Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-22-2016, 05:19 PM   #31
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Yes, and that would be quite consistent with my findings using the D800 as well, which I've had in my kit for a while now, mainly for product photography but also for a bit of fun on the side. The biggest benefit is that files are really quite a bit cleaner when shooting at night, plus there's the added resolution.
Boom! Thanks, Adam There we go, Kerrowdown... Two stops... maybe the K-1 will be on my radar just a little sooner than originally planned

05-22-2016, 05:49 PM   #32
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,097
Mine has varied. I used to be very critical and hardly use anything above ISO 1600. When I upgraded from the K-r to the K3 I was initially rather disappointed. I appreciated everything about this camera, except that the improvement in noise performance seemed minimal, and I had expected more. Again I tried to stay at or below ISO 1600, not so much because of the grain, which can be removed and is hardly intrusive anyway, but because it messes up the colours. Lately I have learnt to better control and restore colours through various software though, and I realised that ISO 3200 can be perfectly usable on the K3.
05-22-2016, 06:22 PM   #33
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,255
This is more mac vs pc debate style.. there is no definitive answer... and it is hardly stays friendly.. eep.

For me, It depends on what sensor size your camera contains.. on dx I'd say 400 is highest normal.. 800 is very high.. and 1600 is my absolute limit JUST to get a shot.. but even then at 1600 the image is going to be poor.. not a lot of DR so not a lot of malleability.

On fx, 1600 highest normal.. 3200 is very high.. and 6400 is absolute limit.

I do a lot of post though. But I can see a very visible drop off in IQ and a pickup in noise going from 800 --> 1600 on dx (crop) ..even in other people's images. And that drop off is only magnified when pushing the image in post..
05-22-2016, 11:54 PM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wangaratta, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,939
Re bright sunny days;
Is this the sort of thing you mean?





or this?




05-23-2016, 08:31 AM   #35
Pentaxian
ChatMechant's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 669
With the k-3 my personal limit was about 1600 and even then sometimes it wasn't great. Here is a K-1 shot at 16,000, you can click the link to see a bigger version on flickr. There is still very good detail in the pine needles and little noticeable noise in the sky. NR was via lightroom.
05-23-2016, 08:53 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
Quartermaster James's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by rod_grant Quote
Re bright sunny days;
Is this the sort of thing you mean?





or this?


Thanks! I had almost forgotten about those!
05-23-2016, 09:35 AM   #37
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by rod_grant Quote
Re bright sunny days;
Is this the sort of thing you mean?





or this?


Why is the sky blue? Isn't it supposed to be gray-white? Were these photoshopped?
05-23-2016, 09:44 AM - 1 Like   #38
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
For me, It depends on what sensor size your camera contains.. on dx I'd say 400 is highest normal.. 800 is very high.. and 1600 is my absolute limit JUST to get a shot.. but even then at 1600 the image is going to be poor.. not a lot of DR so not a lot of malleability.

On fx, 1600 highest normal.. 3200 is very high.. and 6400 is absolute limit.

I do a lot of post though. But I can see a very visible drop off in IQ and a pickup in noise going from 800 --> 1600 on dx (crop) ..even in other people's images. And that drop off is only magnified when pushing the image in post..
It very much depends on what you're photographing, and what you intend to do with the image, as to what the acceptable ISO limit might be (that, plus personal tolerance for IQ degradation, of course).

The below is a simple test shot taken in a dimly-lit room, using the K-3 set to ISO 12800 - and post-processed in LR6. There's some noise left in the image to avoid over-smoothing and too much loss of detail, and yes - it's readily visible... but at this sort of viewing size that's still a useable image (in my view)...

Attached Images
 
05-23-2016, 03:58 PM   #39
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,255
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
It very much depends on what you're photographing, and what you intend to do with the image, as to what the acceptable ISO limit might be (that, plus personal tolerance for IQ degradation, of course).

The below is a simple test shot taken in a dimly-lit room, using the K-3 set to ISO 12800 - and post-processed in LR6. There's some noise left in the image to avoid over-smoothing and too much loss of detail, and yes - it's readily visible... but at this sort of viewing size that's still a useable image (in my view)...

