[jct us101]

I took some test ISO 3200 shots with my new *ist DS, and they turned out amazingly! Not to say they're perfect, but they are so much better than I had expected.



The only thing wrong with it I see is the post processing artifacts on the red parts.

Thread moved to DSLR forum.

[mike.hiran]

very nice! I've heard a lot of people say good things about that camera... if the processor is similar to what's in my k110d, it is a good sensor. congrats on getting a good one!

[allill]

very nice! I've heard a lot of people say good things about that camera... if the processor is similar to what's in my k110d, it is a good sensor. congrats on getting a good one!

+1. I was gonna get rid of my K110 when I got my K10 but can't because of this.

[jct us101]

The K110D doesn't have ISO 3200 though, right? I thought it went from 200-1600.

[Mister Guy]

The K110D has 3200. Whether it's that "real" 3200 versus boosted, or whatever phrasing I've seen about real ISO versus pushed numbers, I don't really know, but the options are 200 to 3200.

The combination of 3200 and my SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 lets me get away with some REALLY dark shots that really push the limits of my ability to hand hold and even to manually focus through the viewfinder and still not be unacceptably noisy.



Camera: Pentax K110D
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/1.7 (Manual lens, doesn't show in exif)
Focal Length: 50 mm (Manual lens, doesn't show in exif)
ISO Speed: 3200

This one was shot in a bar lit by two 60 watt bulbs in recessed hangers and the modeling lights off a different photographer's soft boxes. It was DARK in there.

[Just1MoreDave]

ISO3200 noise is usually more obvious in shadows. The OP's picture is a good example of a photo where ISO3200 is useful without much downside. Shots at night of city lights can be disappointing, though.

[Marc Sabatella]

The K110D doesn't have ISO 3200 though, right? I thought it went from 200-1600.

Correct. You can simulate ISO 3200 by shooting underexposed at ISO 1600 then pushing it in PP. This is actually exactly what the DS (and K100D/K110D) do, except they do the work for you in their firmware.

[quattro]

Correct. You can simulate ISO 3200 by shooting underexposed at ISO 1600 then pushing it in PP. This is actually exactly that the DS (and K100D/K110D) do, except they do the work for you in their firmware.

I did not know this. Is this why the K10d only goes to 1600?

[k100d]

if you don't pixel peep or magnify, the higher ISO's aren't too bad, but do not underexpose. but at the same time, increasing the exposure and the iso at the same time negates each other.

[rburgoss]

Being raised and grown during the film days, and also being (was) a super fine grain enthusiast, during the old days, I never used film higher than ASA 400, and if did, was always complaining about the coarse grain and lack of sharpness.

With today's DSLR's, (from my *istD to my K20D), I am still hessitant to use ISO 400 or above, but that is most sure considering my film background.

But yes, you are right. High ISO results are almost unbelievable today. I must do my best to release my mind from the high ISO blocking I have burnt in my brain, and start using it.

Thank you for your revealing post.

[Marc Sabatella]

I did not know this. Is this why the K10d only goes to 1600?

Could be. But I don't know, you'd still wonder why they bothered implementing it on the 6MP cameras if they didn't on the K10D. Even though it is just "simulated", it does indeed work quite well if you manage to get a good enough exposure. This is also true on the K200D, which has the same sensor as the k10D, but most people with the K10D report severe "banding" issues (a noticeable vertical and/or horizontal pattern to the noise) when they try it. So maybe that's why they didn't implement it on the K10D - they knew the results wouldn't be as good.

[Mister Guy]

Being raised and grown during the film days, and also being (was) a super fine grain enthusiast, during the old days, I never used film higher than ASA 400, and if did, was always complaining about the coarse grain and lack of sharpness.

With today's DSLR's, (from my *istD to my K20D), I am still hessitant to use ISO 400 or above, but that is most sure considering my film background.

But yes, you are right. High ISO results are almost unbelievable today. I must do my best to release my mind from the high ISO blocking I have burnt in my brain, and start using it.

Thank you for your revealing post.

That's actually what I like about how Pentax treats high ISO versus Canon and Nikon. To me, Pentax has very clean "grainy" noise that retains detail, as opposed to the bubbly noise processing that to me makes high ISO look like a poorly done pointillism.

[jct us101]

Exactly. The noise from my 30D wasn't even usable in settings like sports with noise ninja. Although there's some artifacting, the Pentax results are much better.

[GaryM]

ISO3200 noise is usually more obvious in shadows. The OP's picture is a good example of a photo where ISO3200 is useful without much downside. Shots at night of city lights can be disappointing, though.

This is my experience too. I never found ISO 3200 terribly useful in my DS, but if the light is right it can be OK. I have a K200D too, and because of anti-shake and much better autofocus I find it to be a more useful low-light camera than my DS. YMMV.