Exactly what I used to think back when I first started shooting digital (2Mp Olympus - those were the days).

As far as I was concerned, if you had to tweak it, it didn't count! Because you couldn't mess around with film (or so I thought). It wasn't until much later that I realized that the jpg that comes out of the camera had already been tweaked by the camera. By this time I had moved to a 10Mp dSLR and I immediately changed to shooting RAW (cost a fortune in additional SD cards).

If anyone questions me I just point out that I am only applying manually the same sort of adjustments that the camera would, except mine are per photo rather than a blanket default. I don't tend to explain how sometimes it's possible with a bit of extreme PP to rescue what appears to be a hopeless case. Now, if only someone could help me refocus or remove that little bit of blur ...

Is this the sort of example?

This is a 100% crop and was originally shot as DNG and played with in Lightroom 5. Taken with the K3 plus Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.

The gory details are 1/40th sec at f2.8, ISO 3200 and the lens was set at 98mm

I took the k3 plus Sigma lenses off to London for a bit of gig photography. As always, I sent the pics to the artists (both featuring a "name" form the 60s)) and one of them asked for the hi-res photos. His response on seeing these was: "You must have one helluva camera to capture such detailed shots in one of the most difficult photo environments" and I thought - yes, I do!

Sorry, the lens noise was more an observation than a real comparison. As you say, screw v HSM - no contest really. I assumed the speed that the K3 found focus and the lack of hunting was down to the K3's superior autofocus engine. However, as I do have both lenses and both cameras I can do a side by side comparison. Will have a go at that this week.

Cheers

Keith

I definitely agree with that! My K5 plus Sigma 70-300 would take a noisy age trying to find focus at gigs. The K3 plus Sigma 70-200 fixed focus much more quickly, accurately, and noiselessly!

I suppose it's obvious that the 24 megapixels of the K3 being crammed into the same space as the 16 megapixels of the K5 family is bound to introduce more noise. It was one of the I considered when deciding between a K5-iis (I already have a K5) and the K3. My main need for high ISO is gig photography but in the end I decided that I take far more photos at ISO400 than I do at ISO6400 and for cropping and posters that extra resolution would be very, very handy.

So, with K3 and my 2 new f2.8 Sigma zooms, I went to a gig on Friday. Although it's difficult to be precise about this sort of thing, my initial reaction is that ISO3200 on the K3 is about as noisy as ISO6400 on the K5. Not really an issue as this is offset by the faster glass. And all taken in RAW and Lightroom tends to clean the photos up quite nicely. albeit at the cost of some fine detail,

I'll have to try some side by side comparisons of the 2 cameras to see whether my hypothesis holds true.

Does anyone here shoot using high ISO and what is your experience. As I say, mine is just a first impression so I could be wrong.

Cheers

Keith

Have just been pointing and shooting at everything trying to get used to the different feel of the K3. Loaded the photos onto the pc and had a look.

Taken through the kitchen window with the Sigma 70-200mm at 200mm. ISO400, f8 and 1/400sec. Shot in RAW (DNG), with a bit of Lightroom PP and converted to jpg. This is a 100% crop and to me that looks reasonably sharp.

Thanks folk, some interesting opinions. Also, as someone pointed out, the weight is primarily down to the lens. The Sigma comes in at almost 1.5Kg as opposed to the K3 at a mere 800g.

Fascinated by the opposing opinions of using a grip. I got mine as part of the deal, probably wouldn't have bought one otherwise. I'd always read that it helped to balance the camera with a heavy lens. Not used it enough with/without to form an opinion. However, one area that almost makes it worth it's weigh is the fact that it takes 6 AA batteries. Not that I ought to need them as I now have 4 batteries but you never know ...

I think for me the grip does make shooting in portrait a bit more comfortable. It might even facilitate the use of the various button and dials. Butthat said, I don't have a problem without a grip.

I guess I have a fun time ahead learning

And when I finish my Charles Atlas body-building course, you'll regret calling me names!!!

with grip and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

It's really, really heavy!!! It weighs in at something like 2.4 Kg or 5.25 lbs. Now I knew it was going to be heavier but I have to admit, I was surprised at just how much heavier it is than my K5 plus Sigma 70-300mm. Mind you the difference in weight from my Olympus 4Mp to the Samsung GX10 had me wondering whether I would cope.

So, have spent the last few days just pointing and shooting without any real regard to quality of the shot, just to practice holding this beast of a camera. The design of the lens is also different (with the OS switch on the side) so a lot of practice is called for. That said, some of the shots do appear to be nice and sharp, even at f2,8 (and in the centre) Once I feel comfortable with this combination, then I can start to work out how best to use it.

BTW has anyone done a comparison between using the lens OS and the body's OS? I think I prefer to use the stabilisation i the body, that way I won't have to remember to switch it on/off if I use another lens.