Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-13-2009, 05:23 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
Thanks Rawr. I'm hoping this is user error and that I've simply not found the best combinations of settings. I can't believe that a company which intends to retain customer loyalty in the 'vaguely informed' dslr space would trumpet about a LX successor and have it have such average aspects to its performance. I don't expect everything on a plate but I expect a little more than this.
What's "this"? Some numbers on one chart out of the zillions of other charts one could concoct measuring other specific aspects of performance? You're acting liek this one chart somehow represents the overall value of the camera, rather what is is - just one of thousands of possible metrics, depending entirely on the type of scene and exposure and camera settings chosen for this particular test and the particular way the results were measured. A different test conducted slightly differently could easily show entirely different results.

And even on this one particular metric, there's no "real world" way of assigning any meaning to the numbers. Oh no, "gray noise" is 8.5 instead of 6.5 at ISO 3200, or whatever - but what does that mean, really? How much pixel peeping would you need to do in order to see it? And how much of that difference is attributable to the simple fact that the K20D has been proven to perform more noise reduction (in firmware) on its RAW data than the K-7? And assuming it turns out - as most tests have shown to to be the case - that performing the same levels of NR yourself on the RAW data form the K-7 will allow it to match the the K20D (including the lesser detail and greater artifacts that you inevitably get from doing more aggressive NR, does any of that really matter? I think Pentax decided people who are at least "vaguely informed" would prefer the option to control how much NR is done, and in that sense the K-7 is a clear improvement.

Bottom line - there is nothing about that chart that should really 'seriously disappoint" anyone.

10-14-2009, 12:57 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 437
If the shot has shallow depoth of field and the background is not he subject of the photo one method to reduce apparent noise is to duplicate the layer, apply a gaussian blur of 3-5 and then erase the bits of the subject you want in sharp focus. This pretty much eliminates the noise that can look ugly.

This technique applies to all dlsr's and brands.

It really works and looks good.
10-14-2009, 04:55 AM   #18
Veteran Member
netuser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Azores Islands, Portugal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,241
QuoteOriginally posted by howieb101 Quote
If the shot has shallow depoth of field and the background is not he subject of the photo one method to reduce apparent noise is to duplicate the layer, apply a gaussian blur of 3-5 and then erase the bits of the subject you want in sharp focus. This pretty much eliminates the noise that can look ugly.

This technique applies to all dlsr's and brands.

It really works and looks good.
what about a step by step tutorial with sample images.
It's usefull and I would appreciate, and I believe some others too
10-14-2009, 05:36 AM   #19
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by howieb101 Quote
If the shot has shallow depoth of field and the background is not he subject of the photo one method to reduce apparent noise is to duplicate the layer, apply a gaussian blur of 3-5 and then erase the bits of the subject you want in sharp focus. This pretty much eliminates the noise that can look ugly.
The algorithm in a good noise reducer does this automatically and much more effectively. It will reduce the noise in areas with low spatial frequencies more than in areas with high spatial frequencies. I know because I am developing such a filter myself.

10-14-2009, 07:04 AM   #20
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,251
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
What's "this"? Some numbers on one chart out of the zillions of other charts one could concoct measuring other specific aspects of performance? You're acting liek this one chart somehow represents the overall value of the camera, rather what is is - just one of thousands of possible metrics, depending entirely on the type of scene and exposure and camera settings chosen for this particular test and the particular way the results were measured. A different test conducted slightly differently could easily show entirely different results.

And even on this one particular metric, there's no "real world" way of assigning any meaning to the numbers. Oh no, "gray noise" is 8.5 instead of 6.5 at ISO 3200, or whatever - but what does that mean, really? How much pixel peeping would you need to do in order to see it? And how much of that difference is attributable to the simple fact that the K20D has been proven to perform more noise reduction (in firmware) on its RAW data than the K-7? And assuming it turns out - as most tests have shown to to be the case - that performing the same levels of NR yourself on the RAW data form the K-7 will allow it to match the the K20D (including the lesser detail and greater artifacts that you inevitably get from doing more aggressive NR, does any of that really matter? I think Pentax decided people who are at least "vaguely informed" would prefer the option to control how much NR is done, and in that sense the K-7 is a clear improvement.

Bottom line - there is nothing about that chart that should really 'seriously disappoint" anyone.
Thank you Marc. I think I'm capable of making up my own mind regarding what does and doesn't seriously disappoint me

I've got 2 young kids aged 10 and 6 who I like to photograph doing things like being in plays, ballet and so on - ie high ISO. Together with limited hours to spend in the study photoshopping (ie preferably great out of camera JPEGs). So although it's just a chart this stuff does matter to me, and for $1500 I feel that I'm reasonably entitled to expect something that delivers me results And I take exception to a commodity touted as toplevel but is actually pedestrian compared to both its successor and predecessor

Now I'm perfectly prepared to spend even more to make up for this inadequacy so I've already bought Noise Ninja and I'm looking at doing some settings testing but it's a choice between that and a new tak 85/1.8 to take pics of the kiddies (the new Pentax ones around there are too darned expensive! .
10-14-2009, 07:38 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
Its the trade off the k7 makes for the ability to take video.

Rumours and speculation on this forum had already predicted that the k7 would be nosier as a result.

