[Des]

Thanks for your comments Noel. So money aside, you would prefer the K-1 for wildlife?

Trouble with the 150-450 for the walk in the bush is that it's 2kgs! (Not to mention 1kg for the K-1.) I used to have a 170-500 that weighed 1.4kg and I found even that a chore to lug around. I guess I'm soft. But I know what you mean about the versatility of a zoom for that sort of thing - tend to favour the 55-300 over the FA*300 or Sigma 400 prime for the nature walk, unless it's mainly about a capturing a bird at a hide or something.

Ooh I hope you are wrong about the price of the K-3ii successor. K-3ii costs about $1300 (body only) - you'd think about $1500 for a new model.

[noelpolar]

Thanks for your comments Noel. So money aside, you would prefer the K-1 for wildlife?
.

Yes... easy... mostly because better shots I have opportunity for are in lower light at the beginning and end of the day.... or under tree canopies..... the downside is obviously reach.....

I find the 150-450 to be a poor low light lens.... K-1 lifts it a bit.....(my base line is F*300/4.5 on K3).... off course when there is lots of light.... no problems.

I have some elbow issues.... so K-1 and 150-450 is always on a Black Rapid Curve Sling Strap.... I hang the lot from the camera base.... no problems bush walking..... but not two hand climbing stuff.

[Sandy Hancock]

Oh great. An equivalence argument.
Time I went out to take some photos

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I think that refers to read noise, which I believe is a minor contributor to total noise compared to shot noise.

Yes it does relate to read noise and yes it is a minor noise contributor to the iso 100 shot with the caveat that you have gathered a rather large signal at iso 100. But when you are limited to the maximum signal allotted to you by shutter speed and f stop then it is best to increase the iso ( up to iso 800 for the K1) and not beyond the point you start to clip what you want to preserve. If you don’t increase the iso that read noise stay high ( wasn’t a problem when you are able to fully saturate the sensor at iso 100) that read noise represents the same amount of noise but in a smaller signal.

Think of read noise as food coloring, a glass represents what signal you can capture and the water the signal. Place a drop of coloring into a full glass of water ( larger signal AKA larger exposure) that drop of coloring has a rather small influence, then place the same amount of coloring into glass with 1/8 the water ( smaller signal) and you will see more of a color shift as that drop has a larger influence with less water.

A lot of people think that shooting at iso 100 gives you the greatest DR and lowest noise, but to achieve that you must first fill that glass with as much signal as you can, as that is where the DR and reduced noise comes from.

Ps this was not directed at you audio B

---

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 10-23-2016 at 11:14 PM.

[Nicolas06]

I think it would be a comparison with less unknowns... I think 290mm is the last F4.5 stop.....

I always wondered if this isn't just an approximation provided by the manufacturer. That is until KAF4, you can't select any apperture continuously. On the contrary the actual disk as a set of fixed size apperture.

On a zoom, or even by changing focus distance, the actual effective apperture would change, at least a bit. So even if f/4.5 is display at 299mm it may be actual f/4.9 or something and the display shift to f/5.6 as soon as we cross say real apperture of f/5 ?

[Nicolas06]

Great discussion—I do wish I better understood why ISO 800 produces less noise than ISO 100.

What that does means is that if you use iso100 and amplify it 8 time to get iso 800 exposure, the signal would be more noisy than shooting at iso 800 directly.

It doesn't mean that an iso 100 shot that isn't severely underexposed would look worse than an iso800 shot.

[polur101]

can't compare different lenses.

[normhead]

and not beyond the point you start to clip what you want to preserve.

The one thing I would add to that is, in low light situations you have considerably lower contrast values, and your dynamic range, what is actually there to be captured is much less. My K-1 has proved excellent in suppressing noise up to 3200 ISO, in fact compared to m K-3 3200 ISO is the new 640 ISO, or 800 ISO on a k-5.

IN that sense even though I'm shooting at a very high ISO with reduced Dynamic Range, the Dynamic Range wasn't there to be captured so I haven't lost anything.

On this image you can see, I had Dynamic Range to give on both sides of the histogram, even shooting at 3200 I didn't make full use of the Dynamic range the camera could have captured, and infact if you could see the levels adjustment on this image you'd see I've clipped both the high end and low end of this photograph. There was just more information than I needed.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

The DR needed for general purpose photography like most wildlife and landscape photography falls in at base iso matches the situations where the camera is general use camera like the K1 are good at. An example of this it’s not very often one with the K1 needs a huge amount of DR range when shooting at iso3200 because of the lower contrast light one would be using 3200 doesn’t require the need for high DR. Where we see the need for high iso with larger DR captures is in action photography, someone shooting in the high contrast light with very high shutter speeds to reduce motion, and that use of faster shutter speed increase the iso needed while being in high contrast light.



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
You can see with cameras designed for that use have poor base iso DR while once you enter the iso speeds commonly needed for that action work you start to see them pull away from the general purpose bodies.

