Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-27-2012, 09:30 AM   #31
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
For web use I can clean up 6400 just fine, but for a decent sized print it will definitely show. At 6400 I am converting to B&W and using the grain as part of the "mood" of the image.
But then again the expectations for an image made in real life with iso6400 is different then one made in a studio with everything under control. I have some very fine soccer images made with iso6400 printed on A3 paper that are absolutely fabulous. Offcourse there are camera's that can do that job better, but not for the same pricetag that K-5 is.

10-27-2012, 09:42 AM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
But then again the expectations for an image made in real life with iso6400 is different then one made in a studio with everything under control. I have some very fine soccer images made with iso6400 printed on A3 paper that are absolutely fabulous. Offcourse there are camera's that can do that job better, but not for the same pricetag that K-5 is.
It is not just noise that is the issue. The color and tonal range fall off at ISO 6400 to the point where it is an issue. For a magazine or basic print article where print quality is low or mid-level it is not an issue. My post processing skills are decent, but by no means at the expert level. People with the time/skill in post processing could probably do a better job, but so far I have not been happy with color ISO 6400 prints at any real size. If i have a project where I have the money I will pay a person to do my post processing. I have a friend who works for a national magazine as a graphics designer who does my critical Photoshop work.... I don't even own Photoshop. Most of my work I can do in LR4 with basic post work.
10-27-2012, 09:45 AM - 2 Likes   #33
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
This was performed in an area with at most 0EV (the Pentax spot meter doesn't go any lower). The K-5 couldn't focus at all on any part of the scene, while the K-5 IIs locked on every time. Note that we were focusing on the floor, not the bed.
Headphones may be needed
I hope you are able to test the AF in some difficult (different colors) lighting conditions. Find a local Jazz or Blues club (they usually have really crappy light) with a good band and some cold beer and shoot a few test shots..... After 6 or 7 beers you can also compare how well the SR works. All in the name of science.

Last edited by Winder; 10-27-2012 at 10:11 AM.
10-27-2012, 10:00 AM   #34
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
Im about the same as Ron in this arena. 6400 ISO especialy if shot in raw is good for most things although I would only use it at a wedding in a dire emergency lol. Where poss I try keep my ceiling at 3200. I will say though, 6400 is easily as good as my 3200 setting on the Nikon D300. Poss even better ! I use just 1600 ISO as my ceiling with the nikon. Again 3200 ISO is easily as good as 1600 ISO on the Nikon. So its pretty impressive



This was shot at 6400 at F2.8. Ive done very little, but it would print nicely at A4. You can get sharper more detailed prints with care and or more light. it was dark indeed when I took this the other night


Last edited by westmill; 10-27-2012 at 10:09 AM.
10-27-2012, 03:34 PM   #35
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
ISO6400 and 1.4 (I know only DA55/1.4 and FA50/1.4 with such aperture) + 1/40 = using SR and unacceptable IQ. Sigma 30/1.4 - I don't think that it's good lens.
The Sigma 30/1.4 is a great lens. Have a look at the respective sample image thread and tell me with which other lens (sans the FA 31/1.8) you can get results like this.

There is also the excellent Rokinon 85/1.4, the Nokton, the f/1.2 lenses, etc.


QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Did the same with K200D + FA24*/2- from semi-dark corridor to dark room - f4.5, ISO200, 1.6 s.
Assuming an 18% exposure that's just an EV of 2.6. Not a challenge.


QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Let's have a look at K-5 and K200D at full SNR - it's very interesting:
Where are these figures from?
Are they based on pixel noise or image noise?
If they are based on pixel noise, they'd be inadequate, favouring the K200D with its lower resolution.
10-28-2012, 02:08 AM   #36
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote

Where are these figures from?
Are they based on pixel noise or image noise?
If they are based on pixel noise, they'd be inadequate, favouring the K200D with its lower resolution.
DXO Mark - Full SNR for each camera. You can go to K-5 and K200D's page with measurement
and you will see...
10-28-2012, 02:11 AM   #37
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Assuming an 18% exposure that's just an EV of 2.6. Not a challenge.
Adam's test - EV0. If you want you can make the same test with your camera...It's not very big problem for old cameras too. Not fast. Sometimes very slow. But it could.
10-28-2012, 04:16 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
DXO Mark - Full SNR for each camera. You can go to K-5 and K200D's page with measurement
and you will see...
OK, mystery solved.

