[JohnBee]

I'm still unsure why you are using a photo with mainly red's and black's for a tuturial.... Why not have a shot with a balance of colours?

Primarely because this is the set with the best exposure across the range.
However, there won't be any real differences between these images and ones with more colors as the same approach or workflow will apply to either situation.

[jpzk]

Have you seen these?

SCENE_1: ISO200 JPG EXTRAC

SCENE_1: ISO3200 JPG EXTRAC

Personally, the ISO3200 is slightly undereposed in contrast to the ISO200 sample. However, I'm willing to bet that if they were both shot exactly the same, we would be hard pressed to differentiate them.

PS. both samples are with no NR/PP etc.

Good Lord!

This is blowing me away!
Can these JPF Extracts be saved?
If the last one is actually slightly underexposed, I wouldn't mind at all even staight out of the camera.

For me, what counts is being able to shoot wildlife under adverse lighting conditions, which does happen more often than not, and being able to track the moving subject under such conditions.
The image at ISO3200 satisfies my needs in terms of "low light", for sure!

Remains to be seen if the K5 is able to AF under those circumstances. But, that is another story, as I mentioned earlier.
Does being able to shoot at high ISO enables a better performance of the AF?

Great to see those sample shots a usual, greatly appreciated!

Cheers.

JP

P.S.: By the way: did you on purpose propose to shoot a beer label, which beer contains pumpkin?? Halloween driven?

[wll]

How can anyone buy another APS-C camera other than the Pentax K5.

If you need long lenses and tethering, I can understand, but for me the game is over 'set point and match"

I can hardly wait for the K5's to start arriving ;- )


wll

[falconeye]

Samples updated,
Full size images added.

Thanks for the full size images (download links are reversed though). Also for the ISO3200 full size image which I would call exhibit C and add to the OP.

The 51k exhibit has lost quite a bit of detail, no wonder this is visible even at the reduced sizes you were posting originally. It is still a nice photo which would print nice, I guess up to A4. So, that's an impressive result for a ISO51k shot indeed.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see the 51k JPG prior to any NR (LR3 w/o NR and no Denoise) so we can see how much of the loss of detail is in the pixels and how much was eaten by NR.


The ISO 3200 full size is interesting. At first look, it seems to have more detail and more contrast than the ISO 200 one. That may indeed be the case given the difference in exposure times.

OTOH, I've seen occasions where higher ISO shots had better numerical resolution figures when analyzed. That can happen if the tone curve gets steeper because of running in a regime with less dynamic range headroom. E.g., ultimatively, a binary B&W image (2 levels) would have maximum resolution figures and higher ISO reduces the effective number of levels.


So, the entire topic is full of traps.

But that's a positive thing: the difference between ISO 100 and 3200 becomes so small (rather than obvious) that secondary effects start to become important. This is new

[dgaies]

Thanks for the full size images (download links are reversed though). Also for the ISO3200 full size image which I would call exhibit C and add to the OP.

The 51k exhibit has lost quite a bit of detail, no wonder this is visible even at the reduced sizes you were posting originally. It is still a nice photo which would print nice, I guess up to A4. So, that's an impressive result for a ISO51k shot indeed.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see the 51k JPG prior to any NR (LR3 w/o NR and no Denoise) so we can see how much of the loss of detail is in the pixels and how much was eaten by NR.

I could also upload the original RAW files for you, and who ever else is interested, to take a look at (I took this shot at 200, 800, 3200, 12800, and 51200). It would not be for another 8 hours as it's only 9am here and I won't have access to the files until I get home late this afternoon.

[falconeye]

I could also upload the original RAW files for you, and who ever else is interested, to take a look at (I took this shot at 200, 800, 3200, 12800, and 51200). It would not be for another 8 hours as it's only 9am here and I won't have access to the files until I get home late this afternoon.

I believe JohnBee wanted to keep the originals for the tutorial. No urgent need to share them. I just wanted to see the state of things before he applied NR.

[dgaies]

I believe JohnBee wanted to keep the originals for the tutorial. No urgent need to share them. I just wanted to see the state of things before he applied NR.

Sorry about that... I must have missed that post about saving them for the tutorial

[falconeye]

Sorry about that... I must have missed that post about saving them for the tutorial

post #33.