Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-05-2013, 10:59 AM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
For my own use, I have over 1500 images from my k-3 and real world, I won't use 6400 ISO. So it certainly isn't a deal breaker for me. I like up to 800 ISO on this camera, and with 1600 being the high end of useful. That's an IQ perspective… if you shoot for 6400 and over a lot of the time, I'm guessing an 20- 24Mp FF would be a good investment. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Check out the images for a 6D or D610 and see if they're more to your liking.

I don't shoot 6400 ISO and it's not even an issue, forget about a deal breaker. Now if someone can show me 6400 ISO on some other camera is as good as the 800 ISO I'm happy with on my K-3, then that would be news I might be interested in.

12-05-2013, 11:11 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
Ummm, no. It all depends on how much "grit" you can tolerate in your ISO6400 images. Here is my attempt at the red swatch with darktable v1.2.3. Only enough chroma and luma NR to get rid of the color blotching. Pumped up the local contrast detail a bit. Still detail there. I have the IIs and the K-3 runs rings around it in resolution.

Jack
Very true. I never aim to remove all noise from an image. It's too bad that DxO 9 does not yet support the K-3, as it would be interesting to see how its Prime NR engine would handle the IR file.

So what is the consensus on the K-3 vs the K-5II? Is the increased detail worth the increased noise? I find that when I downsize K-3 files, they still show more of both, especially at 100%, though It might not matter much at normal viewing sizes.

Rob
12-05-2013, 11:15 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
For my own use, I have over 1500 images from my k-3 and real world, I won't use 6400 ISO. So it certainly isn't a deal breaker for me. I like up to 800 ISO on this camera, and with 1600 being the high end of useful. That's an IQ perspective… if you shoot for 6400 and over a lot of the time, I'm guessing an 20- 24Mp FF would be a good investment. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Check out the images for a 6D or D610 and see if they're more to your liking.

I don't shoot 6400 ISO and it's not even an issue, forget about a deal breaker. Now if someone can show me 6400 ISO on some other camera is as good as the 800 ISO I'm happy with on my K-3, then that would be news I might be interested in.
I have a Sony RX1 with a 24MP FF sensor. I shoot at ISO 6400 more than occasionally. The files contain significant noise, but it cleans up very nicely in Photo Ninja/Noise Ninja. That is my only concern regarding the K-3. Can the noise be effectively handled, or will the result be soft, mushy images?

Rob
12-05-2013, 11:23 AM   #19
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
My guess would be if that's where you make your living, FF makes sense. There should theoretically be about a stop difference in high ISO noise between FF and APS-c. Unless someone can show you a method of getting what you want out of a K-3 I wouldn't assume you can achieve the same results. And, resolution should also be harder to come by in the red end of the spectrum than the blue. You could even be running into diffraction limits here.

But I'm guessing… perhaps an educated guess, but a guess non the less.

12-05-2013, 11:40 AM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,008
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Very true. I never aim to remove all noise from an image. It's too bad that DxO 9 does not yet support the K-3, as it would be interesting to see how its Prime NR engine would handle the IR file.

So what is the consensus on the K-3 vs the K-5II? Is the increased detail worth the increased noise? I find that when I downsize K-3 files, they still show more of both, especially at 100%, though It might not matter much at normal viewing sizes.

Rob
My experience with K5 II and K3 files is that the K3 files are equivalent at high iso (I really don't shoot over iso 6400 though) and at low iso there is a lot more detail. I am not an aggressive "cleaner" of files and don't really care if there is some noise on a pixel level. Anyway, to me, the K3 is a better landscape camera. If you are mainly shooting high iso shots, then it doesn't really matter.
12-05-2013, 11:55 AM   #21
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,541
In jpeg just use a more muted custom set, I often find Bright/default over the top on bright red or yellow.
Every camera and brand has potential deal-breakers lurking inside, when you see it you'll know & adapt or move on.

Last edited by jimr-pdx; 12-05-2013 at 12:03 PM.
12-05-2013, 12:27 PM   #22
Site Supporter
klkitchens's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Allanta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 406
Gonna get slapped... but if your workflow involves shooting JPEG mode... you don't need a K-3.
12-05-2013, 01:37 PM - 2 Likes   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
Sigh.

As has already been noted by someone, this issue of the IR red swatch has already been well covered by at least three threads already, with lots of sample images and tests.

Change the settings for your JPEG noise reduction (colour/chroma noise in particular, not luminance noise) and all the red detail comes back. Pentax's JPEG defaults apply too much chroma noise NR.

12-05-2013, 02:41 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Sigh.

As has already been noted by someone, this issue of the IR red swatch has already been well covered by at least three threads already, with lots of sample images and tests.

Change the settings for your JPEG noise reduction (colour/chroma noise in particular, not luminance noise) and all the red detail comes back. Pentax's JPEG defaults apply too much chroma noise NR.
Sigh.

My original post relates to raw files only. I thought that point would have been clear from my mentioning the use of Photo Ninja for raw conversion and noise reduction. Reducing chroma noise in raw convertors seems to cause loss of detail in the red channel that may be greater for Pentax DSLRs than for other cameras. I don't know, because I have not run tests on other cameras. That is something that I was hoping to learn from this discussion.

