K3 vs K5 high ISO noise.

normhead · 01-28-2014, 10:50 AM

Since starting this thread, I've become a lot more comfortable with the noise at higher ISOs. I also have an A-400, and the CA is much more noticeable with the K-3, but reduced to the same size, it looks the same only sharper.

john5100 · 01-28-2014, 04:34 PM

Hi folks show your high ISO shots. I'm actually interested in your technique.

ISO 1600

john5100 · 02-27-2014, 12:14 PM - **1 Like**

Not sure how the K5 would do, but here is the K3 at ISO 25,600

Parry · 03-01-2014, 12:49 PM

K-3 at ISO 3200 with Tair-11A near wide open. Very, very little NR in LR5.3. Tiny amount.

mee · 03-02-2014, 05:52 PM

You can definitely see the softness/detail-being-sucked-away from the images above ISO 1600 on all of these images. Might be able to get some of it back with some smart PP but I wouldn't fool with it; I wouldn't use either camera above 1600 unless I realllyyyy *had* to.

rawr · 03-02-2014, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by mee

You can definitely see the softness/detail-being-sucked-away from the images above ISO 1600 on all of these images.

You can see that from 1024px JPEG's, shot with lenses often used wide open, and processed in a variety of unknown ways?

audiobomber · 03-02-2014, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by mee

You can definitely see the softness/detail-being-sucked-away from the images above ISO 1600 on all of these images. Might be able to get some of it back with some smart PP but I wouldn't fool with it; I wouldn't use either camera above 1600 unless I realllyyyy *had* to.

As a K-3 owner, I think that's ridiculous. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

derekkite · 03-02-2014, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

As a K-3 owner, I think that's ridiculous. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I agree. I had a shot a few days ago at iso 5600, much higher than I usually go, and it cleaned up very nicely.

The only difference in noise from the K-5 is the white/grey noise you get in low light, low contrast shots outdoors at mid to high shutter speeds. In comparable circumstances the K-5 did either no better or worse.

mee · 03-02-2014, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by rawr

You can see that from 1024px JPEG's, shot with lenses often used wide open, and processed in a variety of unknown ways?

Yes, I can tell a sharp/clean image from one that is not. Neither of these cameras (or any APS-C for that matter) is outputting sharp images beyond 1600 ISO.

And I photograph with a K-5 II so I'm not the FF snob.. but you can easily see the high ISO smear in all of these shots above 1600 ISO.. detail is lost. How that is translated to print I have no idea but on my computer screen I'm seeing a difference. And not just in this thread.. but across the board.

jsherman999 · 03-02-2014, 08:52 PM

I think it looks pretty good. Personally I'm always in favor of as little NR as possible, let the details stay and fight it out with the luminance noise, details usually win the aesthetic battle

john5100 · 03-02-2014, 10:49 PM

It's a personal preference but I have no problem shooting above 1600. FF does a better job at high ISO but the K3 is excellent.

rawr · 03-02-2014, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by john5100

FF does a better job at high ISO but the K3 is excellent.

FF should indeed do a better job, according to all the tech tests, but it doesn't always work that way, it seems:

Sony A7 with Pentax Full-frame Glass - Pentax K-3 and Sony Alpha 7 Image Comparison - PentaxForums.com

Jet · 03-03-2014, 01:20 AM

Hi all, I was following the thread right from the start, especially after I got my new k-3 two weeks ago, replacing my loved k10d that I had for six and half years. The k-3 is an unbelievable step up in the game, and I can confess honestly that when I took her (the k-3) for a three-day shooting trip, I was able to capture photos with light conditions and hight dynamic range scenes, that I'd never be able to capture with the k10d.

I was truly excited about the k-3's high ISO performance over the k10d, and I was shooting interiors at ISO1600, 3200 and even 6400. I never went higher than ISO400 on k10d, so you can imagine what a change this was for me.

However, when I opened my RAWs in my Lightroom 5 when I got home, I was slightly disappointed first. There actually was a noise on ISO3200! Well maybe the expectations were too high first. So I played bit with NR settings in Lightroom, and then exported some of the photos to low resolution, about 1600 pixels high / wide. Obviously, this improved the noise massively.

I was still surprised to see how clean and defined are some of the photographs in this thread. A good PP technique and NR software was mentioned a few times. Now I have to say that because I was really avoiding high ISO on k10d, I have zero experience with those. I googled a few tutorials, but I'm not sure if I'm doing any good really.

Could you please point out, how do you go about noise reduction in post-processing, please? Maybe you have a routine, maybe you use a plug-in, or a dedicated software with good algorithms? If you can share a bit of your expertise with that, I'd be massively grateful.

