[Rondec]

+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..

The problem is what you are shooting. I assume you are shooting landscape and trying to maximize dynamic range. The biggest thing you lose as you increase iso is dynamic range. On the other hand, if you are taking photos of moving things, sometimes you have to have a decent shutter speed or you just end up with a messy blur.

I have no problems using a tripod and I too prefer to shoot low iso, but when I am with my family or in dark museums, I often have no choice but to push the iso up. I try not to go over 3200, but the results are fairly decent as long as I don't have to push the shadows hard afterward.

This is iso 1600 on the K-01



iso 3200 on the K-01 with 16-50 at f4 and 1/30 second

[jatrax]

The problem is what you are shooting.

Not exactly. The problem is who I am shooting for. For family or personal shots sure ISO 1600 even 3200 is fine especially for internet size images. But the agencies I sell to simply do not accept anything with noise or noticeable noise reduction. So I work under those restrictions.

I really did not want to get into a "I can shoot great at high ISO" discussion. I am sure you and others can. I can't, not because of the camera but because of the client. That's why I said "it doesn't work for me". I'm sorry I even jumped in, because I was not trying to say anything against the camera or high ISO shooting. Just that FOR ME it doesn't work.

[Nicolas06]

Not exactly. The problem is who I am shooting for. For family or personal shots sure ISO 1600 even 3200 is fine especially for internet size images. But the agencies I sell to simply do not accept anything with noise or noticeable noise reduction. So I work under those restrictions.

I really did not want to get into a "I can shoot great at high ISO" discussion. I am sure you and others can. I can't, not because of the camera but because of the client. That's why I said "it doesn't work for me". I'm sorry I even jumped in, because I was not trying to say anything against the camera or high ISO shooting. Just that FOR ME it doesn't work.

But then that's a different story... It is a bit like client asking for FF or whatever else. if they pay for it why not?

[reh321]

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 aperture (as anyway most of the side of the house are OOF) to accentuate the depth 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 indistinguishable. 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 interesting in that case. In practice I wouldn't have taken the shoot.

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

We seem to have a failure to communicate here.

(1) that image is a "keeper" because I cannot replace/replicate it, nor can I replace/replicate our wedding pictures, nor can I replace/replicate the pictures of our daughters when they were young. In general, the fact that a modern camera could take better pictures if it could be transported back to some time is irrelevant since no one has invented a time-travel machine as far as I know. According to a web-site that tracks old train stations, that station no longer exists (and part of my interest is in capturing places like that while they can be found); my wife and I are closer to our fiftieth anniversary than to our wedding; both of our daughters are grown and living on their own.

(2) before I ever bought a digital camera, back around 2002, I sent some Kodachrome 25 slides to a professional, who scanned them and returned 3000x2000 images to me. After carefully comparing the slides and images, I could find no detail on the slide that was not also on the image, and concluded that I would be ready to move to digital once a 6MP camera was within my price range. Recently, I was able to use that same "kit" lens on my K-30, and was pleased to discover that it is at least as sharp as any other lens in my bag, so I feel free to use it when I need a wide aperture (it was at f/1.9 for that picture, remember, and today I don't have any other K-mount lens that goes so wide); the other conclusion is that the "shortcomings" of my slides cannot be attributed to that lens, so I would be the last person in the world to say that any 35mm film can match a modern digital camera in sharpness. Sometimes I use the term "needle sharpness" instead of "razor sharpness", because I feel that many of us are addicted to sharpness, so I certainly understand the place of sharpness in today's world of photography.

(3) I posted that picture in the middle of a side-discussion about ISO numbers. If I had been working at ISO=100, my shutter speed would have been about 1/30; taking into account the several-stop gain from SR, my conclusion was that I personally, considering the type of pictures I take, feel comfortable staying down at base ISO most of the time. I never said anything about the types of pictures you take, and, in fact, some people have habits and needs similar to mine, and some seem to be more like you. That is just fine with me.

(4) Back in the days of film, we came to believe that an SLR is an all-purpose tool, kind of like a Swiss-army knife; part of that was the fact that you could change the character of the tool by changing the film you load into it. Today we cling to the myth of the all-purpose DSLR, but I do believe that it is just that, a myth; some camera systems are better in some settings and some are better in others. As I have said multiple times, the question this thread has circled around is what settings will be appropriate for this new camera, regardless of what it is called. Based on what Pentax has done recently, such as the K-3ii, their new lenses, and their flash systems, I believe that Pentax's primary target users are those who take portrait and landscape photographs, people who do typically use tripods. Thus, I do not believe that the success of this, yet unnamed, camera will depend of its performance at higher ISO values, but since there doesn't seem to be any else to talk about it, I suppose y'all can talk about it until February if y'all want to.

