Pentax K-3 II added to studio test scene comparison

@ arra
I have 6 Pentax cameras though no dealer on my area. How I heard about Pentax?

Jul 20, 2015permalink

arra

Pentax? I've thought that they are out of business right now. Is anybody still buying Pentax cameras? Nice try Pentax, hope you will find few people would buy this dead factor camera.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Nerdlinger

You sir are a tool...I mean troll...I mean BOTH.

Jul 20, 2015permalink

Polacofede

go back to your lair ugly and dumb troll...

Jul 21, 2015permalink

Yoda boy

With the success for the 645Z and the K3's high ratings, not to mention the KS2 and the new Ricoh MX, plus the upcoming FF and probably a K1 or similar in 2016, I suspect that Pentax may be on the cusp of better days.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

peterpainter

I went to compare the noise performance and checked on the eyes. Alll four have brown / dark eyes. I thought there might have been one with different colour...actually, was looking to see how it handled the colour of 'blue' eyes. Ah well.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

dagobah

"was looking to see how it handled the colour of 'blue' eyes" The people are photos of prints of photos taken by other cameras, so I'm not sure what valid conclusion you expect to draw there...

Jul 19, 2015permalink

peterpainter

That's true. It wouldn't have helped at all. I must have had an off-day yesterday, I'm afraid.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Actually those were beta raw file that is not final and the ACR is not properly supported yet. So just gotta wait for it. I rather see native ACR support rather than DNG to see more realistic colours with Adobe Standard Colour they use across all camera for comparison.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Pandimonium

It's obvious this is as good and sometimes better than the Nikon D810. It is clearly better than the Olympus pixel shift implementation. When pentax can use the 4th image shot in to fill in movement gaps (were you see pixelated artefacts) at the normal K-3 resolving power, the setting would become more useful for landscape and other situations with limited movements. Maybe they can even make a hand held mode, aligning the layers in camera. This would require some processing power, so maybe in a new generation imaging engine.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=pentax_k3ii&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_0=highres&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.605653638762119&y=-0.8310718195587949 D810 more detail and less noise

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Prognathous

Pixel Shift is intended for use on a tripod, where typically low ISO is used, suitable for studio and landscape photography. For handheld high-ISO work there's no question the D810 is a better camera. For low-ISO though, it actually lags the Pentax:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=pentax_k3ii&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=highres&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.09402063866148316&y=0.2988951209544078

It's interesting how the D810 will compare with the upcoming Pentax FF (both with and without Pixel Shift). I wouldn't bet on the Nikon.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Even if it turns out to be good, no one will know about it, because this site doesn't do pentax reviews.

... right?

Jul 19, 2015*permalink

Pandimonium

Everybody knows about the Pentax Full frame. It's the most famous full frame that isn't there yet by al large margin.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

ET2

Pentax also applies raw NR to files so you can't just compare grain as one brand is using raw NR

Jul 19, 2015permalink

I think canon applies some raw NR too

Jul 19, 2015permalink

dagobah

Prognathous, it's interesting your example, you can see color moire in the text in the D810, while no moire in the K-3II. Also color moire in the D7200. I never thought about text being the type of pattern that would be subject to color moire.

You can find even stronger examples of color moire:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k3ii&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=highres&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.5153846153846154&y=0.14236188199129024

Jul 20, 2015permalink

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/minirepo/20150630_709248.html

Normal mode of K-3II has plenty of moire too. You guys are kidding yourselves if you're only looking at the pixel shift results. As long as it's only for tripod use / non-moving subjects, it's going to be limited feature that will not work for most of the stuff.

Remember, the 36mp of D810 works for BIF and fast action too. It's not limited to only non-moving.

Jul 20, 2015*permalink

Couscousdelight

Amazing, check this :

If you shot moving objects with pixel shift, the moving parts of the image won't be processed, but only the non-moving parts !

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Rick Stirling

Very interesting. Will need to see further info on this.

