[krs]

While on the topic of shooting at high ISO settings, when I purchased my K10D, I debated selling my K100D. The advice on this board was to keep it, partly due to the ISO 3200 capability.

The above being said, last Saturday I went to a small college basketball game, bringing both cameras. Per the attached pictures, I need to improve my skills with white balance, but it appears to me that I got better pictures with the K100D and ISO 3200 than with the K10D at ISO 1600.

K100D, ISO 3200, 110mm, F4.5, 1/180


K10D, ISO 1600, 100mm, F4.0, 1/125



Thoughts?

[Lowell Goudge]

I think there are 2 issues,

1) I don't know if the grain is worse on the 6MP cameras at 3200 or th e 10MP camera at 1600. I think that personally the shots on the K10D at 1600 are better than my *istD. Not sure how newer 6MP fare in this area.

2) with 3200 ISO you have the option for more depth of field and higher shutter speed

the second point matters and it is clearly the real problem with your K10D shot.

Personally, at Pro games, I have had good success with the K10D, and my 135 F2.5. This also makes a big difference, there is no substitute for a good fast lens.

[WMBP]

Thoughts?

With all due respect, I'm not sure what your two shots demonstrate or prove.

The K100D, like my *ist DS, has a 3200 setting. The K10D does not. I am inclined to think that the 3200 setting is "for real," meaning that it really does provide an extra stop of sensitivity. So far, this is pretty cut and dried.

But in real life, comparisons are not so easy.

I know for a fact--from shooting thousands and thousands of photos in school gyms in the last several years--that the light varies in these gyms from this spot to that spot 8 ft away. I shoot with my K10D in TAv mode a lot, and it's quite interesting to see how the camera changes the ISO from one shot to the next, even though I've often moved the camera only slightly. Your two photos are obviously not pointed at the same spot in the the gym. And to point out the obvious, the photo taken with the K100D at ISO 3200 is pointed at a lighted officials desk, which will undoubtedly make a difference to the exposure. A ton of other things can make a significant difference, including the fact that one photo has mostly white uniforms in it, and the other has a bunch of players in red uniforms, differences in the way you held the camera, and more. To be honest, I am sometimes rather surprised at the variability of the results I get in low light. One shot at ISO 1100, say, might be pretty good, while another shot of pretty much the same subject, taken just a few seconds later, with exactly the same settings but perhaps from just a slightly different perspective might be quite noisy.

If you want to do some comparative tests, you'll need to control the conditions much more carefully. I've done a lot of these tests myself, and the best I can say is that the smaller camera's performance at higher ISOs is only marginally better. My experience is that the K10D can produce usable photos at ISO 1600. Although I've not tested this on purpose in any controlled way, I am pretty sure that I get results from my K10D at 1600 that compare very favorably with the results I get from my *ist DS at 1600 or 3200, after I do a little post-processing.

My impression is that the K20D's superiority at high ISO is dramatically superior to the K10D's. The performance of the older, smaller cameras, however, is in my opinion not dramatically superior. When I shoot weddings and indoor sports where I can't use a flash, I take the K10D rather than the *ist DS. ISO isn't everything.

Will

[krs]

Valid points Will.

I took a fair number of pictures with both cameras, and obviously did not post all of them. The general trend or theme I saw was that the pics from the K100D at ISO 3200 looked better than the K10D at 1600. But that is a general feeling I get looking across all the pictures. To do a comparitive test, I suppose I would need to shoot from the same spot to the same location, same aperature, etc. - even then one would not be comparing apples unless one also used the same ISO - I suppose!


The pics are not intended to prove anything, just a sample, looking for any comments or observations, especially from those who might have tried something similar across the two cameras!

[WMBP]

I took a fair number of pictures with both cameras, and obviously did not post all of them. The general trend or theme I saw was that the pics from the K100D at ISO 3200 looked better than the K10D at 1600. But that is a general feeling I get looking across all the pictures.

I understand.

But since (a) the K10D can't do 3200 but (b) I'm not about to abandon the K10D in favor of my *ist DS, the real question for me is, is the *ist DS (or your K100D) AT 1600 better than the K10D at the same ISO.

I may do a few shots here myself. I have not found 3200 to be terribly useful, though, so I'm not sure I will come to the same conclusion you have. If I have time to take a few pictures (or find some of the photos I've taken in the past) I'll post a couple.

Will

[krs]

I actually found the K100D iso 3200 pics to be clearer than I expected.

This weekend I am going to a Tae Kwon Doe competition. I will take both cameras and try again. Fast shutter speeds are even more critical in this setting...

[Lowell Goudge]

I actually found the K100D iso 3200 pics to be clearer than I expected.

This weekend I am going to a Tae Kwon Doe competition. I will take both cameras and try again. Fast shutter speeds are even more critical in this setting...

Interesting, I will be doing one friday evening. I plan to take my *istD and 135mm f2.5 for close shots and the K10 plus 50mm f1.4 for a wider view