The "Full SNR" measurements are provided in terms of pixels (called "Screen" by DxOMark). This favours sensors with less MP.

The correct way to compare image quality (as opposed to individual pixel quality) is to look at the whole image (called "Print" by DxOMark).

Since the K-5 has ~1.6 times more pixels, you need to add ~2 dB (= 3 * log2(1.6)) to all K-5 "Full SNR" figures. When you do this, you'll see that the K-5 is ahead at all SNR levels.

Just compare the "Full SNR" figures at 18% with the figures in the regular regular "SNR 18%" chart. You'll see that the figures correspond to the (irrelevant) "Screen" figures and that the K-5 is ahead in the "Print" figures.

10-28-2012, 04:19 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Adam's test - EV0. If you want you can make the same test with your camera...It's not very big problem for old cameras too. Not fast. Sometimes very slow. But it could.
I'm not sure what you are saying.

The video is proof that the K-5 II locks focus in light levels where the K-5 struggles.

Also, we know that the K-5 has a low-light AF accuracy problem. From all I've heard this also has been addressed in the K-30 and K-5 II.
10-28-2012, 06:36 AM   #40
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Just compare the "Full SNR" figures at 18% with the figures in the regular.
It's wrong way to compare SNR18%. We can't see the noise level in shadows and deep shadows.

Last edited by ogl; 10-28-2012 at 08:22 AM.
10-28-2012, 06:39 AM   #41
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I'm not sure what you are saying.

The video is proof that the K-5 II locks focus in light levels where the K-5 struggles.

Also, we know that the K-5 has a low-light AF accuracy problem. From all I've heard this also has been addressed in the K-30 and K-5 II.
K-5 has accurancy problem in any light condition.
10-28-2012, 07:11 AM   #42
Moderator
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,239
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
K-5 has accurancy problem in any light condition.
What are you basing that statement on? Do you own a K-5? Or is this another one of your posts trying to stir up crap?
10-28-2012, 07:23 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It's wrong way to compare SNR18%.
No, it is absolutely the correct way.

You need to compare full images. Higher MP cameras have noisier individual pixels but in combination the higher number of pixels average out to the same image noise (everything else being the same).

Are you really questioning DxOMark's approach to scale every sensor to 8MP in order to normalize the results?

I'm surprised they don't do it for the "Full SNR" figures, but surely there is a reason why the "Print" view is the default as opposed to the "Screen" view.
10-28-2012, 08:21 AM   #44
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Tom S. Quote
What are you basing that statement on? Do you own a K-5? Or is this another one of your posts trying to stir up crap?
Yes. Of course. Be more polite, please... Sold K-5 1 month ago.
10-28-2012, 08:26 AM   #45
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
No, it is absolutely the correct way.

You need to compare full images. Higher MP cameras have noisier individual pixels but in combination the higher number of pixels average out to the same image noise (everything else being the same).

Are you really questioning DxOMark's approach to scale every sensor to 8MP in order to normalize the results?

I'm surprised they don't do it for the "Full SNR" figures, but surely there is a reason why the "Print" view is the default as opposed to the "Screen" view.
You can think in this way... I won't argue.

I've heard that they did it for every camera - full SNR too - to scale every sensor to 8MP. Didn't you hear that K-5 is noisy camera in shadows?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax, pentax k-5, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low light AF/AL speed test Hey Elwood Pentax K-5 4 02-07-2012 09:05 PM
Video with low light on K-r-need help. LightMeter Pentax K-r 4 11-15-2011 03:46 PM
Pentax K-5 low light AF torture test zaiko Pentax K-5 15 07-08-2011 08:30 AM
K5 low light video on youtube FunkyMonk Pentax K-5 16 02-04-2011 07:31 AM
Low-light video dshack Video and Pentax HDSLRs 9 04-13-2010 06:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top