Barry Pearson · 03-03-2014, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Jet

Could you please point out, how do you go about noise reduction in post-processing, please? Maybe you have a routine, maybe you use a plug-in, or a dedicated software with good algorithms? If you can share a bit of your expertise with that, I'd be massively grateful.

I don't do anything special, and I put up with noise if doing ordinary things doesn't work. (I shot film from 1963, and didn't have a hang-up about film grain!)

I use Lightroom, and take care with the noise reduction parameters. I also take care throughout my post-processing not to sharpen the noise and make things worse. For example, when sharpening in Lightroom I use the sharpening mask carefully to exclude broad expanses with no detail. And in Photoshop I use Unsharp Mask with a threshold of perhaps 10 where relevant. (I often do different amounts of sharpening in different parts of the photo, using layer masks). And I've been known to use blur on large featureless areas that show noise.

rawr · 03-03-2014, 03:36 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jet

There actually was a noise on ISO3200! Well maybe the expectations were too high first.

Originally posted by Jet

If you can share a bit of your expertise

My first tip would be to not make your noise assessments based on looking at your images (a) at 100% on the screen of your computer or (b) viewed on the rear LCD of the K-3. Both of those will produce an impression of high noise in K-3 images that will not match your experience in practical use of the camera - for web use, for print etc.

My general tips for low-light high-ISO in LR or other tools would be to:

- expose correctly for the type of shooting you need to do, using matrix/centre/spot as appropriate too. Often there is no need to meter the whole scene the same way;
- don't over-sharpen (related: use the sharpening mask),
- never go crazy with luminance smoothing,
- crush the blacks a bit in post-processing

,
- at very, very high ISO, where the IQ seriously starts to fall away, boost contrast, clarity and vibrance a tad, reduce saturation a notch, boost midtones;
- switch to monochrome.

01-28-2014, 04:34 PM	#92
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	Hi folks show your high ISO shots. I'm actually interested in your technique. ISO 1600 Last edited by john5100; 01-28-2014 at 06:16 PM.

02-27-2014, 12:14 PM - 1 Like	#93
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	Not sure how the K5 would do, but here is the K3 at ISO 25,600 Last edited by john5100; 03-02-2014 at 03:14 PM.

03-03-2014, 01:20 AM	#103
Jet Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 15	What do you guys do about PP / NR? Hi all, I was following the thread right from the start, especially after I got my new k-3 two weeks ago, replacing my loved k10d that I had for six and half years. The k-3 is an unbelievable step up in the game, and I can confess honestly that when I took her (the k-3) for a three-day shooting trip, I was able to capture photos with light conditions and hight dynamic range scenes, that I'd never be able to capture with the k10d. I was truly excited about the k-3's high ISO performance over the k10d, and I was shooting interiors at ISO1600, 3200 and even 6400. I never went higher than ISO400 on k10d, so you can imagine what a change this was for me. However, when I opened my RAWs in my Lightroom 5 when I got home, I was slightly disappointed first. There actually was a noise on ISO3200! Well maybe the expectations were too high first. So I played bit with NR settings in Lightroom, and then exported some of the photos to low resolution, about 1600 pixels high / wide. Obviously, this improved the noise massively. I was still surprised to see how clean and defined are some of the photographs in this thread. A good PP technique and NR software was mentioned a few times. Now I have to say that because I was really avoiding high ISO on k10d, I have zero experience with those. I googled a few tutorials, but I'm not sure if I'm doing any good really. Could you please point out, how do you go about noise reduction in post-processing, please? Maybe you have a routine, maybe you use a plug-in, or a dedicated software with good algorithms? If you can share a bit of your expertise with that, I'd be massively grateful.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New K3 vs K5ii high iso RAW tests	ihasa	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	8	11-04-2013 09:15 AM
DR/Noise performance: pushing exposure vs high ISO	HSV	Photographic Technique	8	03-12-2013 06:51 PM
K-R VS X100 High Iso Noise Comparison	Ryan Cole	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	02-01-2013 02:36 PM
K5 High ISO Noise Reduction Setting	daphnejohn	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	11-06-2011 07:45 PM
High ISO Noise vs. Underexposure Correction	yoon395	Photographic Technique	7	08-27-2011 06:13 AM

01-28-2014, 10:50 AM	#91
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Since starting this thread, I've become a lot more comfortable with the noise at higher ISOs. I also have an A-400, and the CA is much more noticeable with the K-3, but reduced to the same size, it looks the same only sharper.

