[bertwert]

Eh, 6400 is very usable for A4 or smaller sizes with some additional processing. The K-1 kicks it up a notch by letting you go up to ISO 10-12K with careful processing. But it's obviously worse than lower ISO and it doesn't let you get away with a lot of cropping.


All said, a noisy shot shown in a smallish screen is better than no shot any day of the week, IMO.

I agree that 6400 is usable. It looks fairly similar to around 1600 on my current camera - which is my max limit, but an extra 2 stops would be nice... I try to shoot with as low ISO as possible, but with wildlife and a (relatively) slow lens that's not always possible... I just find there that you start losing detail, and it gets distracting...

Also, almost every image looks better on a smaller screen... This is pretty decent, but then open the full size image, and noise is there... did my best with some noise-reduction, but it just smooths out too many details...

[bertwert]

I routinely take photographs of squirrels and birds around 8000 with no noticeable noise and no noticeable loss of detail.

I'm not saying that the high ISO performance isn't great on the KP, it is!

It's just that statements like this aren't correct. At ISO 8000 there is noticeable noise and loss of detail...

[Serkevan]

I agree that 6400 is usable. It looks fairly similar to around 1600 on my current camera - which is my max limit, but an extra 2 stops would be nice... I try to shoot with as low ISO as possible, but with wildlife and a (relatively) slow lens that's not always possible... I just find there that you start losing detail, and it gets distracting...

Also, almost every image looks better on a smaller screen... This is pretty decent, but then open the full size image, and noise is there... did my best with some noise-reduction, but it just smooths out too many details...

I know, I know. Gosh, I could have sworn I have more high-ISO shots but apparently all of them are portraits of my friends and I'm not comfortable uploading any picture of an identifiable person.

EDIT: There, just grabbed something cropped from one of the photos. It's a 100% crop from a phot at equivalent ISO 6400 (Shot as ISO 5000 from TAv, +0.33 EV in post to make it a nice normal stop ) with the default 25 Chroma NR applied during editing in LR; luminance NR is at 0. Considering this isn't even from the actually focused part (*slightly* OOF as you can see) and it would lead to a 1 meter-wide print I'm not even mad.

[bertwert]

I know, I know. Gosh, I could have sworn I have more high-ISO shots but apparently all of them are portraits of my friends and I'm not comfortable uploading any picture of an identifiable person.

EDIT: There, just grabbed something cropped from one of the photos. It's a 100% crop from a phot at equivalent ISO 6400 (Shot as ISO 5000 from TAv, +0.33 EV in post to make it a nice normal stop ) with the default 25 Chroma NR applied during editing in LR; luminance NR is at 0. Considering this isn't even from the actually focused part (*slightly* OOF as you can see) and it would lead to a 1 meter-wide print I'm not even mad.

I'd say that's pretty good, I'm just disagreeing with people saying that there is no noise at those ISO levels... (and this edit makes more sense than the blabbering about Dutch and English word lists )

[monochrome]

Oh for goodness sake. Anyone can talk about anything here if it isn’t offensive.

[Serkevan]

I'd say that's pretty good, I'm just disagreeing with people saying that there is no noise at those ISO levels... (and this edit makes more sense than the blabbering about Dutch and English word lists )

I was betrayed by the darn translation extension again, and I see it didn't go unnoticed . It doesn't show that it pasted something until *after* you submit the post.

And yeah, I absolutely agree - not even the K-1 can keep being the ISO 100 detail monster at 6400, but it holds up incredibly well: from that wedding shot I sent the bride and groom ~40 photos taken at ISOs of 3200-10000. I wouldn't have been able to take any of those with the K-7; not only because of ISO but also because the K-1 AF didn't care much about focusing in LED light in the middle of the night, it just kept on trucking. And while obviously the fine stuff is lost, there is still a lot of detail left at an ISO that ten years ago was hard to even reach.

I posted the crop just as an example of how good things are nowadays - the K-1 is 4 years old now, but it gives any camera of today in its price range a good IQ slap, while giving other substantially more expensive cameras a good run for their money.

[Parallax]

Oh for goodness sake. Anyone can talk about anything here if it isn’t offensive.

Cleanup on aisle 5 completed.

[bertwert]

Part of your problem is in the use of the words "full size" and "noticeable".
What is being focused on?
How do you detect "noise"?
I think people are focusing their attention on the leaves when they should be looking at the forest.

Have a look at these images here, taken from the PF KP review:

ISO 100:


ISO 6400:



You cannot honestly say that there is no noticeable noise (seen over the whole image) and no loss of detail (best seen in the door and around the leaves).

[Serkevan]

Personally, I'm of the idea that, yes, high ISO should be avoided when possible and it does noticeably impact quality - but it doesn't necessarily make the images captured less enjoyable and certainly not unusable. It's more of an "oh well" or "ah, shame, would have been even better".

[bertwert]

Cleanup on aisle 5 completed.

Hey, I was winning that argument (in my opinion, that is)

[Parallax]

Hey, I was winning that argument (in my opinion, that is)

[reh321]

Have a look at these images here, taken from the PF KP review:

ISO 100:


ISO 6400:
You cannot honestly say that thePentaxForums.com → General Pentax Forums → Pentare is no noticeable noise (seen over the whole image) and no loss of detail (best seen in the door and around the leaves).

From my experience, I have taken photos at 8000 which have no noticeable noise in pictures of a flock of flying birds, where I define "noticeable" by I have just one chance at the picture so I do not have another photograph to compare to - I look at the one photograph and see if there is any visible noise or any detail that is clearly missing from the photograph.

[Zygonyx]

Too bad you missed its ISO=12000 performance in 'normal' shooting - that was "groundbreaking" for me.

And still unsurpassed today in APS-C.

[bxf]

The level of visible noise depends on the quality of the light, not only on the ISO in use. If you're using high ISO in order to achieve usable shutter speed in reasonable, but not dim, light, the noise may in fact be less of an issue.

[Zygonyx]

Exact