[mee]

So glad my pre-order is in!

I get the impression that:
1) You've pre-ordered the Pentax KP.
and
2) You're glad you did.

[gm4life]

I get the impression that:
1) You've pre-ordered the Pentax KP.
and
2) You're glad you did.

I know, just very excited to get it.

[mee]

I know, just very excited to get it.

I would be too if I was updating cameras now.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

No sure I've followed it all. What's the reference level for measuring ISO? If the output should be 18% gray, what should be the luminescence level of the light source for ISO100 ?

The same as it always has been for iso 100

Why use saturation level instead of 18% gray?

But here is the problem the iso standard holds the cameras metering system to the final output of the camera ( the jpg image) and not the full saturation point of the sensor. Most if not all manufactures use their own level of highlight room protection, if we where to look at any raw file correctly exposed for a card 18% we would see that it is unexposed by what ever they have decided as headroom buffer. The image is then brightened so that jpeg image now looks like 18%.

If you know how much headroom you have in the raw file before any data clips you then can override the cameras metering for a give iso standard and technically you can use an exposure meant for a lower iso rating. Most cameras can give you around 1-1.5stop ( yes twice as much light) more exposure before you start to clip the white in your images. K-1 EV in manual mode - PentaxForums.com If you look here you can see that I used an exposure that was 1 & 1/3rds higher and basically shot the image using iso standard 1 stop lower.

Now this poses a problem for anyone testing sensors so DXO has made a new term "measured iso" not to be confused with the iso organisation .
DxO Labs uses a "saturation speed" method in order to measure the (RAW-level) plotted as iso. That metric reflects the maximum sensor-level Exposure ( unspecified by DxO Labs) If they were to use the DSLE instead of the term iso it would lessen allot of the people thinking that their "measured iso" is related to the iso organisation and when they measure a cameras "measured iso" that it does not falls above or bellow the iso standard.

---

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 01-31-2017 at 12:39 AM.

[Nicolas06]

I know they come across as really noisy online, but having printed 8x10s, they actually turn out looking better as prints. Not everything has to be fit for framing, at least for me. My memory is pretty bad, but even 'documentary' photos help me remember where I was, who I was with, and what I was feeling at the time.

For the "noise", the screen settings, the screen technology and quality as well as size or viewing distance can have more impact on the visible noise than if you shooter 12800 ot 6400 isos, maybe even 3200! I can say it because it look drastically different on my computer screen and my oled TV for example On one it look noisy but also very attracting (the TV) on the computer screen it look far less saturated and constrasty but without much noise.

[Nicolas06]

There are PLENTY of interesting subjects, night city skylines, fireworks, astronomical, just to name a few, that have a purpose for a camera that can accurately capture the contrast between light and dark.

Camera will accurately record any scene within their specifications. It not because there no much light that you need to bump the iso to captures things like fireworks or landscapes. And it doesn't change the fact that first, the light must be interresting, regarless of quantity.

And for now, if low light performance is priority, an FF + a fast prime or at least f/2.8 zoom still give you 4-8EV more than KP. This is not even a matter of price. Some FF are no more expensive than KP, there dirt cheap f/2.8 zooms and many fast primes are designed for FF anyway. Know what are your priorities.

iso 800



iso 320



iso 80

[eddie1960]

iso 800



iso 320



iso 80

great shots all 1 second plus. what about when you need to stop action ? ideally for instance shooting any live music you will shoot 1/125-1/250 and stopped to at least 2.8 -4.0 so a clean 6400 - 12800 (or at least one that comes out clean after PP) is very useful.

and as mentioned by others astro photography hugely benefits from higher iso capability
as would any hand held night time street photography
....
lots of use for hi iso. the silly number is an indicator that the higher numbers will be more usable and they are compared to other cameras in the lineup or other braqnds, I'd give this camera a big win over the D750 nikon full frame
nothing to stop you minimizing the use of higher iso's but there are lots of reasons to want them

[Nicolas06]

great shots all 1 second plus. what about when you need to stop action ? ideally for instance shooting any live music you will shoot 1/125-1/250 and stopped to at least 2.8 -4.0 so a clean 6400 - 12800 (or at least one that comes out clean after PP) is very useful.

I know live musicis more challenging but this is far from being the nightmare people explain me there. Or say differently. It is not the 0.5EV difference in RAW that will make or break the shot. All the other stuff are going to make or break it before. The girl shoot took with the FF for example... f/2.8 on K1. On KP, + f/5.6 that 3-4 stop difference. The same difference there is between an iso 400 and iso 3200 shot! Huge. Much more visible than iso 2500 vs 3200 0.5 stop gain the camera may have.

