[SlickYamaha]

So I am doing some work for a Haunted House, (Shouldnt say "work" its 100% volunteer) but anyways, they are friends and asked if I could do photos for em.
Tonight was their beginning of the year "first run" nobody was dressed up, no lights on, just a chance for all the characters to see the area in the dark, learn some spots, and get a feel before they start....
Took the K5, knowing it would be dark, and she impressed me! I had to sky rocket the ISO to get some shots, and even had to manual focus everything towards the end, (which I can tell you, is hard as $h!t in pitch black! Anyways, here are some shots from tonight. All shots at 16,000 ISO, except one is 8,000. And still getting shutter speed of about 1/30 with my Tamron 17-50 2.8, at 2.8 (obviously most of these were not "pitch" black, but in a woods with the only light being reflected from the tractor, it was dark as could be.)

---

Last edited by SlickYamaha; 09-24-2011 at 08:37 PM.

[bwDraco]

Amazing shots. This demonstrates once again the amazing low-light performance of the K-5. Too bad I can't afford a K-5...

--DragonLord

[joe.penn]

Super nice photos SickYamaha...



...

[SlickYamaha]

Thanks, I should note, all these were either taken from the Hay ride, or by stepping off a foot or two

[Smeggypants]

Very nice!! Quite simply you couldn't have got these with a previous Pentax cam. Another big up for the K-5

[SlickYamaha]

[v5planet]

The style of these is GREAT. Love it, awesome job.

[philbaum]

By the way, when its pitch black and you are having trouble finding a focus area, it can really help to have a flashlight along that you can shine on an area to use the AF or manually.

Nice shots.

[RonHendriks1966]

Looks spooky! Great job done.

[SlickYamaha]

Just to show some comparisons, here are some shots I got with the K7.
Here was my set up:
K5: Tamron 17-50 2.8 at steady 2.8 - ISO 8,000-16,000 - Tv ~1/30
K7: Tamron 70-200 2.8 at steady 2.8 - ISO 6,400 - Tv ~1/13





As you can see, there is a reason I didnt post these in the first thread

[Clicker]

They'll be very happy with the images you've shown here, K5 is very impressive.

[Rupert]

I'm not much of a extreme low light shooter....but you have shown the value of having that ability very nicely. My best use of the high ISO is in gaining speed in moderate light. It has made a major difference in my shooting, and if/when I ever get out and about, maybe a vacation soon?, what I have learned from shooting my Squirrels at high ISO values will hopefully give me some valuable experience.

1/250 I was able to stop down to F9 on the Bigma.........ISO 12,800
[IMG] [/IMG]

Best Regards & thanks for posting those!

[SlickYamaha]

Just as a really dumb-amateur-sure go ahead and laugh at me question...

Would shooting the 70-200 at 2.8 be LESS light than the 17-50 at 2.8? or is 2.8 still 2.8 at any zoom range?
My mind says, when zoomed at 200mm, you would have less light to fill, at 2.8 or not, where as 17mm, you have a much broader angle to capture more light... correct? So in the future, should i put the 70-200 on the K5 and the 17-50 on the K7 to compensate?

[JinDesu]

I, personally, suspect that shooting a wider angle allows you far more light sources to enter the shot. Whether or not these light sources help to illuminate subjects inside the frame may be a factor.

I know that when I zoom in with my 70-200 on a subject, my meter says there is less light.

[joe.penn]

Just as a really dumb-amateur-sure go ahead and laugh at me question...

| Ok, phew, got that out of the way


-----

My mind says, when zoomed at 200mm, you would have less light to fill, at 2.8 or not, where as 17mm, you have a much broader angle to capture more light... correct?

A 2.8 lens is, well, capable of sucking/drawing in the same amount of light as the next 2.8 lens. However, XYZ 2.8 Lens may pull more light than YZX 2.8 Lens even at the same focal (by design, manufacturers don't want you to get confused by labeling lenses 2.6 | 2.75 | 2.48 | etc..). To answer the question, if you have the same exact light source at 24mm outputting "X" amount of light as "X" amount of light at 100mm, you will get the same amount of light striking the sensor, there are other factors to consider though which will degrade the quality of light and effect exposure, refraction being one of them and a more common issue when using longer focal lengths...





---