K-7 High ISO Success!

kenyee · 07-05-2010, 08:50 AM

Cool shots Lee. Stay safe out there...

kalison · 07-05-2010, 10:24 PM

For shits and giggles I wanted to see Adam's settings in person. I never shoot jpeg, but sometimes I like to be able to.

Here are some findings... I went a bit further and tested ISO 800 and higher. Provided some 100% crops for the peepers out there. I also did some wide open shots to see how the high ISO bokeh turned out. Now, these aren't in an ultra dark setting, but its enough that you need to pump the ISO up for good shutter speeds.

Adam, I am impressed!

ISO 1000 f/10

ISO 1250 wide open

ISO 3200 f/8

ISO 800 f/8

I think they look pretty damn good. I might shoot jpeg more often with these settings! Of course I still love RAW overall for those times when white balance is an issue, but its nice to know that I can take twice as many shots on my cards when I am just doing family stuff.

Thanks a lot Adam!

**jpzk** · 07-07-2010, 05:35 PM

Adam:

So, I have been neglecting my K7 as of late because of know "noise" issues since I do a lot of bird photo and I do need high ISO settings a lot of times. I found the K20D better for that and maybe it's time to really test the K7 under those circumstances.
I always shoot RAW, so following your starting post presentation, I have shot a few pics in JPEG, using your own settings, i.e.: NR set at minimum ISO400 and NR at "Strong". Shots were taken at ISO 1600, 2000, 2500 and 3200. Lens used: DA*16-50 at f2.8, 4, and 5.6. Made sure to not underexpose either.
I have yet to upload the pics to the computer (I will), however, but from what I can see from the rear K7 screen in review mode, there might be a bit of difference between shooting RAW vs. JPEG with those settings, JPGE's being somewhat less "noisy" ... but not by a great deal.
Maybe it's me and I haven't quite adjusted all of the required settings properly for JPEG shooting? Is there anything else I should tweak?
I just cannot achieve the same photo quality as yours from what I see in your sample shots.

On the other hand, I admit having been a little rough in evaluating the high ISO capabilities of the K7, even in RAW, and I will return on a "field trip" this weekend, remount the DA*300/4 on the K7 and go with that.
One thing I do remember though, and that was part of the reason(s) why I switched back to the K20D for birding, is that even at ISO400, under a blue, clear sky, I could see some noise ... when I cropped the resulting pics at 50% and more though.

I am glad you took the time and the effort to show us what suddenly seems to like a revelation!

Cheers!

JP

**jpzk** · 07-07-2010, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I don't mean to nit-pick but I'm not sure ISO800 qualifies as "high" in the ISO arena these days

IMO. the H in High(

) seems to start at/or around ISO2000 and move on from there. Though for what it's worth, I found the K-7 to do superbly up to/about ISO2000 at which point, the uphill noise battles take place.

Though I've found the K-7 can do quite well up to/about ISO3200 though anything beyond that would require a significant amount of NR work(unjustifiably so). TBH, if low light ISO is your game, then I'd just keep a a Kx in toe to cover my bases(much easier I think).

Gosh John! Does that mean that I should now get a Kx for my birding outings?

By the way, I have "sort of lost" your post on the K7 workflow for high ISO ... how's that coming along?
Cheers.
JP

**Clinton** · 07-07-2010, 10:13 PM

I'm a fan. 1600 iso is even pretty decent. 3200 is still rough, but what can ya do. I'm surprised the K-7 doesn't default to these settings now that I've seen them.

Thanks Adam, and +rep

jgredline · 07-07-2010, 11:19 PM

I have tried Adams settings and everything else I can think of. Still the ISO performance of the K-7 stinks. My K20D and D300S are set to ISO 1600 90% of the time and I am 100% happy with that. The K-7 max ISO settings are 1000 and that is pathetic. Sorry to be so hard on the K-7 because in all other areas it is a great cam.

kittykat46 · 07-07-2010, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

I have tried Adams settings and everything else I can think of. Still the ISO performance of the K-7 stinks. My K20D and D300S are set to ISO 1600 90% of the time and I am 100% happy with that. The K-7 max ISO settings are 1000 and that is pathetic. Sorry to be so hard on the K-7 because in all other areas it is a great cam.

Have you tried having your unit checked out by Pentax ?
Its quite possible you have a less-than-normal functioning unit.

I've seen some of the examples you posted before earlier, and I agree they look bad, but they don't match what a lot of user's experience with the K-7.

