K7 and noise ... again.

fejker · 11-21-2009, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

That's an apology, not a reason. Where I am, the 7D is about 30% more money and adds a host of improvements to the K-7, one of which is stellar high ISO performance.
I didn't realize this thread was about money, I thought it was about high ISO.

I thought this thread was about the K-7 users and their opinions about the high ISO performance of this camera. I didn't know the title said "Can someone please tell me how the K-7 compares to a 7D". So if you have some arguments about the K-7 and its high ISO performance ... be my guest, I'm happy to learn something new. Because so far the only thing I've heard is that the much more expensive 7D is better (who would have though, eh?).
And I'm not only looking at body prices only, I'm looking at the whole system ... try to get glass as good as Pentax for the Canon and tell me what number you come up with - I did the math and that's why I'm with Pentax.

Now I leave you in peace to pixelpeep all you want.

Jadran · 11-21-2009, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

So you think daylight and tungsten are equivalent spectrums?
I think I'll bow out of this one now. We've had an official apology based on price, and now someone who doesn't understand tungsten vs. daylight.

Enjoy your discussion.

What to say, then laugh out loud, or, as they say LOL. Ridiculous.

pcarfan · 11-21-2009, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I'm not even going to try to translate that into English. At least when I'm being acerbic I'm still able to get my point across.
BTW, my "buddy" Brian has about 50 years of photography experience and has been doing digital imaging since Photoshop 1 was new.
We compared his 7D files to my K-7 files yesterday. What I was getting at 1600 was similar in noise to what he was getting at 6400.

I mistook you for someone worthy of having a conversation, sorry! I was wrong.

pcarfan · 11-21-2009, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Jadran

What to say, then laugh out loud, or, as they say LOL. Ridiculous.

I think it is the most appropriate response given the circumstance...except, I would say 'pathetic' instead of 'ridiculous'.

Marc Sabatella · 11-21-2009, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I have to say that I think that high iso is abused by novice photographers. Just because you can shoot at iso 3200 doesn't mean that you should. Unless your camera is amazing, your performance in dynamic range is going to drop considerably as you go to higher isos. Sure, there are places where it can and should be used, but in so many places, the photographer could use some bounce flash, open up his lens a stop to shoot at lower iso.

True. And just as importantly, one should consider just how important lack of noise really is in those situations where you need high ISO. I mean, sure, we all want our pictures to look as good as they can. But in my case, at least, high ISO is something I use extensively for concert photography, and in that world, noise is just a fact of life. Most of the great shots of live performance through the history of photography are riddled with "noise" (grain) from high ASA film. It's hard for me to get too excited if my pictures only look *much much* better in comparison as opposed to *much much much* better. *All* APS-C digital cameras are already very good. And as for the casual candids I take, again, it's hard to me to work up a heck of a lot of concern; I'm not trying to display these these things in galleries.

Which isn't to to say there aren't specific situations where it really does make a significant difference. But I'm just agreeing with the general observation that high ISO performance tends to be overrated (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone).

philbaum · 11-21-2009, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by heliphoto

......I think the argument that photographers don't need high ISO performance is a bit silly - where do we draw the line and stop asking for better performance... Wouldn't better ISO performance help you capture Jazz artists, or help Marc L. with keeping the shutter speed up while shooting wildlife at dusk, and while we're at it, it can help me get better family snapshots

. It's fine if someone can get the shots they want at ISO 400 - more power too them, but in five years I'll be buying a camera (or a phone or an implant or whatever we're using by then) which will take usable photos at ISO 102400 or something like that

... can't wait! (ok, that's hyperbole folks - I really don't wanna hear about how that level of sensitivity is impossible for whatever actual scientific reason

)

I reacted the same way you did regarding high ISO. I want the camera that will enable me to take shots 24/7 and lets me be free to consider only the composition and artistic merits of the image.

I've been doing some publicity shots for a local theatre group. A week ago, they took me out to a cemetery for pictures of the scrooge actor. It got pretty dark before we were thru; i had to go to 3200 iso, 1/90s, 50mm f1.7. I used Topaz Denoise, and the director who asked me to do them was happy with the results, but you folks will note the plastic looking hands from too much noise removal :-). Done with the K20, sorry to the op, off-topic sort of. Its unusual for me to take 3200 ISO in dark situations, but that doesn't stop me from wanting better perf.

jsherman999 · 11-21-2009, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

.

