What might work best for me...

McSpin wrote:

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Try one of the K-5 series cameras (K-5, K-5II, K-5IIs, all the same sensor). I passed on the K-3 because the K-5 cameras give better low light/high ISO noise performance.

Joe

Isn't the my K-50 sensor the same as what's in the K-5?

Yes, I think its the same sensor used in K-30, K-50, K5, K5ii, and K5iis.

McSpin wrote:

Massao wrote:

Well, its not the sensor size that will affect the DOF, but rather the difference in focal length of lenses in this case. ISuppose you want to capture a 24mm FF-equivalent frame of view. A smaller sensor (1” or smaller), will have to use a tiny focal length in order to give you the 24mm FF-equivalent image. But, since you are not actually using a lens with 24mm focal length--- probably something like 6-8mm lens on a small sensor camera to get the same frame of view as a 24mm lens on a FF camera, your DOF is increased. So, the short answer to your question is YES, a small sensor camera will help you in this scenario, but not because of sensor size, rather the difference in focal lengths of lenses.

Yes, that I knew. I was just referring to cameras that give the same field of view. The ones with a small sensor will always give a greater depth of field with the same field of view. I also realize that a small sensor with a high pixel density will add some noise,. The object is to get a low-noise, large depth of field with acceptable resolution. I may have to get my hands on a 1" sensor camera to find out for sure.

Yes, but it doesn't seem like you have any other choice. You can't use flash or other lighting, and you don't want shallow DOF of longer focal-length lenses used on DSLRs Sensor tech has improved a lot. You will be surprised with 1" sensor results

DougOB wrote:

DougOB wrote:

McSpin wrote:

I wondered about that, but the KP has a higher pixel density than the K-50, yet has lower noise. I was guessing that sensor technology was most important and that a recently produced sensor might be better.

In short... yes.

To follow up on my own post... I took a look at the Photons to Photos web site (http://www.photonstophotos.net/) and the KP at ISO 6400 has a "Photographic Dynamic Range" (their terminology) of 6.32, which is about the same as either the K-50 or K-3 at ISO 1600. The K-70 is pretty close to the KP.

Doug

That may give a wrong impression: (1) x-axis represent ISO settings in camera(s), and after VW’s cheating, I don’t trust the ISO settings given by manufacturers too much. (2) Both Nikon and Pentax use sensors by Sony, and I doubt any sensor was given exclusively to Pentax alone; however, some of the difference in these charts between similar aged/year Pentax and Nikon sensors are very “pronounced”--so much that it is hard to believe they were using same sensors. (3) Pentax does some sort of noise reduction—I don’t know if that has been incorporated/adjusted/controlled in these charts. In sum, while these charts are helpful, I would never base any purchase on these alone 😉

Massao wrote:

McSpin wrote:

Joseph Tainter wrote:

Try one of the K-5 series cameras (K-5, K-5II, K-5IIs, all the same sensor). I passed on the K-3 because the K-5 cameras give better low light/high ISO noise performance.

Joe

Isn't the my K-50 sensor the same as what's in the K-5?

Yes, I think its the same sensor used in K-30, K-50, K5, K5ii, and K5iis.

Pretty close except the version of the sensors used in the K-5, K-5ii & K-5iis are 14 bit RAW output vs 12 bit for the K-30, K-50, K-01, etc.

Doug

Massao wrote:

DougOB wrote:

DougOB wrote:

McSpin wrote:

I wondered about that, but the KP has a higher pixel density than the K-50, yet has lower noise. I was guessing that sensor technology was most important and that a recently produced sensor might be better.

In short... yes.

To follow up on my own post... I took a look at the Photons to Photos web site (http://www.photonstophotos.net/) and the KP at ISO 6400 has a "Photographic Dynamic Range" (their terminology) of 6.32, which is about the same as either the K-50 or K-3 at ISO 1600. The K-70 is pretty close to the KP.

Doug

That may give a wrong impression: (1) x-axis represent ISO settings in camera(s), and after VW’s cheating, I don’t trust the ISO settings given by manufacturers too much. (2) Both Nikon and Pentax use sensors by Sony, and I doubt any sensor was given exclusively to Pentax alone; however, some of the difference in these charts between similar aged/year Pentax and Nikon sensors are very “pronounced”--so much that it is hard to believe they were using same sensors. (3) Pentax does some sort of noise reduction—I don’t know if that has been incorporated/adjusted/controlled in these charts. In sum, while these charts are helpful, I would never base any purchase on these alone 😉

On these numbers alone - no, of course not.

However my personal experience is the KP is about 2 stops better than the K-3 at these ISOs, which does happen to correspond to these numbers (note I never actually compared the K-3 to KP  on this site before this thread).

Doug

DougOB wrote:

Massao wrote:

DougOB wrote:

DougOB wrote:

McSpin wrote:

I wondered about that, but the KP has a higher pixel density than the K-50, yet has lower noise. I was guessing that sensor technology was most important and that a recently produced sensor might be better.

In short... yes.

To follow up on my own post... I took a look at the Photons to Photos web site (http://www.photonstophotos.net/) and the KP at ISO 6400 has a "Photographic Dynamic Range" (their terminology) of 6.32, which is about the same as either the K-50 or K-3 at ISO 1600. The K-70 is pretty close to the KP.

Doug

That may give a wrong impression: (1) x-axis represent ISO settings in camera(s), and after VW’s cheating, I don’t trust the ISO settings given by manufacturers too much. (2) Both Nikon and Pentax use sensors by Sony, and I doubt any sensor was given exclusively to Pentax alone; however, some of the difference in these charts between similar aged/year Pentax and Nikon sensors are very “pronounced”--so much that it is hard to believe they were using same sensors. (3) Pentax does some sort of noise reduction—I don’t know if that has been incorporated/adjusted/controlled in these charts. In sum, while these charts are helpful, I would never base any purchase on these alone 😉

On these numbers alone - no, of course not.

However my personal experience is the KP is about 2 stops better than the K-3 at these ISOs, which does happen to correspond to these numbers (note I never actually compared the K-3 to KP on this site before this thread).

Doug

That is very good. I trust this more than those graphs