Do I wish the K-7's High ISO performance were better ? Absolutely.
Is it pathetic ? Not in my experience, especially with RAW files. Maybe not as good as the K20D (which I've never really used) but better than any other previous Pentax dSLR I've checked out)

HGMonaro · 07-08-2010, 04:05 AM

Just did a test...

K7, 3200iso, 1/30th sec, f4 (16-45/4), handheld with SR on

No NR (resized 25%)

High NR (resized 25%)

No NR No1 (100% crop - Dark Area)

High NR No1 (100% crop - Dark Area)

No NR No2 (100% crop - Light Area)

High NR No2 (100% crop - Light Area)

Definitely makes a difference, but probably need to print them to see if the NR turns it to mush.

jgredline · 07-08-2010, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by kittykat46

Have you tried having your unit checked out by Pentax ?
Its quite possible you have a less-than-normal functioning unit.

I've seen some of the examples you posted before earlier, and I agree they look bad, but they don't match what a lot of user's experience with the K-7.

Do I wish the K-7's High ISO performance were better ? Absolutely.
Is it pathetic ? Not in my experience, especially with RAW files. Maybe not as good as the K20D (which I've never really used) but better than any other previous Pentax dSLR I've checked out)

To answer your question. I Did send it to CRIS and they said it was perfect. I even pointed them to a few of the forums where I and others have complained about noise and they finally said that the K-7 will not match the K20D and recommended I get a K-X for high ISO use.
All this ''after'' I had bought a Second K-7 that was exactly the same as what I had. Fortunately, I was able to return the second K-7 and that is when I bought into Nikon. A D700 first, then the D300S (as many others have as well). Like Adam, I am a JPEG shooter, but since I need shutter speeds at a min of 1/1000 at F/8, I need high ISO performance....

In all other Areas the K-7 is on par with the D300s and perhaps when Pentax comes out with there next version of the K-8 or what ever it is called, I will consider one...The only reason I have not completely switched to NIKON is because no one can match Pentax for their small prime lenses...

**Ex Finn.** · 07-08-2010, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by LeeRunge

I did get some milky way in the ISO 6400.

All shots 1-3, 5 are RAW and the high ISO 6400 is jpeg.

The blimp is unmanned fortunately.

Lee

You have some cool shots, thank`s for sharing.

Cheers, Mike.

**Ex Finn.** · 07-08-2010, 05:22 PM

I just did my "test" with ISO 6400, NR set to high. Noise is noise but well within my threshold of pain considering the cost of the body.
So, ISO 6400 film, anyone here ever shoot it, if so, do you remember what it looked like?.

Cheers, Mike.

kittykat46 · 07-08-2010, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

I just did my "test" with ISO 6400, NR set to high. Noise is noise but well within my threshold of pain considering the cost of the body.
So, ISO 6400 film, anyone here ever shoot it, if so, do you remember what it looked like?.

Cheers, Mike.

The fastest colour film I ever saw available for sale was ISO 1600.

Almost any recent model dSLR has better noise control than such film, but the film noise had a grain-like appearance which gave the photos a special flavour.

Not sure - ISO 3200 B&W film might exist. Monochrome noise, is, of course, less of an issue, because you don't get the ugly false colour blotches.

**Ex Finn.** · 07-08-2010, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by kittykat46

The fastest colour film I ever saw available for sale was ISO 1600.

Almost any recent model dSLR has better noise control than such film, but the film noise had a grain-like appearance which gave the photos a special flavour.

Not sure - ISO 3200 B&W film might exist. Monochrome noise, is, of course, less of an issue, because you don't get the ugly false colour blotches.

Was asking because I never shot anything beyond ISO 400 in color, always found B&W too boring or too painful to comprehend

.
So, K-7 cranking out usable images at ISO 1600 makes me happy. (I do have a high tolerance for noise).

Cheers, Mike.

er1kksen · 07-10-2010, 03:00 PM

Since you're essentially taking advantage of the ability of the K-7's jpeg noise reduction, you might want to take a look at this technique from TOP that could allow you to recover lost detail and tonal range.

Not quite a miracle worker, but it lets you stretch the limits a bit farther.

**Ex Finn.** · 07-10-2010, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

Since you're essentially taking advantage of the ability of the K-7's jpeg noise reduction, you might want to take a look at this technique from TOP that could allow you to recover lost detail and tonal range.

Not quite a miracle worker, but it lets you stretch the limits a bit farther.

Thank`s for the link, some good info.

