[BigMackCam]

Fast aperture lenses are mainly about shallow depth o field. Low-light is rather secondary effect.
Flash is about light CONTROL even on sunny day. Using either as low-light only option how to gather some light is just emergency with usualy weak image output. And you can add IBIS too...

Basically, I'd agree... though there are, as always, exceptions. I've seen some great artistic photography in low-light situations with the flash as the primary light source.

ISO above 1600 is rapidly loosing details and dynamic range, while noise increases quickly. No matter if we are talking about K1, K3 or 645Z.

I agree with this, too. Cameras like the K-1 / K-1II and KP are pushing the boundaries quite a bit, but still... above ISO 1600, things do start going down hill quite quickly.

Yes ISO6400 images can be usable if you only need some pic for facebook/instagram/web presentation.. but not for serious work. DNR processors are better and better, but everything has its limits. Even best algorithm cannot create data out of nothing. That is painting then, not photography

Here, though - with respect - I disagree. Well-exposed ISO 6400 images processed with some degree of skill can be way, way better than you describe. I'd push my K-3 as high as ISO 20,000 for a small-ish social media shot... But skillfull (which doesn't have to mean time consuming) use of noise reduction techniques - colour, especially - in post-processing can yield excellent images at ISO 6400 and even higher, depending on the subject, size of reproduction and intended viewing distance.

Careful (by which I mean, "not heavy handed") noise reduction isn't painting at all - it's just a valid means of improving an image, like contrast, clarity, exposure and tone curve adjustments. As we all know, software like Lightroom does a certain amount of noise reduction and other image processing by default, even if you zero all the sliders. If using noise reduction means our images are painting rather than photography, everything processed through Lightroom (and most other raw processors, as well as *every* in-camera JPEG engine) is a painting, not a photograph. So, this is still very much photography.

Sure, I wouldn't want to shoot a landscape or product shot at that kind of sensitivity - anything with a lot of fine detail that needs to be reproduced, in fact. But there's no reason not to use high ISO settings for street, documentary, sports, that kind of thing. We tend to forget how many great shots were taken in the film era with higher sensitivity films yielding rather grainy output.

The shot below was for an article I wrote some time ago. It was taken with a 12MP Pentax Q (the earliest version, with its tiny 1/2.3" sensor) at ISO 3200 and processed in Lightroom 6. Part of the processing involved colour and luminance noise reduction plus sharpening, carefully balanced to retain and bring out detail while keeping noise to an acceptable level. OK... the size of reproduction here is small, and there is still some noise visible, but it's a perfectly usable photograph from an older, small sensor camera at a silly ISO level. In fact, this photo looks good viewed at screen-filling size on my 17" laptop or 23" external monitors. The ageing K-3 is capable of considerably better results at ISO 6400 and higher, as you'd expect. As for the KP, K-1 and K-1II... well...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-08-2018 at 01:48 PM.

[ThorSanchez]

Here, though - with respect - I disagree. Good ISO 6400 images processed with some degree of skill can be way, way better than you describe. I'd push my K-3 as high as ISO 20,000 for a small-ish social media shot... But skillfull (which doesn't have to mean time consuming) use of noise reduction techniques - colour, especially - in post-processing can yield excellent images at ISO 6400 and even higher, depending on the subject, size of reproduction and intended viewing distance.

Careful (by which I mean, "not heavy handed") noise reduction isn't painting at all - it's just a valid means of improving an image, like contrast, clarity, exposure and tone curve adjustments. As we all know, software like Lightroom does a certain amount of noise reduction and other image processing by default, even if you zero all the sliders. If using noise reduction means our images are painting rather than photography, everything processed through Lightroom (and most other raw processors, as well as *every* in-camera JPEG engine) is a painting, not a photograph. So, this is still very much photography.

Sure, I wouldn't want to shoot a landscape or product shot at that kind of sensitivity - anything with a lot of fine detail that needs to be reproduced, in fact. But there's no reason not to use high ISO settings for street, documentary, that kind of thing. We tend to forget how many great shots were taken in the film era with higher sensitivity films yielding rather grainy output.

