No Excuses

Brooke Meyer · 11-09-2018, 08:44 PM - **9 Likes**

K3II + Sigma 100-300/4 at f4 and 300MM. ISO 8000, 12,800 and 16,000 respectively. 3D Project Jazz Dance Company, 2 Nov 2018, Cary Arts Center, Cary, NC.

**joelbolden** · 11-09-2018, 10:01 PM

Great shots. I like the last one best.....great lighting/contrast.

**PKMike** · 11-09-2018, 10:14 PM

Yes. The middle one. Lighting, contrast, detail. OOF vs in. Nice!

biz-engineer · 11-10-2018, 04:39 AM

Pentax K-1 II would be even better for those kind of shots. Why not use a Pentax K-1 II ?

**macman24054** · 11-10-2018, 04:57 AM - **1 Like**

Great shots. I agree no excuses for pushing the ISO.

**UncleVanya** · 11-10-2018, 05:05 AM

Nice control of noise.

biz-engineer · 11-10-2018, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Brooke Meyer

I've rented and used a 645Z and the files are wonderful. For most purposes, they're also overkill. If I had a client that specified it, I'd simply add the rental cost to the Invoice. None of my clients do. What they do tell me is that they're happy with my work.

Ok ,makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

bm75 · 11-10-2018, 10:42 AM

Beautiful pictures. I understand your point, for the most I agree.

Pioneer · 11-11-2018, 12:09 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Pentax K-1 II would be even better for those kind of shots. Why not use a Pentax K-1 II ?

I guess I am a bit confused as to how a K-1 would improve those shots. They already look pretty good to me.

No offense intended to the full frame crowd but Pentax's APS-C cameras are still awesome tools.

Brooke is obviously a very, very capable artist.

biz-engineer · 11-11-2018, 12:52 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Pioneer

I guess I am a bit confused as to how a K-1 would improve those shots. They already look pretty good to me.

Indeed those images look very good, especially tones and subject composition. That said, the smaller images, the better they look, that's why people think smartphones are so good at taking pictures displayed over 2" x 4" they do look good. So it all comes down to display/print size that we are aiming at. ISO 8000 starting to become a real challenge, due to the reduced DR, you really have to be spot-on with the exposure.

bm75 · 11-11-2018, 11:11 AM

36 mpx FF raws are noisy... from 800 iso on, But after resizing to 24 mpx they look much much better and comparable with those from 24 mpx FF or APSC cameras. At lower resolutions and small devices, the difference is negligible. IMHO.

**UncleVanya** · 11-11-2018, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by bm75

36 mpx FF raws are noisy... from 800 iso on, But after resizing to 24 mpx they look much much better and comparable with those from 24 mpx FF or APSC cameras. At lower resolutions and small devices, the difference is negligible. IMHO.

?????

This doesn't match what I have read here and elsewhere. Also 24 MP FF is notably lower noise than 24 mp APSC. I don't see how lumping them together makes sense. 24mp APSC is similar in pixel pitch to 50mp and if anything is much noisier than 36mp FF.

I can see how 24mp FF would be lower in noise.

I'd love to see some supporting evidence for the 24mp APSC being lower in noise than 36mp FF.

bm75 · 11-11-2018, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

'd love to see some supporting evidence for the 24mp APSC being lower in noise than 36mp FF.

Sorry, I have no evidences because I never shot the same scene in controlled conditions with both 24 mp and 36 mp. Plus I'm not a scientist....So you're free to consider my words as BS.

.
From my prints I see no big differences at high Isos (I don't print more than 20*30 cm over 1600 Iso, no matter the native format). And if I resize the photos to be seen on screen, I see no big differences at lower resolutions, like, i.e. 12 mpx or, minus more, screen size (3-4 mpx approx). Obviously 100% pixel-peeping is different.
My d800 (36 mpx camera - perfect condition) is noisy even at 800 Iso when pixel-peeping but that's not a real problem. Quite the same behaviour as d7100 (24 mpx apsc camera) perhaps a full f/stop difference ...that was unexpected for me but so it is ( I supposed much better performance of the FF). I don't know if newer cameras are better, I suppose so. These days I'm testing apple vs oranges: Iso 800-3200 pictures taken with my Fuji xt1 (16mpx non bayer) vs Nikon d800 - NIkon lenses on both .
Note: we're talking of noise, not DR or color response: APSC needs more PP as far as the Iso grows.

