post K-7 ISO 1250 and up

knoxploration · 10-31-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Mystic

any comments from you on low light focusing with k-7?

I can't compare to previous models from Pentax, but I'm very satisfied with low-light focusing on my K-7. The camera's able to autofocus in light lower than I'd be able to hand-hold a photo, so long as there's a little contrast in the subject.

jgredline - you might help your cause a little by not doing things like capitalizing "this HIGH ISO PROBLEM". It makes your posts come across as seeming desperate to suggest there's some staggering pitfall that makes the camera nigh-on unuseable, and that everybody who doesn't agree must be absolutely blind.

You have a problem. A significant number of us don't. You see noise performance differences between firmware versions where most users don't. That suggests to me you either have extremely high expectations and are pixel-peeping and latching onto slight differences, or you just have a preconceived notion of the K-7 having poor noise performance and are seeing what you want / expect to.

jgredline · 10-31-2009, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by knoxploration

jgredline - you might help your cause a little by not doing things like capitalizing "this HIGH ISO PROBLEM". It makes your posts come across as seeming desperate to suggest there's some staggering pitfall that makes the camera nigh-on unuseable, and that everybody who doesn't agree must be absolutely blind.

You have a problem. A significant number of us don't. You see noise performance differences between firmware versions where most users don't. That suggests to me you either have extremely high expectations and are pixel-peeping and latching onto slight differences, or you just have a preconceived notion of the K-7 having poor noise performance and are seeing what you want / expect to.

Hi expectations? Why because I expect the K-7 to be on par with my K20D's or other Pentax DSLR's? Those who know me, know I am not a pixel peeper and speak honestly. I have spent over 25K on Pentax equipment the past 3 years. I would say yes, I have expectations...HI? Not any longer. And if you want me to start posting links to threads of many others who also have the hi ISO COMPLAINTS that I do, I would be happy to. But why? I will say this though. I had a great time this evening shooting crystal clear 1600-6400ISO shots this evening with my D700. So I am Golden.

Marc Sabatella · 11-01-2009, 12:56 AM

Really, the only reason the K-7 does worse than other cameras at high ISO is that it doens't do as much NR in firmware processing, even for RAW. So if you like your images more processed coming out of the camera in order to get less noise, I guess that's fine, but if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourslef, you should be able to do pretty much just as well with the K-7 as any other camera in its class.

CrazyNuts · 11-01-2009, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Really, the only reason the K-7 does worse than other cameras at high ISO is that it doens't do as much NR in firmware processing, even for RAW. So if you like your images more processed coming out of the camera in order to get less noise, I guess that's fine, but if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourslef, you should be able to do pretty much just as well with the K-7 as any other camera in its class.

FINALY, someone who hasn't got the wool over their eyes.

pcarfan · 11-01-2009, 04:26 AM

Woke up early and thought I'll post a straight JPEG with neutral JPEG setting and Fine sharpness 2 at +2. This was taken at iso 1600, the limit for straight out of the camera Jpeg's IMO. I chose the dark subjects as it will accentuates noise. EXIF: f2.8, iso 1600, 1/13. hand held, auto WB (tungsten light, pretty remarkable for auto WB)

I decided to do NR on the JPEG file. This took 30 sec. Ran it through noiseware (free version available), and then USM.

LeDave · 11-01-2009, 04:49 AM

Wow noiseware really did the job, how does it compare with Noise Ninja?

pcarfan · 11-01-2009, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by LeDave

Wow noiseware really did the job, how does it compare with Noise Ninja?

I like Noiseware...these were cleaned with preset settings as they are avaialable with the free version, the paid version which i have allows for much much more...costs very little.

pcarfan · 11-01-2009, 04:56 AM

Here is the same scene at iso 6400 jpeg cleaned in noiseware and sharpned with USM (Exif intact as I downsized before hosting in Flickr)

And the straight out of the camera JPEG at iso 1600 with no NR (posted above)

I think this shows why it pays to take some time to do NR. iso 6400 vs iso 1600, that's the difference.

LeDave · 11-01-2009, 05:40 AM

That definitely makes ISO 6400 on the K-7 look good!

Sew-Classic · 11-01-2009, 06:04 AM

jgredline:
OK, I stand corrected. It's not that you don't like the K-7, but rather you personally find it objectionable/unusable due to the 'noise problems' that you have experienced. To me, the distinction between these two statements is negligible, but I respect that to you it's more monumental. - my apologies.

