K20D High ISO Performance

*joelovotti* · 03-14-2009, 08:42 AM

In the April issue of Popular Photography they have a good article on APSC vs Full Frame DSLRs.
Long story short:
They see no compelling reason for people to move to full frame.
APSC tops out technically at 15MP

If you take the two points above as true that means the current K20D is a theoretical sweet spot camera.

If you also assume that Pentax already understands this, where do they go from here?

The most logical avenue is making a good camera better. More frames per second and better high ISO performance.

This all leads to the question of upgrading my K10D to the K20D.

I love my K10D for well lit photography but I want to shoot indoor sports without flash and my K10D falls on its face in this category. I invested in a fast Sigma 70-200 2.8 Zoom with hopes of fixing the problem with faster glass but the photos I get still have unacceptable color noise in skin tones. Yes, I am shooting only RAW.

My question is two fold:

How much better is the K20D than the K10D in high ISO performance and will it get me where I need to be?

How likely is it that Pentax’s next camera will be significantly better than the K20D at high ISO performance?

Mystic · 03-14-2009, 09:45 AM

I liked your observations about Aps-c and ff, and the current state in which pentax is..
i also hope that they will keep upgrading the current k20d model in all ways possible, even with ysterdays technology, it is possible to make it even better, as you mentioned better fps, AF, and noise.
i Had K10D, and now own K20D,
when I had K10D, i could use pictures taken with ISO upto 1250, after cleaning them with my photoshop software.
now that i have k20d i can use pictures with ISO upto 2000, after cleaning them with my photoshop software.
i would equate the noise level acceptability on k10d 1250 and k20d 2000. of course much depends on lighting, and some shots taken in 2000 do not retain enough details to keep them, however some ISO 2500 retain enough details. however i believe there is much space to improve. i do not know the technical issues, on pixel size sensor photon properties etc. but i hope that the newt pentax model will at least have the usable ISO 3200 or even ISO 4000 that would be enough for me to upgrade.

i do not know if i answered your question, but i hope it was helpful.

winglik · 03-14-2009, 09:54 AM

I also upgraded to K20D from K10D, Highest ISO level on K20D is 3200, but noise level is very noticeable at 3200. Compare both at ISO 1600. K20D is a little better, but i personally say it's not worth the upgrade(even i did), since there are rumor about new model release, you should wait for the next one.

steve500 · 03-14-2009, 10:03 AM

I seem to get pretty good performance with ISO 1600 taking indoor highschool basketball photos. I've had no totally harsh complaints. It's quite bearable and sufficient.

code4code5 · 03-14-2009, 10:47 AM

I upgraded from a K100 to a K20 and have been absolutely thrilled in the difference with high ISOs. 1600 with the K20 is quite acceptable and color response, IMHO, is still good.

kenyee · 03-14-2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Mystic

i would equate the noise level acceptability on k10d 1250 and k20d 2000.

I think noise on the K10D was ok up to ISO400 and ISO800 is a stretch.
On the K20D, it's ok up to ISO1100 (but you can only autoiso in full stop increments, so it's ISO800) and ISO1600 is ok in a stretch.

Jewelltrail · 03-14-2009, 11:04 AM

joelovotti K20D High ISO Performance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April issue of Popular Photography they have a good article on APSC vs Full Frame DSLRs.
Long story short:
They see no compelling reason for people to move to full frame.
APSC tops out technically at 15MP

If you take the two points above as true that means the current K20D is a theoretical sweet spot camera.

If you also assume that Pentax already understands this, where do they go from here?

The most logical avenue is making a good camera better. More frames per second and better high ISO performance.

This all leads to the question of upgrading my K10D to the K20D.

I love my K10D for well lit photography but I want to shoot indoor sports without flash and my K10D falls on its face in this category. I invested in a fast Sigma 70-200 2.8 Zoom with hopes of fixing the problem with faster glass but the photos I get still have unacceptable color noise in skin tones. Yes, I am shooting only RAW.

My question is two fold:

How much better is the K20D than the K10D in high ISO performance and will it get me where I need to be?

How likely is it that Pentax’s next camera will be significantly better than the K20D at high ISO performance?

I think your assessment of where Pentax is at with its crop sensor is right on. But Pentax is not alone. As for ISO performance, it is the consensus that the K20 has at least 1 stop better performance than the K10 at high ISO. Only you know if this works for you.

Also, Pentax' hands-off approach to noise generates a misconception that Pentax is inferior to its competition when it comes to handling noise. I, as well as many others, think differently. I posted my thoughts, along with support, at the end of this thread:

Megapixels vs. Noise

jedperkins · 03-14-2009, 12:30 PM

I think you get about 1 extra stop with the K20D. I shot my K10D (and shoot my K-m) up to 1100 on auto-ISO. I shoot my K20D with auto_Iso up to 2200.

Mr Hyde · 03-14-2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by joelovotti

How much better is the K20D than the K10D in high ISO performance and will it get me where I need to be?

I cant really answer your question, only you can. But I'll give you an example so you can judge. One thing I can say is that my K20D is way better than my K10D at ISO over 1600....

This was taken at ISO-2000

RAW converted in Bibble and cropped from the original.

K100Dave · 03-14-2009, 02:40 PM

I seldom shoot anything above iso 800. I can say that when I have shot above this, I have been preatty happy with the results. If not I just adjust with noise ninja to my liking. Besides, a little noise can help a composition.

Douglas Film · 03-14-2009, 02:57 PM

I use high ISO a lot with my K20D and find the results much better than anything I could do with film. With film we had grain and now with digital noise, I prefer a a sharp inage with noise to a noisless smudged picture.
Here is a shot at ISO 3200 run through Bibble
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...s/IMGP6045.jpg
Douglas Film

*bwield* · 03-14-2009, 03:15 PM

Having had both, I have found that the difference in High ISO IS enough to upgrade
I would not have been able to get this shoot at 2000 ISO with the K10D

Theres nothing reall special about the shot, but it would not have been possible to handhold a shot in this circumstance with the K10d

RioRico · 03-14-2009, 03:31 PM

bwield: Is that San Xavier del Bac, outside Tucson AZ?

*bwield* · 03-14-2009, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by RioRico

bwield: Is that San Xavier del Bac, outside Tucson AZ?

It is indeed San Xavier

*wtlwdwgn* · 03-14-2009, 04:04 PM

I think my K20D ISO noise is much superior to my K10D. K20D, DA* 50-135 f/2.8, ISO 3200.