[FabioPirovano]

Just print some photos 40x60 cm.. why so bad quality at 3200iso ? on video is less evident but printing... which Pentax Cameras has better latitude at 3200?

[Na Horuk]

um.. ISO 3600 is pretty high, however you look at it. The problem is that you made huge prints and are probably looking at them from close by. The other thing is the NR settings/software, post processing (if you add brightness, you add noise. If you add sharpness, noise gets sharper, too) and print technique. The K-5 might give you slightly better noise performance, but the K-30 is basically as good as it gets for cameras under $2000

Instead of buying new camera it would probably be better to buy a good tripod so you can use longer shutter speed and lower ISO. Or a flash system. Or just a lens with wider aperture. Photographic technique is par of the photo, not just gear

[normhead]

^ what he said.
For large prints, I won't use over 800 ISO on my K-5 and 640 ISO on my K-3. For snapshots and candids, I might extend that to 1600 ISO. 3200 is desperation time. You might get decent smaller prints, you might not, there are a lot of things that factor in.

[JinDesu]

Are you shooting jpeg or RAW?

[FabioPirovano]

Thanks for the answers,I use to shot Raw + Jpg.. just Printed a Early time photos..when I have no still learn good controls.. I...Now I'm using 100-1600 Settings,"avoid" that Sigma lens but I wonder if there are cameras that have same quality(of 1600) at 3200

[ElJamoquio]

Just print some photos 40x60 cm.. why so bad quality at 3200iso ? on video is less evident but printing... which Pentax Cameras has better latitude at 3200?

Your eyes aren't as critical when it comes to video, and most of the time we consider video of ~2 megapixels to be 'quite sharp'.

At 3200 you either have noise or smearing. The colors are dull. That's just the way it is.

There really aren't any Pentax cameras with an appreciable improvement.

Better shots at night with a stationary subject are easy, though - decrease the shutter speed and use a tripod.

[normhead]

As a rule of thumb, always use the lowest ISO possible, in the image you posted, if nothing was moving, you could have used any ISO you wanted, and 100 ISO would have given you more dynamic range, more natural contrast etc. When you take images of moving subjects, high ISO become necessary to prevent motion blur, which may have been the case. Your image has been stripped of exif data, so i can't tell. For me the above image would be unprintable because of the out of focus fence in the foreground, and because the whole left quarter of the image is essentially dead space with nothing happening. A lens that could shoot through one of the holes in the chain link fence and and stronger use of the diagonal formed by the train would have made it a much more compelling image, and the resolution saved by not having to crop so much also would shave improved your print.

There's a lot to be learned here.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

There is only so much you can do when light levels drop down to levels that don't go much beyond sensor dark noise levels. The shadow areas of a poorly lit train yard is such a place. Pretty much no camera is going to give you great results (other than military equipment). The scene you posted should be shot with your fastest lens (either of the 50s you listed), on a tripod with a time exposure. You will get some blowout in the brighter areas, but less if you expose longer and keep the ISO down. The camera is not quite ISO-less, but you lose about 75% of a stop of dynamic range for every stop of ISO increase.

In terms of noise, there is practically no difference between 1600 and 3200 on the K-30; however the smoothing (which takes place in camera - RAW and JPEG) softens the image accordingly. I have my variable ISO set up to 3200 but do everything possible to avoid going above 1600.

[Na Horuk]

You can also try using programs like Topaz Denoise or Noise Ninja to reduce noise. Different softwares use different ways of reducing noise, so the software that you use might not do it the way you like it.

[VisualDarkness]

The pic would look a lot better with some color-noise reduction and it's super easy. Did you print from the Raw file? Raw files need some post-processing to look good and that would explain the color-noise.

What do you mean with ""avoid" that Sigma"? The lens doesn't create noise, it's the camera settings.

[FabioPirovano]

Ok I was using Vibrant with some Improvmentes..I was young and stupid...

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Natural is most accurate. Bright setting is why you see blown reds. None of this really matters for purposes of getting a RAW shot right - other than the "as shot" markers start you off in a bad place.

[fuent104]

The biggest cause of noise is a low signal to nose radio. In other words, underexposure. I'm sure you would see less noise with higher exposures, even if you had to darken the image in post.

[ElJamoquio]

He doesn't have much latitude to overexpose - the lights would clip.

[FabioPirovano]

OK I print this from JPEG not from Raw on Kodak Metal...the studio make this for me..really I didn't like the noise and some halo around Sodium Lights,blacks are not good ,used too much saturation.. I have to found the raw file for see what I can do on camera...