[Marc Sabatella]

I don't remember anyone but you ever saying that a K100D has better noise performance than a K20D. What NR setting are you using with the K20? I use Weak, and I can see a clear difference at high ISO, in favour of the K20. My testing (RAW file, NR off, same processing, compared at same size) shows a 2/3 stop improvement over the K100DS.

Well, I've seen a least one other person (Alfisti?) claim that they like the results from the K100D better, too.

Normally, I tend to suspect people thinking the K100D (or some other 6MP camera) beats some other camera in the noise department are making the mistake of comparing images at different sizes (eg, by comparing at 100% for cameras with different pixel counts). Also, it's pretty common to be fooled by looking at comparisons between entirely different scenes with different lighting and different exposures - all of which can *completely* trump differences between cameras. There can also be differences in JPEG settings, in how any given RAW processor happens to handle one camera versus another, and perhaps even sample variation between cameras. And it can be hard to factor in how well one camera "cleans up" versus another, versus how well they do in a defult conversion. So it's a lot harder to get a really good objective comparison that it might seem.

But in the end, there is also an element of subjectivity in the perception of noise, so when someone who basically knows what they are dong and has both camera in hand and can perform comparisons any way they see fit says they like one better than another, it's tough to argue the point.

FWIW, though, just a couple of days ago I was processing some images from my wife's K100D after having been using my K200D pretty much exclusively for the last year or more. I was actually kind of shocked at just how poor the ISO 1600 and 3200 shots from the K100D were in comparison to what I've become accustomed to from the K200D. Viewed at full screen size with no NR applied, they looked about the same, but since there was significantly less resolution in the K100D images, I really had a much harder time cleaning them up without destroying too much detail. This was most obvious in pictures with faces in them that were relatively small in the frame. There just wasn't enough resolution to allow me to preserve the kind detail in the faces I wanted while still getting the level of noise reduction I wanted and know I can get from my K200D.

Of course, this is all in line with what I often say when this type of discussion comes up. I say I was "shocked" in this case because when I've done direct comparisons in the past, I had always come away feeling they really really quite similar, with the K200D advantage in resolution just *barely* outweighing the fact that with smaller pixels, it shows higher noise at 100%. Here, it was the magnitude of the difference that caught me off-guard.

I think a lot of it has to do with having learned exactly what PP settings to use with my K200D to get the results I want. The K200D has quite a lot of chroma noise and relatively little luminance noise to my eyes; the K100D seems to be the opposite. And I find I can easily clean up chroma noise in ACDSee Pro 3 with almost no adverse effect on detail, whereas it's much harder to clean up the K100D's luminance noise without sacrificing some of the already lesser amount of detail it starts with. So I have the sense the K200D allows me to "keep" most of my 10MP while cleaning up the noise, whereas with the K100D I can't keep as much of its 6MP.

But that's all based on how I go about processing my images; someone else looking at from a different angle might see it differently.

Of course, I realize I'm talking about the K200D, not the K20D, in this comparison. but my sense is that the K20D > K200D > K100D in this sense.

[audiobomber]

Well, I've seen a least one other person (Alfisti?) claim that they like the results from the K100D better, too.

I can certainly understand preferring the look of K100D images. I've scratched my head over which I prefer sometimes too. K100D jpegs have a warm cast that is very charming and at times more suited to the subject matter than the K20's cooler colours. In fact the last time I shot landscapes I used both cameras. My three favourite shots of the day were taken with the K100DS. But for high ISO shooting, noise is more obvious more of the time with the K100D than the K20D. As far as I've seen that is a clear majority opinion.

Having said that, noise at ISO 400 won't be a problem with either camera. I suspect pixels won't be much of an issue either, these LED projection screens don't have over 6mp screens, do they? The whole trick with the guinea pigs will be good lighting. and getting them to sit still for the shoot. I'd be inclined to use the K20 + 50mm with wireless flash and umbrella or diffuser, but natural light will be good if there's enough for sufficient shutter speed and dof. Maybe put the critters up on a little table to keep the wandering to a minimum.

[WMBP]

I'm wondering why the 12-24 is your pick for such a shoot, considering you're shooting small animals and would need some working distance so as not to frighten the midgets.

Guinea pigs are actually frightened of everything, pretty much all the time. They have 2 reactions to fear. Their first reaction is to freeze. That's their normal reaction in fact. If they feel threatened, they will leap, run away, etc. But my experience with them is that they are fairly cooperative photographic subjects, even from close up.

Still, a 40 or 50mm lens might be a better choice.

Will

[interested_observer]

I took the images, and my wife gave her presentation last weekend. So, overall it went just fine. However, it turned out a bit differently than what I expected. I tested several lenses initially, the 50/1.7, 16-45 and 12-24, along with a Panasonic LX3 (because of the smaller sensor, to see if it would do any better).

About 90% of the shots were with the 12-24/f4 at 24mm and ISO 400 - with the built in flash, with the rest with the 16-45 again at 45mm and ISO 400 with the flash. My wife wanted to emphasize specific attributes, and the 12-24 gave the best depth of field. I also tried a thin depth of field - but she did not like that approach at all. The ability to get close to the animals was essentially the deciding factor for the 12-24 with its short focusing distance.

I thought with the heavy cropping that the K100 at 6MP may do a bit better, than the K20. Did not even pick up the K100. I just stuck with the K20 and my wife cropped out up to 80 to 90 percent of the frame. So, the additional real estate from the K20 was a very large plus.

The K20 with getting close (very close), coupled with the 12-24's reasonable depth of field and short focusing distance, all together worked very well. Shot probably 400 frames and she used about 40 total. I was also pleasantly surprised that the built in flash was perfect for the job, and since things were so close, the lens nose shadow was no problem. Everything was shot in JPG since she did not want to fuss with converting the format. Also, modified the images to show the various highlights better on a large screen. The folks who reviewed the presentation, indicated that brighter would be much better, so I had to go back and brighten a number of images up a bit (even more).

Also, it turns out that Texel's are a bit more docile than the rest of the breeds of guinea pigs - (what do I know - I just cart the feed around).

The suggestions and comments, along with the discussions helped quite a bit....

Thanks!

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by interested_observer; 11-07-2009 at 06:55 PM.

[WMBP]

Awwwww!! Very cute. Looks like you did okay.

Will