So I bought the K7...thought at first it was great, then I used it in the field...

JHD · 05-13-2011, 01:00 AM

The quest for high ISO performance is reminiscent of the megapixel race.

Pentaxor · 05-13-2011, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

by the same logic if high isos are so outdated, noone would be buying nikon d3s, if someone has to listen to you, he shall line up to buy k7.

you see people are not stupid if they pay so highly for high iso that you say are not important.

you are aware that a D3s is a pro level full-frame camera, right? just to be fair, how do you equate or compare either the k-x or k-r to the D3s if Hi-ISO alone is the barometer for importance? so by your statement, you are saying that both the k-x and k-r are as good as the D3s, right? so everybody should be glad with the k-r and stop demanding from Pentax on making a pro-level camera, right? but NO, Pentax even made the 645D. and guess what it's ISO limit is.

another thing, how instrumental is ISO 3200 of a D3s in a studio shoot or for strobists?
there are several factors involved why photographers shoot with a D3s or D700, etc. if they need something with a High-ISO, they can always find something around for less than $1,000. but since they are not using those primarily, you know it's not just about High ISO. heck, people even prefer the 5D MK I which has a max real ISO of 1600.

Pentaxor · 05-13-2011, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by JHD

The quest for high ISO performance is reminiscent of the megapixel race.

although having High ISO capability does come in handy in situations, there is a lot of convincing to be done by which it is needed more than 10% of the time. if I were to select an image shot at ISO6400 and ISO 800 for picture quality, I would choose 800 and use the camera's DR potential. but hey, I like using strobes. the best image you can get (way ahead better than what High ISO could possibly give).

peasant · 05-13-2011, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

how do you equate or compare either the k-x or k-r to the D3s

As I read it he's not.He's merely saying if high iso ability is worth as little as you are saying it is, why are people buying D3's?

**Rondec** · 05-13-2011, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by peasant

As I read it he's not.He's merely saying if high iso ability is worth as little as you are saying it is, why are people buying D3's?

Well, I think the point is that the D3 is a camera with professional specifications -- strong body build, fast frames per second, super speedy auto focus, a lot of customizability built into it, etc. A lot of the people who buy such camera do not do so for its high iso ability (although it is excellent), but do so for the other features that they get with it.

Wheatfield · 05-13-2011, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I mostly shot slides. I wonder what the DR was? Certainly less than film.

Kodachrome was around 5 stops or so. I don't think any slide film has ever exceeded 7-8 stops, but I'm not putting much research into this answer either, so I would invite correction on this.
Seriously though, take your camera, turn on the spot meter and start measuring the typical scenes you photograph.
It's not often in nature you will kit more than 10 stops, most of the time closer to 7 stops will be what you find.

eddie1960 · 05-13-2011, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Kodachrome was around 5 stops or so. I don't think any slide film has ever exceeded 7-8 stops, but I'm not putting much research into this answer either, so I would invite correction on this.
Seriously though, take your camera, turn on the spot meter and start measuring the typical scenes you photograph.
It's not often in nature you will kit more than 10 stops, most of the time closer to 7 stops will be what you find.

Slides were very exposure sensitive in a large part due to the limited DR. If you didn't nail the exposure you lost the shot. Widest DR used to be b/w film, but i think some of the new C41 derived from motion picture stock has even wider latitude (Tuco did some tests of the new portra a while back that was very revealing) the new portra 160 is also supposed to be very flexible
Cameras like the k5 though approach the widest dR of films (and b/w varies not just by film but by development method with all the different commercial and homebrew developers)

I still like b/w Film but find in most cases my K7 is as good as anything from film, unless I am going for a apecific look or want huge enlargements (velvia on my medium format can produce a huge enlargement for instance - but then so could a 645D if I had the dosh)

audiobomber · 05-13-2011, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Kodachrome was around 5 stops or so. I don't think any slide film has ever exceeded 7-8 stops, but I'm not putting much research into this answer either, so I would invite correction on this.
Seriously though, take your camera, turn on the spot meter and start measuring the typical scenes you photograph.
It's not often in nature you will kit more than 10 stops, most of the time closer to 7 stops will be what you find.

I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p?

Wheatfield · 05-13-2011, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p?

Bragging rights.

JeffJS · 05-13-2011, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p?

Mistakes made during original exposure and not knowing how to use the tools. There are also times where it is useful to be able to push a Part of a photo to bring it out. If one is constantly pushing a full photo 2 or 3 stops, then they are doing something wrong to begin with.

eddie1960 · 05-13-2011, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p?

