[Class A]

... underdeveloping (or shooting to the left) will only yield you smaller dynamic range (pending whether you go off the scale), or at best introduce lots of noise when you push the exposure in post.

I think it is worth repeating that this (emphasis above is mine) is not true. Underexposure by decreasing shutter speed can yield a great image whereas the properly exposed one would suffer from unwanted motion blur. What you said is only true for static scenes and the absence of any camera movement.

[shang]

thanks guys! I believe K-5 keeps enough details even when EV is decreased. But still, doing this is at least not a better way than increase the ISO.

Another thing to consider, though, is that when the DR of the image I want to capture is huge, decreasing the EV in K-5 may help capture the details in all areas. But that's nothing related to shuuter speed...

thanks again!

[UnknownVT]

thanks guys! I believe K-5 keeps enough details even when EV is decreased. But still, doing this is at least not a better way than increase the ISO.

You didn't say your acceptable upper ISO limit.

Obviously everyone's tolerance is different -
however might want to do your own tests on the K-5 through the ISO range
then size for final output and see where that new K-5 limit might be....

The K-5 is very good at high ISOs - currently one of the best among APS-C sized sensors - for a 16Mp it matches the sterling low light 12Mp K-x at equivalent high ISOs.

I certainly find I can shoot with impunity at ISO3200 on the K-x - but at low light venues I am more than happy to shoot at ISO5000. I am sure the K-5 can do as well....

But like I said everyone's tolerance is different -
the only real way to know for sure is to shoot one's own tests and see -
eg: please see my tests in - Kx (jpg) ISO Performance.

K-x ISO5000

K-x, ISO5000, f/3.5, 1/15, 18mm

Notice the bass player in the deep shadows
to the right edge of the frame,
only just about discernible -

ISO5000, f/4, 1/8, 28mm -
this was grossly under exposed -
probably due to being past the lower metering limit -
so I had to bring up the brightness/contrast quite a bit to make it visible.
So again this is an inadvertent example supporting your idea of pushing to get higher shutter speeds.

Even under the main lights the K-x still chose ISO5000 -

ISO5000, f/4.5, 1/25, 40mm

EDIT to ADD -
here's another inadvertently grossly under-exposed shot due to the light level being below the minimum metering limit of the K-x -
frankly I was really surprised by the details that were reveal when I simply increased the brightness/contrast levels -
I mean I could hardly discern anything in the original dark pic:

only increase in brightness/contrast and standard (level 1) sharpening.....

[NOTE: I have replaced the PP increased brightness shots -
because although on my monitor they looked just fine -
I happened to look at them on an over bright huge wide-screen Mac monitor
and the shadow/black areas looked pretty cruddy -
so I just ran these small pp jpgs through deNoise.]

[ll_coffee_lP]

I think it is worth repeating that this (emphasis above is mine) is not true. Underexposure by decreasing shutter speed can yield a great image whereas the properly exposed one would suffer from unwanted motion blur. What you said is only true for static scenes and the absence of any camera movement.

I'm pretty sure I clearly indicated that it would lead to less dynamic range pending going off the scale.

If you shoot to the left you can bottom out on "0" light. Can't pull info out that doesn't exist.

If you shoot the right you can pull data back into the photo (especially if you shoot RAW).

Properly exposing is always best.

I didn't indicate you couldn't pull up an under exposed shot, just that you run the risk of having no data if you aren't careful with your histogram.

c[_]