Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-18-2010, 05:45 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
What does is mean to say the K-7 is "bad" at high ISO?

I was reading a review of the K-7 on dpreview and it essentially said the K-7 was bad at high ISO. What does that mean? When would you notice? ISO 800? Just looking for thoughts here so I can learn. Thank you.

edit: after looking at this site:

I thought the k20d looked better. Is everything still the same at high iso for the k-7. I guess I've answered my initial question but still wanted thoughts on it. The k-x is supposed to be better.

http://informationondigitalcamera.blogspot.com/2009/07/pentax-k-7-vs-pentax-...canon-eos.html


edit: then I saw this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...t-here-38.html

now I'm more confused because these look good.


Last edited by justtakingpics; 05-18-2010 at 05:51 PM.
05-18-2010, 06:25 PM   #2
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,901
"Bad" is subjective, so...it depends.

But the K-x is supposed to be "good" at higher ISO.

Not only is it subjective, it is relative.
05-18-2010, 07:05 PM   #3
Veteran Member
omega leader's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 417
If it is bad, now I've made fantastic images with my K10D at ISO 800 and printed them at 20" wide. And the K10D is what, atrocious? Repugnant?

I'm of the opinion that unfortunately far too many people are placing far too much weight in the ability of cameras to shoot in very unfavorable conditions. The K7 is a great camera.
05-18-2010, 07:06 PM   #4
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by omega leader Quote
If it is bad, now I've made fantastic images with my K10D at ISO 800 and printed them at 20" wide. And the K10D is what, atrocious? Repugnant?

I'm of the opinion that unfortunately far too many people are placing far too much weight in the ability of cameras to shoot in very unfavorable conditions. The K7 is a great camera.
+1
.

05-18-2010, 07:18 PM   #5
Veteran Member
casil403's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,170
I start seeing noise above ISO 800 on mine. I can get rid of it easily in Nik DFine though. I haven't gone much above that as yet.
I hear the Kx is way better at less noise with higher ISO levels than the K7. For me the K7 wins hands down by how it felt in my hands (I tried the K20 and Kx and I have a K200D) though which is why I got it.
05-18-2010, 07:27 PM   #6
JMI
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 48
Bad is relitive. Bad compared to a D700, well most camera's are. Bad compared to other aps-c cameras, well jpegs out of the camera, not as good, raw, much closer.

Personally there a few things I prefer about the K7 to other camera's at high iso. Noise is NOT the only factor in high iso performance.
05-18-2010, 07:47 PM   #7
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belleville, IL
Posts: 22
QuoteOriginally posted by JMI Quote
Personally there a few things I prefer about the K7 to other camera's at high iso. Noise is NOT the only factor in high iso performance.

I'm curious, as this is my sentiment as well. For me, the K-7 gives an entirely more filmlike quality to the images it poduces, especially at high iso. I find the noise very granular like film when it does crop up. I'm interested in what you prefer about it.
05-18-2010, 07:50 PM   #8
hcc
Pentaxian
hcc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,531
QuoteOriginally posted by justtakingpics Quote
I was reading a review of the K-7 on dpreview and it essentially said the K-7 was bad at high ISO. What does that mean? When would you notice? ISO 800? Just looking for thoughts here so I can learn. Thank you.
I agree with earlier posts that it is all very relative.

A detailed scrutiny at all test results shows a general consensus that is:
- the K-7 RAW files are as good as any other dSLRs incl. the K-x at high ISO,
- the K-7 JPEG files at ISO 6400 appear not as "good" as K-x JPEG files at same ISO,
- the K-7 outperforms most dSLRs incl. the K-x at lower ISO.

One issue is the notion of 'high ISO'. We should be talking about low-light performances. I would stress therefore that the discussion is meaningless because any 'conclusion' depends very much upon the lens: a good glass is more important than the camera body. We should compare apples and apples

With my K-7 and Voigtlander Notkon 58m f1.4, I can take great photographs in low-light, that most Canikons and the K-x with their respective kit lens could not shoot. If I was using this example, I would conclude that my K-7 outperforms the Canikons and the K-x in low-light ... Off course we know that this conclusion is silly, pointless.

