[BigMackCam]

102400 is usable for some purposes- not bad at all!

I agree. That's about the limit from what I can see, as there's a lot of magenta creeping in after that. Very impressive, though. And of course these will be straight-out-of-camera JPEGs, I imagine. A bit of work on the RAW files in Lightroom or similar should improve the ISO 102,400 output considerably, especially in terms of colour noise.

[bobbotron]

I agree. That's about the limit from what I can see, as there's a lot of magenta creeping in after that. Very impressive, though. And of course these will be straight-out-of-camera JPEGs, I imagine. A bit of work on the RAW files in Lightroom or similar should improve the ISO 102,400 output considerably, especially in terms of colour noise.

Man, if I set my camera to 12800 I feel like I'm living on the edge. I'm already pretty happy with what the K3 can do, definitely would be happy with some incremental improvements from a new sensor like this!

[D1N0]

The really good news is how good ISO 6400 and 12800 look because you seldom need more.

[D1N0]

The Nikon D500 claims maximum ISO of twice what the KP claims, and the D500 was announced a year earlier. People keep saying that Pentax should aim to be within hailing distance of the D500 ...

There is already less than a stop difference between the D500 and the K-70 When Pentax has improved further, they may well catch up:
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

[Quicksand]

LOL, I'm honestly not sure who would ever use 819200 for any purpose at all. There are basically no details left behind that purple and green grainy/blotchy haze. Not to mention - can you even see what you're photographing?

I can imagine some use cases for 204800, and maybe even 409600 (very small monochrome newspaper single-column shots). But 819200 is crazy.

EDIT: I actually like the blotchy pattern though. Maybe I'll take a 1:1 crop and use some of it as my Windows wallpaper.

[Zygonyx]

The really good news is how good ISO 6400 and 12800 look because you seldom need more.

I agree, at first sight this looks excellent, possibly class-leading.

[npc]

Not to mention - can you even see what you're photographing?

maybe In LV you can, or switch it off and use the force.

[LFLee]

iso 51200 is usable and color still very much stay the same. impressive for APSC sensor.

dang! . if they could wait a little and put this sensor tech in FF for K1, then likely we have a very usable iso 204800 in K1, an instant A7s killer.

[timautin]

Seems impressive !! I
For those wondering about the usefulness of being able to shoot at 25600 or more, start wildlife photography, you'll understand very quickly ^^. Our best lenses are currently the 150-450 and the 560, both f/5.6 (the DA* 300 is fine too, but 300 is too short, especially on FF). If you want the best sharpness at 450mm, you'll need to use it at f/7.1 (don't know for the 560). And if you don't want any blur, you'll have to shoot at 1/1000, more if the subject is moving fast. Considering that lots of animals live in the forest (very few available light), or start being active just before the sunset, or both, every improvement in the sensibility is more than welcome!

[farhagh]

LOL, I'm honestly not sure who would ever use 819200 for any purpose at all. There are basically no details left behind that purple and green grainy/blotchy haze. Not to mention - can you even see what you're photographing?

I can imagine some use cases for 204800, and maybe even 409600 (very small monochrome newspaper single-column shots). But 819200 is crazy.

EDIT: I actually like the blotchy pattern though. Maybe I'll take a 1:1 crop and use some of it as my Windows wallpaper.

No one "want" to shoot at that high ISO. However, there are cases in dim light that your subject moves and you need to use higher shutter speeds. The thing is may be no one though about taking pictures in those situations a couple years ago, and now it's just possible to think about and try that.

[rawr]

I wonder if ISO figures are inflated, and if yes, by how much. Do we know of any sensor tech breakthrough that would warrant a drastic increase in a sensor signal?

I suspect that most of the improvement comes from the secondary 'Accelerator Unit' graphics processing chip. [Same one is in the K-70]. The KP features page says so too:



So it's mainly a JPEG thing. Be interesting to compare high-ISO RAW's with a K-3.

[rvannatta]

LOL, I'm honestly not sure who would ever use 819200 for any purpose at all. There are basically no details left behind that purple and green grainy/blotchy haze. Not to mention - can you even see what you're photographing?