03-01-2014, 12:49 PM	#94
Parry Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 606	K-3 at ISO 3200 with Tair-11A near wide open. Very, very little NR in LR5.3. Tiny amount.

03-02-2014, 05:52 PM	#95
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	You can definitely see the softness/detail-being-sucked-away from the images above ISO 1600 on all of these images. Might be able to get some of it back with some smart PP but I wouldn't fool with it; I wouldn't use either camera above 1600 unless I realllyyyy had to.

03-02-2014, 07:03 PM	#96
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by mee You can definitely see the softness/detail-being-sucked-away from the images above ISO 1600 on all of these images. You can see that from 1024px JPEG's, shot with lenses often used wide open, and processed in a variety of unknown ways?

03-02-2014, 07:27 PM	#97
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by mee You can definitely see the softness/detail-being-sucked-away from the images above ISO 1600 on all of these images. Might be able to get some of it back with some smart PP but I wouldn't fool with it; I wouldn't use either camera above 1600 unless I realllyyyy had to. As a K-3 owner, I think that's ridiculous. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

03-02-2014, 07:53 PM	#98
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by audiobomber As a K-3 owner, I think that's ridiculous. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I agree. I had a shot a few days ago at iso 5600, much higher than I usually go, and it cleaned up very nicely. The only difference in noise from the K-5 is the white/grey noise you get in low light, low contrast shots outdoors at mid to high shutter speeds. In comparable circumstances the K-5 did either no better or worse.

03-02-2014, 08:38 PM	#99
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by rawr You can see that from 1024px JPEG's, shot with lenses often used wide open, and processed in a variety of unknown ways? Yes, I can tell a sharp/clean image from one that is not. Neither of these cameras (or any APS-C for that matter) is outputting sharp images beyond 1600 ISO. And I photograph with a K-5 II so I'm not the FF snob.. but you can easily see the high ISO smear in all of these shots above 1600 ISO.. detail is lost. How that is translated to print I have no idea but on my computer screen I'm seeing a difference. And not just in this thread.. but across the board.

03-02-2014, 08:52 PM	#100
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I think it looks pretty good. Personally I'm always in favor of as little NR as possible, let the details stay and fight it out with the luminance noise, details usually win the aesthetic battle

03-02-2014, 10:49 PM	#101
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	It's a personal preference but I have no problem shooting above 1600. FF does a better job at high ISO but the K3 is excellent.

03-02-2014, 11:37 PM	#102
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by john5100 FF does a better job at high ISO but the K3 is excellent. FF should indeed do a better job, according to all the tech tests, but it doesn't always work that way, it seems: Sony A7 with Pentax Full-frame Glass - Pentax K-3 and Sony Alpha 7 Image Comparison - PentaxForums.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2014, 01:59 AM	#104
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by Jet Could you please point out, how do you go about noise reduction in post-processing, please? Maybe you have a routine, maybe you use a plug-in, or a dedicated software with good algorithms? If you can share a bit of your expertise with that, I'd be massively grateful. I don't do anything special, and I put up with noise if doing ordinary things doesn't work. (I shot film from 1963, and didn't have a hang-up about film grain!) I use Lightroom, and take care with the noise reduction parameters. I also take care throughout my post-processing not to sharpen the noise and make things worse. For example, when sharpening in Lightroom I use the sharpening mask carefully to exclude broad expanses with no detail. And in Photoshop I use Unsharp Mask with a threshold of perhaps 10 where relevant. (I often do different amounts of sharpening in different parts of the photo, using layer masks). And I've been known to use blur on large featureless areas that show noise.

03-03-2014, 03:36 AM - 1 Like	#105
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Jet There actually was a noise on ISO3200! Well maybe the expectations were too high first. Originally posted by Jet If you can share a bit of your expertise My first tip would be to not make your noise assessments based on looking at your images (a) at 100% on the screen of your computer or (b) viewed on the rear LCD of the K-3. Both of those will produce an impression of high noise in K-3 images that will not match your experience in practical use of the camera - for web use, for print etc. My general tips for low-light high-ISO in LR or other tools would be to: - expose correctly for the type of shooting you need to do, using matrix/centre/spot as appropriate too. Often there is no need to meter the whole scene the same way; - don't over-sharpen (related: use the sharpening mask), - never go crazy with luminance smoothing, - crush the blacks a bit in post-processing , - at very, very high ISO, where the IQ seriously starts to fall away, boost contrast, clarity and vibrance a tad, reduce saturation a notch, boost midtones; - switch to monochrome.