[badbokeh]

Hi folks,
Really long story...short.I used to do a great deal of photography with film-even taught photo and art for many years;however, life took some twists.I am jumping back in with digital(steep learning curve).
I am looking for an answer to a specific question that I do not have time to test out:If I shoot indoor sports -hockey- in RAW on the K7 can I get rid of the noise that I am going to get, and end still end up with 8x10ish prints that are close to what I would get with the Nikon D300/s or Canon D7( if it could autofocus correctly)?
Sorry to be blunt...but I do not need lens advice, shooting advice, etc.I just need to know if I can go RAW and make it work so that the prints will be close? Thanks in advance.

[Arpe]

What ISO do youthink you'll end up using? Presumably you've got a 2.8 or faster lens.

[badbokeh]

I need to go to 3200 in many arenas.

[felixkh]

With a F2.8 lens most times too

[panoguy]

For 3200, skip the K7. It's barely useable on my K20D, and I've heard the K7 is worse (but the AF is much better). The best camera for the job with a Pentax mount is the K-x, but I don't think the AF is going to be what you're looking for...

I'd recommend the D300s if that's your primary venue and activity to shoot. **Edit: the reason for my suggestion has more to do with the AF on the D300s than any measurebater's ideas about noise good/bad. Catching the action in-focus is more important (IMHO) than what "grain" you see in your prints.

[yeatzee]

For 3200, skip the K7. It's barely useable on my K20D, and I've heard the K7 is worse (but the AF is much better). The best camera for the job with a Pentax mount is the K-x, but I don't think the AF is going to be what you're looking for...

I'd recommend the D300s if that's your primary venue and activity to shoot.

Well he asks if he could get rid of the noise to get good "8x10ish" prints that would look as good as similar ones from the canon 7d or nikon D300s. The answer to that is YES. Look at JohnB and his high ISO images. Personally, I believe the K-7 is completely capable at ISO 3200 if shot in raw and some Noise Reduction done. ISO 3200 from both the other camera's will still need PP noise reduction.... its not like straight out of the camera their files are instant gold

Personally, I've been realy surprised by how good the k-7 did in the ISO 2500 range. I was shooting at a buddies wedding (had to let one of the official photographers use my flash batteries) and the files cleaned up real nice with some primitive UFraw noise reduction. With something like LR3 it would be even better.

[bkpix]

Kind of depends on how demanding your clients are.

I am not exceptionally fussy, but I don't think I would present ISO 3200 images from the K-7 to a paying client.

I've been playing with LR3 and still find the high ISO from the camera a bit disappointing.

On the other hand, it's miles sharper than the K20D.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Hi folks,
Really long story...short.I used to do a great deal of photography with film-even taught photo and art for many years;however, life took some twists.I am jumping back in with digital(steep learning curve).
I am looking for an answer to a specific question that I do not have time to test out:If I shoot indoor sports -hockey- in RAW on the K7 can I get rid of the noise that I am going to get, and end still end up with 8x10ish prints that are close to what I would get with the Nikon D300/s or Canon D7( if it could autofocus correctly)?
Sorry to be blunt...but I do not need lens advice, shooting advice, etc.I just need to know if I can go RAW and make it work so that the prints will be close? Thanks in advance.

I think the answer to your question is yes, from what I've seen I think you can use the K7's RAW, combined with things like exposing to the right, noise reduction software and other techniques to get comparable output.

I don't print as much as I should, but I've read that part of the reason Pentax keeps more base noise in its files is it also leaves the detail in for better prints. I've seen this philosophy in action while shooting dimly lit basketball games for the local newspaper.

A real life example. A photo like this doesn't look that great in its digital form:



But it looked wonderful when it was printed in the newspaper. Something to think about.

