 1600) nor when posting photos online (Measurebating aside). I found the difference in apparrant noise between the K5* and K3 are greatly exaggerated if you shoot JPG. If you shoot RAW, then I prefer the K-3's noise as it is more film like. The higher dot count for the given area of the K-3's sensor means that you'll get a bit more noise, than the lower pitch of a K5*, it's simply physics! Pixel peeping is not the proof, your final output is, whether it be print or online, and in practice, you'll just not notice it.
In my own "very" indirect testing (I have never been able to stump up enough cash to own both at once, would still like a K5IIs...because I just like em!), the K-5 has worse chroma noise than the K3, which is harder to shift than luminance. With my K-3, (Notice I said "My" It's so good i've owned it twice!) I am happy to shoot in RAW up to ISO3200 and at a push 6400 before noise gets to be a big problem. Also, you need to take into account the K-5 (Original, Strong AA and a bit soft really in my book, your mileage may be different.) the K-3's RAW files require far less sharpening (if any) and that helps mitigate noise. K5II has a weaker AA but still needs a little sharpening, the "S" of course is filter free so the sharpening part of this little tale is a misnomer here! (Caveat with K5IIs wider Fstops, diffraction softening seems to appear at the same time as with the K3, well at least with my lenses, that were common to both cameras.) I pretty much do all of my PP in Lightroom 5, and I would have no problem blowing up any K-3 image shot below 1600 ISO 36"x24". Even 3200 ISO can be printed up to about16"x20" provided you are diligent enough with your exposure.
IMHO there is no doubt (Repeat IMHO!) that the K-3 is a better camera in every way to the K-5 series. Just shoot it in RAW and learn/find the best way to PP your images. Every camera model has its own intricacies and takes time to learn how to get the most out of your RAW files.
Recently I upgraded my old DXO-7 to DXO-10 (Sorry Algi I know you told me never to use DXO :blush and have been testing that a fair bit and I'm finding the RAW noise control in the Elite version (PRIME) to be a revelation!
For me I had a bit of a shock coming back to the K3, I initially found the noise pretty objectionable and was pretty narked about it, after being spoiled by the D610 and the Fuji X-T1 (Fuji crushes the blacks in it's film simulations, it won't look so noisy but then you lose a hell of a lot of shadow detail, the D610? Well it's a good sensor wrapped up in a peice of placcy crap, there I said it I've wanted to for a while and now it's out there...
Right then...
K3 sort of Vs K5 and K5IIs:
I upgraded from a K-5IIs to a K-3 (Via some other stuff...Well quite a lot of other stuff actually!) and if you pixel peep at 100%, there does seem to be a bit more noise, but it's luminance, not chroma. and it cleans up very well. The big caveat for me is hat I print and without NR you still would not notice it in print, (up to aourd ISO 1600) nor when posting photos online (Measurebating aside). I found the difference in apparrant noise between the K5* and K3 are greatly exaggerated if you shoot JPG. If you shoot RAW, then I prefer the K-3's noise as it is more film like. The higher dot count for the given area of the K-3's sensor means that you'll get a bit more noise, than the lower pitch of a K5*, it's simply physics! Pixel peeping is not the proof, your final output is, whether it be print or online, and in practice, you'll just not notice it.
In my own "very" indirect testing (I have never been able to stump up enough cash to own both at once, would still like a K5IIs...because I just like em!), the K-5 has worse chroma noise than the K3, which is harder to shift than luminance. With my K-3, (Notice I said "My" It's so good i've owned it twice!) I am happy to shoot in RAW up to ISO3200 and at a push 6400 before noise gets to be a big problem. Also, you need to take into account the K-5 (Original, Strong AA and a bit soft really in my book, your mileage may be different.) the K-3's RAW files require far less sharpening (if any) and that helps mitigate noise. K5II has a weaker AA but still needs a little sharpening, the "S" of course is filter free so the sharpening part of this little tale is a misnomer here! (Caveat with K5IIs wider Fstops, diffraction softening seems to appear at the same time as with the K3, well at least with my lenses, that were common to both cameras.) I pretty much do all of my PP in Lightroom 5, and I would have no problem blowing up any K-3 image shot below 1600 ISO 36"x24". Even 3200 ISO can be printed up to about16"x20" provided you are diligent enough with your exposure.
IMHO there is no doubt (Repeat IMHO!) that the K-3 is a better camera in every way to the K-5 series. Just shoot it in RAW and learn/find the best way to PP your images. Every camera model has its own intricacies and takes time to learn how to get the most out of your RAW files.
