[JimJohnson]

The Adobe algorithms may well be more effective at keeping the noise manageable than the in-camera ones.

Do you think your computer's bigger, faster processor, and the additional rendering time might have something to do with it?

[wildman]

ave you used noise repair software on these ?
If so which one ?

I use NIK Define, Imagenomic Noiseware, Topaz DeNoise and of course ACR+Photoshop.
They all have their place and sometimes I use more than one on the same file it just depends on what the file needs.
If I had to use just one it would be Noiseware. It's defaults work well but it really shines at letting you roll your own and using your own settings to get things just right. A real artisans tool if you understand PP well.

But, when going high ISO, noiseware is only half of it the other half is a good sharpener. For this I use Pixel Genius Sharpener 2. Again it's a matter of giving you precise control over the process.

But this way may not be for everyone. I tend to shot say, a 100 shots, keep maybe 5 or ten and throw the rest away. The keepers I'm willing to lavish a lot of time on getting everything I can out of them so I tend to rarely use defaults.

But, as I say, that's my way and perhaps not for everyone.

So far as the camera is concerned if I was going to go into a rapid fire "snapshot" mode I would use TAv mode. Set AV to the lens' sweet spot, TV to something you are sure you could hand hold and ISO to around 6400. So even if the camera is telling you it would want to use an ISO higher than 6400 pull the trigger anyway and see what you can make of it later in PP. In other words split the difference between pushing for a high ISO in camera or in PP. At least you wont totally miss a potentially great shot. What the hell isn't that what, to a great extent, is the advantage of digital over film - taking a chance is not such a big deal as it was back in the film days?

A good example of a good shot taken under bad conditions. Taken with my old DL at 1600, early morning and no light and my 600mm ,maxed out at f8. Even with a tripod I had to shot at 1/400. As I recall it was so dark it was hard to read the settings on the camera. It's a triumph of software over the limitations of gear.

[noahdsnell]

I shoot with the Pentax K-5 II in RAW 99% of the time. I never go above ISO 6400, and I only use 6400 as a last resort. I try to stay at 800 or below for the best results.

[jon404]

But what happens if we change the ballgame rules? What if we said -- our final image size will be no larger than 1200 x 1800 pixels, which will fill up most every screen, and make a 300 dpi 4" x 6" print... or a 240 dpi 5" x 7" print?

In other words, if we greatly reduce the requirements for the final output, do we also reduce the taking-and-processing requirements all along the line? In terms of our full-featured Pentax cameras, somewhat like driving a Ferrari at 45 mph... very relaxing!

---

Last edited by jon404; 04-22-2013 at 06:28 PM.

[Na Horuk]

But what happens if we change the ballgame rules? What if we said -- our final image size will be no larger than 1200 x 1800 pixels, which will fill up most every screen,

Good point. At that size, noise almost completely disappears even at high ISO. Even sharpness appears to improve, due to the compression. Its a great 'trick' to improve a photo that isn't perfect in a 100% crop, and its also very convenient for most usage.

[emalvick]

While I have my mental limits (especially with the K5, which I unofficially limit myself to 6400), I never hesitate to go higher if its needed. Afterall, I'm not going to let some number keep me from getting a shot just because the ISO needed is too high. With my K10d, I actually got quite a few good ISO 1600 shots despite its generally bad performance. There are so many conditions that affect how good of shot you're going to get, but there's nothing wrong with trying and learning what those conditions might be.