That image is mushy and very grainy over here. Looks like a cellphone shot image. I honestly wouldn't release that one unless it was a memorable scene and I had no other means of capturing it. But I'd only say that since we're discussing it here

Printing is an interesting aspect.. imo noise tends to fair better on it vs display monitor.. but the mushy NR does not. So I'd rather have noise than mush if I have to pick.. but I'd rather have neither if I really have my druthers.
05-23-2016, 04:28 PM   #40
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 5,559
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
That image is mushy and very grainy over here.
What, compared to - say - ISO 1600 film??

So, this goes to show that we all have different tolerances for IQ, and what we're looking for. I wouldn't, for one second, suggest that image is comparable to something taken at ISO 100... or even ISO 800, for that matter... but "mushy" and "very grainy" aren't words I'd use to describe this; which shows that we all differ I'm not suggesting the IQ is great, here - I know it's not - it's an extreme example at ISO 12800 (three stops higher than your limit, and a stop higher than my personal limit on most occasions). I'm just saying that, for me (and, I'd argue, the vast majority of the general public who don't give a fig about the things we photographers fret over), it's a useable image... an image that *can* be used, without too much shame on the photographer's behalf - better than no shot, or one that's truly awful, right?

QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Looks like a cellphone shot image.
Well, I'd like to see a comparative cellphone image taken in the same light and at the same dimensions of reproduction! The day a cellphone can take that image in the same lighting conditions and be that presentable (to me), I'm buying one

EDIT: In retrospect, I think you're caught up in the perfection (for want of a better word) of digital imaging. Go back and look through a thousand commercially successful shots taken on film (Magnum is a favourite of mine)... graininess in abundance on higher sensitivity film. Mushy too, if you like. We have the option, on digital, of choosing our levels of noise reduction, and mine - on this test shot - was admittedly quite high. Reducing that noise reduction yields images just as sharp as on film (more so, in many cases) and still with less grain / noise... I'd be genuinely interested to see an example of the worst levels of noise / sharpness you'd consider acceptable in a photo. I think that would be quite telling, as a comparison against the very photos I've just mentioned...

Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-23-2016 at 05:14 PM.
05-23-2016, 04:37 PM   #41
KDD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 321
I wish K-1 ISO 51200. Darn it.
05-23-2016, 05:01 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Tan68's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 396
QuoteOriginally posted by KDD Quote
I wish K-1 ISO 51200. Darn it.
I think there is a Magic Lantern firmware that can hook you up
05-26-2016, 09:00 AM   #43
Veteran Member
volosong's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Antelope Valley, SoCal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 660
QuoteOriginally posted by Quartermaster James Quote
After all, how often do I need to use ISO 6400 on a bright sunny day?
Comes in handy for those times you need a fast shutter speed and a deep depth-of-field, such as at airshows and motor sport events.
05-26-2016, 09:37 AM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
Quartermaster James's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by volosong Quote
Comes in handy for those times you need a fast shutter speed and a deep depth-of-field, such as at airshows and motor sport events.
I'll keep that in mind. Thanks!
05-26-2016, 10:49 AM - 2 Likes   #45
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,836
I have shot test pics at ISO 10000 with the K-1 and gotten surprisingly impressive results. The color noise is so low it's pretty amazing and there is still some detail. However, I would be more comfortable keeping the ISO at 6400 and below if possible. I would not hesitate to shoot at 10000, though, or maybe even higher if it was absolutely necessary. I have my Auto ISO capped at 10000 at the moment.

This photo was taken on a dark porch in the late afternoon. ISO 8000. I used Lightroom NR to clean it up.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
 Photo 
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!
dslr, full frame, full-frame, iso, k-1, k1, pentax k-1
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What does an Amazon acceptable grade LTD lens look like? robtcorl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 12-26-2014 08:00 PM
How much play is acceptable on a new lens? MeowMix Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 12-24-2014 06:13 AM
cosmetic lens repairs acceptable? slip Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-18-2012 08:47 AM
People Acceptable? Rupert Photo Critique 2 07-23-2011 02:24 PM
Is this acceptable qksilver Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 05-23-2008 07:24 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:26 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