07-05-2010, 10:24 PM	#17
kalison Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Utah Posts: 376	Thought I would test Adam's settings For shits and giggles I wanted to see Adam's settings in person. I never shoot jpeg, but sometimes I like to be able to. Here are some findings... I went a bit further and tested ISO 800 and higher. Provided some 100% crops for the peepers out there. I also did some wide open shots to see how the high ISO bokeh turned out. Now, these aren't in an ultra dark setting, but its enough that you need to pump the ISO up for good shutter speeds. Adam, I am impressed! ISO 1000 f/10 ISO 1250 wide open ISO 3200 f/8 ISO 800 f/8 I think they look pretty damn good. I might shoot jpeg more often with these settings! Of course I still love RAW overall for those times when white balance is an issue, but its nice to know that I can take twice as many shots on my cards when I am just doing family stuff. Thanks a lot Adam!

07-07-2010, 05:39 PM	#19
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by JohnBee I don't mean to nit-pick but I'm not sure ISO800 qualifies as "high" in the ISO arena these days IMO. the H in High() seems to start at/or around ISO2000 and move on from there. Though for what it's worth, I found the K-7 to do superbly up to/about ISO2000 at which point, the uphill noise battles take place. Though I've found the K-7 can do quite well up to/about ISO3200 though anything beyond that would require a significant amount of NR work(unjustifiably so). TBH, if low light ISO is your game, then I'd just keep a a Kx in toe to cover my bases(much easier I think). Gosh John! Does that mean that I should now get a Kx for my birding outings? By the way, I have "sort of lost" your post on the K7 workflow for high ISO ... how's that coming along? Cheers. JP

07-08-2010, 07:17 PM	#28
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by kittykat46 The fastest colour film I ever saw available for sale was ISO 1600. Almost any recent model dSLR has better noise control than such film, but the film noise had a grain-like appearance which gave the photos a special flavour. Not sure - ISO 3200 B&W film might exist. Monochrome noise, is, of course, less of an issue, because you don't get the ugly false colour blotches. Was asking because I never shot anything beyond ISO 400 in color, always found B&W too boring or too painful to comprehend. So, K-7 cranking out usable images at ISO 1600 makes me happy. (I do have a high tolerance for noise). Cheers, Mike.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People High ISO K7	milesy	Post Your Photos!	6	10-11-2010 01:36 AM
Is there a high iso gallery for K-7?	justtakingpics	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	05-31-2010 05:32 PM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM
RF-602 flash trigger + Vivitar 283 (old high voltage version) = Success? Failure?	sfdealer	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	0	09-01-2009 07:03 PM
Night photography with K10D - High ISO short exposure VS Low ISO long exposure	pw-pix	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	02-03-2008 01:37 AM

07-05-2010, 08:50 AM	#16
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Cool shots Lee. Stay safe out there...

07-07-2010, 05:35 PM	#18
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Adam: So, I have been neglecting my K7 as of late because of know "noise" issues since I do a lot of bird photo and I do need high ISO settings a lot of times. I found the K20D better for that and maybe it's time to really test the K7 under those circumstances. I always shoot RAW, so following your starting post presentation, I have shot a few pics in JPEG, using your own settings, i.e.: NR set at minimum ISO400 and NR at "Strong". Shots were taken at ISO 1600, 2000, 2500 and 3200. Lens used: DA16-50 at f2.8, 4, and 5.6. Made sure to not underexpose either. I have yet to upload the pics to the computer (I will), however, but from what I can see from the rear K7 screen in review mode, there might be a bit of difference between shooting RAW vs. JPEG with those settings, JPGE's being somewhat less "noisy" ... but not by a great deal. Maybe it's me and I haven't quite adjusted all of the required settings properly for JPEG shooting? Is there anything else I should tweak? I just cannot achieve the same photo quality as yours from what I see in your sample shots. On the other hand, I admit having been a little rough in evaluating the high ISO capabilities of the K7, even in RAW, and I will return on a "field trip" this weekend, remount the DA300/4 on the K7 and go with that. One thing I do remember though, and that was part of the reason(s) why I switched back to the K20D for birding, is that even at ISO400, under a blue, clear sky, I could see some noise ... when I cropped the resulting pics at 50% and more though. I am glad you took the time and the effort to show us what suddenly seems to like a revelation! Cheers! JP

07-07-2010, 10:13 PM	#20
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,912	I'm a fan. 1600 iso is even pretty decent. 3200 is still rough, but what can ya do. I'm surprised the K-7 doesn't default to these settings now that I've seen them. Thanks Adam, and +rep

07-07-2010, 11:19 PM	#21
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	I have tried Adams settings and everything else I can think of. Still the ISO performance of the K-7 stinks. My K20D and D300S are set to ISO 1600 90% of the time and I am 100% happy with that. The K-7 max ISO settings are 1000 and that is pathetic. Sorry to be so hard on the K-7 because in all other areas it is a great cam.

