A couple K5 shots (100 vs 51200)

robgo2 · 10-19-2010, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Still to much noise @ ISO 400 for me

Jeez, such a perfectionist. What little noise is present at ISO 400 is easily removed by any decent raw converter, making it a non-issue. You won't even need one of the heavy duty NR programs for that.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 10-19-2010 at 08:31 PM.

yeatzee · 10-19-2010, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

Jeez, such a perfectionist. What little noise is present at ISO 400 is easily removed by any decent raw converter, making it a non-issue. You won't even need one of the heavy duty NR programs for that.

Rob

Your absolutely right, I am a perfectionist. I shoot macro's almost exclusively, and shooting @ ISO 400 would be so helpful but I cannot take the IQ hit it gives me. The K-5 based off of the samples I've been able to find looks basically the same as the K-7 noise wise. Its simply to much *for me*, as I strive for the best IQ possible often shooting at <F/5.6 instead of F/8 at magnifications greater than 2:1 just because I want that extra boost of sharpness. This more often than not results in me missing the shots because the subject is not cooperative enough to stack, but this is fine by me

JohnBee · 10-20-2010, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Your absolutely right, I am a perfectionist. I shoot macro's almost exclusively, and shooting @ ISO 400 would be so helpful but I cannot take the IQ hit it gives me. The K-5 based off of the samples I've been able to find looks basically the same as the K-7 noise wise. Its simply to much *for me*, as I strive for the best IQ possible often shooting at <F/5.6 instead of F/8 at magnifications greater than 2:1 just because I want that extra boost of sharpness. This more often than not results in me missing the shots because the subject is not cooperative enough to stack, but this is fine by me

I once read that perfectionism can often hold you back

BTW. have you ever tried super resolution shooting? It's the type of thing that makes certain people giddy

ogl · 10-20-2010, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by climbertrev

Amen to that

OGL - you're getting soft in your old age

I simply converted DNG...

K-5 is good for my old FA*, FA and FA LTD

It's stange satori

Gimbal · 10-20-2010, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by jpzk

Regarding K5 files submitted for denoising ... couple of questions:

1. Why is it that a "denoised" file suddenly becomes much smaller than the original file?
I.E.: the stronger the denoising, the smaller the file gets?
JP

The noise in the picture might as well be details/information and information takes space in the file. Denoise it until it's one gigantic white blob and all that has to be saved in the file is "one gigantic white blob" it doesn't take much space at all.

Spex · 10-20-2010, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Still to much noise @ ISO 400 for me

Oh, please...

yeatzee · 10-20-2010, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I once read that perfectionism can often hold you back

BTW. have you ever tried super resolution shooting? It's the type of thing that makes certain people giddy

Never heard of it

Originally posted by Spex

Oh, please...

What, am I not allowed an opinion any more? The high ISO images look great, but this means little to me as I don't shoot in dark conditions needing more than ISO 1600. IMO I still believe there is to much noise @ ISO 400

Xatnep_CJ · 10-20-2010, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by jpzk

2. Can you actually load a RAW file directly into Denoise NR software? If so, how?

Using the free additional tool Topaz Fusion you can use Denoise as a second external editor for Adobe lightroom. But doing so you do not process the original RAW files. Instead Lightroom exports a TIFF File to Denoise which is saved to the LR database afterwards.

dgaies · 10-20-2010, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Xatnep_CJ

Using the free additional tool Topaz Fusion you can use Denoise as a second external editor for Adobe lightroom. But doing so you do not process the original RAW files. Instead Lightroom exports a TIFF File to Denoise which is saved to the LR database afterwards.

I downloaed Topaz Fusion last night and I was still under the impression that LR is doing the RAW conversion first, then exporting a copy as a TIFF to be worked on in Denoise, which then gets sent back to LR.

**NaClH2O** · 10-20-2010, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Marc Langille

*snip*

BTW, I am simply delaying the K-5 purchase for a while, not because of any concerns. I may have to reserve and possibly channel funds that may be needed elsewhere during the next couple of months - priorities you know.

