Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2018, 06:49 AM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 34,350
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
I'm not complaining about the high-ISO performance of the K-1 ii (I mean, I'm still keeping an eye on how the testing goes), but yeah, I take a lot of ISO 6400 images and print them.

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 10:43 PM ----------

I have more at 3200 on the K-5, which is probably comparable (if not slightly inferior) than the K-1 at 6400.
And where can i see these photos? I've seen exactly one 6400 ISO image I thought was worth keeping and it was taken with a 645z. IN any case, I just find high ISO images to be gamble. They may turn out, they may not. I've personally had even 800 ISO images that were too noisy to use on a K-3. But that doesn't mean others wouldn't have been happy with them.

I'm quite impressed with your use of high ISO, I'd just like to know we are working from the same set of standards.

Personally I expect any image I keep on my drive to be sellable to someone with no personal attachment to the subject matter.


Last edited by normhead; 05-26-2018 at 07:55 AM.
05-26-2018, 08:51 AM - 1 Like   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And where can i see these photos? I've seen exactly one 6400 ISO image I thought was worth keeping and it was taken with a 645z. IN any case, I just find high ISO images to be gamble. They may turn out, they may not. I've personally had even 800 ISO images that were too noisy to use on a K-3. But that doesn't mean others wouldn't have been happy with them.

I'm quite impressed with your use of high ISO, I'd just like to know we are working from the same set of standards.

Personally I expect any image I keep on my drive to be sellable to someone with no personal attachment to the subject matter.
I had two almost identical, one at iso 2500 which was a bit soft from low shutter speed. As usual cropped with minor post processing.

Iso in actual photos doesn't seem to be linear. The composition of the photo, the dynamic range, the variety of colors, the contrast and detail all have an effect. And any given body will have corner cases where it is worse.

I'm going to do the upgrade mostly for AF improvements, and to be able to take advantage of what I predict will be upgrades in firmware. If I gain a bit of color and less noise in some situation I'll be happy.

05-26-2018, 09:00 AM   #18
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 34,350
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
Iso in actual photos doesn't seem to be linear.
Hence my shooting preferences based not on what the best quality I ought to get, but on the worst quality I might get. Once I lose an image to noise etc. from high ISO I don't go back to that setting, unless it's my only shot at the image. For my use, 3200 ISO k-1 or 640 ISO k-3 are my limits, but I do have 73 images taken at 3200 ISO that came out just fine. IN fact if I hadn't created a smart folder and selected 3200 ISO or higher for my criteria, most of them, I wouldn't have known they were 3200 ISO. It's all about predictability to me. Unfortunately I can't tell you how many I tossed taken at 3200 ISO that were judged un-acceptable, but my opinion is that the ratio of keepers has not been very good.

Last edited by normhead; 05-26-2018 at 09:26 AM.
05-26-2018, 09:19 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Hence my shooting preferences based not on what the best quality I ought get, but on the worst quality I might get. Once I lose and image to noise etc. from high ISO I don't go back to that setting, unless it's my only shot at the image. For my use, 3200 ISO k-1 or 640 ISO k-3 are my limits, but I do have 73 images taken at 3200 ISO that came out just fine. IN fact if I hadn't created a smart folder and selected 3200 ISO or higher for my criteria, most of them, I wouldn't have known they were 3200 ISO. It's all about predictability to me. Unfortunately I can't tell you how many I tossed taken at 3200 ISO that were judged un-acceptable, butty opinion is that the ratio of keepers has not been very good.
Agreed. Higher iso can in some very narrow circumstances give you good results, but they are rare.