07-07-2010, 11:48 PM	#22
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by jgredline I have tried Adams settings and everything else I can think of. Still the ISO performance of the K-7 stinks. My K20D and D300S are set to ISO 1600 90% of the time and I am 100% happy with that. The K-7 max ISO settings are 1000 and that is pathetic. Sorry to be so hard on the K-7 because in all other areas it is a great cam. Have you tried having your unit checked out by Pentax ? Its quite possible you have a less-than-normal functioning unit. I've seen some of the examples you posted before earlier, and I agree they look bad, but they don't match what a lot of user's experience with the K-7. Do I wish the K-7's High ISO performance were better ? Absolutely. Is it pathetic ? Not in my experience, especially with RAW files. Maybe not as good as the K20D (which I've never really used) but better than any other previous Pentax dSLR I've checked out)

07-08-2010, 04:05 AM	#23
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	Just did a test... K7, 3200iso, 1/30th sec, f4 (16-45/4), handheld with SR on No NR (resized 25%) High NR (resized 25%) No NR No1 (100% crop - Dark Area) High NR No1 (100% crop - Dark Area) No NR No2 (100% crop - Light Area) High NR No2 (100% crop - Light Area) Definitely makes a difference, but probably need to print them to see if the NR turns it to mush.

07-08-2010, 07:25 AM	#24
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by kittykat46 Have you tried having your unit checked out by Pentax ? Its quite possible you have a less-than-normal functioning unit. I've seen some of the examples you posted before earlier, and I agree they look bad, but they don't match what a lot of user's experience with the K-7. Do I wish the K-7's High ISO performance were better ? Absolutely. Is it pathetic ? Not in my experience, especially with RAW files. Maybe not as good as the K20D (which I've never really used) but better than any other previous Pentax dSLR I've checked out) To answer your question. I Did send it to CRIS and they said it was perfect. I even pointed them to a few of the forums where I and others have complained about noise and they finally said that the K-7 will not match the K20D and recommended I get a K-X for high ISO use. All this ''after'' I had bought a Second K-7 that was exactly the same as what I had. Fortunately, I was able to return the second K-7 and that is when I bought into Nikon. A D700 first, then the D300S (as many others have as well). Like Adam, I am a JPEG shooter, but since I need shutter speeds at a min of 1/1000 at F/8, I need high ISO performance.... In all other Areas the K-7 is on par with the D300s and perhaps when Pentax comes out with there next version of the K-8 or what ever it is called, I will consider one...The only reason I have not completely switched to NIKON is because no one can match Pentax for their small prime lenses...

07-08-2010, 04:58 PM	#25
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by LeeRunge I did get some milky way in the ISO 6400. All shots 1-3, 5 are RAW and the high ISO 6400 is jpeg. The blimp is unmanned fortunately. Lee You have some cool shots, thank`s for sharing. Cheers, Mike.

07-08-2010, 05:22 PM	#26
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	I just did my "test" with ISO 6400, NR set to high. Noise is noise but well within my threshold of pain considering the cost of the body. So, ISO 6400 film, anyone here ever shoot it, if so, do you remember what it looked like?. Cheers, Mike.

07-08-2010, 07:05 PM	#27
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by Ex Finn. I just did my "test" with ISO 6400, NR set to high. Noise is noise but well within my threshold of pain considering the cost of the body. So, ISO 6400 film, anyone here ever shoot it, if so, do you remember what it looked like?. Cheers, Mike. The fastest colour film I ever saw available for sale was ISO 1600. Almost any recent model dSLR has better noise control than such film, but the film noise had a grain-like appearance which gave the photos a special flavour. Not sure - ISO 3200 B&W film might exist. Monochrome noise, is, of course, less of an issue, because you don't get the ugly false colour blotches.

07-10-2010, 03:00 PM	#29
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Since you're essentially taking advantage of the ability of the K-7's jpeg noise reduction, you might want to take a look at this technique from TOP that could allow you to recover lost detail and tonal range. Not quite a miracle worker, but it lets you stretch the limits a bit farther.

07-10-2010, 03:55 PM	#30
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by er1kksen Since you're essentially taking advantage of the ability of the K-7's jpeg noise reduction, you might want to take a look at this technique from TOP that could allow you to recover lost detail and tonal range. Not quite a miracle worker, but it lets you stretch the limits a bit farther. Thank`s for the link, some good info.