Regards,
Marc

You and me both Marc, I'm hoping by Christmas time my discretionary buget will have recovered

NaCl(BTW, do you know any good banks I could rob?)H2O

**jbinpg** · 10-20-2010, 08:08 AM

@yeatzee: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But a sensor is not all about noise. There is also colour accuracy and dynamic range which have a great deal to do with the resulting image. Don't count your chickens until all the reviews are in.

yeatzee · 10-20-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by jbinpg

@yeatzee: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But a sensor is not all about noise. There is also colour accuracy and dynamic range which have a great deal to do with the resulting image. Don't count your chickens until all the reviews are in.

And I understand this, which is why i only made a comment about the ISO as this is a thread ABOUT ISO performance.

Danny Delcambre · 10-20-2010, 02:49 PM

How about 80 ISO?

Squier · 10-20-2010, 08:58 PM

Regarding the de-noising / PP of the 51,200 shot and someone posted about trying Topaz, i ran this through both Topaz and then Ninja.

The performance of this camera will make me reach for a credit card. As soon ithe bank will let me have one

dgaies · 10-20-2010, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Squier

Regarding the de-noising / PP of the 51,200 shot and someone posted about trying Topaz, i ran this through both Topaz and then Ninja.

I haven't run this one through Denoise yet, it was just opened in LR3 with a little bit of NR.

But it's a more "real world" example of ISO 51200 in very low light.

10-20-2010, 08:58 PM	#89
Squier Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxfordshire UK Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Regarding the de-noising / PP of the 51,200 shot and someone posted about trying Topaz, i ran this through both Topaz and then Ninja. The performance of this camera will make me reach for a credit card. As soon ithe bank will let me have one Last edited by Squier; 10-20-2010 at 09:03 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature A Couple MF Shots	jheu02	Post Your Photos!	1	08-10-2010 02:35 AM
Misc A Couple K-X Shots	causey	Post Your Photos!	6	06-08-2010 06:20 PM
Misc LBA: DFA 100/2.8 WR, first shots (4 shots)	tcom	Post Your Photos!	5	02-09-2010 04:49 AM
Couple of shots with new toy (da10-17) (5 shots)	vievetrick	Post Your Photos!	5	05-18-2009 02:00 AM
A couple of night shots...	PaulAndAPentax	Post Your Photos!	7	12-03-2007 01:43 PM

10-19-2010, 08:18 PM	#76
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by yeatzee Still to much noise @ ISO 400 for me Jeez, such a perfectionist. What little noise is present at ISO 400 is easily removed by any decent raw converter, making it a non-issue. You won't even need one of the heavy duty NR programs for that. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 10-19-2010 at 08:31 PM.

10-19-2010, 09:06 PM	#77
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by robgo2 Jeez, such a perfectionist. What little noise is present at ISO 400 is easily removed by any decent raw converter, making it a non-issue. You won't even need one of the heavy duty NR programs for that. Rob Your absolutely right, I am a perfectionist. I shoot macro's almost exclusively, and shooting @ ISO 400 would be so helpful but I cannot take the IQ hit it gives me. The K-5 based off of the samples I've been able to find looks basically the same as the K-7 noise wise. Its simply to much for me, as I strive for the best IQ possible often shooting at <F/5.6 instead of F/8 at magnifications greater than 2:1 just because I want that extra boost of sharpness. This more often than not results in me missing the shots because the subject is not cooperative enough to stack, but this is fine by me

10-20-2010, 02:01 AM	#78
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by yeatzee Your absolutely right, I am a perfectionist. I shoot macro's almost exclusively, and shooting @ ISO 400 would be so helpful but I cannot take the IQ hit it gives me. The K-5 based off of the samples I've been able to find looks basically the same as the K-7 noise wise. Its simply to much for me, as I strive for the best IQ possible often shooting at <F/5.6 instead of F/8 at magnifications greater than 2:1 just because I want that extra boost of sharpness. This more often than not results in me missing the shots because the subject is not cooperative enough to stack, but this is fine by me I once read that perfectionism can often hold you back BTW. have you ever tried super resolution shooting? It's the type of thing that makes certain people giddy

