[robc009]

Hello!

I'm new to these forums, and I've been considering buying a Pentax K50 as my first DSLR camera. Is the K50 good at low light photography? I'd love to see your low light photos! if you could mention which lens you used that would be great too!

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Yes, the K-50 would be a great choice. The sensor is several years old now, but as far as I know there has not been significant improvement in APS-C sensor performance when it comes to dynamic range or noise. At least not enough increase to justify spending the extra money. That's why I'm still using my K-30, which came before the K-50 but is basically the same camera.

Since you're asking about the K-50, I assume you're on a budget. So a good budget lens for low light would be the Pentax 50mm which sells new for a little over $100. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 would also be a good choice if you want to go wider.

As for sample images, here's a series of ISO images I took when I first got my K-30:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/151-pentax-k-30-k-50/195322-pentax-k-30-i...size-pics.html

I did a couple test scenes...one in good light from a window during the day, and the other in my basement where there are no windows and the lighting is not too bright.

[bobbotron]

Hello!

I'm new to these forums, and I've been considering buying a Pentax K50 as my first DSLR camera. Is the K50 good at low light photography? I'd love to see your low light photos! if you could mention which lens you used that would be great too!

I think it would work quite well, the K50 is a nice camera! I think the secret to good low light photos, when possible, is to set your camera to a low ISO, a somewhat small aperture and a sturdy tripod. The quality you can get even out of so so gear is amazing when you put a bit of time into it.

[C_Jones]

Long exposure shutter speed while the camera is on a tripod will allow you to get well lit landscape shots in low light. Low light action shots will require a faster shutter speed and usually lower F stop number or higher ISO number. The K-50 utilizes all of the basic DSLR techniques, so it would do what you need to approach what you mentioned. Flashes come in handy in other situations, where you may need light other than using a tripod and you find your settings do not provide enough light without a flash.

---

Last edited by C_Jones; 12-08-2016 at 02:20 PM.

[UncleVanya]

K-70 may be better but I'm not certain as to how much difference there is.

[severalsnakes]

AFAIK, the sensors in the K-30 and K-50 are the same 16mp jobbers. I went from the K-30 to the K-S2 and the sensor upgrade immensely impacted lowlight performance and noise at high ISOs for the better. If you can swing the K-S1/S2 or K-70, you're going to have a much more capable machine for low light.

[robc009]

Yes, the K-50 would be a great choice. The sensor is several years old now, but as far as I know there has not been significant improvement in APS-C sensor performance when it comes to dynamic range or noise. At least not enough increase to justify spending the extra money. That's why I'm still using my K-30, which came before the K-50 but is basically the same camera.

Since you're asking about the K-50, I assume you're on a budget. So a good budget lens for low light would be the Pentax 50mm which sells new for a little over $100. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 would also be a good choice if you want to go wider.

As for sample images, here's a series of ISO images I took when I first got my K-30:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/151-pentax-k-30-k-50/195322-pentax-k-30-i...size-pics.html

I did a couple test scenes...one in good light from a window during the day, and the other in my basement where there are no windows and the lighting is not too bright.

Ok thank you! both of those lenses seem good and affordable. Also thank you to everyone else that's replied! It helps a lot

[Edgar_in_Indy]

AFAIK, the sensors in the K-30 and K-50 are the same 16mp jobbers. I went from the K-30 to the K-S2 and the sensor upgrade immensely impacted lowlight performance and noise at high ISOs for the better. If you can swing the K-S1/S2 or K-70, you're going to have a much more capable machine for low light.

I'm surprised to hear that you noticed such a large difference going to the KS-2. I'm always interested in new cameras, and when I've checked out sample images from newer APS-C cameras over the years since I bought my K-30, I haven't seen much of an improvement in image quality or noise performance compared to my K-30.

I also like to look at DXoMark sensor scores since they have always tracked very closely with the relative performance I've seen from the numerous cameras I've owned over the years.

DXoMark hasn't tested/rated the KS-2, but they did test the KS-1 which uses the same 20MP sensor as the KS-2. And it actually scores just below the K-30 (78 vs 79), with the KS-1 scoring 1061 in low light performance vs 1129 for the K-30.

They also haven't tested the K-70 with its 24MP sensor, but the 24MP sensor in the K-30 barely nudges out the 16MP sensor of the K-30/50, with a score of 80 vs 79.

Long story short, I think the K-50 is still among the best choices in its price range for low light performance.

