Hi Ronnie, I did use the 12-24 for all but one of the shots above and for all of them in the rain. I protected the lens with a waterproof cover during the heaviest rain, but I don't usually worry too much with this if the rain is light. I always carry the camera with the lens pointing down, this minimises water falling on it and always make sure I dry it and leave it in a warm airy place when I get back inside. I've never had any problems and the same applies to my other non weather sealed lenses too.

Regards
David

Hi Bill, I almost always use a graduated filter and expose the shots for the sky. On this day I used a Hitech ND Grad 0.9 (usually it would be a 0.6) and also did a little work on the sky in Photoshop to make it as close as possible to how I remember seeing it. I find it easier to bring up the shadow detail than to try and recover blown highlights. This usually means under-exposing by about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop, even with the ND Grad filter attached.

Regards
David

Hi Nigel

Not sure quite what you mean? I always try to expose just enough not to blow the highlights and I can confirm there are no blown areas on any of the shots, according to the histogram in Photoshop. The metering used was identical to my previous shots, however, the skies on this particular day had a lot of contrasting light and dark areas and when I process the images I'm aiming to replicate what I was seeing as best I can. I aim to get the histogram as complete as possible without tipping over the edge. These have been processed exactly the same as I normally do, the only thing is that I'm still learning about the K-3 and in particular the colour reproduction which is quite different from the K-5 variants. The way it deals with highlights and dark areas is similar to the K-5.

Regarding the grasses, the light was such that there was a lot of reflection from the lighter tones, but again there is nothing blown out?

As close as possible, this is how it looked as I was shooting the scenes, the light and colours were very different to the previous day which produced more muted tones, this is down to the conditions yesterday, not the processing (heavy rain followed by broken skies). Also, the shots I have chosen to process are the ones with the highest contrasting tones, i.e. when there was more light falling on particular areas of the scene. A lot of the others I have not processed were 'flatter' in tone; I've chosen these to try and reflect the conditions and atmosphere of the day, so they do have a certain 'theme' to the way they look. Also, the K-3 does seem to produce more saturated colours than the K-5iis does.

Thanks for the comments, I will have another look at the images, I agree that they do look different to ones I've done before but I think it's difficult to appreciate how the scenes actually looked 'in the flesh' so to speak.

Regards
David

Edit: I've just checked back on the previous set posted a couple of days ago and there are actually a lot more blown areas in the sky on the previous ones than there are on these! I think often it is acceptable to have high contrasts in areas of the sky, as this is how it looks when there is heavy cloud with breaks in between.

Well done Steve, these are pretty good for your first go at this type of work. What ISO and which camera?

Regards
David

Some more shots with the K-3, taken yesterday and the day before in the Lake District. Weather Sealing was well tested as it rained almost all the time!

After The Rain, D-Xenon 12-24





Ashness, D-Xenon 12-24





Melody, DA L 55-300





Watendlath Tarn, D-Xenon 12-24





The Wall, D-Xenon 12-24





The Hamlet, D-Xenon 12-24




CC Welcome as always.

Best Wishes
David

Hi Jules, no I only have CS3, so whatever version comes with that, it's pretty old. I haven't noticed anything odd, but I wasn't aware there was an issue until you pointed it out.

Regards
David

An excellent set Nigel, I like them very much. #1, #3 and the last one are my favourites.

There are a few observations that you may or may not find useful:

- I'm not keen on the distortion in the third from last - I know this is a feature of the lens but I don't think it works with this subject

- #6 is leaning a long way to the left and needs straightening

- Also in #6, the aggressive red of the lifesaver really detracts from this image for me. It would have been difficult to remove / exclude it, but that being the case I wouldn't have shot from this angle.

Regards

Hi Bill

My comment is the same as I have made on the Gallery - I like the image, composition is strong, but the processing is odd around the top of the first mooring post. I suspect you used a ND Grad filter which darkened the top of the post and you have lightened this a bit in post processing? If so, the lighter area in the sky around the post needs to be returned back to normal as this really draws my eye away rather than into the image.

Regards
David

Love this one Alistair, my favourite from your recent street shots. The contrasts work really well and the subject is perfect.

Regards
David

My thoughts echo almost exactly what Steve Everitt has posted at the top of this page. In answer to the OP's original questions:

1. At 100 ISO, shooting landscapes on a tripod is a large proportion of my photographic output. I've just spent 4 days in the Lake District in the fortunate position of being able to compare the K-3 and the K-5iis for this task. I already knew that the K-5iis was (and is) superb, but the K-3 definitely beats it. There is no loss of dynamic range as far as I can see. The detail levels are significantly higher, particularly when used with sharp and capable lenses like the 12-24, for example, this will bring benefits when cropping or making large prints

2. It's difficult for me to comment on shooting birds in flight as it's not something I've done much of. However, I can confirm the AF is definitely better, faster (with screw drive lenses) and more accurate. As for noise? There has been lots of discussion on this. From what I can see in my images (low and high ISO) there is bugger all difference between the K-3 and the K-5iis and I don't think this should be a factor to put you off.

Regarding Dr. Orloff's desire to see 'K3 shots that blow away what I can do with my K5', that's a difficult one and I don't think you will see this unless you are viewing on a very high resolution screen or high quality printed output. Whether the K-3 difference is worth it will vary between individual users. It is a definite step up from the K-5iis and I find myself reaching for it in preference to the aforementioned in much the same way as I reached for the K-5iis in preference for the K-5 mk1. I definitely would not want to go back to a K-5 mk1 now, as excellent as it is.

Regards
David