**UncleVanya** · 11-11-2018, 08:14 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bm75

Sorry, I have no evidences because I never shot the same scene in controlled conditions with both 24 mp and 36 mp. Plus I'm not a scientist....So you're free to consider my words as BS.

.
From my prints I see no big differences at high Isos (I don't print more than 20*30 cm over 1600 Iso, no matter the native format). And if I resize the photos to be seen on screen, I see no big differences at lower resolutions, like, i.e. 12 mpx or, minus more, screen size (3-4 mpx approx). Obviously 100% pixel-peeping is different.
My d800 (36 mpx camera - perfect condition) is noisy even at 800 Iso when pixel-peeping but that's not a real problem. Quite the same behaviour as d7100 (24 mpx apsc camera) perhaps a full f/stop difference ...that was unexpected for me but so it is ( I supposed much better performance of the FF). I don't know if newer cameras are better, I suppose so. These days I'm testing apple vs oranges: Iso 800-3200 pictures taken with my Fuji xt1 (16mpx non bayer) vs Nikon d800 - NIkon lenses on both .
Note: we're talking of noise, not DR or color response: APSC needs more PP as far as the Iso grows.

Fair enough. I appreciate the detailed answer. From what I have seen the newer generation FF 36mp cameras are doing a bit better but then again so are the newest APSC. I would expect around 2 stops difference but I'm not sure that's what real world noise tests are showing between something like the KP and the K1-mkII.

11-09-2018, 08:44 PM - 9 Likes	#1
Brooke Meyer Guest	No Excuses K3II + Sigma 100-300/4 at f4 and 300MM. ISO 8000, 12,800 and 16,000 respectively. 3D Project Jazz Dance Company, 2 Nov 2018, Cary Arts Center, Cary, NC.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
May 1st, 2012 A Day Without the 99% No Work – No School – No Housework – No Shopping	jogiba	General Talk	4	05-02-2012 02:48 AM
12 Excuses for Shooting Photos for Free — and Why They’re Bogus	Pablom	Photographic Technique	29	08-24-2010 04:01 PM
Blah Blah Blah BS Tiger Woods and the excuses.	Peter Zack	General Talk	17	02-19-2010 04:14 PM
26 Handy Excuses for Missing the Shot	bbluesman	General Talk	2	12-31-2009 04:19 PM

11-09-2018, 10:01 PM	#2
joelbolden Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: Stormstown, Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 605	Great shots. I like the last one best.....great lighting/contrast.

11-09-2018, 10:14 PM	#3
PKMike Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 628	Yes. The middle one. Lighting, contrast, detail. OOF vs in. Nice!

11-10-2018, 04:39 AM	#4
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,239	Pentax K-1 II would be even better for those kind of shots. Why not use a Pentax K-1 II ?

11-10-2018, 04:57 AM - 1 Like	#5
macman24054 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Axton, VA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 461	Great shots. I agree no excuses for pushing the ISO.

11-10-2018, 05:05 AM	#6
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,446	Nice control of noise.

11-10-2018, 10:09 AM	#7
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,239	Originally posted by Brooke Meyer I've rented and used a 645Z and the files are wonderful. For most purposes, they're also overkill. If I had a client that specified it, I'd simply add the rental cost to the Invoice. None of my clients do. What they do tell me is that they're happy with my work. Ok ,makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

11-10-2018, 10:42 AM	#8
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	Beautiful pictures. I understand your point, for the most I agree.

11-11-2018, 12:09 AM - 1 Like	#9
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by biz-engineer Pentax K-1 II would be even better for those kind of shots. Why not use a Pentax K-1 II ? I guess I am a bit confused as to how a K-1 would improve those shots. They already look pretty good to me. No offense intended to the full frame crowd but Pentax's APS-C cameras are still awesome tools. Brooke is obviously a very, very capable artist.

