[rob1234]

Whilst I agree the IQ is acceptable, I feel the shots on this page are too small to be definitive... lager (c.100%) shots, to print, are a different matter IMO - and this is where PP NR is invaluable.

[stevebrot]

Whilst I agree the IQ is acceptable, I feel the shots on this page are too small to be definitive... lager (c.100%) shots, to print, are a different matter IMO - and this is where PP NR is invaluable.

I have printed a few of the ones that I displayed here and I can assure you that they are fine when printed to letter size. That being said, a lot depends on the image itself (noise varies widely image-to-image), the print size, and the printer.

As for whether NR in PP is worth doing...I don't think you will find any argument from anybody posting here. The intent of the OP (I think) was to provide a place for real world results that demonstrate that all is not rotten in K10D land. From my personal experience and from the images posted here, I think it is safe to say that ISO 800 is essentially clean and that higher ISOs are less so, but still usable.


Steve

(Seldom shoots above ISO 200, but appreciates the ability to do so if needed...)

[rob1234]

I have printed a few of the ones that I displayed here and I can assure you that they are fine when printed to letter size. That being said, a lot depends on the image itself (noise varies widely image-to-image), the print size, and the printer.

As for whether NR in PP is worth doing...I don't think you will find any argument from anybody posting here. The intent of the OP (I think) was to provide a place for real world results that demonstrate that all is not rotten in K10D land. From my personal experience and from the images posted here, I think it is safe to say that ISO 800 is essentially clean and that higher ISOs are less so, but still usable.


Steve

(Seldom shoots above ISO 200, but appreciates the ability to do so if needed...)

Steve, I completely agree with all of the above - I was just saying the examples shown were too small (IMO) to provide decent evidence of adequacy!

Rob
(Has auto ISO set up to ISO320 on his K10D!)

[Steve Beswick]

... The intent of the OP (I think) was to provide a place for real world results that demonstrate that all is not rotten in K10D land. ...

You said it better than I could!

[Steve Beswick]

I'll put out another one, this time from my Godzilla series. ISO 1600, in camera jpeg with a lot of level and color correction after the fact, but no NR at any point. I've thrown in a 100% crop, which I'm sure someone is going to rip apart, but I think it looks great!

[Steve Beswick]

No more love for K10 high ISO shots?

[Spongefingers]

Plenty of love for 800, especially when the noise is conveniently hidden in fine texture:



DA 16-45 (16mm,) f/10, ISO 800

[Steve Beswick]

Plenty of love for 800, especially when the noise is conveniently hidden in fine texture:



DA 16-45 (16mm,) f/10, ISO 800

Nice one!

[reeftool]

I do a lot of high ISO shots with my K10D. I find the results quite acceptable and better than high ISO film I used to use. This was shot with a Sigma 70-300 at 170mm and helped with a Metz 48 flash.

[planedriver]

I have the k200d...same sensor..hope it fits in this thread:

iso800 FA50 1.4 k200d







Andras

[Mike L]

I usually try to avoid shooting at 800+ so I was surprised to see I shot this one at 800.

[rob1234]

K10D, 10-20mm, ISO 800, no PP

[baro-nite]

Didn't quite need ISO 800 for this, but I forgot to change the setting. Not quite a 100% crop; in addition to expected noise there's a vertical orange line about 100 pixels (possibly with a darker green shadow) in from the right edge -- anyone seen this sort of artefact before?

K10D; ISO 800; DA* 200/2.8; f/5.6; 1/750 sec.

[rob1234]

K10D, FA*24, f/2 and ISO100, no PP
(x-posted)

[rob1234]

K10D, FA*24, f/2 and ISO100, no PP
(x-posted)