Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
  
K20D rediculous high ISO pictures
Posted By: codiac2600, 02-27-2008, 07:31 PM

Shot around at 1600-3200 today to see what I could get. When properly exposed this things totally knocks my socks off!

Enjoy!

ISO 3200


ISO 3200


ISO 3200


ISO 3200


ISO 1600


ISO 1600

Views: 5,168
03-05-2008, 02:53 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 469
QuoteOriginally posted by janver Quote
Including full Exif would have been nice...

Jan V.

Including the exif would make it easy to cheat and claim you can tell a difference that is not there.

However, the two images are the same image. I mean they both have the exact same URL, so asking one to discern differences is either being VERY misleading, or someone is having some technical difficulties.

Not being able to cut and paste distinct urls doesn't shore up a technical argument very well to me.

ETA: looks like he fixed the url while I was composing.

I'll bite. especially in the bokeh of the knobby bit in the background, you can see more chroma noise in pic#1. In pic#2, it is much smoother. However, the second pic looks like it has the iso pushed from the behavior of the exposure and dynamic range and looks like detail might have been lost due to chroma noise reduction. specifically the color noise in the bokeh and the detail in the variation isn the patina in the statue seem to be missing in pic #2, which givne one is supposed to be there, and the other is undesireable but a fact of life, says noise reduction algorithm.

So #2 = 1600.

And yes, there is a visual difference between them, even scaled down. But that could be shooter, automagic uncontrollable camera algorithms, conversion, post processing, etc. Hardly a scientifc test of the math.


Further edited to add, that the relative position of the camer ato the object, and framing, and thus light and exposure are also different, so makes for a very bad comparison.


Last edited by raz-0; 03-05-2008 at 03:09 PM.
03-05-2008, 03:01 PM   #32
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,867
QuoteOriginally posted by raz-0 Quote
I mean they both have the exact same URL
I saw and fixed the typo at 10:38 PM. Don't know why you still saw it at 10:53 PM. I'm sorry about it. A browser reload (F5) should fix it.

(Side note: I am able to cut and paste distinct urls but I am only human not immune to typing errors. Thinkers can sometimes be scatterbrained )
03-05-2008, 03:32 PM   #33
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,867
QuoteOriginally posted by raz-0 Quote
Hardly a scientifc test of the math.
I wanted to do a photographer's test only as I was criticized for being overly theoretic

The variation in subject came from changing me the iso setting on the back of the camera (so, I touched it). This is a small welcome random change to make the comparison more real-world compliant. Not a lab test w/o relevance in the field.

So, we have one vote so far. Thank you for taking all the time.
03-05-2008, 06:35 PM   #34
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,096
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
So, which image is which?
Now that I'm home and am not looking at a crappy monitor @ work, I can confidently say that #1 [isods-1.jpg] is high ISO. (what kind of screen do you use?) The clincher is that lighter color rectangle in the center on the right margin in the OOF area. Way grainier in #1 than #2. Care to share how it was shot? RAW/JPEG? If JPG what JPG sharpness & contrast and color tone level? any (-) EV comp? I've been shooting RAW only since august so I don't recall all the kinds of processing the camera does itself during conversion. edit: Oh, never mind, I just re-read and see it wasn't the K10D. Well, I assume that camera had the equiv. It's a great ISO 1600 image. I've got more then a few dozen @ ISO 1600 that can't come close to it... that's with them viewed @ 800px wide. ...that the histogram doesn't touch the right margin does not make for a noisy image. Some of my best shots -ever- have a Histogram balance exacly like that image there. It's when you boost it, but you know that.


Last edited by m8o; 03-05-2008 at 07:01 PM.
03-05-2008, 09:04 PM   #35
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

Because everybody here seem to really have a problem to understand this simple fact -- and I am not doing math here (just take it as a fact if you don't like math) -- is this:


14.6 MPixel images, as soon as downsampled to fit a web page (1024 wide at most), do not have visible noise by definition (if not pushed for exposure, contrast, cropped etc.).

And yes, my math does take pictures! It says: If you are only after images for the web, don't care about the ISO setting (say, up to 1600).
falconeye, nobody here has trouble with your "facts", we understand them just fine. I understand your math on resizing the image. That is not in question. You are not listening to what anybody here is saying. You didn't even respond to my last direct comment to you. I have not been clamoring about the noise levels on screen. I have been talking about a 1600 ISO shot printed to 11x14 and the print looks every bit as good as the 800 pixel wide web version.

By the way, a "photographer's test" is called a print. If you really want to test the resolution of a sensor try printing it.
03-06-2008, 12:04 AM   #36
Forum Member
budkid's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 70
that looks really nice...
03-06-2008, 04:29 AM   #37
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 34
Digital cameras don't use film, hence there is no grain.
03-06-2008, 06:22 AM   #38
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,867
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
[...] however, we have the testimony of a few people that the images are printing with the same or even better results as these small samples. I am not talking about a 400 ISO print at 11x14, I am talking about a 1600 ISO print at 11x14. Even the out of focus shadows show no grain. The image quality isn't passible, it's phenomenal.
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
You are not listening to what anybody here is saying. You didn't even respond to my last direct comment to you. I have not been clamoring about the noise levels on screen. I have been talking about a 1600 ISO shot printed to 11x14 and the print looks every bit as good as the 800 pixel wide web version.

