[audiobomber]

Is there a noise issue with K100D super? And if i were to switch to K20D will i experience clearly lower noise or is it gonna be the same?

The K100DS has good noise performance from my experience and anything I've read. I did some tests and found the K20D is about 2/3 of a stop better.

[lithos]

1600 is my guess..

Nope.

But is this a K20-10D or a K100D?..

The last one.

I just would not believe it to be a K100D with ISO 800 or 1600.. If it's a K20 or K10 than i should really consider a body upgrade as i would not be able to do this with my k100D..

And now the biggie...

...shot taken with K100D, not a Super, ISO 800. No flash. Ambient lighting, about 1/60sec at f1.7. RAW.

Look, if you're gonna be looking at the JPEGs on an ultra-high res LCD at 100% at any ISO setting, and not liking what you're seeing, I can't help you.

No one can.

Maybe if you fork out for an LF back and a Schneider or Rodenstock lens, shoot at ISO 25, but otherwise...

This measurebating is not photography. I doubt, for example, you'd be able to find a printer that would do the size and resolution of that print to see that noise. If you reduce image down to web size, bam, that noise'll disappear.

Pointing a K100D - or, hell, any DSLR - at a blank wall and bitching about the noise is akin to soaking a house kerosene, chucking a match on it, and then bitching about how flammable the building materials are.

The K100D's sensor is ridiculously noise free. I'd put this down to it being such an advanced sensor that's low res. At ISO 400, you're already doing better than most colour films.

[K Logan]

and have really no complaints. Yes, there's some chroma noise at 3200 that is less than desirable, but coverting those shots to B&W takes care of that. I don't even bother running the pix through any noise software. I am somewhat partial to grain and find the noise can be pleasing depending on the shot. As for ISO 400 and below, zero complaints at all.

[Tyler]

The K100D was excellent at high iso. I used it mostly at 800-3200 and loved it there. Nice files that responded to slight NR well. That's the one reason I waited for the K20D instead of moving up to the K10D. The K10D didnt have teh high iso performance I need. K20D does though

[timo]

The K100D was excellent at high iso. I used it mostly at 800-3200 and loved it there. Nice files that responded to slight NR well. That's the one reason I waited for the K20D instead of moving up to the K10D. The K10D didnt have teh high iso performance I need. K20D does though

Hi Tyler, although it's a bit off-topic threadwise, I would slightly dispute your negative comparison of the K10D with the K100D. In terms of 100% viewing at the pixel level you may be right. But in terms of the image overall - i.e. comparing a K100D image with a K10D image at the same size - I don't think the K10D does lag behind. In fact I've compared the two at 1600 ISO and I would say that *at the same image size*, and after a dab of Noise Ninja, the K10D comes out slightly ahead with more detail retained. But, to return to the subject of the thread, the K100D is still bl**dy good. No doubt the K20D is even better - I've not tried it.

Cheers,

Tim

[Marc Sabatella]

in terms of the image overall - i.e. comparing a K100D image with a K10D image at the same size - I don't think the K10D does lag behind. In fact I've compared the two at 1600 ISO and I would say that *at the same image size*, and after a dab of Noise Ninja, the K10D comes out slightly ahead with more detail retained.

I certainly find this to be true with my K200D, which uses the same sensor. And I've seen images from some people's K10D's that are similar. But I've seen images from other K10D's - mostly early ones - that are pretty bad at high ISO. I've also heard reports of cameras going in for unrelated repair, and coming back magically performing much better at high ISO. Apparently something was changed for the better since the initial release of the K10D.

[iamweasel]

I thought the high ISO capability of the K100D was very good. In fact, that was my one disappointment when moving to the K10D (high ISO was worse to me). So I moved to the K20D and love it's high ISO capability.

However, back to your original comment - I think the K100D was/is a very good performer in low light.

I agree with you on this one rfortson. I was recently at a fashion show last weekend with my K10D and K100D backup with me. At ISO800, I find my K10D noisier than the K100D.

[MidwestMax]

I use my K100D at ISO 1600 all the time. Here's a sample image from an indoor event.

The only time I really notice a lot of noise is when I shoot at high ISOs outdoors at night or indoors in low light when there's a lot of dark background areas.

[MidwestMax]

As you can see in this shot, there's a little noticeable noise in the darker area in the corner, but not enough to bother me.

[maxwell1295]

Having owed the K100D and now the K200D, I can say that both of these cameras are very good at higher ISOs. The key is to compose the shot as best you can to reduce the amount of cropping. The more you crop, the more the noise becomes visible.

[MidwestMax]

The key is to compose the shot as best you can to reduce the amount of cropping. The more you crop, the more the noise becomes visible.

Very true. I try to keep cropping to a minimum.

[Class A]

No doubt the K20D is even better - I've not tried it.

So I moved to the K20D and love it's high ISO capability.

I'm looking at the high ISO shots at
Nikon D90 Review: 34. Compared to (High ISO): Digital Photography Review
I cannot help that the K20D is already a bit noisy at ISO 800.

Compare this to the K100D
Pentax K100D Review: 22. Compared to...: Digital Photography Review

At ISO 1600 (see Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review vs Pentax K100D Review: 14. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review) the look pretty similar with the K20D noise being more fine grained and hence more pleasing. Above 1600 the K20 wins hands down.

BTW, this is off-topic, has anyone noticed the different crops in the resolution comparison at
Nikon D90 Review: 35. Compared to (Resolution): Digital Photography Review
? The K20D consistently gets the harder deal, showing more of the smaller part of the wedge. If you don't pay attention to the numbers to the right, you'd think that the Nikon D90 can keep up in terms of resolution whereas it really cops out earlier than the K20D. Or am I misinterpreting the numbers next to the wedge?

[audiobomber]

I'm looking at the high ISO shots at
Nikon D90 Review: 34. Compared to (High ISO): Digital Photography Review
I cannot help that the K20D is already a bit noisy at ISO 800.

Compare this to the K100D
Pentax K100D Review: 22. Compared to...: Digital Photography Review

When you're comparing noise, you have to ensure both cameras are set to the same level of NR. The K20D is unusal in that the default setting is OFF.

I did this test with NR "off" on both cameras. The photos were both resized in Picasa to simulate printing at the same size. The K20D is about 2/3 stop cleaner:

K20D at ISO 1600:



K100DS at ISO 1600:

[Class A]

When you're comparing noise, you have to ensure both cameras are set to the same level of NR.

Thanks for the images. The K100DS picture looks definitely brighter to me. Some of its noise would drown in shadows if it had the same intensity as the K20D image. Also, the WB isn't the same. I always start to see noise in the red channel first and the K100DS image is definitely warmer.

Interesting to see the pictures, but they are not quite fit for a final conclusion.

P.S.: Your K100DS image is (again) not as sharp as I would expect it to be.

You expected no less nitpicking from me, did you?

[audiobomber]

You expected no less nitpicking from me, did you?

A lot less than I expected actually. You'll probably be back.

These are the default JPEG settings, Tungsten WB.