Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-03-2009, 08:22 PM   #16
Veteran Member
Miserere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,994
Anyone notice that the 3 hot pixels in the ISO3200 image are not present in the 6400?

06-03-2009, 08:28 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Torphoto's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trinidad W.I.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 620
QuoteOriginally posted by Miserere Quote
Anyone notice that the 3 hot pixels in the ISO3200 image are not present in the 6400?
I saw 2 looking for the 3rd
06-03-2009, 10:21 PM   #18
Veteran Member
krypticide's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,079
Not that impressed, looks more comparable to D300 than D700 (though I think D700 is actually pretty noisy at high ISO but their NR yields usable results). Anyway, still excited about the K-7, and I imagine it will only get better from here.
06-04-2009, 01:15 AM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brisbane Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 82
Early day's, but the ISO3200 sample looks nicer than what I get from the K200d at ISO1600.

An improvement in quality with 1 more stop makes my upgrade a no-brainer.
Similar improvement in AF would be great.

06-04-2009, 02:55 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Steelski's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Varna
Posts: 468
Ok, If you have only seen the Jpegs then you are missing out

I downloaded the Jpegs, and the RAWS.
The Raws only open in Faststone and convert with terrible colours.
I converted the 6400 Iso image, just plain terribly converted. The lighting level was terrible, as well as.... I will just stop there, the image was useless because of the bad conversion.
The 3200 Iso image is much better.
It processed with all its noise intact.
The 3200 Image is much better than the Jpeg,
Pushed the image One stop and it looks like 6400 Iso is great too.
One more stop and Iso 12800 is possible. looking a bit too noisy.

Basically compared to my K20D
It does not have the purple ring of noise around the image at whatever Iso,
No banding streaks up to 6400
Finer grain.
which is all I was asking for.

I have attached a 100% crop from the pushed samples to 6400 Iso,
One with no noise reduction. and the other with 95% chroma noise suppression and 30 % luminous noise suppression in Noisware pro. No sharpening.

You can guess that at 3200 Iso the result is even better, but too dark.
Anyway. IMO great.
Attached Images
   
06-04-2009, 03:02 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Steelski's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Varna
Posts: 468
here is the same extract from the jpeg only

same extract from 3200 Jpeg at around 6400 level
Attached Images
 
06-04-2009, 03:43 AM   #22
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
3200iso & 6400iso Look Fantastic - But !!!!!

Both are taken at fast shutter speeds.

What I want to see is 3200 & 6400 taken at 1/8, 1/5 and 1/30.

That is where I would use them most of the time. Yep, In a low light situation, only available light, using something like a 16-50mm f2.8, a 50-135mm f2.8 or my f2.8 my 200mm FA 2.8.

Those are the images I want to see.

But ... Even though these shots are taken with early firmware, they (IMHO) look very, very good. I think this will be one heck of a camera for low light photography and along with that I think the DR will be much, much better than the K20D.

I just ran the 6400iso wall shot through my Image-Mode-Lab-Window-Channels-Filter-Noise-Meridian reducing technique and was amazed at the lack of noise reduction that was called for as compared to my K20D images taken at higher shutter speeds .... very interesting indeed !

JMHO.


wll

Last edited by wll; 06-04-2009 at 03:55 AM.
06-04-2009, 04:40 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 107
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
Both are taken at fast shutter speeds.


But ... Even though these shots are taken with early firmware, they (IMHO) look very, very good. I think this will be one heck of a camera for low light photography and along with that I think the DR will be much, much better than the K20D.
with respect here, but just because its is better than the K20d it certainly does NOT mean that its "good"..

its simply better than K20d - thats all.. and when you accept how bad the K20 is at high ISO, then thats not saying much.

In my view - even the noise at ISO800 is terribly bad and unusable.., the 3200 and 6400 shots should be binned straight away. there is nothing to be saved from them.

06-04-2009, 05:08 AM   #24
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by StephenG Quote
with respect here, but just because its is better than the K20d it certainly does NOT mean that its "good"..

its simply better than K20d - thats all.. and when you accept how bad the K20 is at high ISO, then thats not saying much.

In my view - even the noise at ISO800 is terribly bad and unusable.., the 3200 and 6400 shots should be binned straight away. there is nothing to be saved from them.
The K20D IMHO is very good at high iso, it keeps the image intact instead of smearing it like C does.
I'm looking at it compared to the days when I used Ilford HP5 and Kodak Tri-X film so maybe my perception is different than yours.