That looks exactly like my neighbor usually looks, stepping out onto his back porch with a flashlight to look for his *(&&%^ fighting cats.
Looks just like him, expression and all.

.

**jpzk** · 11-21-2009, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by knoxploration

Yep, that's exactly the intended approach. The K-7 defaults to fairly minimal noise reduction for JPEG in the interests of preserving detail, and also provides good scope for noise removal in Raw processing while retaining image detail.

I did also get an answer from Pentax saying that this is how noise is handled with Pentax sensors: keep details. And as you mention, one can profit from more latitude in handling noise from the RAW file(s).
And then, I read below this statement: "BTW, what does the light level have to do with ISO performance, pray tell?" ... so if light level has nothing to do with ISO performance, (maybe I am wrong to think that way but ...) then why does underexposing (which is a light level condition) affects noise? I know that when you underexpose, the noise will be mor prevalent, even at low ISO. Doesn't this have something to do with "light levels". This thread is bringing a lot of confusion already.

JP

**jpzk** · 11-21-2009, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by pcarfan

This seems to be the approach that Pentax is taking and has been taking with it's cameras.

It is a huge difference between shooting in Raw and processing vs straight jpeg. With Jpeg the camera is good up to iso 400, not much more.

Agreed.
JP

Jadran · 11-21-2009, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

And then, I read below this statement: "BTW, what does the light level have to do with ISO performance, pray tell?" ... so if light level has nothing to do with ISO performance, (maybe I am wrong to think that way but ...) then why does underexposing (which is a light level condition) affects noise?

JP

Of course it does.

**jpzk** · 11-21-2009, 01:21 PM

Trying to keep things calm here: we certainly do not need negative arguments.
Forget not: the object of the thread is to find out, from K7 users, what they think about the noise levels at higher ISO's. It's OK to compare between the K10/K20D's and/or the Kx but why make other-brands comparisons? Is this really useful given the context of the thread?
JP

**jpzk** · 11-21-2009, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Jadran

Of course it does.

Right!

I expected this answer.
Cheers.
JP

knoxploration · 11-21-2009, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

That's an apology, not a reason. Where I am, the 7D is about 30% more money and adds a host of improvements to the K-7, one of which is stellar high ISO performance.
I didn't realize this thread was about money, I thought it was about high ISO.

Wow, you really oughta move... ;-) Here, the 7D is over two thirds more expensive.

kasv · 11-21-2009, 03:25 PM

in regards to heliphotos example (maybe someone said this before, but anyway): could it be you have auto color enhacement on in LR; your example on page one of this thread looks like that? This would lighten up most of the shots of Pentax DSLR's, 'cause it "thinks" they are underexposed. I had amost exclusively bad results from higher ISO K20D shots when I viewd them in LR, till I altered the standard setting of auto adjustment to none. This left shots darker and made the noise less visible. To brighten up the shots - if necessary at all, I chose a set of adjustments, that did much less harm to the photo than the rude LR auto adjustment. To go back to the initial state of a photo right click it and choose reset. I am coming up with that,

Wheatfield · 11-21-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

And then, I read below this statement: "BTW, what does the light level have to do with ISO performance, pray tell?" ... so if light level has nothing to do with ISO performance, (maybe I am wrong to think that way but ...) then why does underexposing (which is a light level condition) affects noise? I know that when you underexpose, the noise will be mor prevalent, even at low ISO. Doesn't this have something to do with "light levels". This thread is bringing a lot of confusion already.

JP

Kept in context, light level was referring to the (incorrect) statement "That iso 12800 shot was shot at 1/500" at F4, and that is a bright scene where that iso performance is not that impressive."
What you are referring to is exposure, plain and simple, and the fact that people will underexpose a shot and then try to salvage it in post.
The guy who shot the images I posted is following this thread. Here's the text of an email I just received from him:

"I dont agree with the guy that said the light was too bright to use high ISO, in that instance if I had used lower ISO my shutter speed at 280mm would be too low to handhold even with IS. F4 was wide open."

Take it for what it's worth.

11-21-2009, 10:30 AM	#77
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by Wheatfield So you think daylight and tungsten are equivalent spectrums? I think I'll bow out of this one now. We've had an official apology based on price, and now someone who doesn't understand tungsten vs. daylight. Enjoy your discussion. What to say, then laugh out loud, or, as they say LOL. Ridiculous. Last edited by Jadran; 11-21-2009 at 10:36 AM.

