Here's my take on the matter: http://blog.danielbridge.co.uk/2012/03/uv-or-not-uv.html

Also, this last week I've had a couple of lenses on loan; one a DA*, one which has the new HD coating. Both have suffered smeared front elements as a result of my 3 year old, the DA* receiving some yogurt, the HD lens some banana. Both cleaned up fine with no problems at all.

The moral of this story? Don't lend me a lens.

Dan

Tried doing a 'Photo Friday' on my blog before, but just didn't keep it up, and it was as much to try and have regular images appearing on there as anything, so they weren't always (in fact increasingly rarely) shots I'd taken that week.

Here's a photographer I've met a few times who's been doing a 365 project for the last 6 years! Don't know how she does it, to be honest.

Dan

K-3, K-50 and K-500.

Dan

Always DNG anyway, but hadn't turned NR off, so will do. If I get the chance to do it, I will!

Dan

But evening up the brightness is effectively then making the K-3 run at a higher ISO. And I don't just mean the K-3 image is darker, the shadows between the bottles on the right hand side are distinctly darker than on the K-5 shot, so the lighting must be different, not just a different brightness.

Fair enough, I shall try it again one evening with an array of colours and consistent lighting.

I used different NR and sharpening settings because they're different sensors, and I was adjusting them to give what I felt was the best result. If I do reshoot I'll be happy to ping the raw files over to you if you want them.

Dan

Might be mistletoe.

Dan

Would you not process your photos though, to get the best from them? And might one camera take to processing more readily than another?

Dan

The lighting on those is different, significantly darker on the K-3 shot. What are your thoughts on the examples I posted? Just out of curiosity really, you've clearly made up your mind, but from what I can see, with brief test I've done, the K-3 looks better.

I'm one of the 'rarely use it above ISO 1600 brigade', so this very high ISO performance doesn't worry me too much, but still interested, obviously.

Dan

Yes you can.

link

But I think you meant the K-3 was noisier.

Dan

Well here are my rough and ready comparisons between the K-5 and the K-3 (which I currently have on loan, I've only had it for a couple of days, and these are the only really high ISO shots I've done with it, although this has been useful).

I've processed them similarly, although the K-3 doesn't need as much sharpening as the K-5 generally. Probably because of this, the NR settings in LR are a little lower for the K-3.

First two images are screen prints from LR5, with settings shown, and the images viewed at 100%. The second pair are the same shot, but with the K-3 image reduced in size to match that of the K-5, which is what lots of people are saying will give a more useful comparison.

K-5 ISO 51,200 image, processed, 100% crop.



K-3 ISO 51,200 image, processed, 100% crop.



K-5 ISO 51,200 image, processed, 100% crop.



K-3 ISO 51,200 image, processed, image size reduced to give same magnification as K-5 shot.



I know which I prefer. The odd colours (i.e. the yellowness of these) appears when I dump the screen print into Elements, for some reason.

Dan