Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-13-2010, 08:32 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by Workingdog Quote
I "think" the K7 high ISO noise is actually a little better than the K10d as I'll shoot up to ISO 2000 with it and kept my K10d at ISO 800 max. Would the general consensus agree with this?
In my experience, and I did do an actual test on this, that in so far as RAW noise is concerned, the K10d/GX10 and the K7 are pretty much equal at ISO 1600. The K10d may even beat the K7 by a hair due to the lower pixel count. Where the K7 looses is in the DR, but the sensor on the K10/Gx10 is legendary.

Here is a 100% crop comparison shot at ISO1600.


As you can see, side by side the K7 shows a little more noise.When scaled down to 10mp though the difference is imperceptible.

11-13-2010, 10:17 PM   #17
Pentaxian
jackassp's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 795
Here's a little surprise I got today, a K-7 shot taken in a dim location, I mistakenly left the lens set to F9.

Just removed some luma noise, no other PP apart from resizing.
Enjoy! I think it works because the colours are quite saturated.

K-7 with DA 21mm Limited, F9, 1/50 ISO 6400
11-14-2010, 05:49 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
The K10 just really seems to struggle with banding and shadow problems at high iso. I never could shoot comfortably at iso 1600 with the K10 (and believe me, I tried). This is a photo shot in a museum of a racoon at iso 1600 with the K7. Weird lighting, so I am not positive I have the white balance right, but plenty of detail there down to the pixel level.

11-14-2010, 09:11 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by aragondina Quote
As you can see, side by side the K7 shows a little more noise.When scaled down to 10mp though the difference is imperceptible.
Yes, it has a little more luminance noise, but it also has a crapload more detail and better edge definition.

11-14-2010, 10:57 AM   #20
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by adamaitken Quote
This is a K-7 image shot at 3200 ISO and cleaned up in CS3 and Topaz Denoise. Shot with the excellent Pentax DA 70 Limited. I don't think it is agreat shot but I wanted to see if I could get anything out of 3200 ISO.
The trick with high ISO is to expose as far to the right as possible. If you had exposed for his face, and blown out the background, it might have been a much less noisy picture overall. Good shot though.
11-14-2010, 11:02 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
Yes, it has a little more luminance noise, but it also has a crapload more detail and better edge definition.
That's because of my poor focusing skills, not due to the sensor. The 10mp CCD from the K10/GX10 is a detailed and sharp as the 14mp sensor in the K7 at a per pixel level.

Same shot, K7 (right) scaled to 10mp, and the GX10 sample (left) given a little USM to make up for my bad focusing (note the scotch bottle in the previous sample )



This goes to prove that an APS-C sensor will have generally the same amount of noise at the RAW level, and adding more pixels doesn't help. If you look at the K7 vs the D300s and the 50D RAW files they are virtually identical when it comes to noise. Manufacturers are cooking the RAW file better than they used to as far as NR is concerned (Sony got caught because they were too heavy handed with the A900, but everyone does it) so that also helps keep the amount of noise comparable while the pixel counts go up.

Note also the difference in DR between the 2. The K7 has less DR than the GX10. Lighter areas tend to be more burned whereas shadows tend to be darker. At lower ISOs you don't notice, but at 800 and 1600 you can tell the difference right away.

I did this test a while back to prove a point to a bunch of people who were spouting about how much better the K7 was vs the K10 as far as noise was concerned. They were less than enthusiastic to find that it wasn't true, and the expensive DSLR they bought didn't have any better IQ than the last model they had, and was actually worse in some respects. They were all slagging the K10d's noise performance while telling newbies that the K7 IQ was light years ahead when in fact when shooting RAW it isn't. It does many things much better like WB, shooting speed, focusing, etc, but not in the IQ department. The K10d/GX10 is still the better landscape/portraiture camera, whereas the K7 is the better sports/street camera.

Ok you can start the flaming now..........
11-14-2010, 06:49 PM   #22
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 47
k-7 noise and denoising in Lightroom 3

QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
The trick with high ISO is to expose as far to the right as possible. If you had exposed for his face, and blown out the background, it might have been a much less noisy picture overall. Good shot though.
Thankyou!

Here is a grab of my Lightroom 3 processing on the brassband player. I also desaturated the red channel as the original had an unpleasant color cast due to the lighting that night.
Attached Images
 
11-14-2010, 08:41 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
...in film days there was no such thing as Pixel peeping...
I guess you missed that shot of Ansel Adams examining one of his prints with a magnifier glass

11-14-2010, 08:58 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
whos Ansel adams.....LMAO...


I doubt many here would have done that....Ansel was a pioneer... Ive never done it..but I suppose some do
11-15-2010, 05:41 AM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by aragondina Quote
That's because of my poor focusing skills, not due to the sensor. The 10mp CCD from the K10/GX10 is a detailed and sharp as the 14mp sensor in the K7 at a per pixel level.

Same shot, K7 (right) scaled to 10mp, and the GX10 sample (left) given a little USM to make up for my bad focusing (note the scotch bottle in the previous sample )



This goes to prove that an APS-C sensor will have generally the same amount of noise at the RAW level, and adding more pixels doesn't help. If you look at the K7 vs the D300s and the 50D RAW files they are virtually identical when it comes to noise. Manufacturers are cooking the RAW file better than they used to as far as NR is concerned (Sony got caught because they were too heavy handed with the A900, but everyone does it) so that also helps keep the amount of noise comparable while the pixel counts go up.