11-11-2018, 12:52 AM - 1 Like	#10
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,239	Originally posted by Pioneer I guess I am a bit confused as to how a K-1 would improve those shots. They already look pretty good to me. Indeed those images look very good, especially tones and subject composition. That said, the smaller images, the better they look, that's why people think smartphones are so good at taking pictures displayed over 2" x 4" they do look good. So it all comes down to display/print size that we are aiming at. ISO 8000 starting to become a real challenge, due to the reduced DR, you really have to be spot-on with the exposure.

11-11-2018, 11:11 AM	#11
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	36 mpx FF raws are noisy... from 800 iso on, But after resizing to 24 mpx they look much much better and comparable with those from 24 mpx FF or APSC cameras. At lower resolutions and small devices, the difference is negligible. IMHO.

11-11-2018, 01:09 PM	#12
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,446	Originally posted by bm75 36 mpx FF raws are noisy... from 800 iso on, But after resizing to 24 mpx they look much much better and comparable with those from 24 mpx FF or APSC cameras. At lower resolutions and small devices, the difference is negligible. IMHO. ????? This doesn't match what I have read here and elsewhere. Also 24 MP FF is notably lower noise than 24 mp APSC. I don't see how lumping them together makes sense. 24mp APSC is similar in pixel pitch to 50mp and if anything is much noisier than 36mp FF. I can see how 24mp FF would be lower in noise. I'd love to see some supporting evidence for the 24mp APSC being lower in noise than 36mp FF.

11-11-2018, 03:11 PM	#13
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	Originally posted by UncleVanya 'd love to see some supporting evidence for the 24mp APSC being lower in noise than 36mp FF. Sorry, I have no evidences because I never shot the same scene in controlled conditions with both 24 mp and 36 mp. Plus I'm not a scientist....So you're free to consider my words as BS. . From my prints I see no big differences at high Isos (I don't print more than 20*30 cm over 1600 Iso, no matter the native format). And if I resize the photos to be seen on screen, I see no big differences at lower resolutions, like, i.e. 12 mpx or, minus more, screen size (3-4 mpx approx). Obviously 100% pixel-peeping is different. My d800 (36 mpx camera - perfect condition) is noisy even at 800 Iso when pixel-peeping but that's not a real problem. Quite the same behaviour as d7100 (24 mpx apsc camera) perhaps a full f/stop difference ...that was unexpected for me but so it is ( I supposed much better performance of the FF). I don't know if newer cameras are better, I suppose so. These days I'm testing apple vs oranges: Iso 800-3200 pictures taken with my Fuji xt1 (16mpx non bayer) vs Nikon d800 - NIkon lenses on both . Note: we're talking of noise, not DR or color response: APSC needs more PP as far as the Iso grows.

11-11-2018, 08:14 PM - 1 Like	#14
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,446	Originally posted by bm75 Sorry, I have no evidences because I never shot the same scene in controlled conditions with both 24 mp and 36 mp. Plus I'm not a scientist....So you're free to consider my words as BS. . From my prints I see no big differences at high Isos (I don't print more than 20*30 cm over 1600 Iso, no matter the native format). And if I resize the photos to be seen on screen, I see no big differences at lower resolutions, like, i.e. 12 mpx or, minus more, screen size (3-4 mpx approx). Obviously 100% pixel-peeping is different. My d800 (36 mpx camera - perfect condition) is noisy even at 800 Iso when pixel-peeping but that's not a real problem. Quite the same behaviour as d7100 (24 mpx apsc camera) perhaps a full f/stop difference ...that was unexpected for me but so it is ( I supposed much better performance of the FF). I don't know if newer cameras are better, I suppose so. These days I'm testing apple vs oranges: Iso 800-3200 pictures taken with my Fuji xt1 (16mpx non bayer) vs Nikon d800 - NIkon lenses on both . Note: we're talking of noise, not DR or color response: APSC needs more PP as far as the Iso grows. Fair enough. I appreciate the detailed answer. From what I have seen the newer generation FF 36mp cameras are doing a bit better but then again so are the newest APSC. I would expect around 2 stops difference but I'm not sure that's what real world noise tests are showing between something like the KP and the K1-mkII.