[simico]

I do agree with you, but still even at ISO500 the noise level is visible. I've uploaded some test pictures, so you can check it out:

RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

"The uploader has removed this file from the server."

Even entry-level canon xs/1000d performs way better at high iso!

You can have the same noise and detail free images, just crank up noise reduction. It's just a few clicks to get the flat plastic look of the competition if that's what you want, but there's no way to get the lost detail back from their image.

Btw proper exposition and focus is still the most important things, bad technic results in bad pictures - no matter what camera you use.

[Ben_Edict]

grishazz I can surely understand your frustations. I would like to be more specific in my comments, but I can't see any of your images, so a valid comment on those is not possible for me. I would simply post the images here, it is easy.

I think, you have expectations, which no camera other than at least a Nikon D700 can fullfill, at least with respect to noise. It is the same situation as we had in film days: if you did not want visible grain in your images, you had to use either Kodachrome or Fuji Velvias - nothing else. So, if noise is the most important topic for you, buy a Nikon full-format sensor camera.

I do agree with you, but still even at ISO500 the noise level is visible. I've uploaded some test pictures, so you can check it out:

There is some noise in any camera. Different makes exhibit different levels of noise, with full-format sensors having an obvious advantage. Otherwise, noise is pretty comparable between many APS-C sensor cameras. BUT there is a big difference between makes, between some manufactureres choose a very aggressive noise reduction as in-camera preset (Canon and to some extend Nikon and Sony), which eliminates fine detail at the same time. And others (namely Pentax) choose to accept some noise, but will preserve more fine detail.

If you want less visible noise, pump up the in-camera noise reduction. It is possible.And you will looose the Pentax-advantage of better fine detail.

Ok, here there is only one big difference: you can not choose AF point manually! Now if you are using slow kit lens or slow 50-200 the AF 5 Auto points are ok, but with fast prime 50/1.4 it becomes a real problem! Many reviewers reported same thing! Unpredictable focus occurs only when fast lens is attached, so in order to get sharp shot, I have to use central point only! Now, in case I want to focus somewhere else, like for example: focus in the upper right corner, I have to lock focus and move my camera. Sometimes it takes too long, and I am missing/loosing the right moment.

I am using AF and I am using MF. As I wrote above, I always use center AF, except for some experiemnets. With the K-m I was very positively surprised, how good the automatic AF selection actually works. It might not be as good as Nikon's, but it is certainly very useable, at least with slow lenses. I never used a fast lens on a K-m, so I can't comment.

K-7 has cropped sensor, like k-m/k20/k200, I do not expect too much! Same sensor size with more mega pixels - the result will be always the same: NOISE!
K-7 has much more advanced proccessor, so maybe! (maybe) it will control noise more effectively! Well.. we'll see! Still reading reviews and looking at the test shoots.

Noise is a difficult topic, because it is to a large degree a personal thing. Noise is not only "there", it has different properties from camera to camera. I for once can only say, that I easily can use ISO 1000 images out of my K20 as long as they are properly exposed!

Exposure and to a degree the kind of subject you photograph have a big impact on the noise visibility of your images. You can easily suppress the noise of any Pentax camera by increasing the noise reduction in-camera or by using a software during pp. You CANNOT bring lost detail back into a Canon image through post-processing, though. That is the trade-off between less visible noise and less detail.

It is very important though, to notice, that the K-m is an entry level camera. I guess, that app. 90 % of buyers will not even think about using a fast 50/1.4 lens with such a camera. Today, such a lens is already a tool for the specialist ort really advanced enthusiast - that it not the target gropup for that camera. With regard to AF, you might have been better of with a K20 - or a CaNikon at a higher price tag.

Ben

[grishazzz]

Ben_Edict

ok, I've uploaded two self extracting archives:

1. Noise Reduction ON, SR-OFF
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

2. Noise Reduction OFF, SR-OFF
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

I used FA50/1.4 for these tests. No PP, "JPEG 6mp" straight from camera! I turned SR off, id order to get "real" shutter speed too. I used Sv mode + EV correction to get a proper exposure. Honestly, I think ISO800 is quiet usable, depending on the lighting conditions. But, again, comparing to entry level canon 450d.... it is not the result I've expected. I know I can reduce amount of noise by using LR or ACR or Raw Therapy, but my goal is to have a capable camera, which will handle ISO800! as simple as that! I am not saying K-m is a bad camera, it just can not handle high ISO, thats all!

"The uploader has removed this file from the server."

You can have the same noise and detail free images, just crank up noise reduction. It's just a few clicks to get the flat plastic look of the competition if that's what you want, but there's no way to get the lost detail back from their image.

Btw proper exposition and focus is still the most important things, bad technic results in bad pictures - no matter what camera you use.

Semico and Ben_Edict, with all respect (no offense), I know how to adjust settings, how to get proper exposure, how to use histogram! Not to mention, I am still using film camera!
My goal is simple: I want to get acceptable noise level at ISO400/500/640/800/1000, which is a very basic task for DSLR, but K-m can not even handle ISO400 when I am using camera's built in jpeg engine, of course I can use raw processing software and play around changing sharp, noise levels, camera profile color settings etc.... and in the end, still I will loose some details and the final result will have noise, maybe less noise but noise!!!! While canon, for example, losing the same amount of details, only without going to the depth of post processing stuff. I know it sounds stupid, but sometimes I just don't have enough time to sit and develop every single image I took, you know. So, now I know I've made a mistake when I got K-m. K-m is superior camera for somebody who will never care about PP, Light Room, fast primers and stuff. Thats why sooner or later when I'll have enough funds, I will buy an advanced DSLR with sophisticated auto-focusing system and reliable high iso noise handling. And after I looked at K-7 ISO tests, I dont think I will get Pentax again, don't get me wrong I love Pentax, but it just can't compete with other brands in terms of sharpness, noise and stuff, imo!

[simico]

My goal is simple: I want to get acceptable noise level at ISO400/500/640/800/1000, which is a very basic task for DSLR, but K-m can not even handle ISO400 when I am using camera's built in jpeg engine,

All I can say

• noise is very subjective - what is unacceptable for you is totally ok for someone else
• it's very easy to screw up a high iso shot
• I take high iso (800-1600) shots on almost daily basis and the noise is totally acceptable on them - sure there are some "worse" (more visible noise) pictures amongst the good ones, that's inevitable (see previous point)
• look the picture at monitor or print size, not 100% pixel peeping - I printed out one of my not too good, noisy iso 1600 pictures in A4 size and it looked good, noise wasn't a problem when viewing the pic

[Ira]

Being an old film fart, I am TOTALLY lost with a lot of this new terminology:

If you shot 1200 film (pushed to that) you had grain, so how can noise at 1600 be unexpected? I just don't get it.

Are digital cameras supposed to defy the law of physics?

A basic definition of film photography has always been "light and surfaces." If that light isn't there and you're shooting at these ultra-high ISOs, don't you expect the compromise in quality?

[rparmar]

If you shot 1200 film (pushed to that) you had grain, so how can noise at 1600 be unexpected? I just don't get it.

Simple. People are spoiled.