[Marc Sabatella]

I dont want to get into a war about ISO. So i will just say:

I disagree. Never been afraid or prayed when shooting 3200.

I'll also say that that to the extent results can vary according to situation, the K-x is not immune to this either. That is, depending on the lighting and nature of the scene as well as the exposure, ISO 3200 on the K-x has the potential to not always look as good as it does in more conducive situations. But it is probably true that the worst ISO 3200 shots from the K-x will be a notch above the worst from the K-7.

[MPrince]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the K7 in RAW at high ISO retains A LOT of detail.

Hence the higher noise vs other cameras. If the other brands retained as much detail, they would likely have a similar noise profile.

To me, this is a plus for Pentax--the photographer gets to determine how much detail is lost or retained in PP, not the camera manufacturer.

Of course, some people don't want to devote their time to PP, so for them this would be a negative.

Which is why competition and having lots of choices is good

[yeatzee]

I dont want to get into a war about ISO. So i will just say:

I disagree. Never been afraid or prayed when shooting 3200.

I often use ISO3200 shooting sport with K-7. After some noise removal I think they would look fine at 8x10, though I haven't tried it.

Hence the higher noise vs other cameras. If the other brands retained as much detail, they would likely have a similar noise profile.

To me, this is a plus for Pentax--the photographer gets to determine how much detail is lost or retained in PP, not the camera manufacturer.

Of course, some people don't want to devote their time to PP, so for them this would be a negative.

Which is why competition and having lots of choices is good

I agree completely guys. I think people obsess about noise way to much. I was talking to a buddy who shoots a Nikon D90 and he was complaining about all the noise in his images even at ISO200 & 400. I couldn't help but laugh, and proceeded to tell him his DSLR is one of the best APSC DSLR's in the noise department He of course zooms in to 100% in the shadows and just searches for noise relentlessly I am guilty of zooming in to 100% on just about ever image I take, but thats just because my obsession isn't noise but rather sharpness

[alexeyga]

I agree completely guys. I think people obsess about noise way to much. I was talking to a buddy who shoots a Nikon D90 and he was complaining about all the noise in his images even at ISO200 & 400. I couldn't help but laugh, and proceeded to tell him his DSLR is one of the best APSC DSLR's in the noise department He of course zooms in to 100% in the shadows and just searches for noise relentlessly I am guilty of zooming in to 100% on just about ever image I take, but thats just because my obsession isn't noise but rather sharpness

Well, in defense of your buddy, take some blue sky pics (in RAW without noise removal) at ISO 100-200 with your K7 and zoom in 100%... you're in for a few surprises...

[Canada_Rockies]

Well, in defense of your buddy, take some blue sky pics (in RAW without noise removal) at ISO 100-200 with your K7 and zoom in 100%... you're in for a few surprises...

I just had a peek at a couple of normally exposed images with blue sky, and at 2:1 it's noisy! Oh, Good Lord! My camera is useless!!!!!

How many of you have ever seen a negative taken at ISO 1600? I'll take digital any day.

[alexeyga]

I just had a peek at a couple of normally exposed images with blue sky, and at 2:1 it's noisy! Oh, Good Lord! My camera is useless!!!!!.

Maybe your camera in useless, but my point was that people do tend to fall into trashing the grass on the other side, without really knowing what their own grass is worth...

For instance, D300s suffers from the same stuff, even at lowest ISO setting, blue sky is quite noisy as well.... So nobody is insulting anybody, just a reality check...

[yeatzee]

Maybe your camera in useless, but my point was that people do tend to fall into trashing the grass on the other side, without really knowing what their own grass is worth...

For instance, D300s suffers from the same stuff, even at lowest ISO setting, blue sky is quite noisy as well....

If that was your point than why would you quote me? I wasn't trashing Nikon and their D90, I was simply proving my point that people obsess with noise and will find it. Case in point my friend was actually worried about the noise in his images despite his camera's amazingly noiseless sensor

I never made one mention of the K-7 in what you quoted of me also, so how is taking a picture of the sky relevant to what I said? My images have noise, there I said it! Wippdy fricken do.... thats how it is with all camera's whether its a Kx or the Nikon D3s.

[jimby]

The K7 image quality at ISO 6400 is quite usable, and responds well to third party noise reduction. Here is an example.

First the unaltered image, taken at 6400 on the K7:


Here's a 100% crop before any noise reduction is applied:


Then after the application of chroma noise reduction in Lightroom 3 (Beta 2):


Then adding Luminance noise reduction to the image as well:


There is plenty of tweaking you can do to optimize image quality, but the above examples show what you can do with just gross adjustments of the NR parameters. I would probably never apply that much NR in any image, but you can see that you have lots of control with sophisticated NR routines with not a lot of image degradation.

Do not be afraid of the K7's high ISO!

[jamesm007]

Yes you can make prints from the K-7 at iso3200 as good as those from a D300. Printing is a whole different world versus pixel-peeping as you know.

[kalison]

If that was your point than why would you quote me? I wasn't trashing Nikon and their D90, I was simply proving my point that people obsess with noise and will find it. Case in point my friend was actually worried about the noise in his images despite his camera's amazingly noiseless sensor

I never made one mention of the K-7 in what you quoted of me also, so how is taking a picture of the sky relevant to what I said? My images have noise, there I said it! Wippdy fricken do.... thats how it is with all camera's whether its a Kx or the Nikon D3s.

I don't think yeatzee was trashing anything. He was just using an example of how his buddy is obsessed with noise seeking.

In fact he complimented the D90.

[tuco]

How many of you have ever seen a negative taken at ISO 1600? I'll take digital any day.

I have. Not that much grain at all with a Pentax 6x7 or 4x5 camera using a 400 film at that EI and a fine grain developer. Certainly more than a 100 film of course and that too being a function of tabular or cubic grain films.

[Canada_Rockies]

I have. Not that much grain at all with a Pentax 6x7 or 4x5 camera using a 400 film at that EI and a fine grain developer. Certainly more than a 100 film of course and that too being a function of tabular or cubic grain films.

Ah, but let us compare an ISO 1600 "negative" or "slide" from even the lowly K10D with a Tri-X negative pushed to 1600 ASA. I've even pushed it to 3200 back in the dark ages when it was rated 160 because that was the only way to get the picture, but it sure wasn't pretty! Let's compare APS-C digital to 24x36 film and see what comes out on top. Or change your digital camera to the 645 D or a Hasselblad with 40 Mp back. Talk about apples and oranges. This is 4 WD pickup truck compared to a bicycle.