Recently I upgraded my old DXO-7 to DXO-10 (Sorry Algi I know you told me never to use DXO :blush and have been testing that a fair bit and I'm finding the RAW noise control in the Elite version (PRIME) to be a revelation!
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 26/11/2014 - 11:15
Link
I'll stick with my original K5 then and keep buying those discounted lenses out there.
I'll be trying out my new (lower price) HD 1.4 tele adapter on my recent purchase of a used but mint 300mm F4 properly next week at Flamborough Head. It also appears (despite no listing in instructions) to work fine at F 8 on the 18 - 135mm DA WR at full telephoto. If it gets too dark for the old K5 AF I may even radically try manual focus
When (Sony?) technology takes APSC past the apparant sweet spot of 16 mp and 35mm size past 24 MP then a nice hybrid format Pentax would do nicely.
I'll be trying out my new (lower price) HD 1.4 tele adapter on my recent purchase of a used but mint 300mm F4 properly next week at Flamborough Head. It also appears (despite no listing in instructions) to work fine at F 8 on the 18 - 135mm DA WR at full telephoto. If it gets too dark for the old K5 AF I may even radically try manual focus
When (Sony?) technology takes APSC past the apparant sweet spot of 16 mp and 35mm size past 24 MP then a nice hybrid format Pentax would do nicely.
Posted 26/11/2014 - 12:39
Link
I'll add another very non-scientific view to this thread....
Many people say the jump from the K5 to K5iis is worth making - I disagree, I found the extra sharpness and better AF made an excellent camera into one that I can find little fault with
The K5iis to K3, well I'm only a week into my K3 and these are my initial findings:
The screen seems better, I like the dioptre correction knob, I like the layout of the controls, the AF does seem faster, but in terms of image quality I've not seen any thing that is clearly superior (yet). Processing Astro images in LightRoom is significantly worse (The blacks seem to pick up a distinctly red cast when messing about with the exposure levels) and although the ability to crop more is useful, the overall image quality doesn't seem any better.
It maybe that the K5iis suits what I do particularly well, after all I don't need super-fast FPS and A3+ is probably as large as I print, so currently the K3 isn't winning the race for me - but then again I did say it's only week one
Many people say the jump from the K5 to K5iis is worth making - I disagree, I found the extra sharpness and better AF made an excellent camera into one that I can find little fault with
The K5iis to K3, well I'm only a week into my K3 and these are my initial findings:
The screen seems better, I like the dioptre correction knob, I like the layout of the controls, the AF does seem faster, but in terms of image quality I've not seen any thing that is clearly superior (yet). Processing Astro images in LightRoom is significantly worse (The blacks seem to pick up a distinctly red cast when messing about with the exposure levels) and although the ability to crop more is useful, the overall image quality doesn't seem any better.
It maybe that the K5iis suits what I do particularly well, after all I don't need super-fast FPS and A3+ is probably as large as I print, so currently the K3 isn't winning the race for me - but then again I did say it's only week one
LennyBloke
Posted 26/11/2014 - 13:56
Link
I have had K-3 for 12 months and a K-5iis for nearly 2 years, I like and use them both. I've taken lots of photos with both of them, many on the same shoot, so I think I am fairly well placed to make observations on this. For me, the post by Jules makes the most common sense of any in this thread. Any observations will of course be subjective, as I am not a scientist and have not made and scientific tests, but for what it's worth, here goes:
- The K-3 is clearly a better all round camera than the K-5iis
- The K-3 has better AF than the K-5iis, I'm not sure it is much faster, but it is a lot less prone to hunting with certain lenses and is more consistently accurate. I notice this most when using the DA*300, particularly with the 1.4 TC attached. This combination hunts a lot with the K-5iis when photographing small subjects (like birds), but with the K-3 on the same subjects there is hardly any hunting
- The K-3 has better metering and white balance
- The 'noise' issue is a complete non-issue for me, yes there is marginally more noise, but as Jules says it is a different kind of noise to that on the K-5iis and is less intrusive and easier to manage. If you don't shoot above ISO 3200 you can discount this as not being worth worrying about
- The K-3 works brilliantly with P-TTL flash, the K-5iis doesn't
- The K-3 has focus peaking, the K-5iis doesn't
- The K-3 allows more latitude for cropping
- It has been said that the K-3 has less dynamic range than the K-5iis and that it is hard to retrieve shadow details. I haven't found this to be an issue and I routinely under-expose by between 1/3 of a stop and 1 stop
- The K-3 has dual card slots - very useful
- The rear screen on the K-3 is better
- The ergonomics of the K-3 are better once you get used to them, particularly the position of the rear AF button
- The images produced by the K-3 are warmer, this is something I like, although it's not a big factor as it's easy to change WB etc. in post processing
Anyone reading this might think that the K-5iis is a poor camera, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Both the K-5iis and the K-3 are superb cameras and all the points made above are marginal improvements from K-5iis to K-3, there is not a massive leap, except for the higher resolution.
