Km vs K20D High ISO

[tarsus]

I will be upgrading from the K10D for the sole purpose of getting cleaner high ISO. Without going into the numerous differences between the two cameras, which has the better ISO 3200? The examples I have seen for the Km suggest it is at least as good as the K20D for less money.

[blende8]

AFAIK the Km has the same sensor as the K10.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by tarsus

I will be upgrading from the K10D for the sole purpose of getting cleaner high ISO. Without going into the numerous differences between the two cameras, which has the better ISO 3200? The examples I have seen for the Km suggest it is at least as good as the K20D for less money.

Just shoot RAW and use Neat Image, it works 1,000 times better than ANY in camera JPEG engine.

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by tarsus

I will be upgrading from the K10D for the sole purpose of getting cleaner high ISO. Without going into the numerous differences between the two cameras, which has the better ISO 3200? The examples I have seen for the Km suggest it is at least as good as the K20D for less money.

its not as black and white as you make it out to be.

one is a CCD, the other is CMOS

one is 10mp, the other is 14 mp

how much final noise you're going to get will depend on how big you're going to be viewing the pictures, which program you're using to post process, and how and if you are handling noise reduction.

[ghelary]

I upgraded from K10D to K20D for the extra pixel and better noise.

The K20D have significantly lower noise level and more importantly a better quality of noise. My K10D showed at 1600 iso (and at 800) some noise pattern not allowing 100% display of images. On the contrary the images of the K20D are showing some film-like grain. I work often at 800 iso and result can handle great magnification.

As I don't own the k-m, I can't tell much but I would expect some improvements over the K10D, but not to the level of the K20D, but it's not the same price as well.

Regards,
Guillaume

[séamuis]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

its not as black and white as you make it out to be.

one is a CCD, the other is CMOS

one is 10mp, the other is 14 mp

how much final noise you're going to get will depend on how big you're going to be viewing the pictures, which program you're using to post process, and how and if you are handling noise reduction.

it will also greatly depend on exposure.

[pareto]

Originally Posted by blende8

AFAIK the Km has the same sensor as the K10.

The Km might have the same sensor, but the processing has definately been improved. The K10D has significant pattern noise at ISO 1600, especially in dark areas. The Km has no noise pattern, even at 3200.

The K20D's noise is more pleasing, as it is finer and grain-like. But like the K10D it can suffer from pattern noise, however not until 3200 and above. There is also a slight color drift towards magenta in darker areas. However, if you're about high ISO image quality, you will have to shoot Raw and use Neat Image or something like that. If so, there might be small differences between K20D and Km at 100%, but hardly in print.

[Igilligan]

Originally Posted by séamuis

it will also greatly depend on exposure.

No truer words have been written... wrong exposure can equal funky noise in any of the cameras...

I have got some very usable Iso 3200 shots with my K100d, but also a lot of noisy stinkers too. The K20 is definately an impovement in how the noise looks. A finer quality and less blotchy... but you still need to get the exposure right.

[Ratmagiclady]

I'm working on figuring out high-ISO with the K20d, (new camera to me) at least, though I haven't even seen a K-M, never mind worked with one. (And I'm still working in JPEG here, and in camera for the most part at that. )

Mind you, as a film person, I'm not so much trying to 'eliminate noise' as ...just make pleasing images. In monochrome, especially, any noise isn't terribly-offensive. Exposure is, as mentioned, pretty key in terms of noise, anyway: I've worked with a far-less-forgiving sensor in this regard, anyway.

It's a lot better than I expected to have before I managed to get hold of the K20d, anyway, so my impressions are colored a bit, anyway.

In monochrome, I can get some results at high-ISOs that look a lot like I 'pushed the crap out of Tri-X' at least, and that's useful.

In color, under various streetlights, I'm finding the K20 also has useful things, like being able to shift in and out of the evaluative metering with that lever, and actually I do surprisingly-well for someone who considers herself a B&W analog photographer just hitting the Fn menues and throwing the white balance in a vague direction of where I want to be going under odd light. (Must have learned something while I wasn't paying too much attention all these years. )

Anyway, maybe being handy with RAW renders a lot of this moot, but for the kinds of *places* where you want to be shooting high-ISO, the K20d has a lot of useful stuff in terms of getting the right exposure and stuff that I have found pretty useful. I wouldn't count that out. (Actually, there'd be some room for design improvement in making the metering selector somewhat less recessed, so it's easier to move and check by feel, but it's just great that it's there physically and not hidden away in some menu.)

It's not as astounding as maybe five grand of Nikon would be, but it's at least as useable as the last high-speed colour *film* I shot. Not quite as nice as I can get out of Tmax P3200, but a lot cheaper. That's something.

[jsherman999]

I have both, and the K20D is definitely better at ISO 800+ when it comes to jpegs.

If you shoot RAW, the differences aren't as stark.

[jawn doe]

keep in mind the differences beyond image quality.

the control layout is a bit different. i tried a friends k200 adter shooting for a few months with my beloved k10 and realized that i really like having 2 control dials. also theres a lot more controls on the back of the k20 and a lcd on the top

(courtesy of dpreview.com)

the k20 has full weather sealing, the k-m does not
k20 has an 11 point autofocus, k-m has 5 point
k20 has expanded 6400 iso, k-m has 3200
the k20 has a burst mode at a lowered resolution, but otherwise the fps is very similar
the km is WAY smaller than the k20

overall the k-m is a different camera intended for different audiences

and it might just be me, but i upgraded to a dslr from my canon s3is for more control over my images (as well as better iq, but that goes without saying) and i hate having scene modes on the dial, id much rather learn why the camera might make the decision it would for the scene, and be able to do it better myself. the camera will choose what it thinks is the best settings but i might not agree. it just kind of irks me since id never use them and using full manual mode with my old mf lenses was one of the main things that made me decide to stick with pentax when i was thinking about canikon cameras, and i truly do not regret it for a second. well, the 85 1.2 would be sweet but i could never afford that anyway so what difference does it make