As a side note, I love Google's translation of Nihongo to English. Yoda speech very much like it is. ;-)

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Menneisyys

Guys, sorry for bursting your bubble, but that's only partially true (if at all). Just take a look at my following crop (notice the red arrows):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@N07/19810113511

See the interlaced combing lines-like effect? Yes, that's the result of the wind's slightly moving the leaves / wire between the shots.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

jaxson

Yeah moving areas get captured as spots basically, which is akin to ghosting in HDR brackets for example.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Bruno E

Fascinating how good the details look with pixel shift in the color circles, even compared to high resolution cameras like the D810 or 5DSR

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k3ii&attr13_1=pentax_k3ii&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=canon_eos5dsr&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=highres&attr126_1=normal&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.27976190476190477&y=-0.642499576876686

Jul 18, 2015permalink

I hope the DPR team re-shoots the studio scene from the Olympus EM5 II. Instead of using a PanaLeica lens, a more accurate representation of the camera's capability would be to shoot with a Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.8 or one of the Pro f/2.8 zooms.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

brendon1000

^^ They shoot with the approx 50mm equivalent lens in the m43 system. The Panaleica 25mm f1.4 is a pretty sharp lens by f5.6. Don't think the 25mm f1.8 will beat it and since they require 50mm equivalent then that omits the 45mm and the 75mm.

I do hope that Dpreview team will start using Otus lenses on the Canon and Nikon FF cameras. Right now their aging 50mm f1.4 lenses are not up to the task in the face of the competition's newer lenses.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

I do not think that particular Panaleica talks to the Oly's image processor. For sure the Oly 25mm f/1.8 is not in the same league as the Panaleica. However it is an Oly lens and it is optimized for the OMD EM cameras. I'll bet it performs better than the Panaleica, particularly in 8-shot mode.

Jul 19, 2015*permalink

Smeggypants

Why have you removed the Pentax K-5 models from your studio test scene comparison?

Jul 18, 2015permalink

left eye

..it was never there,
the K-5 II (and K-5) were tested with the older studio scene:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-5-ii-k-5-ii-s/15

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Frankinidaho

The Sony a7 II sure looks good.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Frankinidaho

Oops, looked again. The K3II pixel shift has much less moire. I'm happy again :).

Jul 18, 2015permalink

ET2

A7II is a real useful camera the pentax pixelshift requires a tripod and can only shoot still subjects. Stop comparing apples and oranges, fanboys.

Jul 19, 2015*permalink

Frankinidaho

ET2, I don't think the test target was moving. Apples to apples on this one.

Jul 20, 2015permalink

jon404

Pentax pixel-shift is the real thing. But as a consumer, and a non-tripod guy, I think the regular K-3 is the sweet spot ... Pentax ergonomics, and also great quality images!

Jul 17, 2015permalink

maxola67

m4/3 systems look rather poor against k3 really.
This comparison was my only target because Oly considers m4/3 as a real competitor to APS-C on its site))

Shame on you, Oly.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Zero polycabonate

That's a funny claim indeed. The newest apsc bodies wipe the floor with M4/3. Olympus has been smoking the wacky tobaccy.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

The DPR studio scene shot with OLY EM-5 II hi-res looks terrible. In reality, the the 8-shot files are almost as good as the Nikon D810. And in some ways better because there are absolutely no moire artifacts with the Oly.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Zero polycabonate

@topdog, I will have to take your word for it but TBH with a $150 extra, one can essentially do this with software out there, stacking as many images as you want for a rez increase. The EM5 just happens to do this internally.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

What do you expect? The m4/3 tech is stagnated thanks to the sensor size. (I hear m4/3 famboys roaring and coming in a stampede...)

Jul 18, 2015permalink

@Zero polycarbonate, stacking is different. The EM5-II shifts the sensor so that there is no Bayer interpolation--truer color and no moire. The camera is able to accomplish 8-shots in one second, if the shutter speeds are fast. The next iteration of Oly's 8-shot sensor shift technology will knock off all 8 exposures within 1/60 second. M4/3 technology is progressing. Pixel for pixel, the 16 MP sensor is suitable for many applications. I like smallish cameras.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

maxola67

They're not so small comparing them with APS-C MILC.
So why is their reason to be?
What's added value?

