[john5100]

ISO 6400

[Jewelltrail]

When I began this thread 2.5 years ago, not many people envisioned Pentax as King of the High ISO mountain--just amazing what the K-5 has done. People are posting so many excellent high ISO shots that it is almost taken for granted now. I remember being forced to ETTR and having to carefully think out a high ISO shot, weighing compromises in the process, before deciding upon an exposure.

That is what makes people, like Marc Sabatella here, who mindfully works to pull the absolute most out of his K100d so cooool---kudos to you Marc. I suspect, if you ever got behind the wheel of a K-5, you'd fall asleep because quality, high ISO would be a no-thinking thing for you.

Anway, so great to see all the wonderful shots in here. I can't wait to see what Pentax has around the corner for everyone, so long as high ISO does not get too much better. If it gets too much better, a lot of the fun of contemplating compromises, one of the treats in life, will be out the door.

JT

[Marc Sabatella]

Thanks for the compliment! But, for the record - it's the K200D I am using. It had a reputation for being not as good as the K100D or the other 6MP Sony sensor cameras at high ISO, but in my experience (as a former *istDS shooter, and as the husband of a K100D shooter), that reputation was almost entirely based on people not grasping the significance of the increased pixel count and failing to compare images at the same sizes. Well, that and the fact that the K200D shares the same sensor, but not the same processing pipeline, as the K10D, which did indeed suffer banding issues that often made its images look worse than the K100D's at high ISO. But the K200D is not nearly so much affected because of its different processing pipeline (mostly the ADC, from what i understand).

Any time I've done real apples-to-apples comparisons - and I've done quite a few, using images I've taken side by side with images from various other cameras, as well as published test images from various review sites - I'm usually very underwhemled by the differences between cameras in terms of high ISO noise. The K10D images that exhibit banding are visbly worse than other cameras, but the rest are usually rather difficult to tell apart, and when I compare different ISO levels, I find that pretty much all APS-C cameras - including the previously much vaunted K-x - are within about half a stop of each other, just as DxOMark's numbers suggest they are.

The K-5, though, really is visibly better. Between that and the larger viewfinder and quieter operation, I'd say for the first time since getting to DSLR hotography back in 2005 I do have a bit of camera envy. Still, the K200D keeps chugging along. I'm just happy to kmow there is something I'll be happy to replace it with when the time comes. Of course, I'm sure there will be a K-5 replacement out by the time that becomes necessary.

[Designosophy]

Just for fun - ISO 25600

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[VisualDarkness]

Just for fun - ISO 25600

That is crazy, I want a K-5!

[VoiceOfReason]

My cat, just a few minutes ago. ISO 12800,18mm, f/2.8, 1/100 second, and the only processing done was simply a resize so it will not kill the monitor! Not bad for a mere entry level camera.

[JFN]

Pentax K-r
SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm
ISO 12800 / 70mm / 1/100 / f/5.0

---

Last edited by JFN; 01-27-2012 at 04:15 AM.

[Jewelltrail]

Marc Sabatella: Thanks for the compliment! But, for the record - it's the K200D I am using. It had a reputation for being not as good as the K100D or the other 6MP Sony sensor cameras at high ISO, but in my experience (as a former *istDS shooter, and as the husband of a K100D shooter), that reputation was almost entirely based on people not grasping the significance of the increased pixel count and failing to compare images at the same sizes. Well, that and the fact that the K200D shares the same sensor, but not the same processing pipeline, as the K10D, which did indeed suffer banding issues that often made its images look worse than the K100D's at high ISO. But the K200D is not nearly so much affected because of its different processing pipeline (mostly the ADC, from what i understand).

Mark, I moved into a D700 9 months ago, and have been studying all things Nikon ever since. I did not have time to review these past 9 months of threads, so went from memory on which camera you own. However, the model did not matter to me; what mattered was remembering you worked hard to squeeze all the ISO performance you could out of your camera, pushing exposures even. And yes, having once owned a Pentax K20d, I understand the impact of more pixels on noise. I could have bought the K10d in Spring of 08 for cheap, but opted for the expensive ($1300) K20d because it allegedly had a stop of ISO advantage over the K10d as well as a larger, 14.5 CMOS sensor. This was a huge mistake, 1 from which I learned, because I almost never took the K20d over ISO 400 anyway.

Marc Sabatella: Any time I've done real apples-to-apples comparisons - and I've done quite a few, using images I've taken side by side with images from various other cameras, as well as published test images from various review sites - I'm usually very underwhemled by the differences between cameras in terms of high ISO noise. The K10D images that exhibit banding are visbly worse than other cameras, but the rest are usually rather difficult to tell apart, and when I compare different ISO levels, I find that pretty much all APS-C cameras - including the previously much vaunted K-x - are within about half a stop of each other, just as DxOMark's numbers suggest they are.

Yes, I read your views a long time ago on this and agree. Apples-to-Apples thinking is what this has to be about, which is why I too visit the all-mighty DXO site. APS-c sensors all obey the same laws of physics. It is amazing though how well marketing strategy keeps fooling people into believing they need a new camera--particularly when they make it a decision based upon better noise performance. What bothers me, (I should have been more frank about this in the previous post) is that Pentax has taken their act and followed in line with other makers. They are all playing this silly, King of the High ISO Mountain game. But I guess people get what they ask for: demand drives supply, not vice versa.

