K7 Noise at ISO800

CX15 · 10-24-2009, 08:55 AM

Hi All

(Ground rules first:
1. For all practical purposes this can be considered as my first post.
2. The K7 is my first DSLR - I know many will consider that ambitious (or even stupid)
3. I understand the fact that I have a lot to learn. I have a few books I'm busy working through, but thought I will also benefit from learning from other users.
4. I LOVE this camera - I havent used a SLR for many years and were instantly reminded of how satisfying it is to shoot with a decent camera that was clearly made for enthusiasts! I therefore acknowledge that most of my current problems is most probably down to me!)

Right, now on to ISO and noise.
This subject is fairly new to me as I have never before used a DSLR.
I restricted all my shooting with P&S to the lowest ISO.
However, the advantages of a higher ISO is very desirable and I started experimenting.

The following photo was taken at ISO800. (EXIF hopefully intact)

ISO 800 Sample - Flickr Page

ISO 800 Sample - Original Size
(This JPEG is straight from the camera)

I find the level of noise in the blue (sky) parts quite high.

Can anyone spot any obvious mistake I made here?
Is this level of noise to be expected?

I tried using Noise Ninja to reduse noise, but I lose so much IQ that I'm either using the program incorrectly, or the noise is just too much.

Any input will be greatly appreciated.

Regards CX

P.S.
I have not played too much with in-camera NR.
I have not shot using RAW yet.
I did not play around with Sharpness settings at all.

Last edited by CX15; 10-25-2009 at 05:11 AM.

chedoy · 10-24-2009, 10:19 AM

Wow, I'm dismayed, but maybe it's the settings and exposure. I don't own a K-7, but I would look at the NR settings. If you're going to shoot in JPG, you probably want to have some in--camera NR turned on. How much is up to you.

This is based on what I do for my Olympus E510, which s a very noisy sucker. Turn the in-camera NR up higher for JPG shots. I assume it's not off right now? Or turn it off for higher ISO shooting and post process it out. Also, under-exposure really aggravates noise.

Most of the time, mild noise doesn't print anyway, and is not noticeable in a screen shot.

Here's a 100x crop from your flikr image, right side run thru Adobe Elements with Noiseware plug-in. It's not all that sharp on either side, being a hazy shot anyway.

billtin59 · 10-24-2009, 04:47 PM

I don't get this fixation with "noise". Consider this, your sensor is much closer in size to a 110 film negative than it is to a 35mm neg. Would you expect "noiseless" results if you shot this on an 800 speed 110 cartridge??? It's been many, many moons but my guess is the results would be dismal, at best. Film grain was perfectly acceptable, but digital grain is not. I just don't get it!!

CX15 · 10-24-2009, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by billtin59

I don't get this fixation with "noise". Consider this, your sensor is much closer in size to a 110 film negative than it is to a 35mm neg. Would you expect "noiseless" results if you shot this on an 800 speed 110 cartridge??? It's been many, many moons but my guess is the results would be dismal, at best. Film grain was perfectly acceptable, but digital grain is not. I just don't get it!!

Here we go again...

This was a test shot in hazy conditions - I did not expect to get a perfect picture. The same shot was taken at lower ISO settings as well and produced much better results. Taking a picture of a mountain in ISO800 in bright sunlight is probably not standard practise anyway and I would definately not have tried it in the film days as you say.

The purpose of my original post was simple: It was in no way a complaint about noise!! It was simply a question to more experienced photographers to help me - i.e. can anyone spot an obvious mistake with my settings. I am trying to figure out how ISO works with this camera, that's all.
If this level of noise is normal for the conditions, then so be it - I am not expecting any miracles here...

Quote:

Turn the in-camera NR up higher for JPG shots. I assume it's not off right now? Or turn it off for higher ISO shooting and post process it out.

