[normhead]

Base ISO is still the best... I only use up to 800 ISO when I need more shutter speed.

[reh321]

But theses habits are not really that necessary anymore:
- Iso performance is much better now. For anything at iso 800 or less is it almost impossible to see any reduction in quality except looking at 100% crops.
- you can check and change all parameters at any moment and review them all over the place: top screen, back screen and on OVF.

You are correct, but I don't see your point. I am a very methodical photographer; I set everything and then check several times. Personally, I have never had a good experience changing something "on the fly". Personally, I prefer a camera that limits what I can change with fingers that might accidentally touch a switch. Various persons here have said what they want in a camera design based on how they use it; my habits are different, so my needs are different, and my preferred design is different.

[pacu]

If it ain't broke don't fix it, still sounds true. Why people want to throw away decades of evolution in camera ergonomics ? Just use a go pro, smartphone or whatever floats your boat.

[Zygonyx]

Why people want to throw away decades of evolution in camera ergonomics ?

Because they think rather than they do.
They live increasingly under the influence of our so common, so invasive and so dangerous abstractive world.

[Nicolas06]

Base ISO is still the best... I only use up to 800 ISO when I need more shutter speed.

Sure, but this shouldn't be at the expense of a wrong apperture or shutter speed. In particular in the 100-800 range were the performance is great.

[Nicolas06]

You are correct, but I don't see your point. I am a very methodical photographer; I set everything and then check several times. Personally, I have never had a good experience changing something "on the fly". Personally, I prefer a camera that limits what I can change with fingers that might accidentally touch a switch. Various persons here have said what they want in a camera design based on how they use it; my habits are different, so my needs are different, and my preferred design is different.

No issue with what you do. But the idea of the classic electronical controls are if it can do the most (direct control at anytime at what you do with instant response) it also do the less (if you don't touch the settings they dont change).

[reh321]

No issue with what you do. But the idea of the classic electronical controls are if it can do the most (direct control at anytime at what you do with instant response) it also do the less (if you don't touch the settings they dont change).

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Several of the first pictures I took with my Q-7 weren't what I had in mind because that funky "Quick Dial" on the front had turned somehow, and I hadn't noticed somehow. I eventually used the menu to assigned it to "Focus Peaking" as a way of neutralizing it. If I can use the menu system to neutralize, or turn off, a dial / button, that is OK, but anything that might actually be under a finger reduces the comfort of my hold, so it is still a negative.

[normhead]

Sure, but this shouldn't be at the expense of a wrong apperture or shutter speed. In particular in the 100-800 range were the performance is great.

If I have time, I'll take 50 images at 100 ISO before I go to a higher ISO regardless of circumstances, at the Aperture I want. Getting lucky at base ISO can be better than a sure thing at 800 ISO. Never give up on the best shot with the maximum dynamic range. In lower light with less DR than the camera can handle, I regularly move up to 400 ISO. If your histogram doesn't fill the back screen, 200 or 400 ISO isn't going to hurt you. At 800 ISO on a k-3 you're pushing it, especially if you want to crop.

On a lot of action shots, the activity makes the image and you can go higher, 800, even 1600 or 3200 ISO, because it isn't IQ that makes the image, but if absolute IQ is the object, those ISOs are impractical.

[jatrax]

Getting lucky at base ISO can be better than a sure thing at 800 ISO. Never give up on the best shot with the maximum dynamic range. In lower light with less DR than the camera can handle, I regularly move up to 400 ISO. If your histogram doesn't fill the back screen, 200 or 400 ISO isn't going to hurt you. At 800 ISO on a k-3 you're pushing it, especially if you want to crop.

+1 I hear all kinds of glowing praises for ISO 1600, 3200 and on up, but that doesn't work for me. On the K-3 ISO 400 is OK, ISO 800 not really worth taking the shot. If I need the tripod to make ISO 100 work then I use the tripod. I will use ISO 200 if I have to but beyond that, not worth it. That's just me and the work I do, YMMV. And if anyone can use ISO 3200 and get good shots, then my hats off to them..

[rawr]

ISO 800 not really worth taking the shot.

I think it is a real pity that the K-3 turned out this way, even if it's just a perception. The flagship APS-C should have made users more confident of being able to produce better high-ISO results than the predecessor camera. But it didn't happen.

Hopefully the full-frame will emphatically solve this problem.

[jatrax]

I think it is a real pity that the K-3 turned out this way, even if it's just a perception. The flagship APS-C should have made users more confident of being able to produce better high-ISO results than the predecessor camera. But it didn't happen. Hopefully the full-frame will emphatically solve this problem.

Well, I never used anything over ISO 200 on the k-5 I find the k-3 is actually a bit better (for my work) than the k-5 because you can clean up the noise a bit better. I'm sure for different things high ISO is fine. It is just not for me. And I seriously doubt I would be using high ISO on a FF either. The work I do requires absolutely clean images to pass so I don't take risks with the ISO.

[reh321]

I think it is a real pity that the K-3 turned out this way, even if it's just a perception. The flagship APS-C should have made users more confident of being able to produce better high-ISO results than the predecessor camera. But it didn't happen.