I'm just surprised the k20d does so better than the d300.

This is one of the reasons I don't consider the k7 to be a successor to the k20d but rather to the k200d
10-14-2009, 07:55 AM   #22
Veteran Member
netuser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Azores Islands, Portugal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,241
Noise is due to the sensor or firmware ?
10-14-2009, 08:26 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
Thank you Marc. I think I'm capable of making up my own mind regarding what does and doesn't seriously disappoint me
I realize when I wrote that it might have come as as condescending - sorry about that. But my point is, charts like this can be misleading, and I think you are being misled.

QuoteQuote:
I've got 2 young kids aged 10 and 6 who I like to photograph doing things like being in plays, ballet and so on - ie high ISO. Together with limited hours to spend in the study photoshopping (ie preferably great out of camera JPEGs). So although it's just a chart this stuff does matter to me, and for $1500 I feel that I'm reasonably entitled to expect something that delivers me results
I agree, but I think you will find the K-7 *does* deliver the results.. What I am saying is:

- The actual *visible* difference between the K-7 and K20D is quite small at normal viewing and print sizes, even when shooting JPEG. So despite the chart, you'd be pretty hard pressed to see the difference in practice without pixel peeping.

- If you need to eliminate even the small differences that are visible only when pixel peeping, you have that option - simply shoot RAW and do your NR there. And this doesn't require many hours studying photoshop. All you need is a simple preset to apply NR and then run that preset on your high ISO shots. Takes seconds, not hours. Might take "minutes" to create the preset in the first place, but if this is important to you, then spending those minutes should be well worth it. You bought a camera that is not marketed as an entry level point&shoot; it should be expected that there might be a small investment of time in order to maximize its potential.

QuoteQuote:
And I take exception to a commodity touted as toplevel but is actually pedestrian compared to both its successor and predecessor
I would too if this were true, but it's not. The K-7*is* indeed a huge improvement over the K20D and K-x in most ways. True, if you happen to value NR over retention of detail, do not wish to use the NR features of your camera, and do not wish to spend even the two seconds it takes to apply a NR preset to your images, then there will be a barely-visible-to-the-naked eye step down, but consider all the caveats I just wrote. In particular, the fact that someone else might well prefer more detail even at the expense of higher noise, and will thus prefer the K-7 even shooting JPEG with default settings. So that's entirely subjective. but the very real objective advantage of the K-7 is that it gives you *both* options - the ability to maximize detail at the expense of noise, or the abiity to minimize noise at the expense of detail. Whereas the K2D does not offer that choice - it performs more NR whether you want it or not.

QuoteQuote:
Now I'm perfectly prepared to spend even more to make up for this inadequacy so I've already bought Noise Ninja
FWIW, that program can produce good results, but I find most images I see processed with that to have too much detail removed. depending on what program you use for your PP, chances are there are easier and better ways to simulate the more moderate approach to NR emplyed by the K20D. I'm sure Noise Ninja can be configured to do this, but now you 8are* talking about spending hours learning how to do this.

10-14-2009, 02:46 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: argyll and bute
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 35
Original Poster
New field test

Well I tried the K7 in the field today with the highlight/shadow correction off...
the shutter at 1/200 instead of the usual 1/500 or more...I selected natural in the presets....and I have to say even on a dull day as it was today the really noticable noise has GONE!!...So I am quite pleased
I would say the noise was on a par with the GX20 I used to shoot...or even slightly less noticable.
Thanks to Whitewings Snostorm and everyone else for the advice

Last edited by kositoes; 10-14-2009 at 02:47 PM. Reason: spelling error
10-15-2009, 12:16 PM   #25
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wales
Posts: 6
QuoteOriginally posted by kositoes Quote
Well I tried the K7 in the field today with the highlight/shadow correction off...
the shutter at 1/200 instead of the usual 1/500 or more...I selected natural in the presets....and I have to say even on a dull day as it was today the really noticable noise has GONE!!...So I am quite pleased
I would say the noise was on a par with the GX20 I used to shoot...or even slightly less noticable.
Thanks to Whitewings Snostorm and everyone else for the advice
Hi Kositoes,

I`m so pleased that you have found the solution to the noise and that you continue to get pleasure from your K7, I have made over 7,500 clicks with mine and i still enjoy using it!. I do however agree with your earlier comment regarding the Pentax Software as it is the most confounding piece of imaging Software that i have ever used. I shoot in RAW and convert to Adobe RGB Tiff and it is a nightmare!
The version 3 was much more user friendly as you could pre-set a number of your favourite output settings and use others for the whole duration of the session. I Contacted the Pentax Helpline a couple of weeks after purchasing my K7 but they did not even know that the Camera was on Sale!
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, dslr, image noise, images, noise, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lowering image size to lower ISO noise? jboyde Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 08-11-2010 02:44 PM
Neat Image noise profile for K-x CRMassart Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-23-2010 06:28 PM
K-7 Noise Reduction settings effect Raw Image? Sideways Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 12-23-2009 05:55 AM
K7 High/low key impact on image noise Clarkey Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 10-19-2009 12:46 PM
image comparison using 'neat image' noise reduction programme. distorted_vision Post Your Photos! 18 12-28-2007 04:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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