K-5 low iso comparison opinions please

photogerald · 10-26-2010, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

Tx!! I had missed those posts.

If this is the case (and I doubt not) it seems strange Pentax put ISO80 in the extended ISO range instead of in the standard range.

My wild guess is that they figured that ISO80 is quite unusual to see on a DSLR, and might "confuse" users?

Also, I'm guessing the difference in IQ between ISO80 and ISO100 is small and wouldn't matter to *most* users.

In any case, I'm glad they gave us the option to use ISO80.

photogerald · 10-26-2010, 08:22 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by photogerald

Reading further into Gordon's comments, the DR of the K-5 at ISO800 beats the K-7/K20D at ISO100 (this has been confirmed by him in a different thread).

That post is here, for those interested:

Re: Gordon's take: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

"Yes, the K-5 has more Dynamic Range (DR) in raw at ISO 800 than the K-7/K20D/Samsung GX20 do at ISO 100, and about the same real DR without Noise Reduction (NR) as the above cameras at ISO 1600. However, that only helps the darker tones, as the bright tones will still be about the same across these various cameras (OK, the K-5 just a little bit better)."

photogerald · 10-26-2010, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

In all honesty, this has me more excited about the K-5 than does the high ISO noise level. Being able to retain detail in highlights and shadows in contrasty scenes will be of benefit to almost all shooters, not just those who shoot in low light. 14 stops of DR from an APS-C sensor places it in the range of MF sensors. That is truly mind boggling!

I agree. Most of my shooting (K20D) is done at ISO100-640, occasionally at ISO800, and the rare venture to ISO1600. With the K-5 it looks like my "working ISO range" will increase by 2+ stops! Not that I will suddenly be shooting regularly at ISO800-ISO1600, as there will still be benefits to keeping the ISO low. But at least now I will have more options. Very exciting!

And it's not only high-ISO that will benefit from the improvements - shooting under artificial lighting where rather strong WB corrections are needed which would also expose noise/DR weaknesses.

Of course, these situations also usually require the use of higher ISOs so the better noise and DR performance of the K-5 should be very apparent here.

OldSwede · 10-28-2010, 10:36 AM

I downloaded the low ISO raw samples from the K5 and as far as my old eyes can see, ISO 100-200 from my K10D is better. Can anyone who owns both bodies give a comment?

planedriver · 10-28-2010, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by OldSwede

I downloaded the low ISO raw samples from the K5 and as far as my old eyes can see, ISO 100-200 from my K10D is better. Can anyone who owns both bodies give a comment?

I'm not surprised-the k10d/k200d is hard to beat there. I hope the K5 will be better than the K-x in this respect.

Andras

raz · 10-28-2010, 01:01 PM

I wouldn't be so sure. K10D was pretty soft in JPG.

K-5 samples I've seen here and most important, the ones on the pentax official website are very very sharp, sharper than K10D. The K5 close-ups with the models on pentax.jp are very hard to beat by any camera.

robgo2 · 10-28-2010, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by OldSwede

I downloaded the low ISO raw samples from the K5 and as far as my old eyes can see, ISO 100-200 from my K10D is better. Can anyone who owns both bodies give a comment?

That surprises me, as I think that my K-7 beats my K10D at all ISOs. The K-5, with its exceptionally low read-out noise, 14 stops of DR and 16MP, should trounce it.

Rob

OldSwede · 10-28-2010, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

That surprises me, as I think that my K-7 beats my K10D at all ISOs. The K-5, with its exceptionally low read-out noise, 14 stops of DR and 16MP, should trounce it.

Rob

I can see noise in the K5 pictures. K10 pictures are absolutely clean.
(Raw, Lightroom 3, default settings.)

Now it's not the same pictures so I really hope I'm wrong. K5 is very tempting but low ISO IQ is important to me.

creampuff · 10-28-2010, 05:43 PM

To claim that the K10D's low ISO image quality is better than the K-5 is laughable.
The important question is what was the lens used because the higher resolving capability of the new sensor will reveal more than the K10D's sensor ever would.
Yeah, I've owned the K10D, K20D, K-7 and now the K-5.

**Clarkey** · 10-29-2010, 09:15 AM

Creampuff, Yes, you are correct on the resolving issue, but honestly, the CCD sensors on the K10d/k200d were (are!) extremely sharp on a per pixel basis at low iso, with good colour response. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed when I got the K-7 - seems mushy (and I still can't nail the greens) when zoomed in to me.

This is all IMHO though. However this is all irrelevant to me when I print. ISO 1600 on the K-7 produces fine 8x10's. I imagine the K-5 to be even better.

