K-7 and the opinions of high ISO shooting.

Yassarian · 10-12-2010, 11:05 PM

Well, there aren't many good p/s that can do higher ISO decently. I have a fujifilm finepix 31d, and it produces excellent shots at higher ISO, but it's nowhere near as good (obviously!), as the k7. I'm not a pro and I don't sell nor make large prints, but do enjoy photography as a hobby. I can easily blow up the ISO1600 shots i've taken with the k7 to 10x8 prints and they will look fantastic. Is the 5DII or D300 or whatever better? Probably. Does it matter? Not to me.

What does matter to me is the size advantage and the quietness of the operation of the K7. Picture quality is sufficient.

JohnBee · 10-12-2010, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Yassarian

Probably. Does it matter? Not to me.

I'm not trying to pick on your or anything, but your comment reminded me of something I remember reading about and have become the subject of experienced myself over recently...

It's a A phenomenon that seems to exist in system performance that(sort of) subconsciously induces us to act within a given set of parameters without ever acknowledging its existence. However... when those limits are either changed or raised, we find ourselves moving along with them in the same subconscious way.

ie. when I shot a D200, I limited myself to aprox. ISO1000 at which point I myself said "that's all I need" and I was perfectly happy with that. Then I upgraded that camera to a K20D, at which point ISO1600 was very good and I found myself shooting within that range as well. Today, I was shooting with a D700 which is set to shoot up to ISO6400 and I noticed myself thinking... this is great! and I'm glad to have it, its useful!

Whatever happened to the ISO1000, is indeed a mystery, but... I'm waging the K-5 will fix all that

Yassarian · 10-13-2010, 12:34 AM

Oh yea, for sure that is true. I'm pretty sure if there's a usable ISO6400 setting then I will be using it. I'm not saying that the limitation isn't there - just that it isn't as big of a limitation to me.

Will I trade k7's compactness and quietness for D700's high ISO performance? For me the answer is definitely no. Now the K5 is interesting... If it performs as advertised, then I have to ask myself, is it worth it to me to spend another $1300 on a body to get higher ISO performance? Chances are, I will wait...

It is as you said - the limitation is there, but we learn to work with, and around it.

Originally posted by JohnBee

I'm not trying to pick on your or anything, but your comment reminded me of something remembered reading about and experienced myself over the years.

There's an phenomenon with system performance that(sort of) subconsciously induce us to act within a given set of limits without ever acknowledging it's there. However... when the limits are either changed or removed, we find ourselves moving along with them in the same subconscious way.

ie. when I shot a D200, I limited myself to aprox. ISO1000 at which point I myself said "that's all I need" and I was perfectly happy with that. Then I upgraded that camera to a K20D, at which point ISO1600 was very good and I found myself shooting within that range as well. Today, I was shooting with a D700 which is set to shoot upto ISO6400 and I noticed myself thinking... this is great! and I'm glad to have it, its useful!

Whatever happened to the ISO1000, is indeed a mistery, but... I'm waging the K-5 will fix all that

**MetteHHH** · 10-13-2010, 01:06 AM

Hmm. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad copy. My k7 is VERY noisy from iso 400 and up, and it does bother me.

Some (most?) of my problems might come from my own technique. I suppose I tend to underexpose slightly and then increase exposure in the raw conversion - but it seems to me that I suffer a lot from blown out highligts when I don't. And then I frequently crop, because I shoot birds and I don't have enough reach. Of course cropping will make noise problems worse.

But anyway. I will try to post a few example shots and get your opinions.

dlacouture · 10-13-2010, 01:13 AM

As said before, the K7 got flamed because, at pixel level, it has a little bit more noise than the K20.
Then came the Kx, which had excellent high ISO, and a lot of K7 buyers and prospective buyers felt cheated.

But from experience, the K7 has a much more usable high-iso than K20, which has either a magenta border tinge (but that can be cured with GordonBGood's fix) or some banding, that are not in the K7's pics.

And then LR3/ACR6 came out with a really good (and easy) NR, and every camera just gained one iso stop...

In the end, 1600 iso is perfectly up to the task, and 3200 can be salvaged... For 4x6 shots, I'd even use 6400 in given situations.