In summary, the K-7 is a great camera. Just look at the users' reviews:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-digital-slr-camera-reviews/61302-pentax-k-7-a.html

It has an excellent AF for low-light conditions

If you are interested into low-light shooting, consider to buy a fast prime lens with large aperture. Pentax has some of the best fast primes in the market, all brands together. There are also some excellent 3rd party fast primes lenses (Voigtlander, Carl Zeiss).

Hope that the comments will help...

05-18-2010, 08:05 PM   #9
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,123
I suppose that it means that compared to other bodies in the same price range, the photos taken with high ISO have worse quality. Whether or not that's true is up for debate

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

05-18-2010, 08:09 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by hcc Quote
I agree with earlier posts that it is all very relative.

A detailed scrutiny at all test results shows a general consensus that is:
- the K-7 RAW files are as good as any other dSLRs incl. the K-x at high ISO,
- the K-7 JPEG files at ISO 6400 appear not as "good" as K-x JPEG files at same ISO,
- the K-7 outperforms most dSLRs incl. the K-x at lower ISO.

One issue is the notion of 'high ISO'. We should be talking about low-light performances. I would stress therefore that the discussion is meaningless because any 'conclusion' depends very much upon the lens: a good glass is more important than the camera body. We should compare apples and apples

With my K-7 and Voigtlander Notkon 58m f1.4, I can take great photographs in low-light, that most Canikons and the K-x with their respective kit lens could not shoot. If I was using this example, I would conclude that my K-7 outperforms the Canikons and the K-x in low-light ... Off course we know that this conclusion is silly, pointless.

It is absurd too. The above case would be true only if canikon or kx users could not afford fast primes.


Imagine F1.2 strapped to kx or D3S in full frame.
05-18-2010, 08:21 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I suppose that it means that compared to other bodies in the same price range, the photos taken with high ISO have worse quality. Whether or not that's true is up for debate
I would rather retain the detail and take the noise out myself in post processing. The less noise at high ISO, the less the detail in the images I have looked at. My K10 is supposedly terrible at anything over ISO 400, but the detail is still there to be massaged out later. So, to restate Adam's comment, it is all in the eye of the beholder.
05-18-2010, 09:37 PM   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
bad is: worse than its predecessor the k20d.
05-18-2010, 10:31 PM   #13
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by justtakingpics Quote
I was reading a review of the K-7 on dpreview and it essentially said the K-7 was bad at high ISO. What does that mean? When would you notice? ISO 800? Just looking for thoughts here so I can learn. Thank you.
Many ratings of this nature are made in reference to the K7's predecessor.
Which I suppose was warranted since most camera updates result in performance increases, however in this case, the K7 took a step backward in ISO performance in contrast to the K20D.

Having said that(based on what I've seen), I'd say the K7 does very well up to ISO1600 at which point it begins to loose ground to the K20D in terms of noise. And so unless you're the type of person who is truly attached to ISO3200 on your K20D, then I doubt doubt such things would ever affect the usefulness of the K7 as a semi-pro body.
05-18-2010, 11:11 PM   #14
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
After checking the dpreview samples, I'd say it's good up to 800, same as my K-m. The K-x is good up to 1600. For comparison, my 40D is good up to 800, and only bearable at 1600. My K-m is unbearable at 1600. These are subjective of course, and to my own standard only.
05-19-2010, 01:11 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 359
My K10d is:

Outstanding at ISO 100
Excellent up to ISO 280
Very good up to ISO 400.
Perfectly usable up to ISO 800
Acceptable (just) at ISO 1600 if exposure is spot on and image converted to b/w.

I have sold A4-sized prints at ISO 1250....

Considering that the K7 is supposed to be at least 1 stop better at higher ISO you should be able to use ISO 1600 without problems and ISO 3200 if exposure is spot on. However, you have to shoot RAW.

Kind regards
.lars
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, iso, k-7, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People High and low key "snapshot" portraits Myoptimism Photo Critique 3 12-01-2009 12:28 PM
"Abscract" shots from up high (3 pics) eclipsed450 Post Your Photos! 6 02-18-2009 03:38 PM
"High speed" video of a K200 shutter in action ve2vfd General Talk 8 01-07-2009 05:11 AM
"high iso noise reduction" function - good news? platinum Pentax News and Rumors 1 04-19-2008 11:45 AM
Better high ISO performance on "K20D"? switters Pentax News and Rumors 39 12-02-2007 01:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top