[ChrisJ]

I do almost all my landscape photography at iso 80, so the difference is important to me.

You do realise that 80 ISO is noisier than 400 ISO? That's why it's in the extended ISO range, it does offer the widest dynamic range though, but not by much.

Getting the exposure spot on makes more difference both to noise and Dynamic Range.

Chris

[Rondec]

It makes a difference only in scenes with more than 13 stops of range, but then it makes an important difference.

I do question how much of the DR is usable. I can boost shadows at iso 80 about three to three and a half stops before I start getting a fair amount of noise. Honestly, if I want more detail than that, I have to combine exposures. And often that looks better than just processing a single file to try to get every inch of dynamic range out of it.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Out of interest, what's the dynamic range of the best monitors and printers by which we will view photographs? Do they exceed that of the best cameras? Otherwise, there's not much point in worrying about half a stop here and there.

[Rondec]

Out of interest, what's the dynamic range of the best monitors and printers by which we will view photographs? Do they exceed that of the best cameras? Otherwise, there's not much point in worrying about half a stop here and there.

Well, after processing, you have a file with a more compressed dynamic range, right? So, if I stick a graduated filter on in lightroom and then dodge the shadows a little, I have made an image that can then be printed or viewed without having this monitor or printer with a vast dynamic range. The question though, is if the detail is really there and if it is, how much is usable. Certainly there is a point where you may bring up shadows and get more detail, but there is too much noise to make it worthwhile.

[Louicio]

The 645D has a much lower DR than K-5 and K-3, doesn't seem to stop MikeSF or any of the other 645D users taking amazing landscapes

[derekkite]

I wouldn't discount the measurements. The dynamic range means that it is capable of capturing more than otherwise, which allows the photographer more leeway in taking shots. I know that I seem to be always on the edge of the capabilities when I shoot, in low light, capturing movement, and the more capable the body, the more possibility of getting a usable shot.
That being said, the differences are very marginal for a given class of sensor. The differences change depending on where you are on the iso curve. There will be a larger difference in the lens selection. As well, depending on the shooting that a person does, other characteristics of the body will make a difference whether the shot is good or not. In real terms, over hundreds of shots, a more accurate metering system may get you more usable shots than a half stop in DR on the sensor.

[klkitchens]

I would have traded ISO 80 for a 1/250 flash sync, but that's just me

[kenyee]

Out of interest, what's the dynamic range of the best monitors and printers by which we will view photographs? Do they exceed that of the best cameras?

From a quick google dig:
Dynamic Range - Autopano

So screens have enough dynamic range...printers are around 7 stops from what I could find but that was an older article and I couldn't find anything newer.

I wish the K-3 has an ISO50 but if it's extended range and noisy, it's really just a way to let you slow the shutter speed down which can be done w/ ND filters instead...

[Uluru]

A DR difference of almost 1 stop as between the k5 and k3 will certainly lead to more noticeable noise (to the "naked eye") in the shadows for the K3 when raising shadows in raw. The K3 may be a nice camera but lets be realistic - the sensor could be better and closer to the competition (Nikon d5200/d7100).

What 1stop?

[ALiEN|PoV]

You do realise that 80 ISO is noisier than 400 ISO? That's why it's in the extended ISO range, it does offer the widest dynamic range though, but not by much.

Getting the exposure spot on makes more difference both to noise and Dynamic Range.

Chris

Thanks for simplifying the concept of dynamic range. A sometimes critical mistake often made, because; we have excellent PP options.

[dosdan]

You do realise that 80 ISO is noisier than 400 ISO?

Can't follow you.
Under what circumstance is an ISO80 image noisier than an ISO400 image?
By "noisier" are you referring to the total amount of noise in the image, or to the SNR?
Are you referring to 2 images with the same exposure (scene luminance, f-stop, shutter speed), but with different amounts of ISO gain applied?
Or are you instead referring to 2 images with different exposures, but with the ISO80 image having a certain percentage of sensel outputs at FWC and the ISO400 image with the same percentage of ADC output values at digital Full Scale i.e. both at a similar saturation/clipping level for that ISO), so they both have a similar rendered brightness?

Dan.

[twitch]

I wish I had a dollar for every time I read ISO80 is extended therefore not as good as native ISO100, although not as good as ISO400 is a new one. Just like more MP = more noise.

A quick look at the DXO graph shows this idea is a total myth for the K-5 anyway, ISO80 really is the king of DR and SNR for the K-5 series.

[gazonk]

I wish I had a dollar for every time I read ISO80 is extended therefore not as good as native ISO100, although not as good as ISO400 is a new one. Just like more MP = more noise.

A quick look at the DXO graph shows this idea is a total myth for the K-5 anyway, ISO80 really is the king of DR and SNR for the K-5 series.

+1! I really don't understand these comments. I love ISO 80 on my K-5, and am still hoping for a Mk II version of the K-3 with ISO 50 :-) Or the Digital Kodachrome Camera with ISO 25

[bossa]

If the K-3 had low noise @ K-5 levels @ 100% I would have bought one and sold my Nikon 300mm for a DA*300 but I think my best move at this point is to fully commit to selling off my Pentax gear for a decent super-tele from Nikon or Sigma.