---

Last edited by reh321; 12-01-2015 at 02:46 PM.

[Nicolas06]

(4) Back in the days of film, we came to believe that an SLR is an all-purpose tool, kind of like a Swiss-army knife; part of that was the fact that you could change the character of the tool by changing the film you load into it. Today we cling to the myth of the all-purpose DSLR, but I do believe that it is just that, a myth; some camera systems are better in some settings and some are better in others. As I have said multiple times, the question this thread has circled around is what settings will be appropriate for this new camera, regardless of what it is called. Based on what Pentax has done recently, such as the K-3ii, their new lenses, and their flash systems, I believe that Pentax's primary target users are those who take portrait and landscape photographs, people who do typically use tripods. Thus, I do not believe that the success of this, yet unnamed, camera will depend of its performance at higher ISO values, but since there doesn't seem to be any else to talk about it, I suppose y'all can talk about it until February if y'all want to.

They target pro, they say it. And that include weddings, events in addition of portraiture. That case were lighting equipement help but you don't have the same comfort than a studio portrait so high iso performance is quite important.

Indeed the 645Z was much more successfull than 645D because of added high iso and AF performance. Suddenly it made the camera practical and a swiss knife. And I would really think that the goal of a 645Z is not to take high iso shoots. Much less than the FF.

[reh321]

My understanding maybe wrong is that while you and me like to take landscapes, this is quite difficult to make any money from that. For many usages still high iso performance is interresting: weddings, action/sport, photojournalism, events... I'd say there many more wedding photographer that make a living out of their photographs than landscape shooters but I can very well be wrong.

And that would be a very reasonable subject of discussion rather than all the nonsense that has gone on here.

[Deimos]

From Asahi Man on DPR:

"K-1 and 70-200 are in full production run,the target is end of January for the 2.8 70-200.
Than we should get the first shipping.
The K-1 is the Big Pentax Showevent at the Yokohama CP+.
First shipping target could be end of march.
That´s how the Meeting ends today."


"We didn't talk about APS-C,but there is no sign for a push down of APS-C.
For now,the K-1 is the important target.
February we will get all important informations about the K system."

"The LCD will be like the current preseries model. If touch or not,i don`t know yet.
Possible,because it is a Sony LCD.
Best regards"

---

Last edited by Deimos; 12-08-2015 at 06:37 AM.

[Zygonyx]

Thank you for that promissing news.

[totsmuyco]

I'm excited, not because I want a FF. I just want to see how good this camera will be.

[bxf]

I'm excited, not because I want a FF. I just want to see how good this camera will be.

And I'm excited because I want to see Pentax regain its former glory.

We are overdue.

[pathdoc]

And I'm excited because I want to see Pentax regain its former glory. We are overdue.

I completely agree. If they can turn out the 35mm FF equivalent of the 645Z, they've got it made. They'll probably never topple CaNikon in the full-frame digital stakes (unless something incredible happens) but they might topple Sony, especially if they can give better SOOC results with a Sony sensor than Sony's own cameras can. I wouldn't be surprised to find its feature set and control layout making their way onto the next high-end Pentax APS-C camera, especially if it turns out to be one of the things the critics rave about.

February we will get all important informations about the K system

And then this forum will go nuts again.

[bxf]

They'll probably never topple CaNikon in the full-frame digital stakes...

Although it would be gratifying to see Pentax achieve such a level, it is not essential. Success and respect may be obtained by other means. e.g. Leica.

[jatrax]

Not really concerned about them toppling or beating or outdoing anyone. All I want is for them to produce consistently good cameras and lenses that I can use to make pictures with.

[RobA_Oz]

Although it would be gratifying to see Pentax achieve such a level, it is not essential. Success and respect may be obtained by other means. e.g. Leica.

Not really concerned about them toppling or beating or outdoing anyone. All I want is for them to produce consistently good cameras and lenses that I can use to make pictures with.

I don't think anyone could argue with the general sentiment there. You'll probably get an argument about Leica, but there's no doubting their success in coming back from the brink of disappearing as a camera maker.

The major advantage of size is the improved ability to source materials and to stimulate development in your suppliers, as well as with your own capabilities. In that regard, I sincerely hope that Ricoh achieves their stated aim for Pentax to be in a position to challenge today's big two or three brands in the medium term. Being number one in sales is unnecessary, and neither is it meaningful in any business or technological sense.

[Mistral75]

Although it would be gratifying to see Pentax achieve such a level, it is not essential. Success and respect may be obtained by other means. e.g. Leica.

Are you prepared to pay Leica prices for your Pentax gear? I am not.