[Venom3300]

My first DSLR was a Nikon d3000, and it was good to ISO 800. My second camera was a Sony A65 and it was good to ISO 1600. My third camera was a Pentax K-5 which is good to ISO 3200 (I'm talking printable).

I've printed well exposed ISO 8,000 images off of my K-5 at 8"*10" with a little post work NR....

[jatrax]

I've printed well exposed ISO 8,000 images off of my K-5 at 8"*10" with a little post work NR....

You folks must use much better software than I do. I'm not satisfied with anything over 400 on the k-5 and 200 on the k-3.

[rawr]

I'm not satisfied with anything over 400 on the k-5 and 200 on the k-3.

Wow. Your standards are very strict.
Is that for printing very large, or just general web quality images?

[normhead]

I'm not satisfied with anything over 400 on the k-5 and 200 on the k-3.

With the understanding I may have to do some work in post I'l go 640 K-3 and 800 on the K-5, but I'll use 1600 on either in a pinch. There definitely isn't full stop difference between a K-3 and a K-5. The reduction in pixel width for a K-5 is almost 5000 pixels, and for a K-3 it's 6000.

However, after looking at the days work with images shot at 400 ISO, I have to admit, there's grain to be dealt with on those K-3 images.

You may not see it on this image, you won't see it at 2560x1440 but pixel peeping you can't miss it. I'm going to have to print to see if it has any effect on prints....

[jatrax]

Wow. Your standards are very strict. Is that for printing very large, or just general web quality images?

That is for paid work. Which is either prints or digital downloads. Downloads are all examined at one to one and no visible noise is acceptable. I have to meet those standards for downloads so I use the same standards for print work. Print might be (probably is) less demanding but no reason to work to two different standards.

For personal things my standards are not so high.

I am using the NR functionality of Lightroom, perhaps there is better software available?

[johan kruger]

I am looking forward to a new Pentax FF if the noise is much lower and with a nice big bump in resolution I would be sold.

[Mistral75]

(...)

I am using the NR functionality of Lightroom, perhaps there is better software available?

You shoud try DxO and their 'Prime' processing. It's quite lengthy (depending on your computer) but results are astonishing. A complete but time-limited version can be downloaded for free from their website.

[cali92rs]

You shoud try DxO and their 'Prime' processing. It's quite lengthy (depending on your computer) but results are astonishing. A complete but time-limited version can be downloaded for free from their website.

I am very impressed with DxO...but damn does it choke my computer. I use Capture One Pro and LR 5, and both fly on my computer. DxO is MUCH slower, to the point of being completely unenjoyable to work with. I don't mind the slower processing at the end, it is the updated rendering after each change that kills me.

[VoiceOfReason]

I did score a copy of DxO when they were giving it out for free a while back, but after activating it haven't used it. Is it that good? I doubt my desktop machine will have a problem with it. It is almost 3 years old, but the specs are still decent. 6 cores at 4.2ghz (overclocked Phenom II x6), 16gb ddr3 ram, and the rest of the specs are pretty good too.

[jatrax]

You shoud try DxO and their 'Prime' processing. It's quite lengthy (depending on your computer) but results are astonishing.

Thanks, I'll give it a look. I try to stick with Lightroom as much as possible, I just do not have the time to learn and use another software program. I'm still learning new stuff in LR after 3 years. If I move into doing different work though it sounds like using a good NR program is necessary.

[Mistral75]

I did score a copy of DxO when they were giving it out for free a while back, but after activating it haven't used it. Is it that good? I doubt my desktop machine will have a problem with it. It is almost 3 years old, but the specs are still decent. 6 cores at 4.2ghz (overclocked Phenom II x6), 16gb ddr3 ram, and the rest of the specs are pretty good too.

The 'prime' processing is only available with DxO 9 and 10; I presume the one you downloaded for free is DxO 8.

[VoiceOfReason]

The 'prime' processing is only available with DxO 9 and 10; I presume the one you downloaded for free is DxO 8.

I have no idea. I will check as soon as I am in my home and have my computer back up and running.

[Mikesul]

I did score a copy of DxO when they were giving it out for free a while back, but after activating it haven't used it. Is it that good? I doubt my desktop machine will have a problem with it. It is almost 3 years old, but the specs are still decent. 6 cores at 4.2ghz (overclocked Phenom II x6), 16gb ddr3 ram, and the rest of the specs are pretty good too.

DxO is very good but I find I do not use it as much as Lightroom.

[VoiceOfReason]

TBH I normally use Photoshop CS 5.5.

[Mikesul]

With the understanding I may have to do some work in post I'l go 640 K-3 and 800 on the K-5, but I'll use 1600 on either in a pinch. There definitely isn't full stop difference between a K-3 and a K-5. The reduction in pixel width for a K-5 is almost 5000 pixels, and for a K-3 it's 6000.

However, after looking at the days work with images shot at 400 ISO, I have to admit, there's grain to be dealt with on those K-3 images.

You may not see it on this image, you won't see it at 2560x1440 but pixel peeping you can't miss it. I'm going to have to print to see if it has any effect on prints....

But isn't it easy to deal with in Lightroom, DxO, Topaz etc?