[loveisageless]

Thanks Twilhelm,
I don't believe I've adjusted my exposure compensation? I shoot manual.

---------- Post added 07-15-17 at 02:35 PM ----------



Above is SOOC.
ISO1600
f2.8
1/100
75mm

Below is after a white balance and +1/3 exposure in lightroom.


---------- Post added 07-15-17 at 02:37 PM ----------



Thank you Loveisageless. The 200mm 2.8 sounds nice...I'll bet it's expensive (probably cheaper than switching systems though!)

Actually the last time I bought a copy on eBay it was well under $1000. Definitely much cheaper than a D750 lol It produces a lovely bokeh. Take a look at the reviews in the lens review section here on the forum. It is a very hand holdable lens.

[halonp]

That does seem really dark for daytime. You will gain a few huge advantages with the K1 though. Autofocus will absolutely slay the K5. I push ISO to 3200 all the time and still have good images. You will have more dynamic range. You will have the ability to pull stuff out of shadows you never thought possible. Your 2 Tamron zooms will give you pictures you might cut yourself on with sharpness, but then your background will turn into butter smooth. Hey the K1. You will not be disappointed.

That being said, I think you are also slightly missing focus with the K5 in addition to underexposing. Once you nail focus bump your clarity, contrast, and slightly bump saturation.

Thank you for your feedback - yes i think with the 1st image I shared the focus feel behind her, and with the 2nd image it was hard to nail focus as they were up on stage dancing and I couldn't open any wider, and at 1/100 sec there was too much movement. My only choice was to up the ISO, but as you can see it gets noisy.

I'm excited that I can keep my lenses with the K1, and that on Camera Decision, the K1 was the winner when compared to the Nikon d750 (which was the one I was considering swapping to.)

I may need to have my camera/lenses calibrated. Do you do that yourself, or go to a camera shop? Maybe I should search the forums so I'm in the right section.

Thanks again.

[Adam]

The KP is quite a bit better in low light. I'd check out our review before deciding to step it up to full frame

[halonp]

The KP is quite a bit better in low light. I'd check out our review before deciding to step it up to full frame

OK, thank you Adam, I'll have a look at the KP.

I love the ISO comparison to the K3 and the k1. The K1 is beautifully sharp and clean, but the K3 does really, REALLY well (and about 1/2 the price).
Thank you.
Here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-kp-review/high-iso-performance.html

---

Last edited by halonp; 07-14-2017 at 10:15 PM.

[howieb101]

Or add a Sigma 85mm HSM F1.4. At F2 you gain one stop and if you are willing to shoot at F1.4, two stops.

[halonp]

Or add a Sigma 85mm HSM F1.4. At F2 you gain one stop and if you are willing to shoot at F1.4, two stops.

Great idea Howieb
f1.4 could be lovely.

Srsly considering the KP with a lower aperture prime (I'll check out the reviews, but the Sigma 85m f1.4 sounds ideal) and possibly a long prime also...if it doesn't break the bank, hehe.

[othar]

I have the Pentax 50 1.7, Tamron 28-70 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8,

All of those lenses are FF-lenses so no limitaions with the K-1 if you go that way.

f1.4 could be lovely.

Just keep in mind that nailing focus will be more important the faster your aperture is, because of the thinner depth of field.

[Sandy Hancock]

Metering and focus are not right with either of the shots you have posted.
It's pretty hard to judge where the problem lies.

[Fauxton]

Hi Kiah
I had a look at your posted photo EXIF information. Your settings you took both of your SOOC jpegs are Manual, ISO 800 with +5 Exposure Compensation. In Manual, that really is like shooting the K5 at 5 stops above ISO 800. That would be ISO 25600. The K5 is not good up that high. And if you brightened that photo again in post your essentially even going higher noise wise.
A couple of things then. Dial the Exposure compensation down to "0". Try that. Also double check the JPEG setting and ensure you have the JPEG quality level set to "Best".
The K5 should have no problem shooting clean pictures at or below ISO 1600 in challenging situations if you use raw and post process. Using Jpegs maybe a stop less. I regularly shoot up to 3200 with no concerns and ISO 6400 on occasion. But as you can see from the thread, that is both a personal thing and situation dependent - and generally if I'm shooting above 1600 there is something I'm trying to do with shutter speed or aperture.
On the K5 if you post process there is no reason to shoot raw above 1600 (given you can accomplish what you want with the available aperture and shutter speed) as increasing ISO on the camera is a digital correction not an analogue amplifier gain increase. That can be better done in post.
A K1 will not correct your photos.
Regards
Jim

[texandrews]

I've no interest in what the camera saw or what the mfr decided to do with the RAW file on it's way to a JPEG. I care about what I saw. Took me a while develop a workflow that satisfied me and it constantly changes. Part of the learning process.