INHO 800iso is great! The images are very sharp ... Pentax lets YOU decide how much noise YOU want to take out. Looking forward to using ~4500iso for concert work if need be.

Check out the dpreview of the K20D and look at the noise section of the review ..... look at how SHARP the Pentax image is compared to C & N. Granted C & N are MUCH less noisy, but like the review says Pentax is only more noisy because Pentax does not go heavy handed and smear things up.


wll
06-04-2009, 05:15 AM   #25
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by StephenG Quote
its simply better than K20d - thats all.. and when you accept how bad the K20 is at high ISO, then thats not saying much.
But what if you don't accept that the K20 is bad at high iso? Which (APS-C) cameras are better, in your opinion?
06-04-2009, 06:36 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by StephenG Quote
In my view - even the noise at ISO800 is terribly bad and unusable.., the 3200 and 6400 shots should be binned straight away. there is nothing to be saved from them.
Are you just pixel-peeping at 100% or did you actually look at the entire ISO3200 image? A little noise is not a bad thing. That ISO3200 pic reminds me a lot of film scans. You could easily make an 8x10 print from it. So long as there's no banding noise can actually be another creative tool. Hell, I run most of my pics through Alien Skin Exposure to simulate film anyway because most digital pics are too clean and lifeless for my taste.
06-04-2009, 07:13 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sweden, Umea
Posts: 871
Remember those Dx0 marks, Nikon D300 Set Iso 3200 = Iso 2000 Pentax K20D Set Iso 3200 = Iso 2700

So compare Iso 4500 on the nikon to pentax Iso 3200 instad. (if K-7 keeps its "accurat" iso value")
06-05-2009, 12:15 AM   #28
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
Are you just pixel-peeping at 100% or did you actually look at the entire ISO3200 image? A little noise is not a bad thing. That ISO3200 pic reminds me a lot of film scans. You could easily make an 8x10 print from it. So long as there's no banding noise can actually be another creative tool. Hell, I run most of my pics through Alien Skin Exposure to simulate film anyway because most digital pics are too clean and lifeless for my taste.
Art,

I'm with you ... the high iso shots, (3200 and 6400) remind me of film, very tight grain and no banding ... I can live with that. We all want noise free at 6400 but with present technology that is not going to happen (maybe in a couple of years, but not now). I'm very much looking forward to seeing some low light stuff at 3200 to 6400 at 1/8 to 1/30 shutter speeds.

Yes, I've done some concert stuff where the lighting is horrific, and of course no flash is allowed. There are times when 1/8 of a second at high iso (1600 Pentax Ds) is all I had. I never used my K10D's at high iso's because they could not handle it - that is the main reason I sold them. The K20D is MUCH MUCH better, as I matter of fact IMHO you can't compare them - I'm very happy with the K20D and it looks like I'll be VERY happy with the K-7 when they hit our shores.


wll
06-05-2009, 01:41 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 107
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
But what if you don't accept that the K20 is bad at high iso? Which (APS-C) cameras are better, in your opinion?

its not a matter of what aps-c camera is better.. its a matter of whats useable and acceptable, in any camera..

but that would be entirely dependant upon what the image is used for, so would be entirely subjective and up to each individual photographer to define.

if some one is shooting for their only enjoyment and pleasure then they may be happy with the 3200 noise levels.

but, if you havng to publish photos, then even the iso800 shots wont make the grade - far to much noise in the shadow areas.

so again - whats usable or not usable depends entirely upon the use of the photograph, and subjective to the photographers own level of acceptance.

whilst I may be happy with the noise in a certain photo, you may reject it as too much noise, and obviously the other way round too.
06-05-2009, 02:39 AM   #30
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,683
If that's the hard and set case, why do I notice copious amounts of noise and/or evidence of strong noise reduction in photos in magazines on a regular basis? I think a lot of publications place more value on what the picture is of than how noisy it is.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x jpeg vs raw high iso question barondla Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 08-12-2010 02:39 PM
K-7 high ISO Performance RAW shang Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 07-04-2010 12:27 PM
K-7 HIGH ISO NR In RAW Christopher M.W.T Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 06-06-2010 05:19 PM
KX vs K7 in RAW HIGH ISO? Any real difference? Silat Shooter Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 12-03-2009 07:44 PM
K20D raw files at high ISO Martynas Pentax News and Rumors 21 02-01-2008 05:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top