[zelovoc]

hello.

i`m thinking in the last days about buying K7 because i want to do some wedding shoots and my k200d is not proper for it, because it`s slow and ISO 1600 is sometimes just not enough.

i would like to ask you for some photos taken with K7 at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 in resolution about 1600x900 without NR to see if this ISOs are workable. i don`t care for noise because i like it but i need to see it, and i can`t find such resolution anywhere. not interested in 1:1 crops either. thank you very much.

[Adam]

If you're primarily interested in high-ISO photography, I'd wait for the K-5, or go ahead and get a K-x, as they both have superior noise handling. You can check our high-iso club thread for high-iso examples with the current bodies, however

[future_retro]

I had just scrubbed my hard drive so I don't have much, this is one that I took real quick before I sold my K7 to demonstrate how this bag worked, ISO 2500 PEF RAW, no post, exported with iPhoto, a zoom in on the dark areas as well, hope it helps

The K7 noise is a major bummer

[Ex Finn.]

hello.

i`m thinking in the last days about buying K7 because i want to do some wedding shoots and my k200d is not proper for it, because it`s slow and ISO 1600 is sometimes just not enough.

i would like to ask you for some photos taken with K7 at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 in resolution about 1600x900 without NR to see if this ISOs are workable. i don`t care for noise because i like it but i need to see it, and i can`t find such resolution anywhere. not interested in 1:1 crops either. thank you very much.

6400, 3200, 1600 jpeg. 1600 pixels wide, no noise reduction, re-sized in photo-shop Raw looks better BTW.
These are not crops, just the full image. As jpeg out of the camera.

---

Last edited by Ex Finn.; 11-11-2014 at 05:50 PM.

[JohnBee]

hello.

i`m thinking in the last days about buying K7 because i want to do some wedding shoots and my k200d is not proper for it, because it`s slow and ISO 1600 is sometimes just not enough.

i would like to ask you for some photos taken with K7 at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 in resolution about 1600x900 without NR to see if this ISOs are workable. i don`t care for noise because i like it but i need to see it, and i can`t find such resolution anywhere. not interested in 1:1 crops either. thank you very much.

You might get away with a wedding using a K-7 but that would depend on a lot of things that may be out of your control. I did my first wedding(ever) this year along with a long time studio friend and found it to be really interesting.

However what I also found was that weddings are quite possibly one of the most demanding photography jobs there is, and that my working kit(2 x K20D + 1 Kx) was nowhere near up to the task. And I use some of the best glass Pentax has to offer(at least I think so).

Anyways, I ended-up getting a used D700 and shooting the wedding with that(using borrowed glass) and breezed through it. Well... the camera did(not me ). But what was interesting, in the end, was where the minimum settings hovered around ISO2000/160s inside the church, but once we reached the reception... ISO6400 was the no. of choice, and I was fighting back blur at 1/80'th during most of the evening.

So yea... it wasn't easy and there's no way a Pentax kit(at that time) could have kept-up. FTR. my wife had a Kx and it did fine noise wise, but the AF was next to useless, so she had to manually focus most of her shots.

For what it's worth, I decided not to take-up the wedding trade. But I had to try it for myself, and since I had the opportunity, I'm glad I got a taste of it. As a scenery buff by trade, I found my niche covering events by request. I'm quite content with that and I sleep better at night knowing I don't have to do weddings

My two cents

[zelovoc]

thanks guys. ISO looks good. I am thinking also about AF, but it must be better than AF on K200d. 2 months ago i shot on my sisters wedding (they had a professional there) and i ended with bunch of great photos. i didn`t even had a flash there. anyway i`ll be saving money for another 6 months, i will see if the k5 would be much better option. thank you again for photos.

[JHD]

Here's a second look at the above after Topaz DeNoise.




6400



3200



1600


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Pentaxor]

Here's a second look at the above after Topaz DeNoise.




6400



3200



1600


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

WOW ! Who needs excellent camera NR?

[sniper29a]

It depends whether you shoot in JPEG or RAW.

Pentax K-7 has worst in-camera NR compare to competitors from Canon and Nikon. But who uses camera functions anyway, right?

Pentax RAW is as good as Canon or NIkon. I would say better since Canon and NIkon still use too much smoothing of even RAW images.

PEntax is pure noisy RAW ;-) Of course you can use some NR in camera, but why if we have SW plugins for Photoshop like Noise Ninja.

It depends what size of print-out you desire. I have found that anything above ISO 400 for all cameras, except Nikon D3S is not worthy to print out. PErhaps, small pictures 13x9cm where all noise and poor sharpness disappear anyway. Furthermore, you have got about half of dynamic range of sensor at 1600 ISO. Despite, you shoot in RAW you get poor tonal range anyway. If you want to print keep all up to ISO 250, maybe 400 in desperate situations.

But I do fine art so wedding pictures may be different. I suppose skin color can fit in any color gamut and photo paper at any ISO since there is not big dynamic range anyway.

[sniper29a]

there is ISO 800 100% crop. not suitable for large prints (at least for me).

Even mighty Noise Ninja did not recover decent output.

Lots of luminance noise, some color noise.

Once, you do some noise removal, you lose all details in rock features.

But, once again, wedding photos may be different.

This picture has been taken in RAW with no in camera post-processing. All processing has been done in Photoshop CS4. In this case, without noise reduction.

I presume high ISO photography may be ok for simpply objects like garden grill from previous pictures.

[JHD]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Ex Finn.]

ISO looks good. I am thinking also about AF, but it must be better

AF set on center spot with latest firmware will work great.

It depends whether you shoot in JPEG or RAW.

Samples are jpegs, no NR in camera or pp. I shot RAW+, RAW of course looked way better.

Topaz gives them that plastic look.

[JHD]

That was just an effortless quick and dirty stab with a preset.

[JohnBee]

there is ISO 800 100% crop. not suitable for large prints (at least for me).

Even mighty Noise Ninja did not recover decent output.

Lots of luminance noise, some color noise.

Once, you do some noise removal, you lose all details in rock features.

But, once again, wedding photos may be different.

This picture has been taken in RAW with no in camera post-processing. All processing has been done in Photoshop CS4. In this case, without noise reduction.

I presume high ISO photography may be ok for simpply objects like garden grill from previous pictures.

If you shoot raw, use ACR and an advanced NR tool like Denoise, you will retain that detail.

[JHD]

What is ACR?