I'm glad to see that you are happily using another camera that suits your needs, tastes, requirements better. Being full frame and about twice the cost of the K-7, it should be a very fine piece of equipment. That's what it's about- finding what rocks your world! Happy day!

pcarfan:
Thanks for the info on noiseware. I downloaded the free version and spent a few minutes tinkering- that's good stuff!

jsherman999 · 11-01-2009, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

More of my thoughts on this. I know there are quite of few happy customers with their K-7's and I for the most part am happy as well. But as I look around in various forums of late, this HIGH ISO PROBLEM is pretty huge from what I can tell. The excuse the die hard Pentaxian uses is to shoot RAW. Like I said in another thread or maybe it was this one. I am not in panic over the poor ISO performance of the K-7 because I have my K20d'S and I also have a Nikon D700 with some really good lenses. The downside to the D700 is the weight of the beast. Since I shoot mostly street, that matters a great deal. After the 2nd or 3rd mile of walking, that D700 feels like a milstone around my neck. ......

.

Javier, sell one of your K20D's and buy the K-x! Small, brilliant sensor with very smart and effective in-camera NR, it seems like that would solve your D700 size problem, and it would let you use your Pentax glass to boot!

Seriously, think about it. And for this brilliant advice, I ask only that you send me your K-7.

.

pcarfan · 11-01-2009, 06:29 AM

Here is the same scene at iso 100, no NR (of course) and sharpened with USM the same way as above.

Can see the dust on the shelves, the silver rods keeping the shelves together shows the stippling, and the LCD shows the true sheen that is present. So, obviously nothing replaces low iso for detail. When I want to enlarge a print I want all these critical detail, and only iso 100 gives that. When all this critical detail is not necessary as in 5x7 prints, then the slight differences in high iso performance becomes totally irrelevant too, thus my desire for ultimate low iso performance rather than subtle differences in high iso performance.

I have to somewhat agree with Javier with high iso. Yes, RAW iso may be pretty good, but why is the jpeg iso so weak. And RAW is good compared to k20D and other earlier model. But, this is supposed to be the 'improved' sensor?, in what sense is it improved ? Remember the days of leaking high iso images just prior to the release date., The majority was downplaying the lousy JPEG high iso images with the early firmware saying there will be an improvement with the final firmware. Even Pentax implied there will be an improvement with high iso when they banned any publications of high iso images with the early firmware. To me there was no improvements with the current firmware compared to the leaked versions. ok, the RAW is same as the sensors released before, including the K20D, but is it all that evil to expect an improvement with a newer model ? May be we've reached the peak of high iso performance for APS-C sensors that has base iso of 100. Even the recently released Nikon D300s is using the same sensor as the D300 and is not expected to have much better high iso performance.

So, in summary I think ideally the K-7 which is the newer camera with the 'improved' sensor iso should indeed be better than what it is at high iso...but, this is not to say I don't like the K-7, I love it....

jgredline · 11-01-2009, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

.
Javier, sell one of your K20D's and buy the K-x! Small, brilliant sensor with very smart and effective in-camera NR, it seems like that would solve your D700 size problem, and it would let you use your Pentax glass to boot!

Seriously, think about it. And for this brilliant advice, I ask only that you send me your K-7.

.

Thanks JS, I was waiting for a little time to pass by to see if there was going to be any issues like the GLS but is seems that Pentax got it right. Why Pentax did not use that Nikon/Sony sensor in the K-7 is a mystery to me. With that Sensor the K-7 would kick the D300's tail!

The most attractive thing to me about Pentax is the small primes...Canikon can't touch them.

I will be ordering a K-X tomorrow. I am thinking Samy's may have them in stock. I will see.

Thanks again.
javier

knoxploration · 11-02-2009, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

Thanks JS, I was waiting for a little time to pass by to see if there was going to be any issues like the GLS but is seems that Pentax got it right. Why Pentax did not use that Nikon/Sony sensor in the K-7 is a mystery to me. With that Sensor the K-7 would kick the D300's tail!

...on one single metric, maybe depending on whether you like your noise processed out at the expense of subject detail or not.

Ever consider that maybe Pentax didn't choose that sensor for the K-7 for a reason? That perhaps there was another area where they'd have had to reduce the K-7's feature set with that sensor? There are quite a large number of areas in which the K-7's spec exceeds that of the K-x, many of them possibly or probably sensor-related.

res3567 · 11-02-2009, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

I like Noiseware...these were cleaned with preset settings as they are avaialable with the free version, the paid version which i have allows for much much more...costs very little.

I just used it to clean up some images shot at ISO 3200 on my K100DS and I must say I was impressed. I also am curious as to how it stacks up against Noise Ninja which is supose to be the "Golden" standard.

11-01-2009, 04:26 AM	#35
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Woke up early and thought I'll post a straight JPEG with neutral JPEG setting and Fine sharpness 2 at +2. This was taken at iso 1600, the limit for straight out of the camera Jpeg's IMO. I chose the dark subjects as it will accentuates noise. EXIF: f2.8, iso 1600, 1/13. hand held, auto WB (tungsten light, pretty remarkable for auto WB) I decided to do NR on the JPEG file. This took 30 sec. Ran it through noiseware (free version available), and then USM. Last edited by pcarfan; 11-01-2009 at 04:33 AM.