10-20-2010, 03:17 AM	#79
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by climbertrev Amen to that OGL - you're getting soft in your old age I simply converted DNG... K-5 is good for my old FA*, FA and FA LTD It's stange satori

10-20-2010, 03:55 AM	#80
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by jpzk Regarding K5 files submitted for denoising ... couple of questions: 1. Why is it that a "denoised" file suddenly becomes much smaller than the original file? I.E.: the stronger the denoising, the smaller the file gets? JP The noise in the picture might as well be details/information and information takes space in the file. Denoise it until it's one gigantic white blob and all that has to be saved in the file is "one gigantic white blob" it doesn't take much space at all.

10-20-2010, 03:58 AM	#81
Spex Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Dubrovnik, Croatia Posts: 216	Originally posted by yeatzee Still to much noise @ ISO 400 for me Oh, please...

10-20-2010, 05:50 AM	#82
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by JohnBee I once read that perfectionism can often hold you back BTW. have you ever tried super resolution shooting? It's the type of thing that makes certain people giddy Never heard of it Originally posted by Spex Oh, please... What, am I not allowed an opinion any more? The high ISO images look great, but this means little to me as I don't shoot in dark conditions needing more than ISO 1600. IMO I still believe there is to much noise @ ISO 400

10-20-2010, 06:36 AM	#83
Xatnep_CJ New Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 23	Originally posted by jpzk 2. Can you actually load a RAW file directly into Denoise NR software? If so, how? Using the free additional tool Topaz Fusion you can use Denoise as a second external editor for Adobe lightroom. But doing so you do not process the original RAW files. Instead Lightroom exports a TIFF File to Denoise which is saved to the LR database afterwards.

10-20-2010, 07:11 AM	#84
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917 Original Poster	Originally posted by Xatnep_CJ Using the free additional tool Topaz Fusion you can use Denoise as a second external editor for Adobe lightroom. But doing so you do not process the original RAW files. Instead Lightroom exports a TIFF File to Denoise which is saved to the LR database afterwards. I downloaed Topaz Fusion last night and I was still under the impression that LR is doing the RAW conversion first, then exporting a copy as a TIFF to be worked on in Denoise, which then gets sent back to LR.

10-20-2010, 08:01 AM	#85
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by Marc Langille snip BTW, I am simply delaying the K-5 purchase for a while, not because of any concerns. I may have to reserve and possibly channel funds that may be needed elsewhere during the next couple of months - priorities you know. Regards, Marc You and me both Marc, I'm hoping by Christmas time my discretionary buget will have recovered NaCl(BTW, do you know any good banks I could rob?)H2O

10-20-2010, 08:08 AM	#86
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	@yeatzee: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But a sensor is not all about noise. There is also colour accuracy and dynamic range which have a great deal to do with the resulting image. Don't count your chickens until all the reviews are in.

10-20-2010, 02:32 PM	#87
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by jbinpg @yeatzee: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But a sensor is not all about noise. There is also colour accuracy and dynamic range which have a great deal to do with the resulting image. Don't count your chickens until all the reviews are in. And I understand this, which is why i only made a comment about the ISO as this is a thread ABOUT ISO performance.

10-20-2010, 02:49 PM	#88
Danny Delcambre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 550	How about 80 ISO?

10-20-2010, 09:01 PM	#90
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917 Original Poster	Originally posted by Squier Regarding the de-noising / PP of the 51,200 shot and someone posted about trying Topaz, i ran this through both Topaz and then Ninja. I haven't run this one through Denoise yet, it was just opened in LR3 with a little bit of NR. But it's a more "real world" example of ISO 51200 in very low light.