The shot below was for an article I wrote some time ago. It was taken with a 12MP Pentax Q (the earliest version, with its tiny 1/2.3" sensor) at ISO 3200 and processed in Lightroom 6. Part of the processing involved colour and luminance noise reduction plus sharpening, carefully balanced to retain and bring out detail while keeping noise to an acceptable level. OK... the size of reproduction here is small, and there is still some noise visible, but it's a perfectly usable photograph from an older, small sensor camera at a silly ISO level. In fact, this photo looks good viewed at screen-filling size on my 17" laptop or 23" external monitors. The ageing K-3 is capable of considerably better results at ISO 6400 and higher, as you'd expect. As for the KP, K-1 and K-1II... well...

I was going to reply to the "not serious photography" comment, but luckily you got there first with a more elegant response.

I think we need to have a thread for "Post your ISO 6400+ Images". I'm sure there would be no shortage of excellent shots.

[reh321]

ISO above 1600 is rapidly loosing details and dynamic range, while noise increases quickly. No matter if we are talking about K1, K3 or 645Z. Yes ISO6400 images can be usable if you only need some pic for facebook/instagram/web presentation.. but not for serious work. DNR processors are better and better, but everything has its limits. Even best algorithm cannot create data out of nothing. That is painting then, not photography

You need to look at the DxOMark 'sports' scores for modern cameras, which is the highest ISO with the following characteristics
* SNR no more than 30 dB
* Dynamic Range at least 9 EVs
* Color Depth at least 18 bits

The K-1 has a score of 3280 (*) - twice the point at which you think it is "rapidly losing details and dynamic range". Well, it may be rapidly losing those things, but they are still high enough to provide good photos.

Camera Database - DxOMark



(*) Since DxOMark doesn't tell which criterion failed, the K-1 could still be much better than the DR and CD goals at that point

[RonHendriks1966]

You need to look at the DxOMark 'sports' scores for modern cameras, which is the highest ISO with the following characteristics
* SNR no more than 30 dB
* Dynamic Range at least 9 EVs
* Color Depth at least 18 bits

The K-1 has a score of 3280 (*) - twice the point at which you think it is "rapidly losing details and dynamic range". Well, it may be rapidly losing those things, but they are still high enough to provide good photos.

Camera Database - DxOMark



(*) Since DxOMark doesn't tell which criterion failed, the K-1 could still be much better than the DR and CD goals at that point

You can see those measurements.
- SNR of 30db is at those iso 3280
- DR of 9 is at around iso 6400
- color depth of 18 is at around iso 3500

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1---Measurements

[Trickortreat]

You need to look at the DxOMark 'sports' scores for modern cameras, which is the highest ISO with the following characteristics
* SNR no more than 30 dB
* Dynamic Range at least 9 EVs
* Color Depth at least 18 bits

The K-1 has a score of 3280 (*) - twice the point at which you think it is "rapidly losing details and dynamic range". Well, it may be rapidly losing those things, but they are still high enough to provide good photos.

Camera Database - DxOMark



(*) Since DxOMark doesn't tell which criterion failed, the K-1 could still be much better than the DR and CD goals at that point

Why is there constant talk about FF performance in a APSC thread

[BigMackCam]

Why is there constant talk about FF performance in a APSC thread

I guess because we typically expect to see better high ISO performance from full-frame sensors, although the KP challenges that notion to some extent. Plus, this thread has drifted somewhat from its original purity. But the discussions around high ISO capability and the usefulness of higher-ISO shots is valid regardless of format

[Trickortreat]

I guess because we typically expect to see better high ISO performance from full-frame sensors, although the KP challenges that notion to some extent. Plus, this thread has drifted somewhat from its original purity. But the discussions around high ISO capability and the usefulness of higher-ISO shots is valid regardless of format

Ah... ok... just thought that we were discussing crop iso performance. Throwing in different formats just messes things up

[reh321]

Ah... ok... just thought that we were discussing crop iso performance. Throwing in different formats just messes things up

If you go to top of the page, you'll see I was responding to a dogmatic statement about the limitations of ISO. I believe FF sets a standard that APS can aspire to.