JohnBee · 10-13-2010, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by dlacouture

As said before, the K7 got flamed because, at pixel level, it has a little bit more noise than the K20.
Then came the Kx, which had excellent high ISO, and a lot of K7 buyers and prospective buyers felt cheated.

Ah, how I remember those days...

Though, I think the K20D did rather well at ISO6400 despite it all:

K20D, ISO6400, in Camera JPG(no added NR or PP)

JHD · 10-13-2010, 05:22 AM

Somebody just posted some very decent K7 images shot at ISO 6400...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...ml#post1219714

r0ckstarr · 10-13-2010, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by MetteHHH

Hmm. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad copy. My k7 is VERY noisy from iso 400 and up, and it does bother me.

Some (most?) of my problems might come from my own technique. I suppose I tend to underexpose slightly and then increase exposure in the raw conversion - but it seems to me that I suffer a lot from blown out highligts when I don't. And then I frequently crop, because I shoot birds and I don't have enough reach. Of course cropping will make noise problems worse.

But anyway. I will try to post a few example shots and get your opinions.

Definately a bad combination of technique.

Underexposing will definately show more noise. If anything, it's better to overexpose than underexpose. If you overexpose and pull the exposure back down in PP, you will have less noise than underexposing and pushing it up in PP.

Cropping doesn't make the noise worse. The noise stays the same, you're just making it more noticable by cropping out most of the image.

**Ahab** · 10-13-2010, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by MetteHHH

Hmm. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad copy. My k7 is VERY noisy from iso 400 and up, and it does bother me.

Some (most?) of my problems might come from my own technique. I suppose I tend to underexpose slightly and then increase exposure in the raw conversion - but it seems to me that I suffer a lot from blown out highligts when I don't. And then I frequently crop, because I shoot birds and I don't have enough reach. Of course cropping will make noise problems worse.

But anyway. I will try to post a few example shots and get your opinions.

Have you bothered to check out these?

#802 (permalink)

10-12-2010, 11:18 PM	#17
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Yassarian Probably. Does it matter? Not to me. I'm not trying to pick on your or anything, but your comment reminded me of something I remember reading about and have become the subject of experienced myself over recently... It's a A phenomenon that seems to exist in system performance that(sort of) subconsciously induces us to act within a given set of parameters without ever acknowledging its existence. However... when those limits are either changed or raised, we find ourselves moving along with them in the same subconscious way. ie. when I shot a D200, I limited myself to aprox. ISO1000 at which point I myself said "that's all I need" and I was perfectly happy with that. Then I upgraded that camera to a K20D, at which point ISO1600 was very good and I found myself shooting within that range as well. Today, I was shooting with a D700 which is set to shoot up to ISO6400 and I noticed myself thinking... this is great! and I'm glad to have it, its useful! Whatever happened to the ISO1000, is indeed a mystery, but... I'm waging the K-5 will fix all that Last edited by JohnBee; 10-13-2010 at 01:14 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM
Need advice for high ISO shooting w/K20D	klh	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	12-13-2009 04:14 PM
K20 high iso opinions!!	COULDBE2	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	07-03-2009 04:39 AM
How to reduce high ISO noise while shooting	PentaxPoke	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	05-17-2008 07:17 AM
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

10-12-2010, 11:05 PM	#16
Yassarian Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 72	Well, there aren't many good p/s that can do higher ISO decently. I have a fujifilm finepix 31d, and it produces excellent shots at higher ISO, but it's nowhere near as good (obviously!), as the k7. I'm not a pro and I don't sell nor make large prints, but do enjoy photography as a hobby. I can easily blow up the ISO1600 shots i've taken with the k7 to 10x8 prints and they will look fantastic. Is the 5DII or D300 or whatever better? Probably. Does it matter? Not to me. What does matter to me is the size advantage and the quietness of the operation of the K7. Picture quality is sufficient.