[Lowell Goudge]

Norm, in will admit up front I didn't read 100% of all posts, but what about high ISO noise?

Basically, when I look at the K1 it has the same pixel density as the K5, this should mean superior high ISO compared to the K3.

For me, and I am sure a lot of other birders high ISO performance outweighs absolute resolution. I have not moved away yet from my K5, so for me the issue is not what happens for full frame shots, because I never get close enough, but if we consider cropping (which almost all birders do) and the fact that not everyone has a 500/4.5 or equivelent, higher ISO is a reality, and on that aspect the k1 should be better than the K3 because the photo sites are larger, and the chip might be newer ? Any comments?

[normhead]

Just casually.... 3200 ISO K-1 appears to me without testing, but by comparing images.. to be about equivalent to ISO 800 K-5 which is about equivalent to ISO 640 on a K-3. The K-70 appears to be about a stop better than a K-3 so it may be the first 24 MP pentax to have as good ISO performance as the K-5.

But that in itself is quite misleading... I've had K-3 images come out clean at 1600 ISO and have un-expected noise at 400 ISO.

For example the following K-3 images was taken at 1600 ISO. The noise is what I'd expect from 200. Even views full size there is nothing to complain about.


Where as this K-1 3200 ISO image has noise you can't ignore. I should really just blur the whole back ground.


Looking at this one I have to think 1600 ISO would have helped, and oops, I might have tried my K-3.

I think you pretty much have to learn the ISO settings for each camera. Gain is applied at different levels and different times and there are different de-noise algorithms in different cameras.

That said, to be safe I shoot 400 ISO, K-3 or K-5. My guess is at 1600 ISO the K-1 will be safe. That being said, I'm shooting 1600 on a K-3 and 3200 on a K-1 because while most are good, occasionally those ISOs produce an unacceptable result.

That's why I'm totally not impressed with folks saying you can get great pictures at 6400 ISO with some cameras. My own observation is that there are factors I'm not considering, that I need to uncover before I decide actual ISO numbers mean a whole lot., for me, it's all about the percentages, and not always the same from one sensor to the next and one camera model to the next.

ISO is just something to help one get similar results in similar circumstance (and it's your job as the cameras owner to figure out what those circumstances are.)

[Rondec]

The K-1 does about a stop better at high ISO than the K3. That's something, but if you shoot stopped down and a a stop higher ISO then they should be the same. Which is what we see, ignoring differences in exposure. I don't shoot birds and wildlife so it is beyond me as to whether it is feasible to open up the aperture more or shoot with a slower shutter speed.

That said, APS-C makes a lot of sense for wildlife and macro. I find that I end up cropping a lot with these sorts of images on my K-1 and not so much on the K3. On the other hand, for landscape and portraiture, full frame really makes a lot of sense and if you use primes, like the FA 31 or FA 77, the size is not prohibitive at all.

[Lowell Goudge]

Just casually.... 3200 ISO K-1 appears to me without testing, but by comparing images.. to be about equivalent to ISO 800 K-5 which is about equivalent to ISO 640 on a K-3. The K-70 appears to be about a stop better than a K-3 so it may be the first 24 MP pentax to have as good ISO performance as the K-5.

But that in itself is quite misleading... I've had K-3 images come out clean at 1600 ISO and have un-expected noise at 400 ISO.

For example the following K-3 images was taken at 1600 ISO. The noise is what I'd expect from 200. Even views full size there is nothing to complain about.


Where as this K-1 3200 ISO image has noise you can't ignore. I should really just blur the whole back ground.


Looking at this one I have to think 1600 ISO would have helped, and oops, I might have tried my K-3.

I think you pretty much have to learn the ISO settings for each camera. Gain is applied at different levels and different times and there are different de-noise algorithms in different cameras.

That said, to be safe I shoot 400 ISO, K-3 or K-5. My guess is at 1600 ISO the K-1 will be safe. That being said, I'm shooting 1600 on a K-3 and 3200 on a K-1 because while most are good, occasionally those ISOs produce an unacceptable result.

That's why I'm totally not impressed with folks saying you can get great pictures at 6400 ISO with some cameras. My own observation is that there are factors I'm not considering, that I need to uncover before I decide actual ISO numbers mean a whole lot., for me, it's all about the percentages, and not always the same from one sensor to the next and one camera model to the next.