And don't tell me JPEGS. Yes better JPEG are nice but if you are after high iso, you are no going to trash 1, 2, 3 EV your raw editor is going to give on top depending of your jpeg engine anyway. It is like shooting with an FF in low light and putting an ND filter in front of the lens ! No sense.

iso 3200, f/2.8, 1/100s

[photoptimist]

I know moving subjects are more challenging but this is far from being the nightmare people explain me there.

iso 3200, f/2.8, 1/100s

Nice picture. But if the lighting had been brighter, wouldn't you have stopped down the aperture more and used a higher shutter speed? And if you had a camera with cleaner high-ISO output, you could use those superior aperture and shutter speed settings even in this lighting situation.

[Nicolas06]

Nice picture. But if the lighting had been brighter, wouldn't you have stopped down the aperture more and used a higher shutter speed? And if you had a camera with cleaner high-ISO output, you could use those superior aperture and shutter speed settings even in this lighting situation.

What would have worked best, I think is if I had mastered my lighting equipment better. Here it was quite basic still. You would have choosed narrower apperture and higher iso... Well that's a possibility.

Now would it have to be redone, the flash in one hand with diffuser, the camera in the other hand, putting the iso more like at 1600/800 only would have given interresting results too.

Not the same conditions but on a wedding, quite dim interior, it gave me that:







Now try it even with an FF or KP, at iso 6400 or 12800, no flash, this isn't going to look the same.

[BigMackCam]

Now try it even with an FF or KP, at iso 6400 or 12800, no flash, this isn't going to look the same.

Yes... but, if high ISO RAW files from the KP are considerably better than, say, the K-3 (which we can almost guarantee they will be), at the very least it gives us more options. We may choose to shoot with a flash (assuming we have one with us) and keep the ISO lower, or we may decide that a flash would change the lighting for the worse - or may not even be allowed at certain events. Of course, an ISO 12,800 shot on the KP is unlikely to be as good as ISO 1600 on the K-3... but it may be "good enough" with some post-processing. Then again, that same shot with flash at ISO 1600 on the KP should be even better than it was on the K-3

For me, that's what improved high ISO capability is all about... it extends the options available in lower light situations.

[TDvN57]

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?

Northern lights come to mind.... Have you ever wondered why all the pictures of the northern lights are fuzzy or soft? Because they are all (most all) long exposures. In real life some dynamic light shows are sharp and colorful. That is missed on all long exposures.

[Simen1]

I do some northern lights photo, and I never use more then ISO 3200 for that purpose, because noise isn't that favorable compared to short exposures ether. The best combination is a wide prime with f/2 or larger, and then take the northern light lottery - go out and hope it gets a strong burst. Spending time is one of the most important parts of northern lights hunting. Exposures should be ISO 3200 or lower and max 5 seconds. At the best outbursts I have been able to use 18mm f/1,8 on K-5, 0,5s and ISO 100 and get correct exposure.

[photoptimist]

What would have worked best, I think is if I had mastered my lighting equipment better. Here it was quite basic still. You would have choosed narrower apperture and higher iso... Well that's a possibility.

Now would it have to be redone, the flash in one hand with diffuser, the camera in the other hand, putting the iso more like at 1600/800 only would have given interresting results too.

Not the same conditions but on a wedding, quite dim interior, it gave me that:







Now try it even with an FF or KP, at iso 6400 or 12800, no flash, this isn't going to look the same.

Again, these are nice pictures given the lack of a camera that produces clean output at high ISO and the mobility requirements of a wedding photographer.

I get the strong sense that the KP at 6400 would have produced a much nicer image in ambient light than what any reasonably mobile flash rig could ever do on a noisier camera. And even at 12800, there might be a little more grain but you'd have avoided the harsh shadows, uneven lighting, unforgiving white light, shiny skin reflections that created by mobile flash lighting. Now if you'd had a couple of softboxes on 8-foot stands....but that's simply impossible for getting the kind of in-the-moment joyful images associated with weddings.

I've got the strong feeling that there's a significant number of wedding pictures that would look much better taken in ambient light at f/5.6 (not f/2.8) or at a higher shutterspeed if only the photographer had a camera with clean high-ISO output.

[f22]

Northern lights come to mind.... Have you ever wondered why all the pictures of the northern lights are fuzzy or soft? Because they are all (most all) long exposures. In real life some dynamic light shows are sharp and colorful. That is missed on all long exposures.

I think what you're saying makes good sense. It does seems that the color saturation gets a bit bizarre in direct relation to the shutter speed.

Judging the IQ of the samples taken at the higher ISO ranges, the KP, with it's improved sensor and processor, looks to be able to resolve the contrast of the darkest parts of the scene, instead of becoming blotches of green and purple noise. My K-50 begins to get unusable around 1600. At this point the clarity and IQ start to degrade. Therefore, I try to not to exceed ISO 800. In doing that, it limits the aperture, and shutter speed selections I have to work with (unless I really crank the EV up). This can also work against me either because the shutter speed is too slow for the subject and it blurs, or my handheld causes a little blurring or jitter. By having a more ISO to work with, I think this fundamentally changes the ability to use faster speeds that may capture moving subjects and eliminate handshake-induced jitter.

And if I can avoid using the flash/fill-flash and keep to the natural ambient lighting as much as possible, that is also a plus.