Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-27-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by mattdm

Yeah, I saw. I just thought the resized version makes a good demonstration about why shooting in 6mpix mode doesn't really make much of a difference.

Gotcha. Thanks.

bt*ist · 12-27-2007, 07:57 PM

The ISO1600 on my K10D is a lot better than the same ISO-level on my istDS, so while I'd still be reluctant to use it (especially since ISO800 + shake reduction on the K10D allows probably the same creative latitude as ISO3200 on the istDS), it's not bad as a last resort.

For one thing, on the istDS I'd always use Noise Ninja in post-processing whenever I'd shoot at ISO1600 or 3200. With the K10D I'd generally be inclined to consider the output at ISO1600 'good enough'.

pop4 · 01-01-2008, 07:48 AM

Two shots from last night at ISO 1600 with no noise reduction in PP. Click for larger versions.

Not bad at all for ISO 1600!

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-01-2008, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by bt*ist

The ISO1600 on my K10D is a lot better than the same ISO-level on my istDS, so while I'd still be reluctant to use it (especially since ISO800 + shake reduction on the K10D allows probably the same creative latitude as ISO3200 on the istDS), it's not bad as a last resort.

For one thing, on the istDS I'd always use Noise Ninja in post-processing whenever I'd shoot at ISO1600 or 3200. With the K10D I'd generally be inclined to consider the output at ISO1600 'good enough'.

Don't get fooled by shake reduction saving you 2 stops this is partially a myth. While I like shake reduction on my K10D, I would still like to have ISO 3200 because shake reduction does nothing to stop my subject from moving. having a blury subject with a sharp background is still a bad shot.

Rickster · 01-01-2008, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Don't get fooled by shake reduction saving you 2 stops this is partially a myth. While I like shake reduction on my K10D, I would still like to have ISO 3200 because shake reduction does nothing to stop my subject from moving. having a blury subject with a sharp background is still a bad shot.

SR, IS & VR were never intended to stop subject movement so I think your argument is disingenuous. For what it is worth I see 3 to 4 stops improvement with SR on my K10D when used for its intended purpose. - YMMV.

cheers,
Rick

Rickster · 01-01-2008, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Don't get fooled by shake reduction saving you 2 stops this is partially a myth. While I like shake reduction on my K10D, I would still like to have ISO 3200 because shake reduction does nothing to stop my subject from moving. having a blury subject with a sharp background is still a bad shot.

SR, IS & VR were never intended to stop subject movement so I think your argument is disingenuous. For what it is worth I see 3 to 4 stops improvement with SR on my K10D when used for its intended purpose. - YMMV.

It worked fine for this K10D image at 1600 ISO - hand held with available mixed lighting.

When I posted this test image on the other forum everybody thought it was shot at ISO 100. It is ISO 1600 with halogen light hand held. 50% crop.

Yes, both images have had appropriate post processing - I use Noise Ninja and CS3 for PP

cheers,
Rick

Rickster · 01-02-2008, 06:04 AM

Well I guess those images left you alll speechless.

01-01-2008, 12:27 PM	#21
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Don't get fooled by shake reduction saving you 2 stops this is partially a myth. While I like shake reduction on my K10D, I would still like to have ISO 3200 because shake reduction does nothing to stop my subject from moving. having a blury subject with a sharp background is still a bad shot. SR, IS & VR were never intended to stop subject movement so I think your argument is disingenuous. For what it is worth I see 3 to 4 stops improvement with SR on my K10D when used for its intended purpose. - YMMV. It worked fine for this K10D image at 1600 ISO - hand held with available mixed lighting. When I posted this test image on the other forum everybody thought it was shot at ISO 100. It is ISO 1600 with halogen light hand held. 50% crop. Yes, both images have had appropriate post processing - I use Noise Ninja and CS3 for PP cheers, Rick Last edited by Rickster; 01-01-2008 at 02:53 PM. Reason: add image - add last comment - spelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K10d Iso 1600	tarsus	Post Your Photos!	5	05-25-2008 09:39 PM
k10d vs k20d ISO 1600 test	PentaxPoke	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	05-11-2008 02:36 PM
K10D performance at ISO 1600	skamaraju	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	11-09-2007 02:20 AM
K10D at iso 1600	Kemal	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	10-21-2007 12:37 PM
1600 ISO K10D new picture	ercole69	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	11-07-2006 04:26 AM

12-27-2007, 11:28 AM	#16
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385 Original Poster	Originally posted by mattdm Yeah, I saw. I just thought the resized version makes a good demonstration about why shooting in 6mpix mode doesn't really make much of a difference. Gotcha. Thanks.

12-27-2007, 07:57 PM	#17
bt*ist Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: London, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 211	The ISO1600 on my K10D is a lot better than the same ISO-level on my istDS, so while I'd still be reluctant to use it (especially since ISO800 + shake reduction on the K10D allows probably the same creative latitude as ISO3200 on the istDS), it's not bad as a last resort. For one thing, on the istDS I'd always use Noise Ninja in post-processing whenever I'd shoot at ISO1600 or 3200. With the K10D I'd generally be inclined to consider the output at ISO1600 'good enough'.

01-01-2008, 07:48 AM	#18
pop4 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: YMML Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,879	Two shots from last night at ISO 1600 with no noise reduction in PP. Click for larger versions. Not bad at all for ISO 1600!

01-01-2008, 11:03 AM	#19
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,892	Originally posted by bt*ist The ISO1600 on my K10D is a lot better than the same ISO-level on my istDS, so while I'd still be reluctant to use it (especially since ISO800 + shake reduction on the K10D allows probably the same creative latitude as ISO3200 on the istDS), it's not bad as a last resort. For one thing, on the istDS I'd always use Noise Ninja in post-processing whenever I'd shoot at ISO1600 or 3200. With the K10D I'd generally be inclined to consider the output at ISO1600 'good enough'. Don't get fooled by shake reduction saving you 2 stops this is partially a myth. While I like shake reduction on my K10D, I would still like to have ISO 3200 because shake reduction does nothing to stop my subject from moving. having a blury subject with a sharp background is still a bad shot.

01-01-2008, 12:21 PM	#20
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Don't get fooled by shake reduction saving you 2 stops this is partially a myth. While I like shake reduction on my K10D, I would still like to have ISO 3200 because shake reduction does nothing to stop my subject from moving. having a blury subject with a sharp background is still a bad shot. SR, IS & VR were never intended to stop subject movement so I think your argument is disingenuous. For what it is worth I see 3 to 4 stops improvement with SR on my K10D when used for its intended purpose. - YMMV. cheers, Rick

01-02-2008, 06:04 AM	#22
Rickster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: SE Idaho - Rocky Mtns Photos: Gallery Posts: 580	Well I guess those images left you alll speechless.

K10D at ISO 1600

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!