05-26-2018, 09:28 AM - 1 Like   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 34,350
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
Agreed. Higher iso can in some very narrow circumstances give you good results, but they are rare.
Just as general rule of thumb, usually good light and using high ISO for increased shutter speed, is better than using high ISO for long exposures in dark conditions.
05-26-2018, 09:31 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Fort Frances, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 132
Its still not enough improvement for me. A touch of PP and the K-1 pictures can look just as saturated at the K-1ii. I am more than happy with the colour of the K-1. I doubt the average person (not talking about an avid photographer) could tell the difference between a lot of K-1 and K-1ii pictures unless they were placed side by side, and then its still subjective.
05-26-2018, 09:37 AM - 1 Like   #22
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 34,350
QuoteOriginally posted by GMounk Quote
Its still not enough improvement for me. A touch of PP and the K-1 pictures can look just as saturated at the K-1ii. I am more than happy with the colour of the K-1. I doubt the average person (not talking about an avid photographer) could tell the difference between a lot of K-1 and K-1ii pictures unless they were placed side by side, and then its still subjective.
That is true of almost any two cameras these days. This kind of discussion is not about what would I buy now, it's about what will I buy next. If you don't have a K-1 will you buy a K-1 or K-1ii. There's enough there I'd probably go for the K-1 mkII. One can say there's not that much difference, but it's a difference that in some circumstances will be the difference between a keeper and one you toss. Anyone who's used to rescuing shadow detail and knows how hard it is to maintain colour values when boosting shadows is going to be grateful for the extra colour accuracy and pop.
05-26-2018, 04:14 PM - 2 Likes   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2014
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 168
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That is true of almost any two cameras these days. This kind of discussion is not about what would I buy now, it's about what will I buy next. If you don't have a K-1 will you buy a K-1 or K-1ii. There's enough there I'd probably go for the K-1 mkII. One can say there's not that much difference, but it's a difference that in some circumstances will be the difference between a keeper and one you toss. Anyone who's used to rescuing shadow detail and knows how hard it is to maintain colour values when boosting shadows is going to be grateful for the extra colour accuracy and pop.
I went for the mk2 not having a k1 to begin with.

The Autofocus boost was one of the main incentives for getting it. I'm very happy with the results so far.

05-26-2018, 04:22 PM   #24
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 37
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
I'm not complaining about the high-ISO performance of the K-1 ii (I mean, I'm still keeping an eye on how the testing goes), but yeah, I take a lot of ISO 6400 images and print them.

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 10:43 PM ----------

I have more at 3200 on the K-5, which is probably comparable (if not slightly inferior) than the K-1 at 6400.
How big are you printing these ISO 6400 images? Bigger than 36" wide? If no, then it doesn't matter one wit whether you take them with a K-1, a K-1 MkII, or even a K-3 frankly.
For me the few images at that ISO that are taken are extreme low light candids inside dark restaurants, clubs, outdoor cafes at night, which are pretty much relegated to use on social media/ personal use.
05-26-2018, 11:03 PM - 1 Like   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,394
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And where can i see these photos? I've seen exactly one 6400 ISO image I thought was worth keeping and it was taken with a 645z. IN any case, I just find high ISO images to be gamble. They may turn out, they may not. I've personally had even 800 ISO images that were too noisy to use on a K-3. But that doesn't mean others wouldn't have been happy with them.

I'm quite impressed with your use of high ISO, I'd just like to know we are working from the same set of standards.

Personally I expect any image I keep on my drive to be sellable to someone with no personal attachment to the subject matter.
I assume we are *not* working to the same set of standards, but all the photos presented here I have printed (or would print) at 13" high with no compunction, and are definitely sellable.

K-1, 6400



K-1, 4000



K-1 3200



K-5, 3200



K-5, 5000



K-5, 3200





K20D, 1600



---------- Post added 05-26-18 at 11:04 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by DennisP Quote
How big are you printing these ISO 6400 images? Bigger than 36" wide? If no, then it doesn't matter one wit whether you take them with a K-1, a K-1 MkII, or even a K-3 frankly.
For me the few images at that ISO that are taken are extreme low light candids inside dark restaurants, clubs, outdoor cafes at night, which are pretty much relegated to use on social media/ personal use.
I generally agree with the context of the high-ISO pictures, but differ on the limited use of them.
05-27-2018, 05:11 AM - 2 Likes   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 34,350
Well, those are actually pretty cool. I'm never in a position to take those types of images, but, they definitely have their charm.
05-28-2018, 01:17 PM - 1 Like   #27
Pentaxian
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,585
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Same lens (Rokinon 14 2.8, which I own. The DoF is extremely wide. That's extremely unlikely. About half the play in the focus ring is in focal at any given setting. He would have had to move the hyperfocla setting to somewhere pass infinity to mess up that shot.