As wheat said Bragging rights, though there are times the DR of the camera will provide a more balanced exposure with better shadow details and highlight details due to the DR. the reason HDR came about to begin with was capturing the info. the reason HDR is despised by many is it's improperly applied with overdone tone mapping.

Pentaxor · 05-13-2011, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p?

aside from others have mentioned, it could be used for faster shutter speed when needed. rather than use HIGH-ISO, it would be better to push exposure a base ISO.

Wheatfield · 05-13-2011, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

As wheat said Bragging rights, though there are times the DR of the camera will provide a more balanced exposure with better shadow details and highlight details due to the DR. the reason HDR came about to begin with was capturing the info. the reason HDR is despised by many is it's improperly applied with overdone tone mapping.

Funny you should mention that. One of the things I've been seeing people do with their K5s is get pseudo HDRs by pushing the mid and lower tones in post.
Sometimes by the same people who profess to despise HDRs.

Pentaxor · 05-13-2011, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

As wheat said Bragging rights, though there are times the DR of the camera will provide a more balanced exposure with better shadow details and highlight details due to the DR. the reason HDR came about to begin with was capturing the info. the reason HDR is despised by many is it's improperly applied with overdone tone mapping.

true. HDR is really a nice thing to have in providing better details. it is also true that misuse or deliberately overdoing images with HDR can be annoying.

Designosophy · 05-13-2011, 08:37 AM

Fake HDR how-to in Photoshop:

1. Open a photo with lots of dynamic range and PP normally. Flatten (if layers used).
2. Duplicate background layer. Set blend mode of new layer to Hard Light
3. Filter > Other > High Pass w/ radius 30-50 pixels (or whatever you want).
4. Add a hue/saturation adjustment layer to pump colors to unnatural saturation, if desired.
5. Post on Flickr and get tons of comments on how amazing the photo is.

Edit: I don't despise HDR; I think it has its place. But I don't like the way that it is used so excessively as a crutch.

05-13-2011, 01:06 AM	#182
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by zxaar by the same logic if high isos are so outdated, noone would be buying nikon d3s, if someone has to listen to you, he shall line up to buy k7. you see people are not stupid if they pay so highly for high iso that you say are not important. you are aware that a D3s is a pro level full-frame camera, right? just to be fair, how do you equate or compare either the k-x or k-r to the D3s if Hi-ISO alone is the barometer for importance? so by your statement, you are saying that both the k-x and k-r are as good as the D3s, right? so everybody should be glad with the k-r and stop demanding from Pentax on making a pro-level camera, right? but NO, Pentax even made the 645D. and guess what it's ISO limit is. another thing, how instrumental is ISO 3200 of a D3s in a studio shoot or for strobists? there are several factors involved why photographers shoot with a D3s or D700, etc. if they need something with a High-ISO, they can always find something around for less than $1,000. but since they are not using those primarily, you know it's not just about High ISO. heck, people even prefer the 5D MK I which has a max real ISO of 1600. Last edited by Pentaxor; 05-13-2011 at 01:25 AM.

05-13-2011, 07:40 AM	#188
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Wheatfield Kodachrome was around 5 stops or so. I don't think any slide film has ever exceeded 7-8 stops, but I'm not putting much research into this answer either, so I would invite correction on this. Seriously though, take your camera, turn on the spot meter and start measuring the typical scenes you photograph. It's not often in nature you will kit more than 10 stops, most of the time closer to 7 stops will be what you find. I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p? Last edited by audiobomber; 05-13-2011 at 07:45 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thought experiment with depth of field...want to help?	arpaagent	Photographic Technique	9	09-18-2009 07:08 AM
a thought	benjikan	General Talk	3	07-01-2009 12:23 AM
Just a worrying thought	Torphoto	Photographic Technique	10	06-03-2009 02:46 AM
Wow! I thought I had bought a good camera system	racinsince55	General Talk	11	06-13-2008 04:19 PM

05-13-2011, 01:00 AM	#181
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	The quest for high ISO performance is reminiscent of the megapixel race.

05-13-2011, 01:25 AM	#183
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by JHD The quest for high ISO performance is reminiscent of the megapixel race. although having High ISO capability does come in handy in situations, there is a lot of convincing to be done by which it is needed more than 10% of the time. if I were to select an image shot at ISO6400 and ISO 800 for picture quality, I would choose 800 and use the camera's DR potential. but hey, I like using strobes. the best image you can get (way ahead better than what High ISO could possibly give).