And there you have it, this is ultimately the most general best answer possible. BTW, this would be a painter's mindset, if we allow that "what I saw" means also what the mind's eye saw, and then sees through the whole process. The only times one needs to be more concerned about other issues, such as color fidelity (and that's a very tricky area) is in product photography, and its offshoots, such as fine arts repro, etc. With respect to the noise levels, as others have pointed out you could mitigate quite a bit of that with different settings, different lens selections, different composition, etc. But without enlarging this to make the noise obvious, it's a charming family type shot, fine up to 5x7 or even 8x10, printed.

[clackers]

Thank you Clackers,
I have been using the Pentax system since 2011, and taken a few online courses, however there's always room to learn more

Yes, mate, you might want to get a refund on those online courses!

They can't replace a real person telling you that your photo is incorrectly exposed - and if you have a look at yours, there's no way that's correct even for the 18 percent grey algorithm of a camera.

I can see from the lack of shadows the lighting is very flat, too. The 'key' light is the sky directly above because of the trees, so your subject's eyes are ruined by the shade from her eye sockets. If you must, pose her with a lifted chin and ideally shoot from top of a bench or step ladder.

The courses should have urged you to put your subject in the shade like this only if the area in front is well lit (the concept is called 'open shade' or 'garage lighting'), or to relocate them to a patch of light in the otherwise dark area. Both have their own looks.

So does using flash. You can learn how to balance ambient vs flash online with articles like this:

How To Use Flash Outdoors | Flash And Ambient Light Balancing For A Natural Effect | SLR Lounge

but you're much better off actually doing it in the company of others. They can give you the challenge, feedback and assistance. Watching a YouTube video doesn't do that. Just forget 'em. They're often advertisments disguised as tutorials, eg Jason Lanier wants you to buy a hyped Sony A9.

I took this outdoor fashion shot last week with settings similar to yours: ISO 800, f5.6 1/160s, on a K-1, using the DA*55 lens and a Yongnuo flash off camera. I could have given you the trigger, you could have stood in the same place with your K-5 and DA35 and taken the same picture:



Bon Shooting!

[speagles2]

As noted above, the first shot is very underexposed, which is why you're seeing so much noise in the image when you push it back up to proper exposure in post processing. Rather than manual, I'd suggest you consider TAv mode and use auto ISO with a range up to at least ISO 3200 - I think you'll get better results with a properly exposed image in camera shot at a higher ISO than with a very underexposed image shot at a lower ISO. If you are running out of light, then I would also suggest that, with a shot like the first one where the subject is static, you could go with a slower shutter speed and trust the SR to do its job. Try taking some shots at 200mm at 1/100 and slower shutter speeds and you may be surprised at how well the SR works. Good luck - I know I learn something every day from the folks on this forum...

[halonp]

Thank you very much everyone.
You've all given me some valuable feedback.
I'll make some changes, keep practising, and hopefully improve.
(I still want a K1 though &#128518

---------- Post added 07-16-17 at 08:03 AM ----------

Could I get some feedback on this, please?
I've reset all my custom settings. I adjusted my ISO, SS, and F-stop to try to match the exposure.
This is taken just now with my Tamron 28-75 2.8
Settings:
F2.8
ISO3200 (I don't think I've ever shot with my ISO this high)
SS 1/125

Personally, I don't think it looks as noisy as my ISO800's with +exposure compensation.
Does it look focused to you? I'm wondering if my I need this lens (and my others) calibrated?

Thank you so much everyone, I really appreciate your help.

[clackers]

Thank you very much everyone.
You've all given me some valuable feedback.
I'll make some changes, keep practising, and hopefully improve.
(I still want a K1 though ��)

---------- Post added 07-16-17 at 08:03 AM ----------

Could I get some feedback on this, please?
I've reset all my custom settings. I adjusted my ISO, SS, and F-stop to try to match the exposure.
This is taken just now with my Tamron 28-75 2.8
Settings:
F2.8
ISO3200 (I don't think I've ever shot with my ISO this high)
SS 1/125

Personally, I don't think it looks as noisy as my ISO800's with +exposure compensation.
Does it look focused to you? I'm wondering if my I need this lens (and my others) calibrated?

Thank you so much everyone, I really appreciate your help.

Coupla things, Stephen:

1. It's still underexposed for mine (the white bits aren't white), with an accompanying blue colour cast. High ISO doesn't just introduce noise that needs to be removed by software, it kills dynamic range and crushes your colour variations, and they can't be corrected for. This is a flash situation.
2. No part of it seems sharp - are you handholding?

[halonp]

Coupla things, Stephen:

1. It's still underexposed for mine (the white bits aren't white), with an accompanying blue colour cast. High ISO doesn't just introduce noise that needs to be removed by software, it kills dynamic range and crushes your colour variations, and they can't be corrected for. This is a flash situation.
2. No part of it seems sharp - are you handholding?

1. This balanced on the EV scale on my top screen.
2. Yes, handheld.