Regards
David
- The K-3 is clearly a better all round camera than the K-5iis
- The K-3 has better AF than the K-5iis, I'm not sure it is much faster, but it is a lot less prone to hunting with certain lenses and is more consistently accurate. I notice this most when using the DA*300, particularly with the 1.4 TC attached. This combination hunts a lot with the K-5iis when photographing small subjects (like birds), but with the K-3 on the same subjects there is hardly any hunting
- The K-3 has better metering and white balance
- The 'noise' issue is a complete non-issue for me, yes there is marginally more noise, but as Jules says it is a different kind of noise to that on the K-5iis and is less intrusive and easier to manage. If you don't shoot above ISO 3200 you can discount this as not being worth worrying about
- The K-3 works brilliantly with P-TTL flash, the K-5iis doesn't
- The K-3 has focus peaking, the K-5iis doesn't
- The K-3 allows more latitude for cropping
- It has been said that the K-3 has less dynamic range than the K-5iis and that it is hard to retrieve shadow details. I haven't found this to be an issue and I routinely under-expose by between 1/3 of a stop and 1 stop
- The K-3 has dual card slots - very useful
- The rear screen on the K-3 is better
- The ergonomics of the K-3 are better once you get used to them, particularly the position of the rear AF button
- The images produced by the K-3 are warmer, this is something I like, although it's not a big factor as it's easy to change WB etc. in post processing
Anyone reading this might think that the K-5iis is a poor camera, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Both the K-5iis and the K-3 are superb cameras and all the points made above are marginal improvements from K-5iis to K-3, there is not a massive leap, except for the higher resolution.
Regards
David
Posted 26/11/2014 - 15:02
Link
Amen David, sermon over!
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 26/11/2014 - 15:49
Link
Off topic slightly, i have a K30 a great all round camera.
I started with the KR but bought the K30 when it was at a good price about 2 years ago.
The K30`s a nicer camera to handle than the KR but i prefer the images from the KR`s 12mp sensor so much so i might buy another KR.
Cheers
Dave
I started with the KR but bought the K30 when it was at a good price about 2 years ago.
The K30`s a nicer camera to handle than the KR but i prefer the images from the KR`s 12mp sensor so much so i might buy another KR.
Cheers
Dave
Posted 26/11/2014 - 16:25
Link
I liked the colours off the K7 better than the K5, just had something about them and I see them going really cheaply these days...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 26/11/2014 - 17:57
Link
Well after having the K10D, K20D, K-5, K-5II, K-3 and back to a K-5IIs (because I think the K-3 sucks) I have to say my favourite at low ISO was the sensor from the K10D.
Could have saved myself a sackful of cash ... although I guess nowhere near as much as Jules if he had stuck with his first camera.
Edit: I do wish I didn't have to scroll all the way down the page every time I post something, it's getting up my nose now.
Could have saved myself a sackful of cash ... although I guess nowhere near as much as Jules if he had stuck with his first camera.
Edit: I do wish I didn't have to scroll all the way down the page every time I post something, it's getting up my nose now.
Posted 26/11/2014 - 18:49
Link
Mike-P wrote:
I have to say my favourite at low ISO was the sensor from the K10D.
.
I have to say my favourite at low ISO was the sensor from the K10D.
.
It's not just me then... I was beginning to think I was imagining things.
Mike-P wrote:
Could have saved myself a sackful of cash ...
Could have saved myself a sackful of cash ...
You and everyone else, Mike. We are easy prey for the marketing men.
Mike-P wrote:
Edit: I do wish I didn't have to scroll all the way down the page every time I post something, it's getting up my nose now.
Edit: I do wish I didn't have to scroll all the way down the page every time I post something, it's getting up my nose now.
On Smeggy's forum there's a little button you click on which takes you to the end of a thread. It's ever so useful.
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
4839 posts
18 years
South West London
As someone who doesn't take photos in the dark, what circumstances would an iso of 12800 and above be used.
Toddler crawling around in a not-very well-lit room, and you want to keep the exposure short?
Anything really - it's not necessarily about actual darkness, it's keeping the shutter speed up for any number of reasons.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.