Good question. NR is set to Medium (Option 1, Item 19 in menu C3) and to start at ISO800 (Option 1, Item 20 in menu C3). However, Im not sure if the NR will start at ISO800 or only at ISO1600. The manual states that Item 20 sets the NR start ISO, but the camera states: "NR is activated when ISO sensitivity is set to higher than 800"

I will play around with that the in camera NR a bit more when I have time and see if I can produce different results.

Quote:

Also, under-exposure really aggravates noise

Looking at the histogram, I cannot see any glaring mistake here, but please correct me on this if I'm wrong...

Quote:

, being a hazy shot anyway

Can haze actually be mistaken for noise? It was fairly hazy on that day - I will upload an ISO200 shot of the same scene for comparison purposes...

ISO 200 Sample - Flickr Page

ISO 200 Sample - Original Size

-Thanks for the inputs so far-

Last edited by CX15; 10-25-2009 at 05:10 AM.

**Rondec** · 10-24-2009, 05:31 PM

I don't know the K7, but I have heard that some of the sharpening that is done in-Jpeg increases noise significantly. The other thing that I have seen on the K20 bump noise is using the "enhanced dynamic range" feature. The other thing is that I probably wouldn't have used iso 800 in this setting. In bright daylight, you should be able to shoot iso 100-200, f8 and have a decent shutter speed.

Marc Sabatella · 10-24-2009, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by CX15

a question to more experienced photographers to help me - i.e. can anyone spot an obvious mistake with my settings. I am trying to figure out how ISO works with this camera, that's all.

Flat areas of color like skies tend to show noise more than areas with texture or detail. And I've also heard that the blue channel tends to be noisier than the red or green. So that suggests a blue sky would be the worst place for noise.

As the previous poster said, also be sure not to be applying too much sharpening, or using the various noise-enhance modes like D-range.

Quote:

Can haze actually be mistaken for noise?

I suppose. Also seems that condensation and salt deposits on the front of the lens wouldn't help.

CX15 · 10-25-2009, 03:24 AM

Thanks Marc & Rondec!

Quote:

As the previous poster said, also be sure not to be applying too much sharpening, or using the various noise-enhance modes like D-range.

Both D-Range Settings was on: Highlight correction and Shadow Correction to Med.

I will definately try shooting without them and see if there is any difference.

lithos · 10-25-2009, 04:17 AM

I honestly can't tell difference...because the samples are so friggin' small.

I can tell the difference with the FOV, that's about it.

CX15 · 10-25-2009, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by lithos

I honestly can't tell difference...because the samples are so friggin' small.

I can tell the difference with the FOV, that's about it.

Hi Lithos - I simplified the links provided to include a direct link to the original size pics.

Let me know if you still can't see them properly.

mtags24 · 10-28-2009, 12:14 PM

Any cropped sensor dslr is going to show noise at iso 800 in a shot like that. Theres no reason to be shooting at such a high iso there. You are probably so alarmed because the noise is so apparent, but I bet other camera brands would show similar amounts of noise.

The image with the blue sky is simply noise prone in general. Shoot iso 800 in a different setting and i'm pretty sure it won't be as bad.

Parallax · 10-28-2009, 01:22 PM

Just to put things in perspective:

With a K-7, or in my case K20D we are starting with a sensor 23.5mm across. A typical 22" widescreen monitor is 475mm across and 1680 pixels. My monitor would have to be 1320mm wide to display the the 23.5mm 4668px wide image at "actual pixel" resolution (or what I call PPV; Pixel Peep View

). That gives an enlargement of roughly 56x (1320/23.5=56.17). If I shot a picture on Tri-X, or even Plus-X and printed the FF film image as a 56"x37" print I might expect to see just a wee bit of grain.

emalvick · 10-28-2009, 03:10 PM

Given the brightness of the day, the shot does seem a bit noisy, but there are a couple of points I'll re-emphasize from others as well as suggestions.