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Yoda boy

Whether we prefer FF, 3/4 or APS-C, all types seem to be getting better and better at a faster pace than ever before. It is now becoming a matter of personal preference as to what we feel is best for us. In this regard, technology is wonderful.

Jul 23, 2015permalink

noflashplease

Why doesn't Ricoh-Pentax just remove .jpeg capability from the K3 II? There are times when time doesn't allow post processing and I frequently admire a camera that can produce out-of-camera .jpegs that are equivalent in quality to extensively post processed files. Name another camera company that can flub .jpeg processing like this? Maybe it will be corrected by a firmware update?

I'm inclined to say that the K3 II is a less compelling APS-C flagship than any of its predecessors, which doesn't bode well for the upcoming full frame.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

technocamper

Hunh, I would have thought the fact that it has no flash would be enough for you.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Smeggypants

"Why doesn't Ricoh-Pentax just remove .jpeg capability from the K3 II? "

haven't you the will power to take pictures in RAW format?

Jul 18, 2015permalink

... LOL

Jul 18, 2015permalink

I'm ready for it as well..ordered the Laowa 15/4 macro in anticipation :D

Jul 17, 2015permalink

calte

But you know K3 II is not fullframe...?

Jul 18, 2015permalink

the px raw are full of details ,clarity,noisless.
the px jpeg is on par with raw from others cameras.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

photoaddict

What is interesting is when I did pixel peeping at 400% on a pixel shifted image, I am noticing "color mosiac pattern" on solid black lines where the resolution lines are showing. I don't observe that with Foveon images. It looks like it's just a natural artifact of pixel shifting.

It could be just JPG artifact but I suspect it isn't. It does look like something that could arise from pixel shifting but it's still better than "normal."

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Smeggypants

LOL :)

That's nothing. When I pixel peeped at 3,000% I noticed my composition got so bad the image sold for £45,000,000 at Sotherby's

Jul 18, 2015permalink

I saw the pix at 100,000,000,000,000% and you know what I found a message from God!

It said: pixel peeping at more than 100% is st#pid :)

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Lightright

Dude, I pixel peeped using an electron microscope, and I see atoms.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

EdBen

You can see it is not quite as good as Olympus pixel shift (on OM-D E-M5 mk-ii) though, but on the other hand the Olympus is much more limited in ISO.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

photoaddict

Are you kidding me? The OM-D m5-II looks really awful. Definitely not worth "shifting." The K-3II seems to record all three colors at the same pixel site rather than to enlarge hence having razor sharp details and lacking color moire.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

EdBen

We cannot be looking at the same picture! Actually it may be a jpeg / raw difference. The Olympus looks less good in Raw than in jpeg.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

obsolescence

To my eyes, the Olympus EM5 II px jpeg beats the Pentax in almost every way, including sharpness, apparent detail, and absence of moire in the concentric colored circles.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

The DPR people used a Lumix lens for the Oly EM5 II test. The files shot with native Oly lenses, particularly the PRO zooms and the high-end primes are phenomenal. I think DPR has unfairly represented the capability of Oly high-res images.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

None of them do it better than me *starts moving his head at a square pattern"

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Revenant

"The K-3II seems to record all three colors at the same pixel site rather than to enlarge hence having razor sharp details and lacking color moire."

The E-M5II does that too. That's what the first four exposures are for, whereas the last four are off-set by a half pixel vertically and horizontally to capture more detail.

If Olympus had given us the option to only use the four exposures taken at the Bayer positions, then we would have got images with superb colour resolution, but none of the artifacts resulting from the processing of the off-set exposures.

Jul 19, 2015permalink

EdBen

I don't get this, the more I look the more I can see that the Oly High res kills the Pentax pixel shift, at least in JPEG. Looking carefully I am guessing the poor results in raw are because of not appropriate processing, as the JPEG details do appear to be *real* and not just some processing/sharpening magic. How can so many be praising the Pentax version?

Jul 19, 2015permalink

photoaddict

Wow, the pixel shift version does definitely show a huge improvement in resolution compared to normal version. Reminds me of Foveon images.

Please select "pixel shift" in drop menu to compare against normal images if you overlooked. I noticed some of you complained there's no difference.