[Merv-O]

And in the interim, you could do much, much worse than the brilliant K-3II itself! 😜

Agreed...Pentax doesn't need to produce a new camera every six months...These are not disposable toys like other manufacturers. My buddy used a Canon EOS and when he grabbed my K-3ii to borrow, he was amazed at the solidity quality and price point.

When I bought my K-1 ii, he offered to buy my K-3ii--for $650.00 !!! A great camera isn't obsolete simply because it's 2 years old--quality snapshots can be made by a 100 year old RolleiFlex. If you, the photographer, are in sync with the camera, why worry about "new' tech when you are pleased with the images you're creating...Also, the K-3ii was designed to go over 200,000 shots--maybe Ricoh had that in mind when they produced it.

Remember -- "Love the One You're With", especially if he/she is making you happy.

[Trickortreat]

If you go to top of the page, you'll see I was responding to a dogmatic statement about the limitations of ISO. I believe FF sets a standard that APS can aspire to.

Yes. In 5-10 years or so apsc will prolly get to ff levels. But any tech tossed at crop will surely find its way to ff first...

---------- Post added 10-10-18 at 06:03 PM ----------

Agreed...Pentax doesn't need to produce a new camera every six months...These are not disposable toys like other manufacturers. My buddy used a Canon EOS and when he grabbed my K-3ii to borrow, he was amazed at the solidity quality and price point.

When I bought my K-1 ii, he offered to buy my K-3ii--for $650.00 !!! A great camera isn't obsolete simply because it's 2 years old--quality snapshots can be made by a 100 year old RolleiFlex. If you, the photographer, are in sync with the camera, why worry about "new' tech when you are pleased with the images you're creating...Also, the K-3ii was designed to go over 200,000 shots--maybe Ricoh had that in mind when they produced it.

Remember -- "Love the One You're With", especially if he/she is making you happy.

Yep. There were plenty new crop cameras. We need more and/or updated crop prime lenses...

[bhbrake]

As long as you don't load the fish in the backpack too?

There is separate insulated compartment that i put an ice pack in and then put the fish in a bag first! No fish slime on the camera!

[Merv-O]

YO RICOH--HERE IS A WAY TO MAKE AN UPDATED CAMERA WITHOUT MUCH INVESTMENT:

Take the excellent bones of the existing K-3ii--Rename it the K-3P (for professional) and add/modify the following:

1.Improve the focus to Canikon class-leading standards for faster subjects

2. Add an articulating screen (like the quality one in the K-S2--only sharper

3. a faster WiFi

4. UHSc-2 leading card reader standards

5. Offer a K-3P ii that has 28-30mp--possibly adding a twist with an APS-M (1.33) ratio sensor to keep those pixels larger....

6. Finally--bigger buffer for more burst.

Minor updates--modern camera....Homestly, cameras are hitting their zenith--similar to bridges or mouse traps--no longer revolutionary, sensor based digital imagery is now evolutionary. Like previous posters have said: a Crop sensor with 24mp is more than enough for a large poster size print. Unless you have a need for a billboard size, how much more mp power do you need?

How expensive could those tweaks be? the size is already fine...

[photoptimist]

YO RICOH--HERE IS A WAY TO MAKE AN UPDATED CAMERA WITHOUT MUCH INVESTMENT:

Take the excellent bones of the existing K-3ii--Rename it the K-3P (for professional) and add/modify the following:

1.Improve the focus to Canikon class-leading standards for faster subjects

2. Add an articulating screen (like the quality one in the K-S2--only sharper

3. a faster WiFi

4. UHSc-2 leading card reader standards

5. Offer a K-3P ii that has 28-30mp--possibly adding a twist with an APS-M (1.33) ratio sensor to keep those pixels larger....