The blue channel does tend to be noisier than others. I still only have the K10d, and I can often find even ISO 200 shots to be noisy in the sky if I'm not careful. I shoot raw, so I avoid any camera noise removal.

When I do have some noise, I tend to utilize Noiseware. Given that noise tends to show up in the sky the most in my shots (I often darken shadows so that noise is often less of a distraction), I will often mask my noise reduced layer so that the noise reduction on the sky is in view but the remainder of the image has not been noise reduced (i.e. the detailed zones). I can essentially pick and choose with a decent mask where detail is saved and noise reduction is important.

StarDust · 10-29-2009, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Flat areas of color like skies tend to show noise more than areas with texture or detail. And I've also heard that the blue channel tends to be noisier than the red or green. So that suggests a blue sky would be the worst place for noise.

I sure miss those summer green skies.

(I just couldn't resist).

Jasvox · 10-29-2009, 11:09 AM

Why would you shoot this at ISO 800 anyway? Bright sunny day, stationary objects except for waves which will be no problem since your speeds should be more than fast enough to freeze them at ISO 100.

Jason

CX15 · 10-29-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Why would you shoot this at ISO 800 anyway? Bright sunny day, stationary objects except for waves which will be no problem since your speeds should be more than fast enough to freeze them at ISO 100.

Jason

As I mention in my second post: This picture was taken at these settings purely as a TEST. I was playing around with the different ISO settings to see what the results will look like.

The reason for my post is: To find out if the amount of noise is to be expected with settings like that, or if I made an obvious mistake.

As some posters suggest (thanks mtags24 & emalvick) this is actually normal for any dslr with these settings.
So it actually comes as a relief!!

10-24-2009, 08:55 AM	#1
CX15 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 27	K7 Noise at ISO800 Hi All (Ground rules first: 1. For all practical purposes this can be considered as my first post. 2. The K7 is my first DSLR - I know many will consider that ambitious (or even stupid) 3. I understand the fact that I have a lot to learn. I have a few books I'm busy working through, but thought I will also benefit from learning from other users. 4. I LOVE this camera - I havent used a SLR for many years and were instantly reminded of how satisfying it is to shoot with a decent camera that was clearly made for enthusiasts! I therefore acknowledge that most of my current problems is most probably down to me!) Right, now on to ISO and noise. This subject is fairly new to me as I have never before used a DSLR. I restricted all my shooting with P&S to the lowest ISO. However, the advantages of a higher ISO is very desirable and I started experimenting. The following photo was taken at ISO800. (EXIF hopefully intact) ISO 800 Sample - Flickr Page ISO 800 Sample - Original Size (This JPEG is straight from the camera) I find the level of noise in the blue (sky) parts quite high. Can anyone spot any obvious mistake I made here? Is this level of noise to be expected? I tried using Noise Ninja to reduse noise, but I lose so much IQ that I'm either using the program incorrectly, or the noise is just too much. Any input will be greatly appreciated. Regards CX P.S. I have not played too much with in-camera NR. I have not shot using RAW yet. I did not play around with Sharpness settings at all. Last edited by CX15; 10-25-2009 at 05:11 AM.

10-24-2009, 10:19 AM	#2
chedoy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 143	Wow, I'm dismayed, but maybe it's the settings and exposure. I don't own a K-7, but I would look at the NR settings. If you're going to shoot in JPG, you probably want to have some in--camera NR turned on. How much is up to you. This is based on what I do for my Olympus E510, which s a very noisy sucker. Turn the in-camera NR up higher for JPG shots. I assume it's not off right now? Or turn it off for higher ISO shooting and post process it out. Also, under-exposure really aggravates noise. Most of the time, mild noise doesn't print anyway, and is not noticeable in a screen shot. Here's a 100x crop from your flikr image, right side run thru Adobe Elements with Noiseware plug-in. It's not all that sharp on either side, being a hazy shot anyway. Attached Images