I noticed the RAW file is massive - 123 MB for a pixel shifted file. Eeek!

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Petroglyph

Interesting, a Foveon tiff is about 120MB. I guess all that information has to be stored somewhere. Doesn't Silkypix convert the raw to something smaller though?

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Marcin 3M

It can't be used with strobes if I'm not wrong...

Jul 17, 2015permalink

LensBeginner

Wrong, and trolling as well...

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Marcin 3M

Pixel shift can be used with strobes? Fanboyism or something that is not known even by Pentax itself?

Jul 17, 2015permalink

LensBeginner

Thought you were refering to the supposed "flash lag", hence the camera itself...
The lack of a subject didn't help... ;-)

Jul 17, 2015permalink

From what I understand, you were right - it can't be used with strobes. At least, that's what Pentax say. Probably because of the electronic shutter which is used for pixel-shift exposures.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Marcin 3M

Jonby, pixel shift with general studio strobes would be very difficult to implement. Momentary light stream varies during the flash period, so two subsequent exposures would deliver images with different brightness. This kind of imaging device would need strobe with constant flash brightness throughout whole flash period, or device sending two bursts, synchronized with each exposure.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

obsolescence

I've read that the Olympus EM5 II can indeed be used with flash in PX mode. It allows up to 30 seconds between exposures to allow the flash to recycle.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Mister Joseph

That Pentax Pixel Shift is a Pixel-Peeper's dream. Imagine Pentax Pixel Shift on a 42MP FF Sensor... Or how about a 645Z II with Pixel Shift?

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Menneisyys

"Imagine Pentax Pixel Shift on a 42MP FF Sensor..."

I *really* hope Pentax does introduce their FF model quickly so that we know whether
- it'll indeed have the new Sony stacked 42 Mpixel sensor
- it'll have pixel shift and
- it'll be cheaper than the A7R2.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Or *gasp* imagine do it yourself *pixel shifts his head*

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Petroglyph

DPR, Thank you for including K3II pixel shift in the studio test scene. It looks like an excellent feature under limited circumstances (some product photography & maybe architecture). As technology is always evolving, I look for Pentax to possibly include this feature in their new FF camera this fall and subsequent models of the K3 might have hand held pixel shift or even moving subject capable PS. Won't those be interesting to see.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

CaPi

I know everyone likes a winner.. but I see only excellent results by all preselectedly compared cameras here.
After going over the pictures twice at different ISO settings (I only check RAW) I would really say it is down to taste and special features. I wouldnt know to choose between eg the Samsung or the Pentax with its innovative features. or the Nikon due to my personal history using the companies cameras..
True 1st world problem. nice one =)

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

HFLM

For me the D7200 and NX1 are better at higher ISO (I checked ISO6400 raw). However all cameras here look really good and will provide great pictures.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Polacofede

this camera looks amazing, pixel shift quality is just incredible. I know you can only use pixel shift for still shots over a tripod, but anyway is a nice to have option. I like the way it meters too, maybe a bit under exposure sometimes but as has been said is better to then recover from under exposure that overexposed ones, for instance it displays less white areas in the faces while keeping the skin tones.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

IchiroCameraGuy

The way it renders the text with pixel binning is amazing, very cool feature.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

quenamma

Wow really awesome stuff

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Bhima78

Wow... that pixel shift is legit. Way better detail and at least a 1 stop difference in ISO performance... probably more like 2 stops.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

It's more than two stops. In theory, you get 2 stops advantage just by averaging 4 identical shots (no pixel shifting). They also take advantage of this so they gain some additional advantage... so probably closer to 2.5 stops advantage.

