[TerryL]

Hello folks,
I shoot jpegs, and normally at the lowest iso possible. I do sharpen and adjust exposure of my jpegs in lightroom. I read a review on the k-1 the other day, that said the k-1 had soft jpeg images at high iso. What is the highest iso I can use without having soft images?
Thank you for your replies.
Terry

[enoeske]

Hello folks,
I shoot jpegs, and normally at the lowest iso possible. I do sharpen and adjust exposure of my jpegs in lightroom. I read a review on the k-1 the other day, that said the k-1 had soft jpeg images at high iso. What is the highest iso I can use without having soft images?
Thank you for your replies.
Terry

Define "soft". What's your limit? You will either get high ISO noise or you can apply noise reduction which softens the image. Which do you prefer?

[jatrax]

I read a review on the k-1 the other day, that said the k-1 had soft jpeg images at high iso. What is the highest iso I can use without having soft images?

First don't believe everything you read, reviewers get paid to write stuff not be accurate.

Second, what ISO are you using now? What do you think 'high' ISO is? 204,800? 102,400? 51,200? At what ISO did the "reviewer" test and make this conclusion? Be so kind as to add a link to the review.

I also shoot at the lowest ISO possible. For saleable images to clients that is generally 1600 on the K-1 but 3200 is usable. But I know many on this forum get very good images at MUCH high ISOs than that.

[TerryL]

Define "soft". What's your limit? You will either get high ISO noise or you can apply noise reduction which softens the image. Which do you prefer?

Thank you for your reply. I just want to avoid high iso noise. I have never shot above about 800. I bought my camera and lenses in January, and don't have much experience with my gear yet. Now the weather is warming up, I will be out with my camera a lot more. I just want to know what is a safe iso to avoid noise or soft images. If I could shoot at 1600 or lower, I would be thrilled.
Terry

[enoeske]

Thank you for your reply. I just want to avoid high iso noise. I have never shot above about 800. I bought my camera and lenses in January, and don't have much experience with my gear yet. Now the weather is warming up, I will be out with my camera a lot more. I just want to know what is a safe iso to avoid noise or soft images. If I could shoot at 1600 or lower, I would be thrilled.
Terry

I shot this in crop mode (15mp) on K-1 at ISO 1250. Using the whole FF should give you another stop at least of clean ISO. I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[TerryL]

First don't believe everything you read, reviewers get paid to write stuff not be accurate.

Second, what ISO are you using now? What do you think 'high' ISO is? 204,800? 102,400? 51,200? At what ISO did the "reviewer" test and make this conclusion? Be so kind as to add a link to the review.

I also shoot at the lowest ISO possible. For saleable images to clients that is generally 1600 on the K-1 but 3200 is usable. But I know many on this forum get very good images at MUCH high ISOs than that.

I don't recall where I read this, and they didn't exactly mention what iso they were referring to. If I could shoot at iso 1600 and lower, that would definitely be high enough. Also, I did increase the in camera sharpening by 1 for both bright and natural.
Thank you very much.
Terry

[clackers]

Thank you for your reply. I just want to avoid high iso noise. I have never shot above about 800. I bought my camera and lenses in January, and don't have much experience with my gear yet. Now the weather is warming up, I will be out with my camera a lot more. I just want to know what is a safe iso to avoid noise or soft images. If I could shoot at 1600 or lower, I would be thrilled.
Terry

ISO 1600 will not be a problem, Terry.

Above that and with any camera you're better off shooting RAW and applying different levels of NR to different areas of the scene in postprocessing.

[jatrax]

I don't recall where I read this, and they didn't exactly mention what iso they were referring to. If I could shoot at iso 1600 and lower, that would definitely be high enough.

1600 is not an issue. Most likely 3200 would be fine but everyone has their own tolerance for 'soft' or 'noise'.

I just take issue with reviewers who take a snapshot and say "the jpeg is soft at 204,000 ISO". Yeah, maybe it is, so what? No one is actually going to use that ISO for anything anyway. At normal ISOs there is nothing soft at all.

[TerryL]

Hi Clackers,
Thank you, that's exactly what I wanted to know. 1600 and lower will be just fine. I have never learned to process raw files, but I certainly plan to. I use Lightroom, so that should be fine for raw files. I will be finding out very soon.
Regards,
Terry

[Adam]

Hello folks,
I shoot jpegs, and normally at the lowest iso possible. I do sharpen and adjust exposure of my jpegs in lightroom. I read a review on the k-1 the other day, that said the k-1 had soft jpeg images at high iso. What is the highest iso I can use without having soft images?
Thank you for your replies.
Terry

Depends on the resolution you want in the final file. You can push the iso pretty high for web-sized photos.

[TerryL]

Depends on the resolution you want in the final file. You can push the iso pretty high for web-sized photos.

Hi Adam,
Well, I want the highest resolution possible. I want the best the the k-1 will do. I just want to know what my limit will be in order to get the most image possible. What is your opinion?
Thank you,
Terry

---------- Post added 03-20-18 at 12:24 PM ----------

ISO 1600 will not be a problem, Terry.

Above that and with any camera you're better off shooting RAW and applying different levels of NR to different areas of the scene in postprocessing.

Clackers,
Just curious. Would you happen to be shooting with a new 24-70? I just want to know what your opinion is of this lens. I have the 3 FA limited lenses, and the 100 macro for flowers this summer. I am thinking about the 24-70 for travel this summer.
Thanks,
Terry

[Adam]

Hi Adam,
Well, I want the highest resolution possible. I want the best the the k-1 will do. I just want to know what my limit will be in order to get the most image possible. What is your opinion?
Thank you,
Terry

---------- Post added 03-20-18 at 12:24 PM ----------


Clackers,
Just curious. Would you happen to be shooting with a new 24-70? I just want to know what your opinion is of this lens. I have the 3 FA limited lenses, and the 100 macro for flowers this summer. I am thinking about the 24-70 for travel this summer.
Thanks,
Terry

There really are a lot of factors at play. If the choice comes down between motion blur and noise, go for noise. Otherwise, use the lowest possible ISO that will allow you to use the shutter speed you want. That'll maximize the image quality. You can check our K-1 review to see how the noise worsens as you crank up the ISO so that you can judge the boundaries for yourself.

[jatrax]

I am thinking about the 24-70 for travel this summer.

24-70 is quite good and f/2.8. Also take a look at the DFA 28-105. Slower but a better travel lens IMHO. It's lighter and has a longer focal length. Image quality is hard to tell apart at the same apertures.

[DeadJohn]

...Well, I want the highest resolution possible. I want the best the the k-1 will do...

You directed the questions at Adam. I'll add shoot in raw DNG format and apply noise reduction later to get the best the K1 can do. If you are viewing on a typical monitor or printing at non-huge sizes, though, JPG can work very well.

[TerryL]

24-70 is quite good and f/2.8. Also take a look at the DFA 28-105. Slower but a better travel lens IMHO. It's lighter and has a longer focal length. Image quality is hard to tell apart at the same apertures.

Thank you Jatrax. That's good to know. I am partial to fixed aperture. I have never had a lens slower than 2.8, and prefer not to. But, I know the 28-105 is a very popular lens.
Terry