[Laurentiu Cristofor]

What is for sure though that the high iso on the k-7, whether good enough or not, is visibly worse than k-x/k-r.

Yes, the K-7 is noisier, but if you're looking at the detail captured, it's all there. And you will probably find out that a bigger issue is nailing the focus right on the eye-ball with the lens wide open - a noisy image is better than an out of focus one.

I wrote a bit about my experience with low-light shooting here.

[repaap]

I upgraded from *istDS to K-7. I still use my DS, but K-7 is just outstanding. ISO 800 -> 2000 is perfectly usable AND I have to mention that 3200 is not too bad if it is not too contrasty. Even if it would be I don't mind about pixels. I like shooting on film too, and k-7 pixels reminds me a litle about these grains. Well it is digital not film, but In right situations I don't mind, and even kind a like it.

I know that K-5 is better in DR, and ISO and...and it is just as it supposed to be. But for me these digital grains will be lovely untill next gen.

[adamaitken]

Yes, both extended DR settings can be used with RAW. If you have a K7, why not see for yourself instead of asking to be corrected?

I did, straight after I wrote you the email. Thanks for informing me.

[adamaitken]

Just thought I would post a couple of photos shot at iso 1600 without noise reduction on the K7. If you hit the exposure right on, iso 1600 doesn't look too bad and cleans up nicely. On the other hand, if you under expose at iso 1600, there is really no room to bring the photo up. First photo is of my son at a restaurant, second, a 100 percent crop of the first. Both shot at f2.8 with the DA 40.





Hope that helps.

Spot on about the limits of ISO 1600. But were you using RAW or jpg? It is a bit easier to adjust an underexposed RAW file as a jpg file has less info in the shadows that can be recovered. ( I think). If you underexpose on RAW or jpg, it is difficult to bring the shadows up without creating lots of noise. I wonder if it is better to overexpose slightly and later recover the highlights?

[Rondec]

Spot on about the limits of ISO 1600. But were you using RAW or jpg? It is a bit easier to adjust an underexposed RAW file as a jpg file has less info in the shadows that can be recovered. ( I think). If you underexpose on RAW or jpg, it is difficult to bring the shadows up without creating lots of noise. I wonder if it is better to overexpose slightly and later recover the highlights?

I use RAW entirely (unless I am at the end of a vacation and running out of card space). The K7 IMO is definitely a camera that you have to shoot and expose to the right, if at all possible. Still don't want to clip the highlights though, if you want to keep them.

I agree with you on the jpeg comment. At high iso, underexposure with a jpeg is killer. With RAW, there is a little bit of head room. I have brought iso 1600 files up a stop, but there is an awful lot of noise in the shadows with those photos. Helps to have noiseware or topaz denoise on hand for those situations.

The thing that people forget with noise is that viewable size/print size are the important things. If you are just viewing a photo on a computer monitor or, printing at 4 by 6, your pixel level noise will vanish, even without noise reduction.