10-28-2009, 01:22 PM	#11
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Just to put things in perspective: With a K-7, or in my case K20D we are starting with a sensor 23.5mm across. A typical 22" widescreen monitor is 475mm across and 1680 pixels. My monitor would have to be 1320mm wide to display the the 23.5mm 4668px wide image at "actual pixel" resolution (or what I call PPV; Pixel Peep View ). That gives an enlargement of roughly 56x (1320/23.5=56.17). If I shot a picture on Tri-X, or even Plus-X and printed the FF film image as a 56"x37" print I might expect to see just a wee bit of grain. Last edited by Parallax; 10-29-2009 at 06:56 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D @ 300mm ISO800	vulcanman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	07-24-2010 07:54 AM
So horrible at ISO800	henryjing	Pentax DSLR Discussion	42	04-17-2010 10:26 AM
Fish-eye in flight and ISO800 and more	MightyMike	Post Your Photos!	14	03-13-2009 03:26 PM
Watch Macro with K20 and ISO800	palmor	Post Your Photos!	0	06-13-2008 08:13 AM
K200D vs *ist DS at ISO800	ogl	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	04-26-2008 09:13 AM

10-24-2009, 04:47 PM	#3
billtin59 Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Massachusetts, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 84	I don't get this fixation with "noise". Consider this, your sensor is much closer in size to a 110 film negative than it is to a 35mm neg. Would you expect "noiseless" results if you shot this on an 800 speed 110 cartridge??? It's been many, many moons but my guess is the results would be dismal, at best. Film grain was perfectly acceptable, but digital grain is not. I just don't get it!!

10-24-2009, 05:26 PM	#4
CX15 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 27 Original Poster	Originally posted by billtin59 I don't get this fixation with "noise". Consider this, your sensor is much closer in size to a 110 film negative than it is to a 35mm neg. Would you expect "noiseless" results if you shot this on an 800 speed 110 cartridge??? It's been many, many moons but my guess is the results would be dismal, at best. Film grain was perfectly acceptable, but digital grain is not. I just don't get it!! Here we go again... This was a test shot in hazy conditions - I did not expect to get a perfect picture. The same shot was taken at lower ISO settings as well and produced much better results. Taking a picture of a mountain in ISO800 in bright sunlight is probably not standard practise anyway and I would definately not have tried it in the film days as you say. The purpose of my original post was simple: It was in no way a complaint about noise!! It was simply a question to more experienced photographers to help me - i.e. can anyone spot an obvious mistake with my settings. I am trying to figure out how ISO works with this camera, that's all. If this level of noise is normal for the conditions, then so be it - I am not expecting any miracles here... Quote: Turn the in-camera NR up higher for JPG shots. I assume it's not off right now? Or turn it off for higher ISO shooting and post process it out. Good question. NR is set to Medium (Option 1, Item 19 in menu C3) and to start at ISO800 (Option 1, Item 20 in menu C3). However, Im not sure if the NR will start at ISO800 or only at ISO1600. The manual states that Item 20 sets the NR start ISO, but the camera states: "NR is activated when ISO sensitivity is set to higher than 800" I will play around with that the in camera NR a bit more when I have time and see if I can produce different results. Quote: Also, under-exposure really aggravates noise Looking at the histogram, I cannot see any glaring mistake here, but please correct me on this if I'm wrong... Quote: , being a hazy shot anyway Can haze actually be mistaken for noise? It was fairly hazy on that day - I will upload an ISO200 shot of the same scene for comparison purposes... ISO 200 Sample - Flickr Page ISO 200 Sample - Original Size -Thanks for the inputs so far- Last edited by CX15; 10-25-2009 at 05:10 AM.

10-24-2009, 05:31 PM	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I don't know the K7, but I have heard that some of the sharpening that is done in-Jpeg increases noise significantly. The other thing that I have seen on the K20 bump noise is using the "enhanced dynamic range" feature. The other thing is that I probably wouldn't have used iso 800 in this setting. In bright daylight, you should be able to shoot iso 100-200, f8 and have a decent shutter speed.

