Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2013, 02:40 PM   #241
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?
Nope, 3200 is my ceiling. I might consider going to 6400 in a pinch.

10-29-2013, 02:48 PM   #242
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?
In the sample photos at high ISO the D600 images are awful, and the K-3 images are technically more awful, but the K-3 images are approaching funky awful, where as the D600 images are just awful awful... in my artistic opinion, but I wouldn't use either of them, because I don't care what kind of awful they are, good, bad or funky awful, I just don't want awful.

Awesome vs. awful


Really awful vs awful.. doesn't that really awful noise look funky? (at 25600 ISO)


Last edited by normhead; 10-29-2013 at 03:03 PM.
10-29-2013, 04:42 PM   #243
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
In the sample photos at high ISO the D600 images are awful, and the K-3 images are technically more awful, but the K-3 images are approaching funky awful, where as the D600 images are just awful awful... in my artistic opinion, but I wouldn't use either of them, because I don't care what kind of awful they are, good, bad or funky awful, I just don't want awful.

Awesome vs. awful


Really awful vs awful.. doesn't that really awful noise look funky? (at 25600 ISO)
Top-Left image has been sharpened.

Top-Right image is OOF (probably based on a lousy lens or diffraction)

You just never give up and refuse to recognize any valid points other people make that brings your position into question. You even resort to name calling. Just look at how you spoke to Jay, "It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals." Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240721-nice-d600-vs-k-3-co...#ixzz2j9osZleI

It's a shame that you identify so deeply with your equipment as you always seem to be on the defensive when people make objective comments about it.
10-29-2013, 05:02 PM   #244
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
Nope, 3200 is my ceiling. I might consider going to 6400 in a pinch.
1600 in a pinch for me




10-29-2013, 06:01 PM   #245
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,255
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I'm am still very skeptical. One dog may be memorized but not two.
Dogs can stay pretty still you know. This is a 15 second exposure.


Stay Sammy. Stay....
10-29-2013, 06:14 PM - 1 Like   #246
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,783
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Top-Left image has been sharpened.

Top-Right image is OOF (probably based on a lousy lens or diffraction)

You just never give up and refuse to recognize any valid points other people make that brings your position into question. You even resort to name calling. Just look at how you spoke to Jay, "It must be tough being so superior and having to put up with us neanderthals." Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240721-nice-d600-vs-k-3-co...#ixzz2j9osZleI

It's a shame that you identify so deeply with your equipment as you always seem to be on the defensive when people make objective comments about it.
What you think I said is not what I meant to say. I'm not sure how else to respond to that.
10-29-2013, 07:49 PM   #247
Site Supporter
Eric Auer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 861
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What you think I said is not what I meant to say. I'm not sure how else to respond to that.
I like you Bro, But the dude was right.
10-30-2013, 12:38 AM   #248
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 17
Looks like motion blur

The K-3 samples look blurred in comparison to the D7100.
Didnīt they turn the SR off?

10-30-2013, 03:07 AM   #249
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?
I've taken dozens at ISO 12,800 this year with my K-5IIs. Hand-held shots inside museums, inside aircraft, and a few (failed) birds in flight. (I haven't taken any at higher ISO than that).

Some of these are very acceptable. With care in Lightroom, they are sharp and with acceptable noise (rather than objectionable or intrusive noise). Typical Lightroom parameters might use: Noise reduction - Luminance 50, Color 25; and Sharpening with Masking 80 or more to avoid sharpening noise in smooth surfaces.

I mostly keep below ISO 6400, but it is useful to have higher ISOs available as an option. I would probably sometimes use higher ISOs than 12,800 if I were confident that I could keep noise under control in an A3+ print. But I probably need more practice first.
10-30-2013, 03:52 AM   #250
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,600
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
I've taken dozens at ISO 12,800 this year
So have I with my K-5. Dozens, maybe hundreds ISO 12k can be workable, especially if the shot is basically sharp and in focus. I don't like going there but if I have to it isn't an automatic disaster. Careful post-processing, as Barry indicates, can help achieve decent output too.
10-30-2013, 04:03 AM   #251
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,600
QuoteOriginally posted by Viennese Quote
The K-3 samples look blurred in comparison to the D7100.
Didnīt they turn the SR off?
I think you are in the wrong thread, no D7100 here ...
10-30-2013, 06:07 AM   #252
Pentaxian
halfspin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 248
QuoteOriginally posted by Cynog Ap Brychan Quote
Am I the only person who doesn't give a fig at what pictures (from any camera) look like at 12,800 ISO? I've never used it, and never will. I know that it's important to some, but am I really in a minority of one?
I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.
10-30-2013, 06:24 AM   #253
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,310
Since the K-5 is so worthless above ISO 6400 or whatever, I guess I should delete the ISO 20,000 photo that I have in the PPG.
10-30-2013, 06:25 AM   #254
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,783
QuoteOriginally posted by halfspin Quote
I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.
HIgh ISO can work, as long as, the scene doesn't have too much contrast. In a situation like this with low light and very little dynamic range, still get useable images at least at 3200 ISO, when necessary. You just have to remember, if the scene is demanding in terms of DR, it's probably not going to work out well for you. This day was over cast, late in the day and low light, perfect high ISO shooting conditions.

Pentax A-400 ƒ5.6 @ƒ11 ISO 3200 1/400 sec I can't see any problems with ISO 3200 in this picture, and I needed it to keep my shitter speed up to 1/400s.


Last edited by normhead; 10-30-2013 at 06:31 AM.
10-30-2013, 06:31 AM   #255
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by halfspin Quote
I'll go up to 400 in extreme situations. Anything above that seems wacky. I'm old tho.
But it is when you are old that you need high ISOs! Your hands shake. Your eyes can't focus properly. You need fast shutter speeds and small apertures!

(I'm 66, by the way).
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!
comparison, d600, dslr, head, k-3, k3, nikon, pentax, pentax k-3, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs K-r vs K-7 - DSLR Comparison Adam Pentax K-5 40 09-30-2013 06:22 PM
Current K-5 vs. K-30 autofocus comparison? Newtophotos Pentax K-5 5 08-27-2013 10:31 AM
k-30 vs Nikon D600 zorza Pentax K-30 & K-50 31 01-02-2013 04:30 PM
Unscientific Comparison: K5 vs. 5DII vs. D600 sb in ak Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 36 12-27-2012 01:13 PM
Camera comparison: One X vs Galaxy S II vs Nexus vs N8 vs iPhone 4S jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 04-12-2012 07:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM. | 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