VERY low light K-70 pic

RonHendriks1966 · 08-07-2016, 02:35 AM

EV = -4

Great to see. Was it able to auto focus?

totsmuyco · 08-07-2016, 08:50 PM - **1 Like**

Was this photo post processed? Can anyone post more unprocessed high ISO low light shots?

planteater · 08-08-2016, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by totsmuyco

Was this photo post processed? Can anyone post more unprocessed high ISO low light shots?

Unprocessed other than downscaling to meet the upload size limits for this site. Tonight I'm going to try the same shot but tripod mounted, pre-focused and shot RAW and processed with Dxo Optics 10 to see what ISO 102400 can do under more controlled conditions.

reh321 · 08-08-2016, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by planteater

Unprocessed other than downscaling to meet the upload size limits for this site. Tonight I'm going to try the same shot but tripod mounted, pre-focused and shot RAW and processed with Dxo Optics 10 to see what ISO 102400 can do under more controlled conditions.

Could you shoot in RAW+JPEG? I'd love to see how JPEG's created by the camera compare to those created "the hard way", 100% crops of both would be useful in seeing how the camera handles NR.

planteater · 08-08-2016, 02:10 PM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by reh321

Could you shoot in RAW+JPEG? I'd love to see how JPEG's created by the camera compare to those created "the hard way", 100% crops of both would be useful in seeing how the camera handles NR.

Well that didn't go entirely as planned. Firstly, a fox scared off the badger and then Dxo Optics wouldn't open the RAW file as the K-70 is a currently unsupported camera. I'll post some 1:1 crops tomorrow but, in summary, the jpeg processing makes a decent fist of noise reduction but manual processing will get better results. No big surprises.

I'm unwilling to learn SilkyPix so used the version of ACR that comes with PS Elements plus Topaz Denoise to get the following:

1/6s F2.8 ISO 102400

**BigMackCam** · 08-08-2016, 03:32 PM

Whoa! That's amazing!!

So, ISO 102,400 is actually really usable... which should mean ISO 51,200 is capable of even better results. I can't wait to see what ISO 25,600 looks like... This is where my own photography tends to top out...

Nice capture - thanks for posting it!

KDD · 08-08-2016, 07:51 PM

Cool!

**cartesio** · 08-09-2016, 12:59 AM

Maybe I am going OT, but I am really interested in how loud the shutter sound is. Did it scare those animals?

RonHendriks1966 · 08-09-2016, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by planteater

Well that didn't go entirely as planned. Firstly, a fox scared off the badger and then Dxo Optics wouldn't open the RAW file as the K-70 is a currently unsupported camera. I'll post some 1:1 crops tomorrow but, in summary, the jpeg processing makes a decent fist of noise reduction but manual processing will get better results. No big surprises.

I'm unwilling to learn SilkyPix so used the version of ACR that comes with PS Elements plus Topaz Denoise to get the following:

1/6s F2.8 ISO 102400

Maybe you used PEF files. You can switch to DNG.

planteater · 08-09-2016, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by cartesio

Maybe I am going OT, but I am really interested in how loud the shutter sound is. Did it scare those animals?

The shutter is just marginally quieter than my K30 (i.e pretty noisy). At a range of about 4m it causes the animals to stop and look up but doesn't scare them.

totsmuyco · 08-09-2016, 03:40 AM

That's really quite a great improvement on low light high ISO. planteater, can you post some shots at ISO 6400? Direct jpegs would be nice to see. Thanks ahead.

anu l · 08-09-2016, 12:15 PM

Now I know why Pentax kept the same 9+2 AF points and it's Fx1-2 functions limited in the K-70.

Anything more like say 19 points, and it's a serious threat to the K-3 II

EArenz · 08-10-2016, 01:48 PM

Thanks for posting these photos. Very interesting high ISO performance!

**TER-OR** · 08-11-2016, 11:23 AM

Very cool.
That's a critter I wouldn't want the dogs coming across in the yard...

Nicolas06 · 08-18-2016, 02:31 PM

Just for a quick comparison I DL a 52K iso K3 image on imaging resource website, used standard processing in DXO (I didn't touch anything except checking prime denoising) and I got that:

K3, iso 51200. It look infinitely better honestly.

To me high iso performance depend a lot of the scene, the real light level, if you exposed properly or not... But also don't dismiss the viewing size as well as the post processing software. For an image to look bat at 1024x768, you have to really go far in iso...

My 2 cents, if you want to say anything of the high iso perf, compare the jpeg and raw of the same scene with at least 2 different cameras (so K70 vs a K3 or K5) and then we can have a point of comparison...