[Canada_Rockies]

Hi folks,
Really long story...short.I used to do a great deal of photography with film-even taught photo and art for many years;however, life took some twists.I am jumping back in with digital(steep learning curve).
I am looking for an answer to a specific question that I do not have time to test out:If I shoot indoor sports -hockey- in RAW on the K7 can I get rid of the noise that I am going to get, and end still end up with 8x10ish prints that are close to what I would get with the Nikon D300/s or Canon D7( if it could autofocus correctly)?
Sorry to be blunt...but I do not need lens advice, shooting advice, etc.I just need to know if I can go RAW and make it work so that the prints will be close? Thanks in advance.

Here's a shot with the K10D at ISO 1600. It's in my gallery under sports. There is also a shot or two of indoor soccer. If you want a crop or two to examine more closely PM me. I have no trouble making 8x10 prints from these, and only wished I could get a shorter shutter speed, but the K10 only goes to 1600.
PS: this is AF, multi point. The rink is at the Casino in Edmonton. My son-in-law was playing some "rusty blades" hockey in the middle of the night.

[kalison]

You have to shoot RAW for high ISO on the K7.

I think they are completely usable, they are hardly as bad as people make it out to be. Push it to 6400, then you might have some more work at the computer screen than normal.

Owning a 50D and T2i, I can say neither are far better than the K7. If you compare jpgs between these cameras the K7 will lose handily. However comparing the RAW images won't give you that "whoa, the K7 looks awful" feeling. In fact I am very impressed with the high ISO in RAW all the way to 3200.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the K7 in RAW at high ISO retains A LOT of detail. Which is very nice especially after using a noise reducer.

Now the T2i is pretty amazing in ISO just as it's dad, the 7D. If you absolutely need critical high ISO above 3200 then you may want to consider those. Even then, I really do think the K7 retains an impressive amount of detail.

[alexeyga]

For 3200, skip the K7. It's barely useable on my K20D, and I've heard the K7 is worse (but the AF is much better). The best camera for the job with a Pentax mount is the K-x, but I don't think the AF is going to be what you're looking for...

I'd recommend the D300s if that's your primary venue and activity to shoot.

D300s in fact isn't any better in 3200... From my experience with it, everything over ISO 1250 was a mixed bag depending on the available light... I had 3200 shots that turned out awesome... and I had ISO 1250 shots that looked worse than K10's ISO 1600 shots... K7's high iso, b.t.w. isn't half as bad as K-X users are so happy to believe... but it's not it's strongest point either... That said, K7's high iso results are much more predictable than these of the D300s... If you shoot RAW, and know what you're doing in PP, no reason why you won't get good results... Though, i'd suggest shooting about 1 stop faster with iso, and pulling the exposure in PP...

[yeatzee]

d300s in fact isn't any better in 3200... From my experience with it, everything over iso 1250 was a mixed bag depending on the available light... I had 3200 shots that turned out awesome... And i had iso 1250 shots that looked worse than k10's iso 1600 shots... K7's high iso, b.t.w. Isn't half as bad as k-x users are so happy to believe... But it's not it's strongest point either... That said, k7's high iso results are much more predictable than these of the d300s... If you shoot raw, and know what you're doing in pp, no reason why you won't get good results... Though, i'd suggest shooting about 1 stop faster with iso, and pulling the exposure in pp...

+1
.
.

[zxaar]

D300s in fact isn't any better in 3200... From my experience with it, everything over ISO 1250 was a mixed bag depending on the available light... I had 3200 shots that turned out awesome... and I had ISO 1250 shots that looked worse than K10's ISO 1600 shots... K7's high iso, b.t.w. isn't half as bad as K-X users are so happy to believe... but it's not it's strongest point either... That said, K7's high iso results are much more predictable than these of the D300s... If you shoot RAW, and know what you're doing in PP, no reason why you won't get good results... Though, i'd suggest shooting about 1 stop faster with iso, and pulling the exposure in PP...

more or less i agree with your post but there is a subtle thing.

The main difference is when you are using kx you know you will get away with iso3200 but when using k7 you are praying that you get away with it.

[kalison]

when using k7 you are praying that you get away with it.

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.

[Arpe]

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.