Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-12-2016, 08:31 PM - 3 Likes   #61
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 996
I'm not sure what some of you shoot, and more power to you whatever you do shoot, but some of you clearly don't shoot in situations that I sometimes do. When I have photographed dancers in a dark auditorium with only some minimum stage lighting, I can't get anything usable if I stay at or below ISO 800. Even with my 70-200 at f2.8 (not its best aperture), I'd have such a slow shutter speed that it wouldn't be worth taking any photos at all. I'd be lucky if I could use 1600 for some shots, but usually I'd be at 3200 and at times even 6400. And that's just one situation I've found myself in. I'd kill to have a Pentax camera that provides excellent high ISO. As it is, the photos suffer some when I have to use noise reduction, but some are still quite usable. If a camera provided low noise shots at 3200, and I could go as high as 6400 or 12800, I'd be a happy camper. I don't need an ISO of 20 gazillion. I do need good high ISO. And, frankly, I didn't think this was open to question and at all controversial.

04-12-2016, 08:58 PM   #62
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,704
QuoteOriginally posted by carolina_sky Quote
Well, as explained I don't really need the AF-C, it's actually better to pre-focus on where I know the action will be. Can be more precise and less likely to slip up. BUT, I still get the occasional misfire where the camera literally won't take the shot when I click the button. Maybe 1/10 times. This drives me absolutely crazy. I wonder if this is the lens or the camera? Anyone else experience this?
You've lost me, CS ... are you saying the picture doesn't get taken even in Manual Focus?
04-12-2016, 09:01 PM   #63
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 253
An example with the 15mm Limited, ISO 3200, 6 seconds, F14, camera steadied on a rock. I don't find the noise objectionable at all. I find it rather interesting that so many find ISO's above 800 unusable.

When I worked in newspapers, high school night football was routinely done at 3200 at 250th or 200 with a strobe and lens at 2.8. The results were more than useable for newspaper work. In film days, it was worse and for college ball no flash allowed. Talk about grain and poor quality, but we managed and got some great shots.

Each generation of digital made my job easier, and the technical aspects of the photos better. AF from Canon and Nikon was great to follow the action as well. Granted, the Pentax AFC wouldn't of done as well, but it works for my needs now and the AF is better than these eyes ....
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
04-13-2016, 03:14 AM - 1 Like   #64
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
I'm not sure what some of you shoot, and more power to you whatever you do shoot, but some of you clearly don't shoot in situations that I sometimes do. When I have photographed dancers in a dark auditorium with only some minimum stage lighting, I can't get anything usable if I stay at or below ISO 800. Even with my 70-200 at f2.8 (not its best aperture), I'd have such a slow shutter speed that it wouldn't be worth taking any photos at all. I'd be lucky if I could use 1600 for some shots, but usually I'd be at 3200 and at times even 6400. And that's just one situation I've found myself in. I'd kill to have a Pentax camera that provides excellent high ISO. As it is, the photos suffer some when I have to use noise reduction, but some are still quite usable. If a camera provided low noise shots at 3200, and I could go as high as 6400 or 12800, I'd be a happy camper. I don't need an ISO of 20 gazillion. I do need good high ISO. And, frankly, I didn't think this was open to question and at all controversial.
It just really depends on what you shoot and what you consider high iso. I think most current generation APS-C cameras can shoot iso 3200 pretty comfortably as long as you don't need to bump shadows/exposure a lot afterwards. At the same time, if you shoot landscape, using such high iso is going to severely limit you with regard to what you can get out of your final image. At iso 100, it isn't a problem to go from this:



to this:



But even at iso 400, it wouldn't happen and you would have to make a decision -- shoot multiple exposures or blow out the sky.

People are talking about iso 1600 and 3200 and 6400 in this thread, but my impression is that the OP was saying that cameras companies are adding extra high iso ability without really making it usable. 25K, 51K and maybe higher isos than that have been added to APS-C cameras, but honestly there has been little improvement in the actual high iso capability of these cameras since the release of the K5 sensor four or five years ago.

04-13-2016, 04:41 AM - 1 Like   #65
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 996
Okay, but the question then is "usable" for what? I don't shoot sports at night, but some do. I don't shoot surveillance images at night, but some do. I don't shoot "security" images, but some do. I don't shoot nighttime journalism, but some do. What are those folks supposed to do? Not get the shots? Why not have ISO 20 gazillion for them? They aren't interested in high-DR, low-noise shots; they would take any shots they could get.

