Q sensor dynamic range

**crewl1** · 03-06-2013, 03:18 PM

I am really surprised at how well the Q maintains detail in underexposed shots.
I shoot the Q and adapted lenses in manual mode and when changing scenes the Q display auto adjusts so I constantly forget to check the meter and reset the shutter speed.
here is an example of a shot that was under exposed, but if I had wanted to save it I could do so with just a slight hit of noise.
Luckily in this case the birdie stuck around long enough for me to adjust the shutter speed, but if this was the only shot I could get I would be OK with the ability to save it.
BTW, to date I only shoot JPG - I know that I can go to RAW and have even more latitude on these shots.

These were shot with the DA*300 at f5.6 using ISO 125. The dark pic was shot at 1/3200, the correct pic was shot at 1/400.

Comparison of original and fixed in Lightroom

Fixed shot.

Correctly exposed shot.

Adam · 03-06-2013, 03:22 PM

Yeah, at minimum iso there really is a lot you can do. The problems don't creep in until you crank that up

**crewl1** · 03-06-2013, 03:24 PM

I shoot at 125 pretty much all the time. Initial testing on higher ISO was not so great, but I haven't revisited it.
So this performance is nothing out of the ordinary? Good to know.

**pearsaab** · 03-06-2013, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

I shoot at 125 pretty much all the time. Initial testing on higher ISO was not so great, but I haven't revisited it.
So this performance is nothing out of the ordinary? Good to know.

great shots larry

ScooterMaxi Jim · 03-06-2013, 06:55 PM

What I found, quite by mistake on a visit to the dog park on a bright day, is that overexposure in RAW mode can be pulled back by a huge margin (3 stops or more). It was so bright that I couldn't see what the camera was going - VF could be made out to frame the shot, and that was about it. So, a very washed out ISO 1250 shot was still salvaged - it amazed me:

Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare

This was shot with the 02 lens using expanded ISO TAv - no idea why the metering system got so seriously fooled. Processing was LR 3.6

**dadipentak** · 03-06-2013, 06:58 PM

Pretty impressive, Larry!

**crewl1** · 03-06-2013, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by pearsaab

great shots larry

Thanks Amy

MegaPower · 03-06-2013, 07:12 PM

nice job.
better to get a underexposed pic than a shook pic

**crewl1** · 03-06-2013, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

What I found, quite by mistake on a visit to the dog park on a bright day, is that overexposure in RAW mode can be pulled back by a huge margin (3 stops or more). It was so bright that I couldn't see what the camera was going - VF could be made out to frame the shot, and that was about it. So, a very washed out ISO 1250 shot was still salvaged - it amazed me:

Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare

This was shot with the 02 lens using expanded ISO TAv - no idea why the metering system got so seriously fooled. Processing was LR 3.6

That's good info Jim and the shot looks great. I've been telling myself it's time to switch to RAW. I like your album.

**crewl1** · 03-06-2013, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Pretty impressive, Larry!

I was surprised myself.

**crewl1** · 03-06-2013, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by MegaPower

nice job.
better to get a underexposed pic than a shook pic

True that.

wolfiegirl · 12-04-2013, 03:00 PM

That's very interesting. I've been shooting pictures of my wolfiepup and noticed with a high ISO and a crop of 50% give or take the noise factor is pretty high. Then again, I don't have lightroom. I use faststone and photoshop 7.0.

I have shot both raw and jpg and find the problem to be the same. I wonder how much is user error on my part. I've only had the Q for a week and am using it intermittently throughout the day with the 02 and 01 lenses.

**crewl1** · 12-04-2013, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by wolfiegirl

That's very interesting. I've been shooting pictures of my wolfiepup and noticed with a high ISO and a crop of 50% give or take the noise factor is pretty high. Then again, I don't have lightroom. I use faststone and photoshop 7.0.

I have shot both raw and jpg and find the problem to be the same. I wonder how much is user error on my part. I've only had the Q for a week and am using it intermittently throughout the day with the 02 and 01 lenses.

With the classic Q the noise starts to creep in fairly early.

With a good denoise software you can make the shots look better but you will lose detail.

Try to keep the ISO down if possible.

The Q flash is pretty efficient and since it is offset the pictures don't look too bad, dont be afraid to try it.

wolfiegirl · 12-04-2013, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by crewl1

With the classic Q the noise starts to creep in fairly early.

With a good denoise software you can make the shots look better but you will lose detail.

Try to keep the ISO down if possible.

The Q flash is pretty efficient and since it is offset the pictures don't look too bad, dont be afraid to try it.

*nods*

I've been very disappointed in super low light situations with fast moving toddlers. I feel like I've gotten better shots with my phone.....

paranoia23 · 01-13-2014, 01:47 PM

like being disappointed with a boat in a desert ?!