11-01-2009, 06:04 AM	#40
Sew-Classic Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Ohio, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 238	jgredline: OK, I stand corrected. It's not that you don't like the K-7, but rather you personally find it objectionable/unusable due to the 'noise problems' that you have experienced. To me, the distinction between these two statements is negligible, but I respect that to you it's more monumental. - my apologies. I'm glad to see that you are happily using another camera that suits your needs, tastes, requirements better. Being full frame and about twice the cost of the K-7, it should be a very fine piece of equipment. That's what it's about- finding what rocks your world! Happy day! pcarfan: Thanks for the info on noiseware. I downloaded the free version and spent a few minutes tinkering- that's good stuff! Last edited by Sew-Classic; 11-01-2009 at 07:09 AM.

11-01-2009, 06:29 AM	#42
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Here is the same scene at iso 100, no NR (of course) and sharpened with USM the same way as above. Can see the dust on the shelves, the silver rods keeping the shelves together shows the stippling, and the LCD shows the true sheen that is present. So, obviously nothing replaces low iso for detail. When I want to enlarge a print I want all these critical detail, and only iso 100 gives that. When all this critical detail is not necessary as in 5x7 prints, then the slight differences in high iso performance becomes totally irrelevant too, thus my desire for ultimate low iso performance rather than subtle differences in high iso performance. I have to somewhat agree with Javier with high iso. Yes, RAW iso may be pretty good, but why is the jpeg iso so weak. And RAW is good compared to k20D and other earlier model. But, this is supposed to be the 'improved' sensor?, in what sense is it improved ? Remember the days of leaking high iso images just prior to the release date., The majority was downplaying the lousy JPEG high iso images with the early firmware saying there will be an improvement with the final firmware. Even Pentax implied there will be an improvement with high iso when they banned any publications of high iso images with the early firmware. To me there was no improvements with the current firmware compared to the leaked versions. ok, the RAW is same as the sensors released before, including the K20D, but is it all that evil to expect an improvement with a newer model ? May be we've reached the peak of high iso performance for APS-C sensors that has base iso of 100. Even the recently released Nikon D300s is using the same sensor as the D300 and is not expected to have much better high iso performance. So, in summary I think ideally the K-7 which is the newer camera with the 'improved' sensor iso should indeed be better than what it is at high iso...but, this is not to say I don't like the K-7, I love it.... Last edited by pcarfan; 11-01-2009 at 06:39 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
k20d ISO 1250 -1600 Rodeo	trumpyman	Post Your Photos!	2	01-13-2009 07:32 PM
LOVE that K20! ISO 1250!!!	DuckysDoll	Post Your Photos!	6	01-01-2009 06:44 AM
K20D at ISO 1250 - a couple pooch portraits	hamidlmt	Post Your Photos!	3	10-06-2008 08:27 AM
VLF Photos: K20D + FA* 300/2.8 @ ISO 800, 1250 (larger files - ~ 1MB)	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	27	08-23-2008 04:46 PM
Can someone please post High ISO K20D photos?	Tbear	Pentax News and Rumors	6	01-23-2008 09:33 PM

10-31-2009, 03:46 PM	#31
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by Mystic any comments from you on low light focusing with k-7? I can't compare to previous models from Pentax, but I'm very satisfied with low-light focusing on my K-7. The camera's able to autofocus in light lower than I'd be able to hand-hold a photo, so long as there's a little contrast in the subject. jgredline - you might help your cause a little by not doing things like capitalizing "this HIGH ISO PROBLEM". It makes your posts come across as seeming desperate to suggest there's some staggering pitfall that makes the camera nigh-on unuseable, and that everybody who doesn't agree must be absolutely blind. You have a problem. A significant number of us don't. You see noise performance differences between firmware versions where most users don't. That suggests to me you either have extremely high expectations and are pixel-peeping and latching onto slight differences, or you just have a preconceived notion of the K-7 having poor noise performance and are seeing what you want / expect to.

10-31-2009, 10:57 PM	#32
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by knoxploration jgredline - you might help your cause a little by not doing things like capitalizing "this HIGH ISO PROBLEM". It makes your posts come across as seeming desperate to suggest there's some staggering pitfall that makes the camera nigh-on unuseable, and that everybody who doesn't agree must be absolutely blind. You have a problem. A significant number of us don't. You see noise performance differences between firmware versions where most users don't. That suggests to me you either have extremely high expectations and are pixel-peeping and latching onto slight differences, or you just have a preconceived notion of the K-7 having poor noise performance and are seeing what you want / expect to. Hi expectations? Why because I expect the K-7 to be on par with my K20D's or other Pentax DSLR's? Those who know me, know I am not a pixel peeper and speak honestly. I have spent over 25K on Pentax equipment the past 3 years. I would say yes, I have expectations...HI? Not any longer. And if you want me to start posting links to threads of many others who also have the hi ISO COMPLAINTS that I do, I would be happy to. But why? I will say this though. I had a great time this evening shooting crystal clear 1600-6400ISO shots this evening with my D700. So I am Golden.