I get that marketing will try to sell that feature to the average Joe. But then again, up to fairly recently, you could get the super-high ISOs only on the highest-end bodies, which meant spending a small fortune. The point is no less true for fastest shutter speed (most folks need 1/8000"?) or frames per second (most folks need 8fps?) or highest sync speed (most folks need 1/250"?) or...or...or.... The cameras CAN perform in a wide variety of situations, and that's good.
04-13-2016, 09:39 AM   #66
Pentaxian
Dr_who's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 686
I don't think it's scam, look at the Nikon D5 ISO results. While the K1 isn't in the price range, it shows that you certainly can have usable pictures at iso 200k or even higher, especially if your not blowing them up to poster sized prints. I can see this being very useful for newpapers where the resolution doesn't need to be there.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d5-review-29141/performance
04-13-2016, 10:58 AM   #67
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by Dr_who Quote
I don't think it's scam, look at the Nikon D5 ISO results. While the K1 isn't in the price range, it shows that you certainly can have usable pictures at iso 200k or even higher, especially if your not blowing them up to poster sized prints. I can see this being very useful for newpapers where the resolution doesn't need to be there.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d5-review-29141/performance
I looked at the Nikon D5 versus other full frame cameras and I don't see a big difference in RAW performance. Maybe the jpeg engines are a little better, but they aren't great.

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review
04-13-2016, 03:18 PM   #68
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 120
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
Okay, but the question then is "usable" for what? I don't shoot sports at night, but some do. I don't shoot surveillance images at night, but some do. I don't shoot "security" images, but some do. I don't shoot nighttime journalism, but some do. What are those folks supposed to do? Not get the shots? Why not have ISO 20 gazillion for them? They aren't interested in high-DR, low-noise shots; they would take any shots they could get.

I get that marketing will try to sell that feature to the average Joe. But then again, up to fairly recently, you could get the super-high ISOs only on the highest-end bodies, which meant spending a small fortune. The point is no less true for fastest shutter speed (most folks need 1/8000"?) or frames per second (most folks need 8fps?) or highest sync speed (most folks need 1/250"?) or...or...or.... The cameras CAN perform in a wide variety of situations, and that's good.
Thank you for your view. First I'm not saying don't appeal to those who find outrageously high ISO useful I'm saying ISO 100 has room for improvement on any camera but it seems either this is harder to achieve or it's just easier adding 100k ISO to the specs sheet. Weather it's useable or not is subjective. It's quite obvious it has now become a spec used to compete with other brands. In summary for my use I would like to see ISO 6400 look like 200 for example. I have yet to see a brand claim and use this as a selling point for some reason.

04-13-2016, 03:23 PM   #69
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 996
QuoteOriginally posted by creative69 Quote
Thank you for your view. First I'm not saying don't appeal to those who find outrageously high ISO useful I'm saying ISO 100 has room for improvement on any camera but it seems either this is harder to achieve or it's just easier adding 100k ISO to the specs sheet. Weather it's useable or not is subjective. It's quite obvious it has now become a spec used to compete with other brands. In summary for my use I would like to see ISO 6400 look like 200 for example. I have yet to see a brand claim and use this as a selling point for some reason.
And I, like you, would like to see ISO 6400 look like 200. I'd like ISO 12800 to look like 400. And I'd like 25,600 to look like 800. That would do it for any situation I can conceivably find myself in. Have 51,200 and 102,400 for those who need to take shots in complete darkness, and leave it at that. Perhaps there are still technological obstacles to that level of ISO success. Perhaps there are insurmountable physics obstacles, for that matter.
04-13-2016, 03:25 PM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 120
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It just really depends on what you shoot and what you consider high iso. I think most current generation APS-C cameras can shoot iso 3200 pretty comfortably as long as you don't need to bump shadows/exposure a lot afterwards. At the same time, if you shoot landscape, using such high iso is going to severely limit you with regard to what you can get out of your final image. At iso 100, it isn't a problem to go from this:



to this:



But even at iso 400, it wouldn't happen and you would have to make a decision -- shoot multiple exposures or blow out the sky.

People are talking about iso 1600 and 3200 and 6400 in this thread, but my impression is that the OP was saying that cameras companies are adding extra high iso ability without really making it usable. 25K, 51K and maybe higher isos than that have been added to APS-C cameras, but honestly there has been little improvement in the actual high iso capability of these cameras since the release of the K5 sensor four or five years ago.
This ^^
04-13-2016, 04:48 PM   #71
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,253
QuoteOriginally posted by sholtzma Quote
I'm not sure what some of you shoot, and more power to you whatever you do shoot, but some of you clearly don't shoot in situations that I sometimes do. When I have photographed dancers in a dark auditorium with only some minimum stage lighting, I can't get anything usable if I stay at or below ISO 800. Even with my 70-200 at f2.8 (not its best aperture), I'd have such a slow shutter speed that it wouldn't be worth taking any photos at all. I'd be lucky if I could use 1600 for some shots, but usually I'd be at 3200 and at times even 6400. And that's just one situation I've found myself in. I'd kill to have a Pentax camera that provides excellent high ISO. As it is, the photos suffer some when I have to use noise reduction, but some are still quite usable. If a camera provided low noise shots at 3200, and I could go as high as 6400 or 12800, I'd be a happy camper. I don't need an ISO of 20 gazillion. I do need good high ISO. And, frankly, I didn't think this was open to question and at all controversial.
It is down to opinion of what one considers usable or not. If you think ISO 3200 on crop body looks usable then use it.