10-13-2010, 12:34 AM	#18
Yassarian Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 72	Oh yea, for sure that is true. I'm pretty sure if there's a usable ISO6400 setting then I will be using it. I'm not saying that the limitation isn't there - just that it isn't as big of a limitation to me. Will I trade k7's compactness and quietness for D700's high ISO performance? For me the answer is definitely no. Now the K5 is interesting... If it performs as advertised, then I have to ask myself, is it worth it to me to spend another $1300 on a body to get higher ISO performance? Chances are, I will wait... It is as you said - the limitation is there, but we learn to work with, and around it. Originally posted by JohnBee I'm not trying to pick on your or anything, but your comment reminded me of something remembered reading about and experienced myself over the years. There's an phenomenon with system performance that(sort of) subconsciously induce us to act within a given set of limits without ever acknowledging it's there. However... when the limits are either changed or removed, we find ourselves moving along with them in the same subconscious way. ie. when I shot a D200, I limited myself to aprox. ISO1000 at which point I myself said "that's all I need" and I was perfectly happy with that. Then I upgraded that camera to a K20D, at which point ISO1600 was very good and I found myself shooting within that range as well. Today, I was shooting with a D700 which is set to shoot upto ISO6400 and I noticed myself thinking... this is great! and I'm glad to have it, its useful! Whatever happened to the ISO1000, is indeed a mistery, but... I'm waging the K-5 will fix all that

10-13-2010, 01:06 AM	#19
MetteHHH Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,817	Hmm. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad copy. My k7 is VERY noisy from iso 400 and up, and it does bother me. Some (most?) of my problems might come from my own technique. I suppose I tend to underexpose slightly and then increase exposure in the raw conversion - but it seems to me that I suffer a lot from blown out highligts when I don't. And then I frequently crop, because I shoot birds and I don't have enough reach. Of course cropping will make noise problems worse. But anyway. I will try to post a few example shots and get your opinions.

10-13-2010, 01:13 AM	#20
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	As said before, the K7 got flamed because, at pixel level, it has a little bit more noise than the K20. Then came the Kx, which had excellent high ISO, and a lot of K7 buyers and prospective buyers felt cheated. But from experience, the K7 has a much more usable high-iso than K20, which has either a magenta border tinge (but that can be cured with GordonBGood's fix) or some banding, that are not in the K7's pics. And then LR3/ACR6 came out with a really good (and easy) NR, and every camera just gained one iso stop... In the end, 1600 iso is perfectly up to the task, and 3200 can be salvaged... For 4x6 shots, I'd even use 6400 in given situations.

10-13-2010, 01:43 AM	#21
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by dlacouture As said before, the K7 got flamed because, at pixel level, it has a little bit more noise than the K20. Then came the Kx, which had excellent high ISO, and a lot of K7 buyers and prospective buyers felt cheated. Ah, how I remember those days... Though, I think the K20D did rather well at ISO6400 despite it all: K20D, ISO6400, in Camera JPG(no added NR or PP)

10-13-2010, 05:22 AM	#22
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Somebody just posted some very decent K7 images shot at ISO 6400... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...ml#post1219714

10-13-2010, 05:45 AM	#23
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	Originally posted by MetteHHH Hmm. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad copy. My k7 is VERY noisy from iso 400 and up, and it does bother me. Some (most?) of my problems might come from my own technique. I suppose I tend to underexpose slightly and then increase exposure in the raw conversion - but it seems to me that I suffer a lot from blown out highligts when I don't. And then I frequently crop, because I shoot birds and I don't have enough reach. Of course cropping will make noise problems worse. But anyway. I will try to post a few example shots and get your opinions. Definately a bad combination of technique. Underexposing will definately show more noise. If anything, it's better to overexpose than underexpose. If you overexpose and pull the exposure back down in PP, you will have less noise than underexposing and pushing it up in PP. Cropping doesn't make the noise worse. The noise stays the same, you're just making it more noticable by cropping out most of the image.

10-13-2010, 09:14 AM	#24
Ahab Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 762	Originally posted by MetteHHH Hmm. I am beginning to wonder if I have a bad copy. My k7 is VERY noisy from iso 400 and up, and it does bother me. Some (most?) of my problems might come from my own technique. I suppose I tend to underexpose slightly and then increase exposure in the raw conversion - but it seems to me that I suffer a lot from blown out highligts when I don't. And then I frequently crop, because I shoot birds and I don't have enough reach. Of course cropping will make noise problems worse. But anyway. I will try to post a few example shots and get your opinions. Have you bothered to check out these? #802 (permalink)