As i noted in another comment, the noise characteristic changes very much, so it is a bit harder to judge... personally i prefer the "original" noise, but probably just because i'm more used to it :)

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Ronald E. Chambers

Badi,
There is no summation just selection of which shot is used for a color at each pixel.
Ronc

Jul 17, 2015permalink

I like the lack of moiré and increased detail

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Menneisyys

So do I. I'm really looking forward for their FF model. If it'll also have the same-quality/efficiency pixel shift, it'll be a killer.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

I'm ready for it as well..ordered the Laowa 15/4 macro in anticipation :D

Jul 17, 2015permalink

solarider

Corner softness. Doesn't sound like it will be great for FF.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/pentax-related-news/venus-optics-15mm-f4-macro-announced.html

Jul 19, 2015permalink

Impressive
Especially at high ISO
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_k3ii&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=samsung_nx1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_0=highres&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.037728937728937824&y=0.3070446588677312

corners look good enough to me in this hand-on review http://www.diyphotography.net/first-hands-on-review-of-the-venus-optics-laowa-15mm-f4-11-macro-lens/

Jul 20, 2015permalink

Zdman

Looks most impressive in concentric colour circles on the lower left. On the orange blue one it even beats the 810. At first I didn't notice that there is a drop down box next to the iso to select pixel shift (perhaps mention that in the article). Perhaps make it a completely separate entry on the comparison tool?

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Lawrencew

albeit with the limitations of pixel shifting.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Wow aps/c camera beating ff at costless price!
Is it fair to compare a small sensor against a big one?
But yeah lt is Pentax that can do it with no problems.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

brendon1000

You must be referring to the pixel shift tech which while great doesn't work on moving subjects which reduces its effectiveness greatly.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Uh, did you miss the point Brendon, the sharpness is much gentle approach, less aliasing and less moire and less harsh highlight beats Nikon D7200 with the same no AA filter on! Even Pentax comes at better value for money. I would rather buy this new Pentax anydays. I agreed with Zakaria I was surprised to see quality of it!

Jul 17, 2015permalink

J A C S

The off center performance in the pixel shift shot is mediocre compared to the FF alternatives despite the ~f/8 equivalent f-stop. The ancient and less expensive Canon 85/1.8 wins easily on the 5DS. The Nikon 85/1.8 on the D800 wins easily, as well.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

brendon1000

@naththo - Please read what the OP said. He was comparing to FF. NOT the D7200 which is APS-C.

The only time the K3 can match FF is with pixel shift which requires multiple photos and thus is less useful in most scenarios.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

http://tinyurl.com/o74pu8v

I know what your talking about anyway. Yeah J A C S pixel shift is good but can't see anything much use out of it.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Shiranai

This is the first camera that (with pixel shift) is comparable to Canon 6D in image quality at ISO 6400. And for all saying Sony sensors are so much advanced, take a good look:

Jul 17, 2015permalink

fatdeeman

Yep the Sony sensor inside the K-3 is doing a great job isn't it?

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Der Steppenwolf

@Shiranai Try getting all the facts before making rather uninteligent statements. Inside K3 II lies....a great Sony sensor.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Mato34

Yes, they are more advanced. At least regarding this particular comparison you have proposed.

First, you didn't normalized size of images. Do it (button "Comp") and you'll see that, at the same picture size, the D750 equals or exeeds the 6D in every part of the image.

Second, being at least as good as the 6D at ISO 6400, at base ISO the D750's sensor provides much better dynamic range, and way less noise at pulled up shadows.

Seeing no other significant differences (color, sharpness...), considering D750 and 6D's sensors, the one of the D750 is way ahead, I think.

Saludos!

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Leandros S

The complaint with Canon sensors is the lack of dynamic range, which the test scene is not really equipped to test.

They have a low light option for the test scene, but it's not sufficiently demanding to show a real difference between currently available cameras.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

J A C S

With pixel shift, you are on a tripod. Then you can just shoot with a longer exposure with the 6D (or with the Pentax!) or if you really want to, stack high ISO images, what pixel shift does.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

onlooker

"The complaint with Canon sensors is the lack of dynamic range"

Only in lower ISOs. At higher ISOs there is no difference.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Leandros S

@onlooker: Right, but it limits the maximum achievable DR.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Shiranai

@fatdeeman & @Steppenwolf:
I didn't say the K3 doesn't have a Sony sensor. I only said its the first camera that has a comparable IQ.
Even if I normalize the pictures, yes D750 almost looks the same but has a pint more color noise and is note quite as sharp. Alpha 7 II is just a disappointment in regard that this camera is the latest Sony has to offer, even 760D does better and that is not even full-frame.