6. Finally--bigger buffer for more burst.

Minor updates--modern camera....Homestly, cameras are hitting their zenith--similar to bridges or mouse traps--no longer revolutionary, sensor based digital imagery is now evolutionary. Like previous posters have said: a Crop sensor with 24mp is more than enough for a large poster size print. Unless you have a need for a billboard size, how much more mp power do you need?

How expensive could those tweaks be? the size is already fine...

Hmm... Replicating the decades of R&D and millions of dollars that Canikon have put into fast class-leading AF would hardly be a minor investment. Faster wifi, faster USB, and a deeper buffer all require more expensive chips and more battery power.

As much as I'd love all these updates, too, most are neither minor nor cheap.

[Kunzite]

YO RICOH--HERE IS A WAY TO MAKE AN UPDATED CAMERA WITHOUT MUCH INVESTMENT:

Take the excellent bones of the existing K-3ii--Rename it the K-3P (for professional) and add/modify the following:

1.Improve the focus to Canikon class-leading standards for faster subjects

2. Add an articulating screen (like the quality one in the K-S2--only sharper

3. a faster WiFi

4. UHSc-2 leading card reader standards

5. Offer a K-3P ii that has 28-30mp--possibly adding a twist with an APS-M (1.33) ratio sensor to keep those pixels larger....

6. Finally--bigger buffer for more burst.

Minor updates--modern camera....Homestly, cameras are hitting their zenith--similar to bridges or mouse traps--no longer revolutionary, sensor based digital imagery is now evolutionary. Like previous posters have said: a Crop sensor with 24mp is more than enough for a large poster size print. Unless you have a need for a billboard size, how much more mp power do you need?

How expensive could those tweaks be? the size is already fine...

If it's so easy, do it yourself.
That's my standard response to anyone who says "it's so easy!" without having a clue.

Improving the autofocus to class-leading standards would likely be the most difficult and expensive. Or the second, see below. Anyway, if it was easy they've done it by now (and Canon/Nikon would've had their current AF much sooner, instead of developing it in decades).

UHS-II and the larger buffer might be the second, or perhaps it's the other way around. See, both requires different processors and off the shelf Socionext ones might not cut it. Changing to a different processor would be very labor intensive.

And "APS-M" sensor - that generates a cascade of cost increasing changes - SLR viewfinder system, maybe AF...
Of course, larger pixels aren't really better than more, slightly smaller ones.

Sorry for the rant... but you should understand that there are no shortcuts, only hard, tedious work for even what we perceive as small improvements.

L.E. I'm willing to pay a fair price for performance improvements. I've got the D FA* 50mm f/1.4, so this is not just empty talk.

[mtgmansf]

YO RICOH--HERE IS A WAY TO MAKE AN UPDATED CAMERA WITHOUT MUCH INVESTMENT:

Take the excellent bones of the existing K-3ii--Rename it the K-3P (for professional) and add/modify the following:

1.Improve the focus to Canikon class-leading standards for faster subjects

2. Add an articulating screen (like the quality one in the K-S2--only sharper

3. a faster WiFi

4. UHSc-2 leading card reader standards

5. Offer a K-3P ii that has 28-30mp--possibly adding a twist with an APS-M (1.33) ratio sensor to keep those pixels larger....

6. Finally--bigger buffer for more burst.

Minor updates--modern camera....Homestly, cameras are hitting their zenith--similar to bridges or mouse traps--no longer revolutionary, sensor based digital imagery is now evolutionary. Like previous posters have said: a Crop sensor with 24mp is more than enough for a large poster size print. Unless you have a need for a billboard size, how much more mp power do you need?

How expensive could those tweaks be? the size is already fine...

I like your list. Maybe Nikon would sell Ricoh their AF tech or license it (d500 or D7500), considering their biggest production limitation seems to be getting the high res, FF sensors from Sony, and because all their emphasis seems to now be with af on sensor for their Z line.