Also, what is 'high ISO' ?? For me, 'high ISO' is 800 and above on crop. For others, as yourself, perhaps 'high ISO' is 6400. The phrase 'high ISO' is ambiguous.

ISO 3200 on FF should be similar to ISO 800 on crop though.. 2 stop performance gain should help for you.
04-13-2016, 05:31 PM   #72
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 460
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
The Pentax K-01 here is mostly unusable at iso 3200.
I respectfully disagree, see below. While these aren't technically perfect shots by any stretch of imagination, I would definitely call them good enough for many purposes, including printing at moderate sizes. If it's between getting or not getting the shot, high ISO can save the day sometimes. Even I would draw the line at around ISO 12800, though.

K-01 at ISO 3200


K-3 at ISO 4000


K-x at ISO 3200
04-13-2016, 05:47 PM - 1 Like   #73
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
It is down to opinion of what one considers usable or not.
Yep. The only thing that matters is what each person considers usable. And usable for what purpose? For family snaps I am fine with ISO 6400 or so, with good noise reduction it is an acceptable photo of an event that would not otherwise be recorded. For work, or for images that are going to be printed for sale I have far higher standards. Usually about 400 ISO on the k-3, occasionally 800. And I greatly prefer ISO 100 if I can. I honestly cringe when I have to go to ISO 200, and figure if I'm shooting at 400 I'm probably just wasting my time.
But for someone else with a different purpose, better noise reduction skills, or just different standards, use what works. That's why ISO 102,000 is there

It gets a bit tiresome though when folks post those ISO 12,000 shots to 'prove' they can take good photos at that setting. A web image with massive NR applied doesn't prove anything to me. I know better, from shooting and processing almost every day. My standards are what they are, MY standards so I really don't care what others find acceptable.
04-13-2016, 08:20 PM   #74
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 148
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
You've lost me, CS ... are you saying the picture doesn't get taken even in Manual Focus?
Not quite. I still use AF most of the time. There often isn't enough time to AF on the spot I want to take the picture on and then switch to manual. I just AF on the spot (half press on shutter button), and then wait until horse gets there and then snap the shot. It's still on AF but unless I really messed up my framing, it should not have to refocus. 9/10 times it takes the shot. 1/10 times pushing the shutter does nothing - no shot (and I'm quite sure I am pressing the button). I have a higher percentage no-shot rate if I try to track the horse around.. Highly likely I'm just doing something wrong and I'm hoping someone will point that out. But could also be a Pentax AF bug, or a Pentax 60-250 AF issue. I have the AF priority set to shutter priority (vs focus priority), which I assumed meant "Take the damn shot when I tell you to camera even if you don't think it's in focus". If I switch to manual, it will always take the shot. I do this if I'm desperate to nail one particular jump on the course, but sometimes I'm trying to shoot 4 or 5 different spots on the course and I can't be fumbling the MF switch off and on.

Curious to know if anyone else has had the camera just refuse to take the shot (when set to Shutter priority - the behavior would be understandable in focus priority mode if subject wasn't in focus). The one possibility I have thought of is that my AF.C-AF.S switch is not actually on AF.C when I think it is, and the camera is defaulting to focus priority for AF.S. As I said, most likely this is [l]user error.
04-13-2016, 09:43 PM   #75
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,239
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
It gets a bit tiresome though when folks post those ISO 12,000 shots to 'prove' they can take good photos at that setting. A web image with massive NR applied doesn't prove anything to me
The problem is when you or someone else tells us "folks" that we are wrong because we don't adhere to your standards. Lots of people view these threads that don't post and some of them are like myself, photography is a hobby and we "share" our pictures because we honestly believe there are other people out there who have the same approach to photography. I have some slides of my kids playing sports that are horrible, I didn't throw them out because they are the only record we have of events that were very important to us. Modern digital cameras are truly wonderful and I will take it personally if someone is convinced to put their camera away because someone on PentaxForums told them they should only take photos at ISO 100 (or 80 or 64 or whatever nonsense someone wants to promogulate) .
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!
24x36mm, af, aperture, camera, cameras, d810, data, dxo, flickr, focus, full-frame, gain, images, iso, james, k-1, k5, pentax, rider, sensor, sensors, shots, specs, williams
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why was the High ISO NR a problem on the K3? Culture Pentax K-3 15 10-09-2015 08:46 PM
Nature High ISO and high shutter speeds charliezap Post Your Photos! 3 09-15-2015 02:10 PM
What's the deal with K-3 poor high ISO performance Stavri Pentax DSLR Discussion 49 08-21-2014 03:02 PM
People K-5 high ISO... how high can we really go... igor Post Your Photos! 2 03-24-2012 01:10 AM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO supa007 Pentax DSLR Discussion 72 05-10-2010 04:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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