Jul 20, 2015permalink

zodiacfml

Impressive. If I were shopping for a DSLR, I'd take this over the ridiculous Canon 5DS. The implementation is also sensible compared to Olympus' pixel shift which seems to create a larger image only.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Jon555

I think I'd go with a camera that can shoot hi-res in 1/8000 of a second and doesn't care if stuff is moving... Not that the pixel shift stuff isn't interesting, nice to have but extremely limited in use. I was shooting birds on the wing yesterday and it really wouldn't have helped...

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Old Baldy

Great camera, but the Studio comparison not very impressive to me. Even the cheapie A5100 beats it in IQ, IMO.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

utphoto

Only if you compare JPGs. Switch to RAW, turn on Pixel Shift, do the comparison, then compare at ISO 400, 800, 1600, 3200--then get back to us.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

it's kind of pointless to compare the IQ with pixel shift against other cameras without it.

It's a cool feature, but it has it's limited uses (which, again, is great if you are able to use it for your shooting) but doesn't give it a real advantage in most shooting styles.

On the other hand, the pixel-shift advantage is pretty nice, and to my eyes it gives some 2stops better performance ... however it also induces a different style of noise at higher ISOs ... a finer grain, which probably takes some time to get used to.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

the comment was in reply to zodicacfml's comment above... probably i clicked the wrong reply button :)

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Sony tend to oversharpen all the time thats the problem. Pentax use softer approach of sharpening and is much more natural to me. Sony cannot compete Pentax. Good on Pentax for doing it right way!

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Bhima78

@badi
It has limited uses today, but that tech will get streamlined in the near future for use at handheld shutter speeds.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

sneakyracer

Wow. The files made using pixel shift look stunning.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Pentax have done an excellent job with the pixel-shifted JPEG processing here. There is almost no resolution advantage in the pixel-shift RAW image compared to the PS JPEG. These are amongst the best JPEGs of this test scene I have seen yet, outside of medium format. Compared to the D810 JPEGs, I'd say resolution is around the same, but the Pentax PS is quite a bit cleaner and less artifact-prone. Very nice indeed. The D810 pulls ahead slightly when comparing raw files for detail, but for noise and overall quality it's pretty close.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

starjedi

Interesting. I saw Pixel shift + K3II easily beats D810!!!

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Imagine a Pentax FF with pixel shift.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

DStudio

You may not have to (imagine it) for too much longer. We'll see.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Johannes Zander

Pixel shift is only for not moving objects.
In normal mode the D810 beats the K3II by far!

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Pixel shift was never meant for moving subjects in the first place. While D810 beats the K3II without pixel shift, so does the Pentax 645Z beating the D810 by a wide margin.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

One additional thing to consider, with all this "pixel shift is awesome" ... yes, the pixel shift gives some great advantage compared to a image without it.
However, even with a camera without this, say the humble D810, if you shoot a static subject on a sturdy tripod, you can shoot multiple images and average them.

For more info look here:
http://petapixel.com/2013/05/29/a-look-at-reducing-noise-in-photographs-using-median-blending
or you can find a lot of other articles explaining the technique.
I did some tests with this with my cameras, and the improvement is stunning. You basically gain 1 step for each *2 images taken. (one stop for 2 images, 2 stops for 4 images, 3 stops for 8 images, 4 stops for 16 images, and so on... Note that this also improves the image quality at the base ISO as well.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

[continue]

What pixel shifting does, is really this, with some more benefit from also shifting the pixels to gain some even more advantage for color accuracy.

So you probably if you average "by hand" 8 images, you get the same image quality as this technique gets from 4 images, or thereabout...

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Rishi Sanyal

You can also increase resolution of normal cameras by slightly displacing your camera from shot to shot (sometimes the wind, or just tapping your camera, is enough), then merging the shots together using 'super-resolution' algorithms. PhotoAcute can do this super-resolution merge, and there are actual, real gains, obvious if you then downsample the super-res image back down to the native resolution.

And, of course, the noise benefits are there as well.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

fatdeeman

I haven't used photo acute for years, I remember it being a bit hit and miss depending on the camera. I saw it do amazing things with files from some Panasonic compacts but didn't have much joy with my Canon 350d, I guess it's come on a long way since then?