05-13-2011, 01:46 AM	#184
peasant Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: adelaide Photos: Albums Posts: 89	Originally posted by Pentaxor how do you equate or compare either the k-x or k-r to the D3s As I read it he's not.He's merely saying if high iso ability is worth as little as you are saying it is, why are people buying D3's?

05-13-2011, 04:31 AM	#185
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by peasant As I read it he's not.He's merely saying if high iso ability is worth as little as you are saying it is, why are people buying D3's? Well, I think the point is that the D3 is a camera with professional specifications -- strong body build, fast frames per second, super speedy auto focus, a lot of customizability built into it, etc. A lot of the people who buy such camera do not do so for its high iso ability (although it is excellent), but do so for the other features that they get with it.

05-13-2011, 06:48 AM	#186
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by audiobomber I mostly shot slides. I wonder what the DR was? Certainly less than film. Kodachrome was around 5 stops or so. I don't think any slide film has ever exceeded 7-8 stops, but I'm not putting much research into this answer either, so I would invite correction on this. Seriously though, take your camera, turn on the spot meter and start measuring the typical scenes you photograph. It's not often in nature you will kit more than 10 stops, most of the time closer to 7 stops will be what you find.

05-13-2011, 07:17 AM	#187
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by Wheatfield Kodachrome was around 5 stops or so. I don't think any slide film has ever exceeded 7-8 stops, but I'm not putting much research into this answer either, so I would invite correction on this. Seriously though, take your camera, turn on the spot meter and start measuring the typical scenes you photograph. It's not often in nature you will kit more than 10 stops, most of the time closer to 7 stops will be what you find. Slides were very exposure sensitive in a large part due to the limited DR. If you didn't nail the exposure you lost the shot. Widest DR used to be b/w film, but i think some of the new C41 derived from motion picture stock has even wider latitude (Tuco did some tests of the new portra a while back that was very revealing) the new portra 160 is also supposed to be very flexible Cameras like the k5 though approach the widest dR of films (and b/w varies not just by film but by development method with all the different commercial and homebrew developers) I still like b/w Film but find in most cases my K7 is as good as anything from film, unless I am going for a apecific look or want huge enlargements (velvia on my medium format can produce a huge enlargement for instance - but then so could a 645D if I had the dosh)

05-13-2011, 07:55 AM	#189
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by audiobomber I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p? Bragging rights.

05-13-2011, 08:11 AM	#190
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by audiobomber I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p? Mistakes made during original exposure and not knowing how to use the tools. There are also times where it is useful to be able to push a Part of a photo to bring it out. If one is constantly pushing a full photo 2 or 3 stops, then they are doing something wrong to begin with.

05-13-2011, 08:14 AM	#191
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by audiobomber I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p? As wheat said Bragging rights, though there are times the DR of the camera will provide a more balanced exposure with better shadow details and highlight details due to the DR. the reason HDR came about to begin with was capturing the info. the reason HDR is despised by many is it's improperly applied with overdone tone mapping.

05-13-2011, 08:23 AM	#192
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by audiobomber I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p? aside from others have mentioned, it could be used for faster shutter speed when needed. rather than use HIGH-ISO, it would be better to push exposure a base ISO.

05-13-2011, 08:26 AM	#193
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by eddie1960 As wheat said Bragging rights, though there are times the DR of the camera will provide a more balanced exposure with better shadow details and highlight details due to the DR. the reason HDR came about to begin with was capturing the info. the reason HDR is despised by many is it's improperly applied with overdone tone mapping. Funny you should mention that. One of the things I've been seeing people do with their K5s is get pseudo HDRs by pushing the mid and lower tones in post. Sometimes by the same people who profess to despise HDRs.

05-13-2011, 08:26 AM	#194
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by eddie1960 As wheat said Bragging rights, though there are times the DR of the camera will provide a more balanced exposure with better shadow details and highlight details due to the DR. the reason HDR came about to begin with was capturing the info. the reason HDR is despised by many is it's improperly applied with overdone tone mapping. true. HDR is really a nice thing to have in providing better details. it is also true that misuse or deliberately overdoing images with HDR can be annoying.

05-13-2011, 08:37 AM	#195
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Fake HDR how-to in Photoshop: 1. Open a photo with lots of dynamic range and PP normally. Flatten (if layers used). 2. Duplicate background layer. Set blend mode of new layer to Hard Light 3. Filter > Other > High Pass w/ radius 30-50 pixels (or whatever you want). 4. Add a hue/saturation adjustment layer to pump colors to unnatural saturation, if desired. 5. Post on Flickr and get tons of comments on how amazing the photo is. Edit: I don't despise HDR; I think it has its place. But I don't like the way that it is used so excessively as a crutch.