And I am jealous of the obvious increase in DR!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K7 high iso noise comparison	cyy47	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	08-02-2010 02:19 AM
Kx / K20D comparison on high ISO	kasv	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	12-02-2009 03:26 PM
ISO ranges and low iso, techies please look.	Gooshin	Photographic Technique	7	09-09-2009 07:37 PM
Low light shooting capabilities GX20 at low ISO	cabstar	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	12-04-2008 11:01 AM
Night photography with K10D - High ISO short exposure VS Low ISO long exposure	pw-pix	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	02-03-2008 01:37 AM

10-26-2010, 07:55 PM	#16
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by Ishpuini Tx!! I had missed those posts. If this is the case (and I doubt not) it seems strange Pentax put ISO80 in the extended ISO range instead of in the standard range. My wild guess is that they figured that ISO80 is quite unusual to see on a DSLR, and might "confuse" users? Also, I'm guessing the difference in IQ between ISO80 and ISO100 is small and wouldn't matter to most users. In any case, I'm glad they gave us the option to use ISO80.

10-26-2010, 08:22 PM - 1 Like	#17
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by photogerald Reading further into Gordon's comments, the DR of the K-5 at ISO800 beats the K-7/K20D at ISO100 (this has been confirmed by him in a different thread). That post is here, for those interested: Re: Gordon's take: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review "Yes, the K-5 has more Dynamic Range (DR) in raw at ISO 800 than the K-7/K20D/Samsung GX20 do at ISO 100, and about the same real DR without Noise Reduction (NR) as the above cameras at ISO 1600. However, that only helps the darker tones, as the bright tones will still be about the same across these various cameras (OK, the K-5 just a little bit better)."

10-26-2010, 08:55 PM	#18
photogerald Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 253	Originally posted by robgo2 In all honesty, this has me more excited about the K-5 than does the high ISO noise level. Being able to retain detail in highlights and shadows in contrasty scenes will be of benefit to almost all shooters, not just those who shoot in low light. 14 stops of DR from an APS-C sensor places it in the range of MF sensors. That is truly mind boggling! I agree. Most of my shooting (K20D) is done at ISO100-640, occasionally at ISO800, and the rare venture to ISO1600. With the K-5 it looks like my "working ISO range" will increase by 2+ stops! Not that I will suddenly be shooting regularly at ISO800-ISO1600, as there will still be benefits to keeping the ISO low. But at least now I will have more options. Very exciting! And it's not only high-ISO that will benefit from the improvements - shooting under artificial lighting where rather strong WB corrections are needed which would also expose noise/DR weaknesses. Of course, these situations also usually require the use of higher ISOs so the better noise and DR performance of the K-5 should be very apparent here.

10-28-2010, 10:36 AM	#19
OldSwede New Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 21	I downloaded the low ISO raw samples from the K5 and as far as my old eyes can see, ISO 100-200 from my K10D is better. Can anyone who owns both bodies give a comment?

10-28-2010, 10:38 AM	#20
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664	Originally posted by OldSwede I downloaded the low ISO raw samples from the K5 and as far as my old eyes can see, ISO 100-200 from my K10D is better. Can anyone who owns both bodies give a comment? I'm not surprised-the k10d/k200d is hard to beat there. I hope the K5 will be better than the K-x in this respect. Andras

10-28-2010, 01:01 PM	#21
raz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Timisoara, Romania Posts: 248	I wouldn't be so sure. K10D was pretty soft in JPG. K-5 samples I've seen here and most important, the ones on the pentax official website are very very sharp, sharper than K10D. The K5 close-ups with the models on pentax.jp are very hard to beat by any camera.

10-28-2010, 03:37 PM	#22
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by OldSwede I downloaded the low ISO raw samples from the K5 and as far as my old eyes can see, ISO 100-200 from my K10D is better. Can anyone who owns both bodies give a comment? That surprises me, as I think that my K-7 beats my K10D at all ISOs. The K-5, with its exceptionally low read-out noise, 14 stops of DR and 16MP, should trounce it. Rob

10-28-2010, 04:39 PM	#23
OldSwede New Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 21	Originally posted by robgo2 That surprises me, as I think that my K-7 beats my K10D at all ISOs. The K-5, with its exceptionally low read-out noise, 14 stops of DR and 16MP, should trounce it. Rob I can see noise in the K5 pictures. K10 pictures are absolutely clean. (Raw, Lightroom 3, default settings.) Now it's not the same pictures so I really hope I'm wrong. K5 is very tempting but low ISO IQ is important to me.

10-28-2010, 05:43 PM	#24
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	To claim that the K10D's low ISO image quality is better than the K-5 is laughable. The important question is what was the lens used because the higher resolving capability of the new sensor will reveal more than the K10D's sensor ever would. Yeah, I've owned the K10D, K20D, K-7 and now the K-5.

10-29-2010, 09:15 AM	#25
Clarkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,456	Creampuff, Yes, you are correct on the resolving issue, but honestly, the CCD sensors on the K10d/k200d were (are!) extremely sharp on a per pixel basis at low iso, with good colour response. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed when I got the K-7 - seems mushy (and I still can't nail the greens) when zoomed in to me. This is all IMHO though. However this is all irrelevant to me when I print. ISO 1600 on the K-7 produces fine 8x10's. I imagine the K-5 to be even better. And I am jealous of the obvious increase in DR!