Note also the difference in DR between the 2. The K7 has less DR than the GX10. Lighter areas tend to be more burned whereas shadows tend to be darker. At lower ISOs you don't notice, but at 800 and 1600 you can tell the difference right away.

I did this test a while back to prove a point to a bunch of people who were spouting about how much better the K7 was vs the K10 as far as noise was concerned. They were less than enthusiastic to find that it wasn't true, and the expensive DSLR they bought didn't have any better IQ than the last model they had, and was actually worse in some respects. They were all slagging the K10d's noise performance while telling newbies that the K7 IQ was light years ahead when in fact when shooting RAW it isn't. It does many things much better like WB, shooting speed, focusing, etc, but not in the IQ department. The K10d/GX10 is still the better landscape/portraiture camera, whereas the K7 is the better sports/street camera.

Ok you can start the flaming now..........
I will just repeat my previous statement that I find that I can shoot iso 1600 with the K7 and have decent results, many of my photos at iso 800 on the K10 looked pretty bad, with banding in dark areas that made them basically unusable. I tried to look back to find some examples, but I have deleted them.

The K10 is a great camera at low iso -- iso 100 to 400, I would put it up against any other camera out there, but above that, image quality went down quite a bit.

As far as RAW goes, that is all I shoot and the K7 is lousy at high iso with jpeg. I don't think I could shoot over iso 800 if I was using jpegs.
11-15-2010, 07:05 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I will just repeat my previous statement that I find that I can shoot iso 1600 with the K7 and have decent results, many of my photos at iso 800 on the K10 looked pretty bad, with banding in dark areas that made them basically unusable. I tried to look back to find some examples, but I have deleted them.

The K10 is a great camera at low iso -- iso 100 to 400, I would put it up against any other camera out there, but above that, image quality went down quite a bit.

As far as RAW goes, that is all I shoot and the K7 is lousy at high iso with jpeg. I don't think I could shoot over iso 800 if I was using jpegs.
I understand where you are coming from. The K10d can having issues with banding in some models, especially the early ones. I know Pentax replaced those models when returned (I had 3 of them before buying the GX10).

Everyones experience is different and while my GX10 has no issues, the sensor in your K10d may be bad, but it's not worth it to replace now. My point was when "properly exposed" there is little difference between the IQ of K7 and the K10d when shooting RAW.

As with anything though, your mileage may vary
11-15-2010, 10:00 AM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
You are probably right -- particularly considering that it seemed like the km and k200 (with the same sensor) could be shot better than my K10D.
11-16-2010, 04:25 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
QuoteOriginally posted by Workingdog Quote
I know this subject has probably been covered a million times but with the new K5 on the scene can we do it just one more time.

I have a K10d and upgraded to the K7 a year ago for more pixels, higher fps, better exposure metering, slightly better AF and on these counts I'm generally pleased.

I "think" the K7 high ISO noise is actually a little better than the K10d as I'll shoot up to ISO 2000 with it and kept my K10d at ISO 800 max. Would the general consensus agree with this?

Also, how bad is the K7's high ISO, I mean in the REAL WORLD as compared with its contemporaries? I've never had hands-on experience PPing images from a camera that has supposedly superior high ISO capability so I have nothing to compare to. Are we splitting hairs, ie. pixel peeping? When I read rave reviews about high ISO noise performance I get ISO envy!
I've been using my K10D (for sale now I have a K5) along side my K7 for more than a year now.
I have mixed feelings about the combination, it is hard to proof, but I like the low ISO colors, results of the K10D better than the K7.
It has probably to do with the so much praised K7 AWB as well, which in sun light does worse in some situations than the K10D for me.

The K7 noise results continue to surprise me.
Sometimes noise is terrible in low noise pictures, sometimes it is almost absent in high noise pictures....

Here are a few K7 high ISO results that I like:
@ ISO 2000


and:
@ISO 1600


or:
@ ISO 6400 + Topaz


- Bert
11-17-2010, 10:33 AM   #29
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by adamaitken Quote
Thankyou!

Here is a grab of my Lightroom 3 processing on the brassband player. I also desaturated the red channel as the original had an unpleasant color cast due to the lighting that night.
Looks like you did about the best job you could have done under the circumstances. Mind posting the RAW? I'd love a go at it.

Thats an important thing too - if you want to control noise in low light, you NEED to shoot raw.
11-17-2010, 10:23 PM   #30
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 47
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Looks like you did about the best job you could have done under the circumstances. Mind posting the RAW? I'd love a go at it.

Thats an important thing too - if you want to control noise in low light, you NEED to shoot raw.
Sorry paperbag846, I didn't shoot RAW that day for some reason. Nowadays always do.
If I had captured a RAW file I think I could have improved on the final result.

Adam Aitken
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, iso, k10d, k7, noise, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High Noise at Low ISO? JGB Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 11-11-2010 07:39 PM
K-x high-ISO noise reduction: use it or do it in PP instead? richardm Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 10-28-2010 08:45 AM
K7 high iso noise comparison cyy47 Pentax DSLR Discussion 24 08-02-2010 02:19 AM
getting the most noise free high iso from k7 opiedog Pentax DSLR Discussion 40 03-27-2010 02:29 AM
More to KX high ISO than low noise telfish Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 02-11-2010 02:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top