ISO is just something to help one get similar results in similar circumstance (and it's your job as the cameras owner to figure out what those circumstances are.)

thanks norm,

the reason i ask is that while i undersand noise goes up with higher iso, i find routinely that the increase in noise while present is less offensive than poor sharpness due to image blur caused by low shutter speeds, or the combination of lack of DOF and focus accuracy caused by shooting wide open in loiw light to "reduce the grain"

as an example of this, please note the attached image from my K5 at ISO 6400 shot in early morning light straight out of the camera using JPEG settings. the early morning light explains why the tree swallow is much bluer than the normal emerald green appearance from direct daylight



i am sitting on the fence with respect to a next body, and given the pixel density of the K1 is the same as the K5, but likely newer technology hence reduced grain, i would expect ti to be superior to the K3 and K5. part of the reason i did not upgrade from K5 to K3 is that a) i was satisfied with the K5 resolution (i dont need a chickadee blown up to be 3 feet long) and i still remember the transition from *istD to K10D and lower high ISO performance as a trade off for more pixels. perhaps it is an unfair assessment as technology has moved on considerably, and every camera / sensor since, seems to have better high iso even with more mega pixels, but i am just not clear when the time comes to upgrade again, whether i want more resolution in APS-C or better low light at the same resolution with a cropped sensor. for me, shooting birds i will always crop any way, and as said, i really only believe the resolution f the K5 is necessary.

[normhead]

the reason i ask is that while i undersand noise goes up with higher iso, i find routinely that the increase in noise while present is less offensive than poor sharpness due to image blur caused by low shutter speeds, or the combination of lack of DOF and focus accuracy caused by shooting wide open in loiw light to "reduce the grain"

I think most of us have a set of numbers in our heads, numbers for ISO aperture and shutter speed, that we've found it's pointless if we go below. And all our choices in the field are a manipulation of those basic numbers.

For example on the K-3 my bottom line is ISO 1600, ƒ5.6 on APS-c, 1/1000s

If I can't obtain those settings I decide what I'm going to do. I can just shoot completely stationary birds and lower my shutter speed from the preferred, or I can tempt the noise gods by going higher ISO, or the too narrow DoF gods and go wider.

Every decision has measurable consequences. What you do as a photographer is affected by those decisions. I'm not so much interested in bird ID after the first few images. After that, I'm looking for the poster shot. SO I may start shooting at a nice safe high ISO and shutter speed, but after a few images, I'm going to drop my ISO to 200 or 400, lowering my shutter speed knowing that motion blur is going to ruin 80% of my images. But when I nail one, it's going to be a good crisp clear image. Burst mode is essential for that, because i can't predict when the bird will align himself with the focal plane.

These are the kinds of things you have to deal with in your head all the time out in the field. If a bird hangs around for awhile you may change your settings few times, looking for different types of images. Be it frozen in action, wider DoF for a more environmental perspective, or you just may go for a clean 100 ISO exposure hoping the little guy will be still long enough to pull it off.

A person behind a camera should be a busy person. Maybe not busy in terms of doing lots of things, but busy in terms of constantly evaluating the situation, looking for different types of images, using the same gear and set up. At the end of the day, it's often surprising, an image that in your head had no hope of being decent, ends up being the shot of the day. For some means the gods of photography made a mockery of "common wisdom" and said in a loud clear voice "you don't know as much as you think you do, and this picture proves it." Of course, if you go with a set of standard settings, you think are "right" that will never happen.

[Nicolas06]

i am sitting on the fence with respect to a next body, and given the pixel density of the K1 is the same as the K5, but likely newer technology hence reduced grain, i would expect ti to be superior to the K3 and K5. part of the reason i did not upgrade from K5 to K3 is that a) i was satisfied with the K5 resolution (i dont need a chickadee blown up to be 3 feet long) and i still remember the transition from *istD to K10D and lower high ISO performance as a trade off for more pixels. perhaps it is an unfair assessment as technology has moved on considerably, and every camera / sensor since, seems to have better high iso even with more mega pixels, but i am just not clear when the time comes to upgrade again, whether i want more resolution in APS-C or better low light at the same resolution with a cropped sensor. for me, shooting birds i will always crop any way, and as said, i really only believe the resolution f the K5 is necessary.

Ruppert and many other have their K1 with their 50-500 or 150-500. On other brand many do it with 150-600 too.

A 500mm match a 333mm on APSC, and a 600mm a 400mm. In both case the equivalent apperture is f/4 (f/4.2 to be precise).

Because FF are easier on the lenses, you get it with lot of resolution, better than a prime of equivalent focal lens on APSC but with flexibility of a zoom and same great low light performance. The prime allow for a TC and can likely approach the same performance, but then it loose it's apperture advantage, get more noise, and may have difficulties to really match the performance, except if you go for quite expensive ones.

Sure a 300mm f/2.8 migh get a bit better performance and get even more light on APSC than one the theses long zoom on FF, but they are not in the same price range. Some used 150-500 can be acquired used for something like 600-800€/$.

For the price of a 300 f/2.8 at least the sigma AF version I managed to find a price for, you could buy a K1 and a used 150-500 and still have something like $800 in cach but the K1 would serve you for many other uses.

When reach is priority, you'll still be able to work based on APSC crop and get the same as a K5-IIs does with the lens natively but with much better AF of K1. Not that bad.