I can imagine some use cases for 204800, and maybe even 409600 (very small monochrome newspaper single-column shots). But 819200 is crazy.

EDIT: I actually like the blotchy pattern though. Maybe I'll take a 1:1 crop and use some of it as my Windows wallpaper.

I quite agree that I'm not likely to us 819k ISO, but I don't use the highest numbers on my present cameras others. What I do see is evidence that it will work and provide nice photos at higher ISO's than existing models.
This is progress. I remember being excited when I learned how to cook TRI-X in the darkroom and get 800 out of it. I've purchased almost every top end Pentax ever made beginning with the Spotomatic---oh did I like
an auto coupled light meter, though the K2 was my all time favorite film model. what I've seen in the digital models is steady improvement in low light abilities with the possible exception of the K10 which I regarded as
really lame in low light situations. I now have a K3 and a K1 as cameras of choice, as I have sort of migrated into bird photography.

What I'm finding is that decent bird photos are becoming progressively easier. Birds, it seems, commonly roost in the shadows which has made photographing them difficult and expensive.
implying that my lens collection has such monster lenses as the A-400 f/2.8 -- one of my all time favorites as well as an FA-600 F/4. These are the 16" guns of the navy. They shoot long and hard
IF you can bring them to bear before the target is long gone.

I'm now using ISO 6400 pretty much as my default setting on the K3 and the K-1. IF this new model enables a few higher f stops it will we more than welcome. It means more and more bird photography can
be hand held with affordaable light weight optics.

[rrstuff]

How can we be sure this is not just from inflating the ISO figures? Many manufacturers are already inflating the figures up to 1 stop (e.g. olympus), but the signal sensor is the same. In short, with EV0 lighting, F1.0 and ISO 100 we would need 1 second exposure. In reality, olympus, and many others would use EV0, F1.0 and 2 seconds exposure, claiming it's at ISO 100. I am a bit skeptical, if KP is not pushing it further. Simply because there weren't any technological breakthroughs that would warrant increase from 102400 ISO to 819200 ISO with the same level of signal.

---------- Post added 01-27-17 at 05:13 PM ----------

I suspect that most of the improvement comes from the secondary 'Accelerator Unit' graphics processing chip. [Same one is in the K-70]. The KP features page says so too:



So it's mainly a JPEG thing. Be interesting to compare high-ISO RAW's with a K-3.

It could be they implemented a clever noise reduction. For example hardware processing of something along the noise-ninja or DXO prime algorithms. I could see that being used and it would be a nice addition. Although for a flagship it would only be that - a nice addition - since so many users of the advance cameras shoot RAW and postprocess in dedicated software.

[lithedreamer]

How can we be sure this is not just from inflating the ISO figures? Many manufacturers are already inflating the figures up to 1 stop (e.g. olympus), but the signal sensor is the same. In short, with EV0 lighting, F1.0 and ISO 100 we would need 1 second exposure. In reality, olympus, and many others would use EV0, F1.0 and 2 seconds exposure, claiming it's at ISO 100. I am a bit skeptical, if KP is not pushing it further. Simply because there weren't any technological breakthroughs that would warrant increase from 102400 ISO to 819200 ISO with the same level of signal.

---------- Post added 01-27-17 at 05:13 PM ----------



It could be they implemented a clever noise reduction. For example hardware processing of something along the noise-ninja or DXO prime algorithms. I could see that being used and it would be a nice addition. Although for a flagship it would only be that - a nice addition - since so many users of the advance cameras shoot RAW and postprocess in dedicated software.

Dxo does testing to see whether manufacturers are lying about ISO figures. Pentax has a track record of not doing that, and we'll see whether that continues.

[rrstuff]

Dxo does testing to see whether manufacturers are lying about ISO figures. Pentax has a track record of not doing that, and we'll see whether that continues.

I am aware of DXO measurements, but I couldn't find any of the new cameras, like K-70 that supposedly has a similar sensor. They newest APS-C they got is K-S1 which seems to have a bit of inflation: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-S1---Measurements , but K-1 does not. I am just hard pressed to believe that KP will be that much better than the K-70 in real life tests, or for that matter a controlled DXO test (that is if they ever get to testing those camera...).