[672]

Here are shots from today at high iso. You can check the exif data for specifics. I certainly would not print these very large , but it was nice to have the option to suddenly shoot this scene, which i would not have done with the 645D, or for that matter my 1DS3. This Z is really really great……….

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[JinDesu]

ISO 64000, any cropping, noise reduction, etc? These are straight from the camera?

Looks like my k-3's ISO 12,800. That's pretty awesome.

[normhead]

ISO 64,000, using ƒ5.6 and still 1/60 second
I have to stop doing this. Numbers like this are just wrong..... how's a guy not supposed to run out and mortgage his house?

[672]

Iso 64,000

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 08:52 AM ----------

ISO 64000, any cropping, noise reduction, etc? These are straight from the camera?

Looks like my k-3's ISO 12,800. That's pretty awesome.

Mild cropping for straightening. Mild tweaks in ACR. DNG files. Straight from the camera is pretty flat usually.

[Mareket]

64000 with three zeroes??

Sweet jesus... *removes glasses*

[rawr]

Looks very decent. I bet that noise would clean up very well, especially if some luminance NR was done lightly at full res and then resized down. What's interesting is the apparent absence of chroma noise and other blotchiness.

[formercanuck]

The funny part was the first shot.

ISO Equivalent 65535

Isn't that an 16 bits ... do I see an overflow or issue with the number

[itshimitis]

I'm pretty impressed. This shot has been pushed +2 EV -

EXIF - FA 35 f/3.5 1/40 f/11 ISO 1000:

processing: +1.6 exposure +.45 shadows +.36 whites Clarity= 33

viveza +36 structure

Unsharp Mask 100% 1.5px

Silver efex Red filter + Ilford Pan50 profile.

No Noise reduction



Full size (cropped to 45mp)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/singingsnapper/14358944600/sizes/o/

[672]

Looks great Isthimitus, but I am not so sure that iso 1000 qualifies as high sensitivity anymore…….!?!?!?!?!?

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 05:47 PM ----------

The funny part was the first shot.

ISO Equivalent 65535

Isn't that an 16 bits ... do I see an overflow or issue with the number

i noticed that also. ISO 65535. If thats the only bug i find in this early serial number i will count myself very very lucky…………In the case of both the 645D and 90MM DFA I had to exchange the first one i was sold , for a variety of reasons.

Because of this , I only buy from USA dealer , with USA warranty. And the Pentax Pro Service in Colorado is outstanding and accommodating. Mark Davis has answers and solutions for 645 customers.


"Highly Invested Beta Tester" is the term i use for my relationship with this gear…………

[formercanuck]

Where in Santa Monica do you find Pentax gear, if you don't mind me asking ?

[DeadJohn]

Regarding ISO 65535: Is it possible that first shot was actually taken at a higher ISO, then a 16-bit software counter somewhere between the camera and your post capped the displayed ISO at 65535? Can this forum properly display EXIF data above 64000 ISO?

[672]

Samy's Camera, Fairfax Store, Pro Department, Sean Fox, Got it June 24th. Call him up.

---------- Post added 06-30-14 at 09:42 PM ----------

The correct sensitivity rating for that shot is in fact 102000 ISO . I had no idea there was digital caps on these meters. My copy of ACR reads it just fine, so maybe you are right , the forum has some funny math.

[JinDesu]

Holy cow that's 102,000 ISO? The dynamic range at that ISO level is amazing!

[rawr]

The dynamic range at that ISO level is amazing!

The DxOMark.com examination of the 645Z is going to be very interesting indeed.
Move aside, Sony A7S?

[derekkite]

64000 with three zeroes??

Sweet jesus... *removes glasses*

Indeed.