[UncleVanya]

I'm surprised to hear that you noticed such a large difference going to the KS-2. I'm always interested in new cameras, and when I've checked out sample images from newer APS-C cameras over the years since I bought my K-30, I haven't seen much of an improvement in image quality or noise performance compared to my K-30.

I also like to look at DXoMark sensor scores since they have always tracked very closely with the relative performance I've seen from the numerous cameras I've owned over the years.

DXoMark hasn't tested/rated the KS-2, but they did test the KS-1 which uses the same 20MP sensor as the KS-2. And it actually scores just below the K-30 (78 vs 79), with the KS-1 scoring 1061 in low light performance vs 1129 for the K-30.

They also haven't tested the K-70 with its 24MP sensor, but the 24MP sensor in the K-30 barely nudges out the 16MP sensor of the K-30/50, with a score of 80 vs 79.

Long story short, I think the K-50 is still among the best choices in its price range for low light performance.

The K-70 per the recent PF review outperforms the K-3II in low light. That was my baseline data for saying that it outperforms the K-50. The K-3 just barely outperforms the K-50 unless you downsample in which case it might be better than expressed via Dxomark. In any case that should not be a knock on the K-50. It is quite capable in low light. The K-70 may be slightly better based on what I am reading.

---------- Post added 12-08-16 at 02:22 PM ----------

Ok thank you! both of those lenses seem good and affordable. Also thank you to everyone else that's replied! It helps a lot

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is not nearly as cheap as the DA 50 - did you look up that lens or the DA 35 f/2.4? The Sigma is more than 4x more expensive than the DA 50 and more than 3.5x more expensive than the DA 35 f/2.4. The Sigma is wider and better for low light than the DA 35 f/2.4 but I wanted to be sure that the affordable tag was assigned correctly - to me the Sigma is not a particularly affordable short prime (nor all that expensive either).

[Edgar_in_Indy]

The K-70 per the recent PF review outperforms the K-3II in low light. That was my baseline data for saying that it outperforms the K-50. The K-3 just barely outperforms the K-50 unless you downsample in which case it might be better than expressed via Dxomark. In any case that should not be a knock on the K-50. It is quite capable in low light. The K-70 may be slightly better based on what I am reading.

Isn't the K-70 the one that features 14-bit readout, instead of 12-bit as most other entry/mid-level Pentax DSLR's always have? Maybe that's part of it. It'll be interesting to see what the DXoMark tests show.

[UncleVanya]

Isn't the K-70 the one that features 14-bit readout, instead of 12-bit as most other entry/mid-level Pentax DSLR's always have? Maybe that's part of it. It'll be interesting to see what the DXoMark tests show.

Yup. That's my understanding.

[honey bo bo]

As far as A Lens for low light the Pentax 55-300 WR I have found to be excellent. The 55-300 Non WR can be bought for less and is the same other wise. See My Flickr, Gallery, & Albums for Low light Pics almost all with 55-300WR & some with the Kit lens 18-55 WR. The Moon shots are done with a Bigma (expensive) but can be done similar with the 55-300 and stretched.

[robc009]

The K-70 per the recent PF review outperforms the K-3II in low light. That was my baseline data for saying that it outperforms the K-50. The K-3 just barely outperforms the K-50 unless you downsample in which case it might be better than expressed via Dxomark. In any case that should not be a knock on the K-50. It is quite capable in low light. The K-70 may be slightly better based on what I am reading.

---------- Post added 12-08-16 at 02:22 PM ----------



The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is not nearly as cheap as the DA 50 - did you look up that lens or the DA 35 f/2.4? The Sigma is more than 4x more expensive than the DA 50 and more than 3.5x more expensive than the DA 35 f/2.4. The Sigma is wider and better for low light than the DA 35 f/2.4 but I wanted to be sure that the affordable tag was assigned correctly - to me the Sigma is not a particularly affordable short prime (nor all that expensive either).

oops! my mistake, I just had a quick check at the price and you're right, I'd probably get the DA 50 instead of the Sigma lens.

[UncleVanya]

As far as A Lens for low light the Pentax 55-300 WR I have found to be excellent. The 55-300 Non WR can be bought for less and is the same other wise. See My Flickr, Gallery, & Albums for Low light Pics almost all with 55-300WR & some with the Kit lens 18-55 WR.

This is an unusual recommendation. The screw drive versions of the 55-300 are f/4 at the short end and f/5.8 at the long end. Typically few would suggest that this is a good choice for a low light lens.

[robc009]

On another note, I just read somewhere on the forums about the K50/K30 models having an aperture motor problem? Is this something I should be worried about?