Originally posted by audiobomber Sorry Hin, but neither of these shots look very good to me. They're soft and have a dirty looking grain. Certainly not comparable to anything I've seen from a K20D at ISO 1600.
By the way, the sample high ISO shots are done with K-x and a $80 MF lens that are skeptical to user MF error but I think given that I am at least 15 feet away from the subject and the dark background, the K-x does quite good for me. And also, the lens is used wide open in f/3.5 for stressing the prime.
I like to hear different opinions and perhaps more from other users with K20D or K-7 in assessing the shot. I myself have the K20D and it is a charmer and ISO is dependable at 1600 and it is usable in 3200 but nothing pass 3200 boundary. I may be bluffing when I say a iso 6400 shot from K-x with good Noise Reduction will look as good as an iso 1600 as in K20D. It is fairer if I say it as in
improvement by 1 full stop in noise handling where I find iso 6400 in K-x is about as clean if not better than my personal experience with iso 3200 with K20D.
My
rough impressions are here between K20D and K-x. By rough impressions, I mean there are variations and dependency on ambient light and the quality of lens used, and perfection steps in PP.
- With K20D, I have clean shot up to 1600 and I find iso 3200 usable but nothing to be proud of in 3200. Forget anything beyond 3200.
- With K-x, I have clean shots on 3200 similar to iso 1600 in K20D. I can trust it with not much issue on noise in 3200. And I find surprisingly very workable shots in iso 6400. Details is lost a bit but no color botches noted and it seems with a good noise clean up, the iso 6400 is more than usable, it is actually good to be printed in large printing
- Please don't flame me in the saying as it is my personal opinions subject to revision and confirmation with more use.
- I am NOT a pixel peeper and a lot of lousy shots to others are actually good shots in my eyes. I am NOT picky
Thanks,
Hin