[gazonk]

Perhaps your K10D is a better copy than mine, but while I never felt entirely safe at ISO1600 on my K10D, I have no hesitation to use ISO6400 on my K-5.

Good to hear! While my K10D copy probably is a quite good one (late production), I can't say I feel safe using ISO 1600 (even going down to 1250 helps quite a bit).

[Gimbal]

boardhead, is there any chance we can play with the rawfile from that gym shoot?

[boardhead]

boardhead, is there any chance we can play with the rawfile from that gym shoot?

Sure, but I won't be able to upload it until tomorrow. I'll try to remember to bring it from home so I can upload it from my office tomorrow.

It's PEF, is that OK? Or should I convert it to DNG for you?

- Phil

[Gimbal]

Great, I think most people (or at least I ) would prefer DNG if possible. Not that many converters can handle the PEF yet. (or can they?)

[gazonk]

gazonk: As I said, this image has noise reduction applied in lightroom. Yes, you can see some artifacts from this. Unfortunately I don't have the original here so I can't show you an unprocessed version of this picture. And yes, the WB could use some more tweaking, but I don't expect to ever get a perfect result since it was a random mix of 2 or 3 different types of lights across the gym floor. (Apparently they were replacing the burnt out tungsten lights with fluorescent or something like this.)

Oh, I missed the part about the NR in LR! I agree that light like this is extremely different, but I think you'll get a somewhat better tone if you base it on the white parts of the shirts.

[Tommot1965]

Boardhead..

did you try any images at 3200 , I notice on the exif that your shutter speed was 1/800, Im wondering if 1/400 would have got the job done with less noise of the 3200ISO..

ive not done too much High ISO low light capture with my K7...but the other night in a outdoor basket ball stadium I was at 1600ISO at 1/40...and at 2.8 with most capture at about 70-100 MM, the images were all Jpeg, as Id forgot to reset my file format after buggering around with the camera the night before :{

obviously 1/40 is way too slow to get good images of basketballers , so if Id have had the K5 Id would have wanted to jack to at least ISO 6400 or most probably ISO12800 to get 1/320 with the avalible light.

with your above capture, im wondering if the K7 is able to produce similar results at ISO3200....Ill have a try next week, cause 1/80 is better than 1/40......its either that or I got to invest in a Metz/pentax flash and get in tight, although I don't want to draw any more attention to myself or put off the guys on the court than I already am..

[boardhead]

OK. Here is the DNG of the volleyball picture:

http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/tmp/IMGP0281.dng

Tommot1965: No, I didn't shoot any at 3200. 1/400 would have been borderline for the volleyball action I think, and I wanted to push it faster.

- Phil

---

Last edited by boardhead; 11-12-2010 at 06:19 AM.

[gazonk]

OK. Here is the DNG of the volleyball picture:

http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/tmp/IMGP0281.dng

Thanks a lot! Looks very good to me. The dark greens and dark skin colors look a little "mushy", but the overall look is good. I guess this can be printed quite large without any NR at all.

I think it looks better than my K10D at ISO 1600, but not quite as good as the K10D at ISO 1250.

[boardhead]

Thanks a lot! Looks very good to me. The dark greens and I think it looks better than my K10D at ISO 1600, but not quite as good as the K10D at ISO 1250.

I am not arguing with the result, but I am curious: Did you do this comparison at 100%? If so, try scaling the K-5 image to the same size as the K10D image and compare them again. This is the fair way to compare the two cameras.

- Phil

[gazonk]

If so, try scaling the K-5 image to the same size as the K10D image and compare them again. This is the fair way to compare the two cameras.

I know, and I took that into consideration, mostly looking at shots scaled to my screen (1680x1050). I didn't really have an image that's 100% comparable (I didn't find anything with quite as difficult light as yours, I think), but I tried to look at a few ISO 1250 shots taken at comparable EV values, and while the K10D can have some nasty VPN if you look in the shadows, I think at least half-dark skin tones from the K10D at ISO1250 look slightly better. It's hard to tell, though, because I don't really have many above ISO 800 shots taken at such high EV values.

For lower light than in your shot, I suspect the K-5 may be even better than ISO 800 from the K10D.

[Gimbal]

OK. Here is the DNG of the volleyball picture:

http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/tmp/IMGP0281.dng

- Phil

Thanks.
I'm using LR3 and with default setting it immediately cleared up the color smudges that are visible in your full size post, so I'm guessing your not using LR3? Anyhow it turns out pretty good (in my opinion) so it's definitely better the my (early) k10d at 1600.

The color noise from my k10 is just to brutal for LR3 to handle.

[boardhead]

Thanks.
I'm using LR3 and with default setting it immediately cleared up the color smudges that are visible in your full size post, so I'm guessing your not using LR3?

I was using LR2, but it was my first time using it so I didn't really know what I was doing.

- Phil

[Gimbal]

Here is what i got, reduced to 50% size.

(If you don't want me to post it, let me now and it will be removed)

[boardhead]

Looks good. Your WB tweaking talents are better than mine.

[mokey]

Here's an ISO 3200 shot in an arena. Crappy, weird lighting. This is jpeg with no PP. The iso3200 shots are completely usable now, whereas the highest I could go with my K20d was 1600. I'm going to try higher ISO's at tomorrows game.