11-21-2009, 11:01 AM	#80
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Rondec I have to say that I think that high iso is abused by novice photographers. Just because you can shoot at iso 3200 doesn't mean that you should. Unless your camera is amazing, your performance in dynamic range is going to drop considerably as you go to higher isos. Sure, there are places where it can and should be used, but in so many places, the photographer could use some bounce flash, open up his lens a stop to shoot at lower iso. True. And just as importantly, one should consider just how important lack of noise really is in those situations where you need high ISO. I mean, sure, we all want our pictures to look as good as they can. But in my case, at least, high ISO is something I use extensively for concert photography, and in that world, noise is just a fact of life. Most of the great shots of live performance through the history of photography are riddled with "noise" (grain) from high ASA film. It's hard for me to get too excited if my pictures only look much much better in comparison as opposed to much much much better. All APS-C digital cameras are already very good. And as for the casual candids I take, again, it's hard to me to work up a heck of a lot of concern; I'm not trying to display these these things in galleries. Which isn't to to say there aren't specific situations where it really does make a significant difference. But I'm just agreeing with the general observation that high ISO performance tends to be overrated (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone). Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 11-22-2009 at 10:23 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SR noise in K-x	Hemi345	Video Recording and Processing	3	02-17-2011 09:17 PM
Noise	Nubi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	06-28-2010 02:17 PM
Another.....K-7 noise.....	the swede	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	10-17-2009 02:57 AM
Noise	Simon23	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	05-12-2009 08:03 AM
cs3 noise filter vs. noise ninja vs. ???	reknelb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	03-04-2008 04:55 PM

11-21-2009, 10:20 AM	#76
fejker Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	Originally posted by Wheatfield That's an apology, not a reason. Where I am, the 7D is about 30% more money and adds a host of improvements to the K-7, one of which is stellar high ISO performance. I didn't realize this thread was about money, I thought it was about high ISO. I thought this thread was about the K-7 users and their opinions about the high ISO performance of this camera. I didn't know the title said "Can someone please tell me how the K-7 compares to a 7D". So if you have some arguments about the K-7 and its high ISO performance ... be my guest, I'm happy to learn something new. Because so far the only thing I've heard is that the much more expensive 7D is better (who would have though, eh?). And I'm not only looking at body prices only, I'm looking at the whole system ... try to get glass as good as Pentax for the Canon and tell me what number you come up with - I did the math and that's why I'm with Pentax. Now I leave you in peace to pixelpeep all you want.

11-21-2009, 10:50 AM	#78
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by Wheatfield I'm not even going to try to translate that into English. At least when I'm being acerbic I'm still able to get my point across. BTW, my "buddy" Brian has about 50 years of photography experience and has been doing digital imaging since Photoshop 1 was new. We compared his 7D files to my K-7 files yesterday. What I was getting at 1600 was similar in noise to what he was getting at 6400. I mistook you for someone worthy of having a conversation, sorry! I was wrong.

11-21-2009, 10:54 AM	#79
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by Jadran What to say, then laugh out loud, or, as they say LOL. Ridiculous. I think it is the most appropriate response given the circumstance...except, I would say 'pathetic' instead of 'ridiculous'.

11-21-2009, 12:15 PM	#81
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by heliphoto ......I think the argument that photographers don't need high ISO performance is a bit silly - where do we draw the line and stop asking for better performance... Wouldn't better ISO performance help you capture Jazz artists, or help Marc L. with keeping the shutter speed up while shooting wildlife at dusk, and while we're at it, it can help me get better family snapshots . It's fine if someone can get the shots they want at ISO 400 - more power too them, but in five years I'll be buying a camera (or a phone or an implant or whatever we're using by then) which will take usable photos at ISO 102400 or something like that ... can't wait! (ok, that's hyperbole folks - I really don't wanna hear about how that level of sensitivity is impossible for whatever actual scientific reason ) I reacted the same way you did regarding high ISO. I want the camera that will enable me to take shots 24/7 and lets me be free to consider only the composition and artistic merits of the image. I've been doing some publicity shots for a local theatre group. A week ago, they took me out to a cemetery for pictures of the scrooge actor. It got pretty dark before we were thru; i had to go to 3200 iso, 1/90s, 50mm f1.7. I used Topaz Denoise, and the director who asked me to do them was happy with the results, but you folks will note the plastic looking hands from too much noise removal :-). Done with the K20, sorry to the op, off-topic sort of. Its unusual for me to take 3200 ISO in dark situations, but that doesn't stop me from wanting better perf.