11-01-2009, 12:56 AM	#33
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Really, the only reason the K-7 does worse than other cameras at high ISO is that it doens't do as much NR in firmware processing, even for RAW. So if you like your images more processed coming out of the camera in order to get less noise, I guess that's fine, but if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourslef, you should be able to do pretty much just as well with the K-7 as any other camera in its class.

11-01-2009, 01:01 AM	#34
CrazyNuts Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 180	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Really, the only reason the K-7 does worse than other cameras at high ISO is that it doens't do as much NR in firmware processing, even for RAW. So if you like your images more processed coming out of the camera in order to get less noise, I guess that's fine, but if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourslef, you should be able to do pretty much just as well with the K-7 as any other camera in its class. FINALY, someone who hasn't got the wool over their eyes.

11-01-2009, 04:49 AM	#36
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Wow noiseware really did the job, how does it compare with Noise Ninja?

11-01-2009, 04:53 AM	#37
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by LeDave Wow noiseware really did the job, how does it compare with Noise Ninja? I like Noiseware...these were cleaned with preset settings as they are avaialable with the free version, the paid version which i have allows for much much more...costs very little.

11-01-2009, 04:56 AM	#38
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Here is the same scene at iso 6400 jpeg cleaned in noiseware and sharpned with USM (Exif intact as I downsized before hosting in Flickr) And the straight out of the camera JPEG at iso 1600 with no NR (posted above) I think this shows why it pays to take some time to do NR. iso 6400 vs iso 1600, that's the difference.

11-01-2009, 05:40 AM	#39
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	That definitely makes ISO 6400 on the K-7 look good!

11-01-2009, 06:19 AM	#41
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by jgredline More of my thoughts on this. I know there are quite of few happy customers with their K-7's and I for the most part am happy as well. But as I look around in various forums of late, this HIGH ISO PROBLEM is pretty huge from what I can tell. The excuse the die hard Pentaxian uses is to shoot RAW. Like I said in another thread or maybe it was this one. I am not in panic over the poor ISO performance of the K-7 because I have my K20d'S and I also have a Nikon D700 with some really good lenses. The downside to the D700 is the weight of the beast. Since I shoot mostly street, that matters a great deal. After the 2nd or 3rd mile of walking, that D700 feels like a milstone around my neck. ...... . Javier, sell one of your K20D's and buy the K-x! Small, brilliant sensor with very smart and effective in-camera NR, it seems like that would solve your D700 size problem, and it would let you use your Pentax glass to boot! Seriously, think about it. And for this brilliant advice, I ask only that you send me your K-7. .

11-01-2009, 06:12 PM	#43
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by jsherman999 . Javier, sell one of your K20D's and buy the K-x! Small, brilliant sensor with very smart and effective in-camera NR, it seems like that would solve your D700 size problem, and it would let you use your Pentax glass to boot! Seriously, think about it. And for this brilliant advice, I ask only that you send me your K-7. . Thanks JS, I was waiting for a little time to pass by to see if there was going to be any issues like the GLS but is seems that Pentax got it right. Why Pentax did not use that Nikon/Sony sensor in the K-7 is a mystery to me. With that Sensor the K-7 would kick the D300's tail! The most attractive thing to me about Pentax is the small primes...Canikon can't touch them. I will be ordering a K-X tomorrow. I am thinking Samy's may have them in stock. I will see. Thanks again. javier

11-02-2009, 12:22 AM	#44
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by jgredline Thanks JS, I was waiting for a little time to pass by to see if there was going to be any issues like the GLS but is seems that Pentax got it right. Why Pentax did not use that Nikon/Sony sensor in the K-7 is a mystery to me. With that Sensor the K-7 would kick the D300's tail! ...on one single metric, maybe depending on whether you like your noise processed out at the expense of subject detail or not. Ever consider that maybe Pentax didn't choose that sensor for the K-7 for a reason? That perhaps there was another area where they'd have had to reduce the K-7's feature set with that sensor? There are quite a large number of areas in which the K-7's spec exceeds that of the K-x, many of them possibly or probably sensor-related.

11-02-2009, 01:01 AM	#45
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by pcarfan I like Noiseware...these were cleaned with preset settings as they are avaialable with the free version, the paid version which i have allows for much much more...costs very little. I just used it to clean up some images shot at ISO 3200 on my K100DS and I must say I was impressed. I also am curious as to how it stacks up against Noise Ninja which is supose to be the "Golden" standard.