This seems common sense to me John. As mentioned above, I'm not concerned about it, I've had my K-3 for almost a month now and can't see much high ISO difference between it and the K-5iis. It's definitely not better than the K-5, but doesn't seem to be worse either.

Regards
David

Thanks John, useful info. I still don't think the auto NR is 'aggressive' on the K-3, if you are pixel peeping you will see it, but you will on the K-5iis too. I've done a few more shots at ISO 6400 of more realistic subjects (my wife's face!) with NR at Auto and also with it switched off. There is a minor sharpness increase with it off, but it really is so marginal it's not worth worrying about. Also, the apparent noise between the two images is quite similar, it's lower on the one with Auto NR on, but not by much and this suggests to me that it shouldn't be a concern. I will set my K-3 to the 'Low' NR setting and leave it there; this will probably give the best of both worlds.

Regards
David

I also agree fully with the first point. It's not all about resolution. My K-x at 12.3MP takes superb images, not far short of those achieved by a K-5 and perfectly suitable for making large prints. However, the resolution can be important, particularly when cropping.

Regarding the second point, I agree to an extent. The K-5 and K-5iis are superb at high ISO's but I'm not seeing a big difference with the K-3. The noise characteristics are certainly different, but is the noise worse? I honestly can't give a definitive answer but I'm finding the noise easier to deal with on the K-3 than I did on the K-5iis. It is much finer grained, due to the higher resolution and to my eye is less unpleasant. Just my opinion of course

Regards
David

Very nice shots Alistair. Out of interest how many did you shoot to get two like this? I'm assuming the lens used was manual focus?

I struggled with MF lenses on the K-5, but find them easy to use on the K-01 (my M50 F1.4 lives on the K-01 permanently now) and on the K-3, primarily due to focus peaking which works wonders, but also on the K-3 the focus confirmation with MF lenses is a lot more accurate than on any previous Pentax body I've owned. I tend to use my M50 F1.4 wide open and at this aperture there's no room for error.

Regards
David

I'm not sure what this adds to the debate, but here are a couple of shots taken just now at ISO 6400 with my K-3, first one with Auto NR and the second one with NR switched off.







Both magnified to 100%, I don't see much of a Auto NR issue? I also don't see much of a noise issue with NR turned off. No processing done on either of these apart from what the camera does. I know the subject is not very good (laptop screen) but it's very dark in my house at present and this was the best source of light!

Regards
David

Edit: the auto NR doesn't look particularly aggressive to me.

You would really make this assumption Alistair on the strength of watching one video on You Tube? I'm quite surprised. I do watch videos, I do read reviews, I take into account what people say, but at the end of the day it is personal experience that counts the most for me.

My K-3 is sharp whether it's set at auto NR or not and it is sharper than my K-5iis, no doubt. It's also not significantly noisier, the noise certainly has a different character but is it worse or not? Not sure, there's very little in it.

The K-5 is probably a better buy at present than the K-3, but only because it's cheaper. I'm off up to the Lakes tomorrow to take a lot of shots, mainly landscapes, with both the K-5iis and the K-3. I'll know more about their relative merits after that, but I have no doubt now that there is no sharpness issue with my K-3, whether shooting RAW or JPEG.

Regards
David

He does waffle and he does repeat himself a lot, but if he's making any valid points that will help me with the K-3 then I want to know what they are.

I've just done some very quick tests with my K-3 at ISO 1600, first with JPEG auto NR and second with JPEG NR turned off, hand held with a Sigma 105 DG EX Macro that I know is sharp, SR turned on.

- Results are sharp either way, very little difference
- Noise levels are insignificant either way, nothing to be worried about
- On my K-3 the auto NR on jpegs does not seem to be making my images blurred or unsharp in any way

This contradicts photouniverse, but I can only report what I'm seeing.

Regards
David

All great shots Alan, 3 is the winner for me too. This bodes very well for the landscape capabilities of the K-3, I can't wait to get up to the Lakes next week with mine!

Regards
David

All very lovely shots Steve, particularly like the Greenfinch, Goldfinch and Blue Tit ones on the Bramble.

Regards
David

If you took it at 1/2000, it is highly unlikely to be camera shake. I had problems with my K-5 (no longer owned) whereby it would focus differently on the same subject with the same lens, sometimes OK, sometimes front focussed and sometimes back focussed. I wouldn't be surprised if the K7 didn't also have similar tendencies. It is something that appears to have been eradicated on the K-5II variants and the K-3.

Regards
David