K5 - too much noise?

Chex · 12-06-2011, 12:22 AM

Well after looking at your picture I'd have to agree.. I just couldn't handle that noise either.. I think you should send me your K-5 for further inspection.. then when my wife is out shooting with your K-5, I can go shoot with mine!

Attached Images

xfloggingkylex · 12-06-2011, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Chex

Well after looking at your picture I'd have to agree.. I just couldn't handle that noise either.. I think you should send me your K-5 for further inspection.. then when my wife is out shooting with your K-5, I can go shoot with mine!

Hilarious.

JohnBee · 12-06-2011, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Chex

Well after looking at your picture I'd have to agree.. I just couldn't handle that noise either.. I think you should send me your K-5 for further inspection.. then when my wife is out shooting with your K-5, I can go shoot with mine!

Nothing a little NR can't fix!

Catalana · 12-07-2011, 07:22 PM

I had a go at the .dng file and opened it with photome. The image looks fine to me, apart from the underexposure and white balance (set to auto and way to blue. WB set to "Shade" might have been better).
After taking it for a spin in RawTherapee and FastStone, it is actually a fine photograph of the young gentleman. The eyes and teeth sharpen up nicely and show little motion blur,
even at 300%. There is indeed some motion blur in the dogs and the arm that pitches the ball, but that is to be expected. WB corrected nicely (obviously a personal choice).

At 1/160thsec with SR not active, it is pretty good. DOF in the image makes me guess at F/4 or lower.

Attached Images

twitch · 12-07-2011, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

A lot of people combine high ISO with underexposure. When one does this, there is going to be noise, it's a fact of life. The K5 will give less noise than most other cameras out there in this scenario, but it isn't going to be noise free,

Couldn't agree more, that's exactly what I was initially finding, having to do NR on ISO1600 files dragged up > 2/3's of a stop in PP. Since I've been shooting manual in these low light situations, I'm using up to ISO4000 with no post prod NR required because I'm getting the exposure right in camera.

Bottom line, as good as the DR and high ISO performance is in the K-5, it is no substitute for getting your exposure right in camera. FWIW, in consistant low light (eg indoor concerts) auto or semi-auto modes vary exposure shot to shot, which is exactly what you don't want when riding high ISO's.

audiobomber · 12-07-2011, 08:08 PM

I pushed it one stop and changed white balance to Cloudy, changed the image tone to Portrait (the original Natural works too). It looks good to me. I don't see a noise issue at all.

rreader · 12-10-2011, 03:11 AM

Thanks for the replies.

The shot was at 400ISO, so I was a bit surprised to see noise, but then again I didn't notice the underexposure.

I've got capture one working so I'll hopefully notice underexposure n stuff a bit more with my normal workflow.

I'll have to reprocess it though after looking at the last two. My colour balance is a fair wack off (after an adjustment in c1).

kh1234567890 · 12-10-2011, 05:59 AM

Judging by the long shadows I'd go for a much warmer colour balance. It is about a stop and a bit underexposed. Procesed with Silkypix 5.

pentup · 12-10-2011, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

Judging by the long shadows I'd go for a much warmer colour balance.

That is nice. Seems to express the time of day much better.

kh1234567890 · 12-10-2011, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by pentup

That is nice. Seems to express the time of day much better.

Thanks. The magic hour when the light is golden with almost a green tinge to it is a wonderful time of the day to shoot. And yet another example why shooting RAW gives you a better chance to fix the shot

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
k-x noise	WDWmom	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	05-29-2011 04:40 PM
Noise...noise..do I need software?	ejbpesca	Photographic Technique	15	04-07-2011 03:39 PM
SR noise in K-x	Hemi345	Video Recording and Processing	3	02-17-2011 09:17 PM
Noise	Nubi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	06-28-2010 02:17 PM
KX Noise	fan22	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	12-07-2009 09:20 AM

12-06-2011, 12:22 AM	#16
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Well after looking at your picture I'd have to agree.. I just couldn't handle that noise either.. I think you should send me your K-5 for further inspection.. then when my wife is out shooting with your K-5, I can go shoot with mine! Attached Images

12-06-2011, 06:13 AM	#17
xfloggingkylex Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Frederick, MD USA Posts: 111	Originally posted by Chex Well after looking at your picture I'd have to agree.. I just couldn't handle that noise either.. I think you should send me your K-5 for further inspection.. then when my wife is out shooting with your K-5, I can go shoot with mine! Hilarious.

12-06-2011, 06:24 AM	#18
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Chex Well after looking at your picture I'd have to agree.. I just couldn't handle that noise either.. I think you should send me your K-5 for further inspection.. then when my wife is out shooting with your K-5, I can go shoot with mine! Nothing a little NR can't fix!

12-07-2011, 07:22 PM	#19
Catalana Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 190	I had a go at the .dng file and opened it with photome. The image looks fine to me, apart from the underexposure and white balance (set to auto and way to blue. WB set to "Shade" might have been better). After taking it for a spin in RawTherapee and FastStone, it is actually a fine photograph of the young gentleman. The eyes and teeth sharpen up nicely and show little motion blur, even at 300%. There is indeed some motion blur in the dogs and the arm that pitches the ball, but that is to be expected. WB corrected nicely (obviously a personal choice). At 1/160thsec with SR not active, it is pretty good. DOF in the image makes me guess at F/4 or lower. Attached Images

12-07-2011, 07:55 PM	#20
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Wheatfield A lot of people combine high ISO with underexposure. When one does this, there is going to be noise, it's a fact of life. The K5 will give less noise than most other cameras out there in this scenario, but it isn't going to be noise free, Couldn't agree more, that's exactly what I was initially finding, having to do NR on ISO1600 files dragged up > 2/3's of a stop in PP. Since I've been shooting manual in these low light situations, I'm using up to ISO4000 with no post prod NR required because I'm getting the exposure right in camera. Bottom line, as good as the DR and high ISO performance is in the K-5, it is no substitute for getting your exposure right in camera. FWIW, in consistant low light (eg indoor concerts) auto or semi-auto modes vary exposure shot to shot, which is exactly what you don't want when riding high ISO's.

12-07-2011, 08:08 PM	#21
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I pushed it one stop and changed white balance to Cloudy, changed the image tone to Portrait (the original Natural works too). It looks good to me. I don't see a noise issue at all.

12-10-2011, 03:11 AM	#22
rreader New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Thanks for the replies. The shot was at 400ISO, so I was a bit surprised to see noise, but then again I didn't notice the underexposure. I've got capture one working so I'll hopefully notice underexposure n stuff a bit more with my normal workflow. I'll have to reprocess it though after looking at the last two. My colour balance is a fair wack off (after an adjustment in c1).

12-10-2011, 06:17 AM	#24
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Originally posted by kh1234567890 Judging by the long shadows I'd go for a much warmer colour balance. That is nice. Seems to express the time of day much better.

12-10-2011, 06:37 AM	#25
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by pentup That is nice. Seems to express the time of day much better. Thanks. The magic hour when the light is golden with almost a green tinge to it is a wonderful time of the day to shoot. And yet another example why shooting RAW gives you a better chance to fix the shot