I started this thread as a means for members to meet and exchange ideas and pics on Pentax high ISO shooting--a place to vent actually. Back then, many of our forum members would trash the Pentax line, claiming other brands performed so much better for ISO. I argued against this, explaining Pentax left more autonomy with its users, instead of using algorithms which disguised noise, @ the expense of detail. I explained, as you do above, the various APS-c models were very similar in high ISO noise, but that those who made their living bamboozling others into new equipment with gimmicky sales claims were very good at what they did.

When I wanted more in a camera than my K20d supplied, it meant leaving Pentax to get it. Though my years shooting the K20d were wonderful and educational, as well as tons of fun in thousands of posts here @ this great forum, it was a camera which lacked in many ways. However, the shortcomings of my K20d had nothing to do with its high ISO performance, and this was the only real improvement Pentax was seeking in its new bodies. I wanted a camera with a large bright viewfinder, one which made MFing a joy, not a crap shoot. I wanted a camera which auto-focused accurately and reliably, one with nicer colors. I wanted a camera which metered reliably. I neither wanted more MPs, nor video, another spur trail Pentax was pursuing to “keep up with the Joneses.” I wanted a beautiful camera which was well balanced and a lot of fun to use.

So, I bought the D700 and it’s all this and more--an absolute work of art! Yeah, it can shoot high ISO too, but it means very little: I almost never take it over ISO 400. With a couple of rare exceptions, the only time I legitimately took the K20d over ISO 400, was to produce images for this thread, which turned into a King of the Mountain game. My point in singling you out was to congratulate you because you visit the thread for a genuine need to shoot high ISO, and you do it with forethought. Slinging a K5 around, snapping off shots @ ISO 56,000, just because you can, is, to me, aimlessness--just my 2 cents. Ironically, as hinted above, you probably are one of the people in the thread who can actually put the K5 to good use since you have a need for high ISO. Great shots are about great composition, not about great high ISO & the better the viewfinder, the easier composition. Also, being able to exert precise control in manual focus, for highlighting great shallow DOF work is very important. These are the areas, in my mind, to where Pentax should be moving.

[Designosophy]

I occasionally shoot indoor photos at ISO 2000 and above. (I don't consider it high ISO unless it's 3200 or higher.) It's a need-to situation because I use the fastest lenses I have and I don't consider flash a good alternative. Available light just looks more natural, warm, etc. Having owned the K-x and the K-7, and now the K-5, I can say that there is significant visible difference in high-ISO noise between the models, though there is visibly less difference between the K-x and the K-5. My own experience is more important to me in this context than DXO's lab tests. Furthermore, I think it's fun to shoot in low light to see what can be captured. I don't go for the maximum ISO I can get; even the image of the cat above was the lowest ISO I could get with the available light and the lens, which was the A 135/2.8.

[VoiceOfReason]

I need low light capabilities myself since I do alot of shooting at anime conventions from the booth I work at, and then after the dealer room closes wandering around until about 11 or 12 at night, and conventions normally have crap lighting and then not much of it! I've also got into paranormal investigations and really need the low light capability my Kx, and then now the K5 that should be to me early next week.

[Jewelltrail]

I need low light capabilities myself since I do alot of shooting at anime conventions from the booth I work at, and then after the dealer room closes wandering around until about 11 or 12 at night, and conventions normally have crap lighting and then not much of it! I've also got into paranormal investigations and really need the low light capability my Kx, and then now the K5 that should be to me early next week.

Let me get this straight, you call yourself the "Voice of Reason," yet earn a living doing "paranormal investigations." Good God mate! You are from "Mt Juliet, Tn too--is that looking right across to Mt Romeo?

Seriously, there are lots of people who need superior ISO performance. Marc and I just happen to go back on this forum a long time so it was logical for me to connect with him here. I've read enough threads of his from years past to know where he stands. However, I think you'd agree there are a lot of people running around out there with ISO 25,6oo capablities and exclusively shooting the wife's cats from the sofa--and this holds true for all camera mounts, for sure.

Regards,

JT

[VoiceOfReason]

Nope, I do the paranormal investigations as a hobby. My normal job is for a large diesel engine company doing product support over the phone. To tell the truth I normally have my Kx set to ISO 1600 or so when doing anime conventions. All bets are off during a paranormal investigation. If I'm doing timed stuff it's lower, or if I am doing quicker shutter speeds it's higher. Pretty much I use whatever ISO is needed for whatever shot I am taking. I did learn the hard way not to have it cranked up all the way on ISO all the time when doing my anime cons. Of course I was still learning then!

And yes, I do agree there are loads of people using higher ISO settings when a flash, lower shutter speeds, faster aperture, or a combination of those should be used instead.

[Designosophy]

I think you'd agree there are a lot of people running around out there with ISO 25,6oo capablities and exclusively shooting the wife's cats from the sofa

Hey, that's totally wrong. We don't have a sofa.

[theunartist]

Lawrence of Arabia
t.e. Lawrence: My friends, we have been foolish. Auda will not come to aqaba. Not for money...
Auda abu tayi: No.
T.e. Lawrence: ...for feisal...
Auda abu tayi: No!
T.e. Lawrence: ...nor to drive away the turks. He will come... Because it is his pleasure.

@ ISO 6400 I wish I had a Cat for a Wife...

The Slide Rule
The use of slide rules continued to grow through the 1950s and 1960s even as digital computing devices were being gradually introduced; but around 1974 the electronic scientific calculator made it largely obsolete[2][3][4][5] and most suppliers left the business.

[Jewelltrail]

Hey, that's totally wrong. We don't have a sofa.

Come on now Mike, you know simply being a dweller in a real city like Philly means you must have great high ISO. Unlike my complement to Marc, my cat attacks were not for anyone in particular.