Hopefully the full-frame will emphatically solve this problem.

Frankly, I don't see a problem here.

For most of my time as an amateur photographer, I used Kodachrome 25 film. Having learned to do well using ISO=25, even ISO=100 seems almost like luxury to me. My standard lens for the Pentax Super Program I used for eleven years was a Pentax-A 50mm f/1.9 lens. ISO=25 forced me to learn certain methods and procedures which I maintain to this day (which is one of the reasons I feel mostly lost without a viewfinder). For example, consider the picture below. I still clearly remember taking that picture, even though that was twenty years ago. We were crossing the farmlands of Iowa on our way to vacationing in the Black Hills. The weather was not nice, quite dark, but I knew that the Rock Island railroad had gone out of business, and I had no reason to believe that station would still be there, even if I ever returned to the area (which I haven't, BTW). So, with my family impatiently waiting in the car, I walked around the station to determine the best view, and then measured lighting a few feet from the station. Returning to the spot I had chosen to take the picture from, I bracketed three shots; in this case, I was already at the maximum aperture, so I had to vary the shutter speed from slow to even slower. Part of my routine was mailing film from a post office to Kodak as soon as I had finished the roll. In this case, the slides were waiting for me when we got home, and I was delighted to see how well the middle shot had turned out.





The settings were 1/8-th second at f/1.9. If I could do that hand-held, using ISO=25 and no SR, then surely ISO=100 shouldn't be insurmountable using SR. Remember that Pentax is said to be aiming at landscape, portrait, and similar uses, where tripod would normally be an option. One camera cannot meet every need exactly, but there is no reason to doubt that the K-1 will be just right for its target audience.

[jatrax]

Frankly, I don't see a problem here.

The problem is this is not 1985 and the market tends to demand some improvement over Kodachrome. I'm glad you are happy with what you are doing and your deliberate process. But not everyone works that way. Had I come upon the scene above I would have used a tripod and likely shot brackets for HDR. I would have come home with probably 10 - 15 usable shots, some from HDR brackets, some not.

I'm delighted for you that you can shoot at 1/8 second hand held. I can't, not if I want to blow it up to 20x30. So good, reasonably high ISO is a necessity (for me). But more important than higher ISO without noise is a wider dynamic range. And as you go higher with ISO you start loosing dynamic range.

[reh321]

The problem is this is not 1985 and the market tends to demand some improvement over Kodachrome. I'm glad you are happy with what you are doing and your deliberate process. But not everyone works that way. Had I come upon the scene above I would have used a tripod and likely shot brackets for HDR. I would have come home with probably 10 - 15 usable shots, some from HDR brackets, some not.

I'm delighted for you that you can shoot at 1/8 second hand held. I can't, not if I want to blow it up to 20x30. So good, reasonably high ISO is a necessity (for me). But more important than higher ISO without noise is a wider dynamic range. And as you go higher with ISO you start losing dynamic range.

The sentence I made bold italics disagrees with the others. If you're using a tripod, you don't need higher ISO - in fact, you don't want higher ISO, because you'll lose dynamic range and/or gain noise. As I said at the end, the type of photographers Pentax is said to be targeting are the type who do use tripods and for whom low noise / high dynamic range are important.

So, I repeat my first statement:

Frankly, I don't see a problem here!!

(why does every one seem to want to find problems??)



Note: 20 years ago was 1995, not 1985 - but that doesn't really matter

[Nicolas06]

reh321, a tripod remove hand shake. It doesn't remove blur from subject movement.It is also forbidden in many places (many museums, churchs, train stations...). A tripod is not always pratical. Apparently you didn't use one for your old train station shoot.

Back in 1996 you were happy with your old train station shoot. The shoot doesn't look very sharp. A today camera would do better at iso 800. Is it an issue? No. But if you were happy to call this 1995 shot a keeper many people shooting the same subject, same condition will be happy to call this shoot a keeper at iso 400 + SR. They could also decide to use an even wider apperture (as anyway most of the side of the house are OOF) to accentuate the deph of field effect as it is already visible anyway.

Sure you can shoot always iso 100, no issue with that, everybody does what he like and most of the time shooting iso 100 is not some sort of exploit. You can basically shoot at iso 100 most of the day without doing any effort. But on the occasion accepting to bump up iso give better results because you have much more freedom in term of shutter speed and of apperture. And of course you don't need that much anymore to have always a tripod with you in case of..

You'd need to look at 100% crop to find any issue with the high iso on this one:

iso 1250, 1/50s, f/2.4



The noise from this iso 800 shoot is completely indistinguible. Sure I could likely slowed down speed by at least half but remember the glass is rotating.

f/2, iso800, 1/640s.



And that's a 3200 iso shoot. Far from being sharp, but it wouldn't have been that practical to use a tripod as I didn't have one, but sure the effect would have been interresting in that case. In pratice I wouldn't have taken the shoot.

1/10s, f/4 (wide open, DA15), 3200isos