It's different to me as well. Don't know why, but the tulip is more in focus in the mkII shot, while the yellow armchair and the painting are slightly more in focus in the MkI shot.


Also, WB and Saturation... should we trust him that he actually zeroed or at least made equal all the possible customizations (jpeg settings, WB etc.)?
05-28-2018, 03:36 PM   #28
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,174
QuoteOriginally posted by DennisP Quote
The high ISO images out of the K-1 MkII are more malleable in post- better color saturation with less NR required to make them usable. If you are shooting ISO 6400 you are most likely not planning on making 36" wide prints from those images. When you zoom out to even 100% level on a nice monitor after typical post-processing, the K-1 MkII images are more pleasing.
This entire "issue" is being blown way way out of proportion by the pixel-peeping crowd, as per usual, since we have been at the point where image quality stopped being a limitation back when the K-5 was released.
I have made 13x19 prints of one ISO 25,600 image out of my K-1 II . Not 36" wide, mind you, but not ISO 6400 either. Came out just fine.
The ISO alone doesn't tell the whole story in terms of noise. How much light there is also matters. Sometimes the ISO is ramped up in order to allow for sufficiently high shutter speed of moving subjects - a cat in this case.
05-29-2018, 03:40 AM   #29
Insanely humble
Loyal Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 15,492
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
How much light there is also matters.
It matters a lot. From the Wikipedia article on Poisson noise:
QuoteQuote:
The magnitude of shot noise increases according to the square root of the expected number of events, such as the electric current or intensity of light. But since the strength of the signal itself increases more rapidly, the relative proportion of shot noise decreases and the signal to noise ratio (considering only shot noise) increases anyway. Thus shot noise is most frequently observed with small currents or low light intensities that have been amplified.

For [...] the average number of events N, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is given by:
05-29-2018, 11:54 AM - 1 Like   #30
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 37
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
I have made 13x19 prints of one ISO 25,600 image out of my K-1 II . Not 36" wide, mind you, but not ISO 6400 either. Came out just fine.
The ISO alone doesn't tell the whole story in terms of noise. How much light there is also matters. Sometimes the ISO is ramped up in order to allow for sufficiently high shutter speed of moving subjects - a cat in this case.
Yes, of course. If you exposed properly in the first place, even ISO 25000 images can look decent. But nobody is going to (or should) pixel peep those images because they are severely compromised on any camera. The differences between brands is minimal to non-existent at this point if you are printing images. Your subject matter, lighting, composition, and post-processing technique have far more to do with the quality of the end result than the tiny differences in sharpness. The megapixels don't even matter anymore for 99.99% of images; heck, cell phones do "good enough" in most conditions at this point, with zero processing required after the fact. The point is, the entire issue has been blown out of proportion and has nothing to do with photography.
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!
bill, cameraville image quality, comparison, comparison k-1 vs, dslr, full frame, full-frame, hope, ii, image, image quality comparison, images, k-1, k-1 vs k-1, k1, mkii, pentax, pentax k-1, photography, print, quality, quality comparison k-1, review, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Great Video from CameraVille: D850 v.s. K-1 Gerard_Dirks Pentax K-1 62 06-02-2018 10:49 PM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
iPhone 4S vs Canon 5d MKII: video comparison, side by side RioRico Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 7 10-24-2011 03:42 PM
How good is the K5 image quality vs a 5D MKII pjtn Pentax K-5 128 04-22-2011 01:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 AM. | 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