11-21-2009, 01:04 PM	#82
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by philbaum . That looks exactly like my neighbor usually looks, stepping out onto his back porch with a flashlight to look for his *(&&%^ fighting cats. Looks just like him, expression and all. .

11-21-2009, 01:09 PM	#83
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by knoxploration Yep, that's exactly the intended approach. The K-7 defaults to fairly minimal noise reduction for JPEG in the interests of preserving detail, and also provides good scope for noise removal in Raw processing while retaining image detail. I did also get an answer from Pentax saying that this is how noise is handled with Pentax sensors: keep details. And as you mention, one can profit from more latitude in handling noise from the RAW file(s). And then, I read below this statement: "BTW, what does the light level have to do with ISO performance, pray tell?" ... so if light level has nothing to do with ISO performance, (maybe I am wrong to think that way but ...) then why does underexposing (which is a light level condition) affects noise? I know that when you underexpose, the noise will be mor prevalent, even at low ISO. Doesn't this have something to do with "light levels". This thread is bringing a lot of confusion already. JP

11-21-2009, 01:11 PM	#84
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by pcarfan This seems to be the approach that Pentax is taking and has been taking with it's cameras. It is a huge difference between shooting in Raw and processing vs straight jpeg. With Jpeg the camera is good up to iso 400, not much more. Agreed. JP

11-21-2009, 01:16 PM	#85
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by jpzk And then, I read below this statement: "BTW, what does the light level have to do with ISO performance, pray tell?" ... so if light level has nothing to do with ISO performance, (maybe I am wrong to think that way but ...) then why does underexposing (which is a light level condition) affects noise? JP Of course it does.

11-21-2009, 01:21 PM	#86
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Trying to keep things calm here: we certainly do not need negative arguments. Forget not: the object of the thread is to find out, from K7 users, what they think about the noise levels at higher ISO's. It's OK to compare between the K10/K20D's and/or the Kx but why make other-brands comparisons? Is this really useful given the context of the thread? JP

11-21-2009, 01:22 PM	#87
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jadran Of course it does. Right! I expected this answer. Cheers. JP

11-21-2009, 03:12 PM	#88
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by Wheatfield That's an apology, not a reason. Where I am, the 7D is about 30% more money and adds a host of improvements to the K-7, one of which is stellar high ISO performance. I didn't realize this thread was about money, I thought it was about high ISO. Wow, you really oughta move... ;-) Here, the 7D is over two thirds more expensive.

11-21-2009, 03:25 PM	#89
kasv Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 63	in regards to heliphotos example (maybe someone said this before, but anyway): could it be you have auto color enhacement on in LR; your example on page one of this thread looks like that? This would lighten up most of the shots of Pentax DSLR's, 'cause it "thinks" they are underexposed. I had amost exclusively bad results from higher ISO K20D shots when I viewd them in LR, till I altered the standard setting of auto adjustment to none. This left shots darker and made the noise less visible. To brighten up the shots - if necessary at all, I chose a set of adjustments, that did much less harm to the photo than the rude LR auto adjustment. To go back to the initial state of a photo right click it and choose reset. I am coming up with that,

11-21-2009, 03:59 PM	#90
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	Originally posted by jpzk And then, I read below this statement: "BTW, what does the light level have to do with ISO performance, pray tell?" ... so if light level has nothing to do with ISO performance, (maybe I am wrong to think that way but ...) then why does underexposing (which is a light level condition) affects noise? I know that when you underexpose, the noise will be mor prevalent, even at low ISO. Doesn't this have something to do with "light levels". This thread is bringing a lot of confusion already. JP Kept in context, light level was referring to the (incorrect) statement "That iso 12800 shot was shot at 1/500" at F4, and that is a bright scene where that iso performance is not that impressive." What you are referring to is exposure, plain and simple, and the fact that people will underexpose a shot and then try to salvage it in post. The guy who shot the images I posted is following this thread. Here's the text of an email I just received from him: "I dont agree with the guy that said the light was too bright to use high ISO, in that instance if I had used lower ISO my shutter speed at 280mm would be too low to handhold even with IS. F4 was wide open." Take it for what it's worth.