To bring this thread back on topic, here are identical shots (same image) taken with the K-3 at 1600 ISO, cropped and increased to 200%. The first has no noise reduction applied, the second has had a small amount of random NR applied in PDCU 5. I think you can see from these how easy it is to get a very clean image from the K-3 with very minimal NR applied and I'm sure that with a bit more practice and testing I could refine the NR to get better results than this.

I'm VERY excited about the potential of the K-3 from what I've seen so far.

K-3 NR Applied 1600 ISO



K-3 without NR 1600 ISO



Any thoughts?

BTW, the WB is slightly different on these as one was adjusted in PDCU 5 and one in Adobe Camera RAW.

Regards
David

Mike is right in what he says above, quote:

This applies as much to situations like wedding receptions in very poor light as it does to photographing fast moving objects, but for different reasons. The AF on my old K-5 was not capable of dealing with these situations very well and this resulted in 50% or more of shots being slightly off focus. The K-5iis in contrast dealt with this brilliantly, so I was more than happy with the AF on this camera and I expect the K-3 to be even better with regard to this type of focussing requirement.

I still don't expect the K-3 to compete at the top level for fast moving subjects, sport, focus tracking etc. but personally this matters not a jot to me. Horses for courses. I do think it will be pretty good for wildlife from what I've experienced so far.

Regards
David

I have proved to myself by a very quick test with the new PDCU version 5 supplied with the K-3 that the noise is very simple to remove, at least to 3200 ISO (not tried higher) with almost no detrimental effect on image quality or sharpness. The result is a beautifully clean image that is of higher resolution than the K-5iis, with a more accurate White Balance.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the noise levels are almost irrelevant at what I would call sensible ISO's. I wonder how many people in real-world shooting situations regularly shot at 12800 or above for example?

Regards
David

As a matter of interest, I just had a quick play with the NR settings in the latest PDCU supplied with the K-3 (version 5) and it is very effective in removing almost all traces of noise from the images with only minor degradation in IQ. I can get the 3200 ISO images looking very clean indeed and at least a match for those from the K-5iis, so I really don't have a concern about noise from the K-3 at the settings I am likely to use.

Regards
David

Arron takes them very well too Simon! I like them all, the last one in particular is a gem!

Regards
David

I agree with Steve. I've just sold my K-5 Mk1, not because it is a bad camera (quite the contrary, it is capable of taking superb images), but mainly because it was variable at focussing with my most used lens (DA 17-70) and also because after using a camera without the AA filter (K-5iis) I simply found myself reaching for the K-5 less and less. With my new K-3 I will use it with the AA filter turned off by default and only resort to switching it on if there is obvious moire.

I must be nearing 10,000 shots with the K-5iis now and cannot remember seeing moire on any of them (colour / chroma noise yes, but not moire). It really is a non-issue in most situations you are ever likely to encounter in everyday use. I'm sure it can easily be created if I put my mind to it, but what's the point in setting out to try and find it?

I would recommend the K-5iis without any hesitation - buy it and enjoy its superb performance.

Regards
David

Hi Nigel, no this is not quite correct. The K-3 in my tests was clearly better at low ISO's, a very tiny margin better to my eyes at 1600 ISO, but the K-5iis was a lot better than the K-3 at ISO 3200.

I did also notice the different type of noise on the K-3 - it does seem to be finer grained and I would expect it to respond very well to processing, although I haven't experimented much with this yet.

Regards
David

What's also very odd John is that SRS told me on Monday that they had no K-3's in stock and wouldn't be getting any more until the middle of next week! I had to buy mine from Clifton Cameras instead. I wonder where your replacement on would have been produced from?

Regards
David

I think the points made about jpegs and the lack of profiles for the K-3 at present are fair enough, but what I was interested in was seeing the 'base' performance of the two cameras without in-camera or post process noise reduction being applied.

I already know that the K-3 files respond very well to processing and have a lot of latitude for this. I haven't shot Jpeg yet to test in-camera NR performance, but I would expect the Jpeg results to better those I've posted here.

I have no worries at all about the performance of the K-3 because I've already proved to myself that it is extremely capable at least to 1600 ISO and betters the K-5iis up to this point. 99.9% of my images are at 1600 ISO or less, so that is just fine. If the jpeg performance can equal the K-5iis at 3200 ISO, or if it can be brought to the same level in post processing that's even better, but I am not concerned about it at all because I am keeping the K-5iis, which is a superb piece of kit which will still get a lot of use.

What this has proved to me above all else is how good the K-3 actually is at what I would call 'reasonable' ISO settings and also what a fine camera the K-5iis continues to be. If I only needed one DSLR body, the K-5iis would serve the purpose very well; I only bought another camera because I wanted to replace my K-5 Mk1 and decided that it was worth paying the extra to get the K-3. I'm a happy bunny!

Regards
David

I've just done some tests on the relative performance of the K-3 versus the K-5iis, on the following basis, both cameras on a tripod, using the same lens (100 DFA Macro WR) at the same aperture (F4), the same ISO, the same WB and shot in RAW with no processing except for auto levels, auto contrast and white balance adjustment. The objective was to test the relative noise levels and overall picture quality in dim light, at 100, 1600 and 3200 ISO (I rarely shoot above 3200, so anything higher is largely irrelevant to me).

Before I tell you the results, I will add a few 'caveats':

- Tiny focussing errors can produce misleading results as I found tonight - especially when viewing at 100% or more

- Auto WB on both cameras was pretty variable, hence I have adjusted the WB on both images to make it as similar as possible. Overall the K-3 did the best to reproduce accurate WB under difficult light, but neither was perfect.

- Even trying to be as consistent as possible there are detectable differences in the levels and colours after adjustment of these, also the Forum is applying slightly more compression to the image you see here from the K-3 as it is larger in overall proportions when scaled to 100%; this has the effect of slightly lessening the quality of the K-3 image you see here compared to what I see on my PC screen

My conclusions are as follows:

ISO 100: K-3 is a clear winner due to clarity from the additional resolution and a nicer overall picture quality (both are superb though)

ISO 1600: Boy it's close! K-3 just shades it for me - greater clarity, still very little noise in both images. What noise is there is unobtrusive and could easily be cleaned up. The noise is different in character on the two cameras, but not very different in actual noise levels

ISO 3200: The K-5iis blows the K-3 away completely. If you need to shoot at 3200 ISO the K-5iis is a better camera. This may change with firmware improvements to the K-3 over time. I am running latest firmware on the K-5iis.

See below the ISO 1600 images, both cropped at 100%. I'm not going to post the ISO 100 and ISO 3200 as I did not manage to get two that are comparable enough on the focussing so you will have to take my word for the above conclusions! Also, bear in mind that I have not applied any post processing noise reduction or sharpening to these images.

K-3



K-5iis



I thin I may have lit the blue touch-paper on this one!! Your comments and observations please!

Regards
David