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Greg VdB

Here's a good article about super-resolution: http://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/

Jul 17, 2015permalink

http://www.cnet.com/news/state-of-the-art-digital-cameras-in-1995/

Rishi, Greg, tx for the hint. It's a really nice technique, and a little opposed to the one mentioned by me - you actually have to shoot handheld, to get that small pixel shift, however, the noise reduction seems to be less efficient than in the standard averaging with aligned shots.
Also, if you already have a high res sensor ... 24-36 (or more) ... increasing the IQ up to the base ISO capabilities, or beyound that, will be enough for quite everything :)

Not to mention that using this tripod option will make it easier to go even further and use panorama stiching as well :)

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Greg VdB

Badi, as a budding astrophotographer I have often stacked images to improve the S/N ratio, so I definitely agree on its usefulness! Maybe you are familiar with it, but if you ever want to give astrophotography a go, this is a free software I can highly recommend: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html Doesn't work for scenes with a terrestrial foreground, though, so in that case I also use median stacking in PS, following this tutorial: http://www.lonelyspeck.com/stacking-noise-reduction/

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Jon555

I've played with PhotoAcute and with stacking in Photoshop but it really never quite gives me what I was hoping for. For Astro stuff it's great (I have a friend who made a career from it) but it doesn't work so well in the real World.
BTW stacking to do water smoothing does seem to work pretty well, so can shoot hand-help with no tripod, no ND and no guessing the exposure.

Jul 18, 2015permalink

Thematic

Amazingly well sorted / balanced camera for the money.

Pentax K-3II is under $1,000 on BH and Amazon etc. Think for a minute about the value you get with its build and construction, FPS, IBS and Pixel Shift, 4K timelapse video, resolution and noise performance.

A decade ago this was pro level gear costing 5 to 8 times as much.

We are so lucky and spoiled to have competition between brands fighting for our dollars. You can make a living with any brand these days, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, C & N, the gear isn't the issue.

To think people are comparing this to cameras costing 3 times as much.

I shoot Sony and Nikon but this Pentax K-3II looks tremendous. Wow.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

Agreed! I have Sony but looking at that latest Pentax I am blown away by the quality of it!

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Smitty1

Don't forget GPS and a star tracking (astro tracer) unit built in..

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Just wow! Pentax done great job in JPEG in good light and low light. I dropped jaw! RAW is pretty good but the development of RAW in software can be horrid for aliasing though. The JPEG does better job though to handle Aliasing and the moire very well. So you will need to manually correct them when open them in RAW. I like natural look of Pentax image. I don't care if it is more noisy than other. What I am looking for how natural image is. That Pentax is bang right spot on. Good value for money camera and impressive Sample. I very much want that camera if I am still with APS-C sensor. Im keen to see how FF goes with Pentax.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

The K3 II jpeg color rendition is a lot better than the K3.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Pixel shift eliminates moire and sharpens up the scene, but is no where near as dramatic as the Olympus shift HR mode.

Jul 16, 2015permalink

Dramatic does not mean better. Olympus does increase the file size.

Jul 17, 2015*permalink

99mb for a RAW image. But it's not that much larger than images with comparable resolution from other cameras.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Personally I'd rather have the clean, high pixel-level quality of the Pentax PS than the somewhat overblown Olympus files.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Overblown? I understand colour, resolution, contrast, sharpness, dynamic range. What's "overblown?"

Jul 17, 2015permalink

By 'overblown' I mean files with far more pixels in them than are needed to convey the image detail they carry, resulting in poor pixel-level resolution. You're right it's a somewhat subjective term and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

So something like an 8-10mp FF camera would show as much detail as 16mp from m4/3?

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Ribbit74

Pentax and Olympus are doing the same thing with pixel shifting. The only difference is that Pentax takes the extra step of down sampling the shifted image to the sensor's native resolution.

Jul 17, 2015permalink

Rip-off! Who KNOWS what they could produce if they didn't! Leave it to the user to downsample, or add it as an in-camera option.

Jul 17, 2015permalink