03-06-2013, 03:18 PM	#1
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Q sensor dynamic range I am really surprised at how well the Q maintains detail in underexposed shots. I shoot the Q and adapted lenses in manual mode and when changing scenes the Q display auto adjusts so I constantly forget to check the meter and reset the shutter speed. here is an example of a shot that was under exposed, but if I had wanted to save it I could do so with just a slight hit of noise. Luckily in this case the birdie stuck around long enough for me to adjust the shutter speed, but if this was the only shot I could get I would be OK with the ability to save it. BTW, to date I only shoot JPG - I know that I can go to RAW and have even more latitude on these shots. These were shot with the DA*300 at f5.6 using ISO 125. The dark pic was shot at 1/3200, the correct pic was shot at 1/400. Comparison of original and fixed in Lightroom Fixed shot. Correctly exposed shot.

03-06-2013, 03:22 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	Yeah, at minimum iso there really is a lot you can do. The problems don't creep in until you crank that up Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-06-2013, 06:55 PM	#5
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Expose right works well too What I found, quite by mistake on a visit to the dog park on a bright day, is that overexposure in RAW mode can be pulled back by a huge margin (3 stops or more). It was so bright that I couldn't see what the camera was going - VF could be made out to frame the shot, and that was about it. So, a very washed out ISO 1250 shot was still salvaged - it amazed me: Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare This was shot with the 02 lens using expanded ISO TAv - no idea why the metering system got so seriously fooled. Processing was LR 3.6

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dynamic Range of Pentax 16 mp sensor	Steven Chain	Photographic Technique	11	01-22-2013 04:20 PM
K-30 dynamic range	loco	Pentax K-30 & K-50	41	08-27-2012 12:21 PM
K5 and Dynamic Range	dmort	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	40	08-08-2011 04:31 AM
K5 Dynamic Range Question	crossover37	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	04-25-2011 06:09 AM
Dynamic Range of K7 & Kx Sensor?	seachunk2	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	08-31-2010 05:47 PM

03-06-2013, 03:24 PM	#3
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	I shoot at 125 pretty much all the time. Initial testing on higher ISO was not so great, but I haven't revisited it. So this performance is nothing out of the ordinary? Good to know.

03-06-2013, 06:27 PM	#4
pearsaab Otis Memorial Pentaxian Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,900	Originally posted by crewl1 I shoot at 125 pretty much all the time. Initial testing on higher ISO was not so great, but I haven't revisited it. So this performance is nothing out of the ordinary? Good to know. great shots larry

03-06-2013, 06:58 PM	#6
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Pretty impressive, Larry!

03-06-2013, 07:10 PM	#7
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by pearsaab great shots larry Thanks Amy

03-06-2013, 07:12 PM	#8
MegaPower Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 636	nice job. better to get a underexposed pic than a shook pic

03-06-2013, 07:14 PM	#9
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim What I found, quite by mistake on a visit to the dog park on a bright day, is that overexposure in RAW mode can be pulled back by a huge margin (3 stops or more). It was so bright that I couldn't see what the camera was going - VF could be made out to frame the shot, and that was about it. So, a very washed out ISO 1250 shot was still salvaged - it amazed me: Q miscellany - James Robins - Powered by Phanfare This was shot with the 02 lens using expanded ISO TAv - no idea why the metering system got so seriously fooled. Processing was LR 3.6 That's good info Jim and the shot looks great. I've been telling myself it's time to switch to RAW. I like your album.

03-06-2013, 07:16 PM	#10
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by dadipentak Pretty impressive, Larry! I was surprised myself.

03-06-2013, 07:24 PM	#11
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by MegaPower nice job. better to get a underexposed pic than a shook pic True that.

12-04-2013, 03:00 PM	#12
wolfiegirl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Mystery Bay, NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,111	That's very interesting. I've been shooting pictures of my wolfiepup and noticed with a high ISO and a crop of 50% give or take the noise factor is pretty high. Then again, I don't have lightroom. I use faststone and photoshop 7.0. I have shot both raw and jpg and find the problem to be the same. I wonder how much is user error on my part. I've only had the Q for a week and am using it intermittently throughout the day with the 02 and 01 lenses.

12-04-2013, 03:54 PM	#13
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	Originally posted by wolfiegirl That's very interesting. I've been shooting pictures of my wolfiepup and noticed with a high ISO and a crop of 50% give or take the noise factor is pretty high. Then again, I don't have lightroom. I use faststone and photoshop 7.0. I have shot both raw and jpg and find the problem to be the same. I wonder how much is user error on my part. I've only had the Q for a week and am using it intermittently throughout the day with the 02 and 01 lenses. With the classic Q the noise starts to creep in fairly early. With a good denoise software you can make the shots look better but you will lose detail. Try to keep the ISO down if possible. The Q flash is pretty efficient and since it is offset the pictures don't look too bad, dont be afraid to try it.

12-04-2013, 09:55 PM	#14
wolfiegirl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Mystery Bay, NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,111	Originally posted by crewl1 With the classic Q the noise starts to creep in fairly early. With a good denoise software you can make the shots look better but you will lose detail. Try to keep the ISO down if possible. The Q flash is pretty efficient and since it is offset the pictures don't look too bad, dont be afraid to try it. nods I've been very disappointed in super low light situations with fast moving toddlers. I feel like I've gotten better shots with my phone.....

01-13-2014, 01:47 PM	#15
paranoia23 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 188	like being disappointed with a boat in a desert ?!