Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2007, 12:44 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 217
EV range, and ISO200-3200 v.s. 100-1600

I was looking over the Ultimate Exposure Calculator again...
Ultimate Exposure Computer

(thanks Fred Parker!)

And I remembered a discussion a long time ago about whether 1/8000 was needed in camera body. I was considering the camera capability again... and I was again reminded that we need better sensors.

One of my subjects is youth basketball in a dingy gym ~EV4-5 I was using ISO3200, F/2, 1/180

another subject is family shots outdoors ~EV15 ISO200, 1/4000, F/4

I easily hit both extremes of the cameras capability. In fact even expensive zooms (f/2.8) arent fast enough for those dingy gyms, and the top end shutters aren't fast enough to open up the fast portrait lenses (f/1.4-f/3.5)

The K10 with ISO100 would be a stop more useful outdoors, but I dont think I would get any shots in the dingy gyms. I need the ISO3200 of the K100D for that!

I think that I recall an opinion from the past discussion was that these are examples of bad light. Dont take pictures in bad light.

What do you guys do? just leave the camera in the bag?

03-06-2007, 01:30 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by kmccanta Quote
I easily hit both extremes of the cameras capability. In fact even expensive zooms (f/2.8) arent fast enough for those dingy gyms, and the top end shutters aren't fast enough to open up the fast portrait lenses (f/1.4-f/3.5)
Outdoor shots can easily be managed with neutral density filter if you want to shoot wide open.

Indoor shot is more difficult. If you don't mind noise too much (it's better to get a noisy picture than no picture), then shoot with EV -1 or more in RAW, and push the exposure up +1 or accordingly in post-processing + noise reduction (effectively ISO 6400 or more in your case).

Another option is to use Flash if they allow it. With wireless flash, you can use two or more flashes to get a decent illumination.
03-06-2007, 02:02 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
its easy to go lower but not to go higher.. the cost of the nuetral density filter is less than the fast lens or the poor results from any other method..

so if a quality result is required and flash isnt possible the only answer is to leave the camera in the bag if your sensor is too noisy at the needed iso setting...

said from the not entirely objective standpoint of a k100 owner.. he he

trog
03-06-2007, 02:50 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by kmccanta Quote
I was looking over the Ultimate Exposure Calculator again...
Ultimate Exposure Computer

(thanks Fred Parker!)

And I remembered a discussion a long time ago about whether 1/8000 was needed in camera body. I was considering the camera capability again... and I was again reminded that we need better sensors.

One of my subjects is youth basketball in a dingy gym ~EV4-5 I was using ISO3200, F/2, 1/180

another subject is family shots outdoors ~EV15 ISO200, 1/4000, F/4

I easily hit both extremes of the cameras capability. In fact even expensive zooms (f/2.8) arent fast enough for those dingy gyms, and the top end shutters aren't fast enough to open up the fast portrait lenses (f/1.4-f/3.5)

The K10 with ISO100 would be a stop more useful outdoors, but I dont think I would get any shots in the dingy gyms. I need the ISO3200 of the K100D for that!

I think that I recall an opinion from the past discussion was that these are examples of bad light. Dont take pictures in bad light.

What do you guys do? just leave the camera in the bag?
I keep pestering pentax to open up the ISO range on the K10D to 3200. While there is a potential comment that photo's should not be taken in bad light, I have a lot of great photo's from my daughter's musicals that are done on my *istD at 3200 ISO. In fact, this is one reason why I elected to hang on to the *istD. 3200 ISO is not just for "BAD LIGHT" in the olden days BD (Before Digital) I often took Kodak TriX and poush processed it 3 stops just so I could have a camera with a fast 50mm loaded with film that could capture shots with ambient night lighting (street lamps, production spotlights etc.) my point of view is, If I could do it film, why can't I have the same with digital.

I also agree on the low ISO side, I would like to see some lower than 100 ISO settings, not because they would be better images, (I think 200 ISO on the 10MP camera probably is the limit in quality) but because I also have a mirror lens and simply can't stop the thing down at all.

Higher shutter speed is the one that really puzzles me, My PZ-1 had a 1/8000 shutter, and a 1/250 sync speed. That was a full frame shutter, If they could do it full frame, the smaller lighter shutter of an ASP-C sensor camera should be a snap to do this performance, or even better. Somewhere there should be a better shutter in the future, but just not in the K10D.

03-06-2007, 03:16 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Somewhere there should be a better shutter in the future, but just not in the K10D.
Yes, there should be a better shutter in the future - but not a mechanical one. When the sensor is fast enough, we will get the electronic shutter supplementing the mechanical one. Fast X-sync speed? Not a problem, prosumer cameras with electronic shutter like KM A200 allows sync for ALL shutter speed including 1/3200s.
03-07-2007, 02:46 PM   #6
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 49
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I keep pestering pentax to open up the ISO range on the K10D to 3200. While there is a potential comment that photo's should not be taken in bad light, I have a lot of great photo's from my daughter's musicals that are done on my *istD at 3200 ISO. In fact, this is one reason why I elected to hang on to the *istD...
Just underexpose by 1 stop and boost it in PP--viola, ISO3200. If you then downsize it to 6mpixels, it'll probably look at least as good as the istD image. Judging by the test images at imaging-resource.com, the K10d will at least match the K100d after you downsize the images to 6mpixels.

The only gotcha with the boosting is the K10d currently has the vertical pattern noise problem. Some folks report seeing it at ISO1600. In my case, it's not really visible until I push above ISO3200, but I've gone to ISO6400 and it's barely noticeable. With any luck, it'll get fixed with a FW update.

Bart
03-07-2007, 05:17 PM   #7
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by bart_hickman Quote
Just underexpose by 1 stop and boost it in PP--viola, ISO3200. If you then downsize it to 6mpixels, it'll probably look at least as good as the istD image. Judging by the test images at imaging-resource.com, the K10d will at least match the K100d after you downsize the images to 6mpixels.

The only gotcha with the boosting is the K10d currently has the vertical pattern noise problem. Some folks report seeing it at ISO1600. In my case, it's not really visible until I push above ISO3200, but I've gone to ISO6400 and it's barely noticeable. With any luck, it'll get fixed with a FW update.

Bart
I tried this, and believe it or not the results are both better and worse. I had both cameras (K10D and *istD) under a halogen light, with white balance set to tungston. Both cameras set to same shutter and apature, using the *istD exposure for 3200 as the base line, and K10D set to 1600. While K10 was sharper due to anti shake, some areas tended to be a little blotchy towards yellow, and white was not as good.

The reason I want the ISO setting is that I would prefer, for this, to have the camera do the processing, as an adjustment in gain of the sensor will be better in terms of noise and quality than any post processing where you are trying to boost detail out of the image.

While it does work to push a little, there is less range of exposure in the image than if it was done in the camera, and it is more work for me where I did not have to do it with the *istD.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, capability, discussion, dont, dslr, exposure, iso3200, light, photography, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 645 + Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600 = awesomeness dugrant153 Pentax Medium Format 26 04-11-2011 03:54 PM
ISO 100 - 0r 3200 when and why? paska Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 12-12-2010 09:46 AM
Ilford Delta 3200 - shoot at 800-1600, develop at 1600? dugrant153 Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 15 11-08-2010 02:27 AM
K-x and K200D iso200 planedriver Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 01-20-2010 12:22 PM
need to fill a hole in my AF focal range - old Pentax FA 100 or new Tamron SP 90??? m8o Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 10-11-2008 10:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top