08-08-2016, 02:10 PM - 4 Likes	#20
planteater Forum Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Hastings UK Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 Could you shoot in RAW+JPEG? I'd love to see how JPEG's created by the camera compare to those created "the hard way", 100% crops of both would be useful in seeing how the camera handles NR. Well that didn't go entirely as planned. Firstly, a fox scared off the badger and then Dxo Optics wouldn't open the RAW file as the K-70 is a currently unsupported camera. I'll post some 1:1 crops tomorrow but, in summary, the jpeg processing makes a decent fist of noise reduction but manual processing will get better results. No big surprises. I'm unwilling to learn SilkyPix so used the version of ACR that comes with PS Elements plus Topaz Denoise to get the following: 1/6s F2.8 ISO 102400 Attached Images

08-18-2016, 02:31 PM	#30
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Just for a quick comparison I DL a 52K iso K3 image on imaging resource website, used standard processing in DXO (I didn't touch anything except checking prime denoising) and I got that: K3, iso 51200. It look infinitely better honestly. To me high iso performance depend a lot of the scene, the real light level, if you exposed properly or not... But also don't dismiss the viewing size as well as the post processing software. For an image to look bat at 1024x768, you have to really go far in iso... My 2 cents, if you want to say anything of the high iso perf, compare the jpeg and raw of the same scene with at least 2 different cameras (so K70 vs a K3 or K5) and then we can have a point of comparison... Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pets Low Light Accidentally High ISO Puppy Pic	unkipunki	Post Your Photos!	9	05-26-2015 07:41 AM
AF in VERY low light	zorza	Pentax K-30 & K-50	19	08-10-2013 07:22 AM
very low light k-5	lowlight	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	19	04-10-2011 12:42 AM
K-x Q: Light profile varies from pic to pic	msharma	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	12-10-2010 02:19 PM
People very low-light Halloween shot	dgaies	Post Your Photos!	5	11-23-2010 01:43 PM

08-07-2016, 02:35 AM	#16
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	EV = -4 Great to see. Was it able to auto focus?

08-07-2016, 08:50 PM - 1 Like	#17
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	Was this photo post processed? Can anyone post more unprocessed high ISO low light shots?

08-08-2016, 10:04 AM	#18
planteater Forum Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Hastings UK Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by totsmuyco Was this photo post processed? Can anyone post more unprocessed high ISO low light shots? Unprocessed other than downscaling to meet the upload size limits for this site. Tonight I'm going to try the same shot but tripod mounted, pre-focused and shot RAW and processed with Dxo Optics 10 to see what ISO 102400 can do under more controlled conditions.

08-08-2016, 11:52 AM	#19
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,179	Originally posted by planteater Unprocessed other than downscaling to meet the upload size limits for this site. Tonight I'm going to try the same shot but tripod mounted, pre-focused and shot RAW and processed with Dxo Optics 10 to see what ISO 102400 can do under more controlled conditions. Could you shoot in RAW+JPEG? I'd love to see how JPEG's created by the camera compare to those created "the hard way", 100% crops of both would be useful in seeing how the camera handles NR.

08-08-2016, 03:32 PM	#21
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	Whoa! That's amazing!! So, ISO 102,400 is actually really usable... which should mean ISO 51,200 is capable of even better results. I can't wait to see what ISO 25,600 looks like... This is where my own photography tends to top out... Nice capture - thanks for posting it!

08-08-2016, 07:51 PM	#22
KDD Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 403	Cool!

08-09-2016, 12:59 AM	#23
cartesio Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2016 Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Maybe I am going OT, but I am really interested in how loud the shutter sound is. Did it scare those animals?

08-09-2016, 01:17 AM	#24
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by planteater Well that didn't go entirely as planned. Firstly, a fox scared off the badger and then Dxo Optics wouldn't open the RAW file as the K-70 is a currently unsupported camera. I'll post some 1:1 crops tomorrow but, in summary, the jpeg processing makes a decent fist of noise reduction but manual processing will get better results. No big surprises. I'm unwilling to learn SilkyPix so used the version of ACR that comes with PS Elements plus Topaz Denoise to get the following: 1/6s F2.8 ISO 102400 Maybe you used PEF files. You can switch to DNG.

08-09-2016, 03:36 AM	#25
planteater Forum Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Hastings UK Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by cartesio Maybe I am going OT, but I am really interested in how loud the shutter sound is. Did it scare those animals? The shutter is just marginally quieter than my K30 (i.e pretty noisy). At a range of about 4m it causes the animals to stop and look up but doesn't scare them.

08-09-2016, 03:40 AM	#26
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	That's really quite a great improvement on low light high ISO. planteater, can you post some shots at ISO 6400? Direct jpegs would be nice to see. Thanks ahead.

08-09-2016, 12:15 PM	#27
anu l Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 216	Now I know why Pentax kept the same 9+2 AF points and it's Fx1-2 functions limited in the K-70. Anything more like say 19 points, and it's a serious threat to the K-3 II

08-10-2016, 01:48 PM	#28
EArenz Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Rum River Posts: 37	Thanks for posting these photos. Very interesting high ISO performance!

08-11-2016, 11:23 AM	#29
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Very cool. That's a critter I wouldn't want the dogs coming across in the yard...