10-24-2009, 10:31 PM	#6
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by CX15 a question to more experienced photographers to help me - i.e. can anyone spot an obvious mistake with my settings. I am trying to figure out how ISO works with this camera, that's all. Flat areas of color like skies tend to show noise more than areas with texture or detail. And I've also heard that the blue channel tends to be noisier than the red or green. So that suggests a blue sky would be the worst place for noise. As the previous poster said, also be sure not to be applying too much sharpening, or using the various noise-enhance modes like D-range. Quote: Can haze actually be mistaken for noise? I suppose. Also seems that condensation and salt deposits on the front of the lens wouldn't help.

10-25-2009, 03:24 AM	#7
CX15 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 27 Original Poster	Thanks Marc & Rondec! Quote: As the previous poster said, also be sure not to be applying too much sharpening, or using the various noise-enhance modes like D-range. Both D-Range Settings was on: Highlight correction and Shadow Correction to Med. I will definately try shooting without them and see if there is any difference.

10-25-2009, 04:17 AM	#8
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	I honestly can't tell difference...because the samples are so friggin' small. I can tell the difference with the FOV, that's about it.

10-25-2009, 05:12 AM	#9
CX15 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 27 Original Poster	Originally posted by lithos I honestly can't tell difference...because the samples are so friggin' small. I can tell the difference with the FOV, that's about it. Hi Lithos - I simplified the links provided to include a direct link to the original size pics. Let me know if you still can't see them properly.

10-28-2009, 12:14 PM	#10
mtags24 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Wash DC Photos: Albums Posts: 36	Any cropped sensor dslr is going to show noise at iso 800 in a shot like that. Theres no reason to be shooting at such a high iso there. You are probably so alarmed because the noise is so apparent, but I bet other camera brands would show similar amounts of noise. The image with the blue sky is simply noise prone in general. Shoot iso 800 in a different setting and i'm pretty sure it won't be as bad.

10-28-2009, 03:10 PM	#12
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Given the brightness of the day, the shot does seem a bit noisy, but there are a couple of points I'll re-emphasize from others as well as suggestions. The blue channel does tend to be noisier than others. I still only have the K10d, and I can often find even ISO 200 shots to be noisy in the sky if I'm not careful. I shoot raw, so I avoid any camera noise removal. When I do have some noise, I tend to utilize Noiseware. Given that noise tends to show up in the sky the most in my shots (I often darken shadows so that noise is often less of a distraction), I will often mask my noise reduced layer so that the noise reduction on the sky is in view but the remainder of the image has not been noise reduced (i.e. the detailed zones). I can essentially pick and choose with a decent mask where detail is saved and noise reduction is important.

10-29-2009, 03:50 AM	#13
StarDust Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Posts: 400	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Flat areas of color like skies tend to show noise more than areas with texture or detail. And I've also heard that the blue channel tends to be noisier than the red or green. So that suggests a blue sky would be the worst place for noise. I sure miss those summer green skies. (I just couldn't resist).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-29-2009, 11:09 AM	#14
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Why would you shoot this at ISO 800 anyway? Bright sunny day, stationary objects except for waves which will be no problem since your speeds should be more than fast enough to freeze them at ISO 100. Jason

10-29-2009, 12:14 PM	#15
CX15 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 27 Original Poster	Quote: Why would you shoot this at ISO 800 anyway? Bright sunny day, stationary objects except for waves which will be no problem since your speeds should be more than fast enough to freeze them at ISO 100. Jason As I mention in my second post: This picture was taken at these settings purely as a TEST. I was playing around with the different ISO settings to see what the results will look like. The reason for my post is: To find out if the amount of noise is to be expected with settings like that, or if I made an obvious mistake. As some posters suggest (thanks mtags24 & emalvick) this is actually normal for any dslr with these settings. So it actually comes as a relief!!