By the way, a "photographer's test" is called a print. If you really want to test the resolution of a sensor try printing it.

Hi davemdsn,

I had responded to your "I'm waiting....." posting (#23). My response ended in the question "what printing service did you use?". I did not respond to your next posting because you seemed to have missed my reply and I would have had to repeat myself.

So, please allow me to recapture in a few words:

> Printing 11x14 @240dpi uses 85% of a K20D's linear sensor resolution. So, your experience that the prints are noise-free at ISO1600 was a claim much appreciated by me saying that you make "a much better point about it than codiac's web images".

I did agree with you. I wasn't dodging it I am listening, really.

I invite you to go back to my postings, too, e.g., "I never said the K20D wouldn't have excellent noise performance".

QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
You have done nothing but whine about something you haven't even seen.
I beg your pardon.
I do use a K20D myself, and I am very happy with it. I agree with you that its image quality is phenomenal (I do have to test printing, still)

I do not whine about something I haven't seen. I whine about that other people which don't have a K20D are led to judge the K20D's high ISO performance from images resampled to sizes where this is impossible by simple laws of physics.

And I provided the two most recent images from my 3 years old *istDS at 200 and 1600 ISO, resp. BTW, your vote? So, how could anybody judge from those images how the originals would print at 11x14"?

He couldn't, and this is my entire point.

Your first posting in the other thread was infinitely more valuable than all web images shown here.

Peace?

03-06-2008, 08:37 AM   #39
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,414
Yes, peace. It's just a discussion. This is what forums are for. I do understand your point and the math behind it. My eye just sees something else when I look at the print. Oh, to answer your question - it's a photo print from a lab. I hate my ink jet so I haven't tried it yet.

My counterpoint is still that my print looks just as good as it does on screen. It is very unscientific, I know. Based on the prints I have made so far I am confident that these images will look very much the same in a print as they do on screen, provided a good printer is used.
03-06-2008, 09:31 AM   #40
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,867
QuoteOriginally posted by davemdsn Quote
Based on the prints I have made so far I am confident that these images will look very much the same in a print as they do on screen, provided a good printer is used.
And this is the great news.
Because images from another camera model which look equally nice on the web may indeed print ugly at 11x14".
03-07-2008, 02:45 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 469
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I saw and fixed the typo at 10:38 PM. Don't know why you still saw it at 10:53 PM. I'm sorry about it. A browser reload (F5) should fix it.

(Side note: I am able to cut and paste distinct urls but I am only human not immune to typing errors. Thinkers can sometimes be scatterbrained )

Because I was browsing at work and got interrupted while composing.
03-12-2008, 06:12 PM   #42
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,867
I enabled the EXIF data in images of post #28.

Image #1: ISO1600
Image #2: ISO200

Correct votes: 1
Incorrect votes: 1

So, let's agree that at a 1000 pixels resolution or less, is is possible but quite difficult to tell the difference. And it would be impossible to judge ISO performance from a single such image.
03-17-2008, 12:11 AM   #43
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socorro, NM
Posts: 68
Still learning

Falconeye, as a newcomer to digital work I appreciate your not giving up in attempting to explain that seeing differences in ISO settings may not be that obvious when viewed on computer monitors, and therefore be cautious in making assumptions as to the quality of prints they will produce. Did I get that right? While some postings comparing different camera systems to the Pentax, or different ISOs within the K20d, have showed glaring differences, those that you offered did not. Yet those differences would definitely show up if you tried to make identically sized prints from each image beyond a certain size.

davemdsn,
I am excited to know that I will be able to produce quality images at 11x14 even at ISO 1600 from my soon-to-be-purchased K20d. The challenge for me with this camera is to determine how large a print I can make from what ISO settings. I often print to 20x24 from my medium and large format film cameras, and recently sold a 32x41 inch print made from 120 film. Noise will be a big factor for me and I need all the information that I can get to help me make a decision about this being the right sytem for what I want to do. Do you find that you can get 20x24 inch landscape prints from lower ISO settings with the K20d?

Thanks to you both.
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, iso, photo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
m4/3 high ISO better than K20d ?? arbib Photographic Technique 12 09-10-2010 06:30 PM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO supa007 Pentax DSLR Discussion 72 05-10-2010 04:24 PM
Kx / K20D comparison on high ISO kasv Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 12-02-2009 03:26 PM
K20D High ISO Performance joelovotti Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 03-17-2009 06:47 PM
Km vs K20D High ISO tarsus Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 01-07-2009 03:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 PM. | 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