Rob
12-05-2013, 04:02 PM   #25
Site Supporter
LaurenOE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,482
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
For my own use, I have over 1500 images from my k-3 and real world, I won't use 6400 ISO. So it certainly isn't a deal breaker for me. I like up to 800 ISO on this camera, and with 1600 being the high end of useful. That's an IQ perspective… if you shoot for 6400 and over a lot of the time, I'm guessing an 20- 24Mp FF would be a good investment. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Check out the images for a 6D or D610 and see if they're more to your liking.

I don't shoot 6400 ISO and it's not even an issue, forget about a deal breaker. Now if someone can show me 6400 ISO on some other camera is as good as the 800 ISO I'm happy with on my K-3, then that would be news I might be interested in.
Exactly.

It's why I was snarky in my original reply.
I think in ALL of my pictures, from all the Pentax cameras EVER, I don't think I have ever shot over 1600.

Are there people out there that expect to walk around in dimly lit rooms, and want decent shutter speeds without a flash or tripod?
Are there people that expect high IQ in those situations?

Can someone explain to me some "real-world" scenarios where 6400 and good glass makes sense?
12-05-2013, 04:21 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LaurenOE Quote
Exactly.

It's why I was snarky in my original reply.
I think in ALL of my pictures, from all the Pentax cameras EVER, I don't think I have ever shot over 1600.

Are there people out there that expect to walk around in dimly lit rooms, and want decent shutter speeds without a flash or tripod?
Are there people that expect high IQ in those situations?

Can someone explain to me some "real-world" scenarios where 6400 and good glass makes sense?
You must lead a very sheltered life. As for me, I frequently find myself chasing my grandchildren around a somewhat dark living room, trying to catch them at the perfect moment in natural light. ISO 6400 is often required, especially since I am loathe to shoot wide open and risk OOF pics due to the shallow DOF. I have gotten some great images would have been impossible at lower ISOs. There was a time when I, too, thought that using high ISOs was absurd, but not any longer.

Rob
12-05-2013, 04:33 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by LaurenOE Quote
Can someone explain to me some "real-world" scenarios where 6400 and good glass makes sense?
Only wedding photography in dark churches AFAIK...or doing sports. In both cases, you want to keep your shutter speed up.
However, in those cases, you typically don't blow it up to 30x40" prints. You'll most likely do 11x14's at most I think...
12-05-2013, 04:41 PM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area)
Posts: 1,491
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
You must lead a very sheltered life. As for me, I frequently find myself chasing my grandchildren around a somewhat dark living room, trying to catch them at the perfect moment in natural light. ISO 6400 is often required, especially since I am loathe to shoot wide open and risk OOF pics due to the shallow DOF. I have gotten some great images would have been impossible at lower ISOs. There was a time when I, too, thought that using high ISOs was absurd, but not any longer.
This is is more-or-less the scenario I immediately thought of (s/grandchildren/child).

I don't expect publication-quality images out of this. But high IQ? Yes, definitely. As much as possible.
12-05-2013, 04:57 PM   #29
rfg
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Sigh.

My original post relates to raw files only. I thought that point would have been clear from my mentioning the use of Photo Ninja for raw conversion and noise reduction.

Rob
Well not exactly, your first sentence is:

QuoteQuote:
I'm sure that many on this forum are aware that Pentax DSLRs have always had problems showing detail in the bright red cloth in Imaging Resource's standard still life scene.
and anyone who frequents IR reviews knows that the still life comparisons they show are SOOC jpegs, so at least by inference you are not just talking raws.

As many have done I have downloaded a high ISO k-3 raw and seen plenty of detail in the red fabric as long as I go easy on the colour/chroma noise slider in lightroom (for example).
As to your question of whether pentax raws are more susceptible than other cameras, one could easily download raws for the D7100, 70D etc and see, or maybe one of the other threads already has this?

12-05-2013, 05:03 PM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 63
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
Can someone explain to me some "real-world" scenarios where 6400 and good glass makes sense?
In live music i need good&fast lens and i use to push up to 3200, rarely at 6400 but sometimes i have to (depends of the speed i really need).
This is the Raw vs Jpeg result (the jpeg on the screen make me mad the thirst time i saw it )


Last edited by novsky; 12-05-2013 at 05:08 PM. Reason: i forget image to illutrate ^_^
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!
cloth, detail, dslr, iso, k-3, k3, pentax k-3
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Design critique -- K-01 and the (RED) Leica M jon404 Pentax K-01 7 11-26-2013 04:14 PM
Will the K-3 automagically kill purple fringing and the like? Sagitta Pentax K-3 4 10-08-2013 03:53 PM
For Sale - Sold: PRICE REDUCED - Red K-x and Red DAL 18-55mm panoguy Sold Items 5 11-14-2012 05:38 PM
Lightroom 3 and the K-01? ScooterMaxi Jim Pentax K-01 3 04-20-2012 06:54 AM
I'm Nabeel_co and you just got me, Hook, Line, and Sinker, with the K-3 announcement. nabeel_co Welcomes and Introductions 3 04-01-2012 02:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 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