[aerodave]

Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too.

Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

I don't hate tripods, but I hate on-camera flash. And sometimes because of space or mobility considerations, tripods or off-camera flash aren't really options. Sometimes, you can't even bounce an on-camera flash effectively. And if I'm reduced to the choice between direct on-camera flash and available light with high ISO, I'll take the available light every time.

And then you still have to deal with moving subjects. This past weekend, I shot an indoor event with very poor lighting. Even with my 50-135mm f/2.8, I needed ISO1600 to get shutter speeds in the 1/30 range. Shake Reduction was great and replaced my need for a tripod. But as the subjects were mostly a bunch of excited kids, subject movement was something I had to worry about. Saying "Hold perfectly still for 1 full second while I take this picture" isn't an option. So high ISO it is.

[erickallemeyn]

I don't hate tripods, but I hate on-camera flash. And sometimes because of space or mobility considerations, tripods or off-camera flash aren't really options. Sometimes, you can't even bounce an on-camera flash effectively. And if I'm reduced to the choice between direct on-camera flash and available light with high ISO, I'll take the available light every time.

And then you still have to deal with moving subjects. This past weekend, I shot an indoor event with very poor lighting. Even with my 50-135mm f/2.8, I needed ISO1600 to get shutter speeds in the 1/30 range. Shake Reduction was great and replaced my need for a tripod. But as the subjects were mostly a bunch of excited kids, subject movement was something I had to worry about. Saying "Hold perfectly still for 1 full second while I take this picture" isn't an option. So high ISO it is.

Agreed. I usually keep one of these in my bag just in case I'm forced to use the popup flash.

Gary Fong Puffer

[pcarfan]

Here is a 100% crop of the focus point of that image I took which was posted earlier here.



I think this is pretty good for iso 3200, 100% crop,... and it was a hand held shot taken at 1/15, so the SR is pretty good as well, and it was quite dark as the aperture was f2.

Having said that, I usually don't use iso3200. Like has been mentioned nothing compares to IQ at iso100 and iso200. For objects like this iso3200 is ok, but for faces, or even animals and birds iso 3200 with the K-7 changes the skin texture too much. I will say I am very pleased with the K-7 upto iso 1600, where if the image is taken with high quality glass, one can feel an image, and not just see it. But, I also hate to carry around a tripod, so knowing iso 3200 is available is nice to know. I never use iso 6400, I'll rather underexpose at iso 3200 and pull 1-stop in PP.

Somewhere here a link was given for some of my early attempts at PP high iso images of some museum airplane shots. That involved quite a bit of PP, including masking differnet area, and quite complicted curves and masking, and dodging etc.

The shot above was opened in Photoshop CS2 adobe raw. Under the 'detail' tab, I reduced noise (100% chroma and significant luma noise) and increased sharpness, all at 100% view (This is the first time I did it this way...I usually open in LR and the send to CS2 as a jpeg). Opened in CS2 as a jpeg (I need to remember to change this to a 16 bit Tiff, as it would be even better) and used noiseware plug-in (well worth the $50) and ran noiseware at it's preset 'weak noise' preset. So, no fancy slider usese here. No masking at all. Even the image was taken with no exposure compensation (no ETTR).

[Marc Sabatella]

Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total...

Depends, I suppose, on whether your goal in photography is to have completely perfect images of a limited range of subjects, or perhaps slightly less perfect pictures of subjects that actually interest you more. If the only subjects you are interested in are ones that can be shot effectively at ISO 200, great, but some of us have a wider range of interests than that.

[jpzk]

My situation, regarding the usage of "high" ISO, might resemble that of others.
For starters, let me point out that I very seldom use a ISO setting of more than 1000. I do lots of outdoors stuff, mainly bird/wildlife photography, and some "inside jobs".

For glass, I use mostly the DA*300 F4 as my No.1 lens; the DA*16-50 F2.8 for scenery, some "candid" shots and a few other things; the Carl-Zeiss T*Planar 85/1.4 for portrait and, finally, a Tamron 90/2.8 for macro/close-ups.
Fast, quality-primes are said to be the way to go, but not everyone has the financial means to afford them. I consider myself lucky to be able to get some. I long for a 300mm f2.8 but that is out of the question for the time being, financially speaking.
I tried to get high quality lenses, as they do have some effect on performance/IQ.

I hate tripods, but at times I have to bite the bullet.
I seldom, and really don't want to, use very high ISO (1600 and up) but again, at times when it is the only way you'll get this special pic under low lighting conditions, well it's nice to have it. The noise issue can be dealt with in PP if required.

I too like to use a ISO setting as low as possible; I'd be happy if all light conditions would allow me to shoot at ISO100, F8, and at 1/1000 or more all the time.

The fact that we present some pics taken at this higher level, i.e.: ISO3200 is simply a matter of showing that the K7 can handle it in dire-need situations. As I understand it, this ISO 3200/6400 is a "savior mode". Nothing wrong with that though and, as I mentioned earlier, it can save a once-in-a-lifetime shot.

For those who want to have perfect IQ at those high ISO levels, let them just switch brand, sell all of their Pentax gear and get a D3x/D3s ... with the appropriately expensive glass.

My ten-cents-worth for the day.

JP

[audiobomber]

I've been also wondering if the mark I 18-55mm that comes with the k-x kit could be some of the problem

The DA L 18-55 that comes with the K-x kit is optically identical to the 18-55 II and the 18-55 WR.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm glad there are others out there like myself. Granted a higher iso gives you the opportunity to utilize slower glass in low light scenarios or for fast action (sports) but it can't replace good fast glass.

And vice versa - fast glass can't replace high ISO. Fast glass allows faster shutter speeds, but at the cost of DOF, and often sharpness, CA, vignetting, and other artifacts that tend to disappear as one stops down. So you have to make that choice, and sometimes one is more appropriate than the other. Plus, sufficiently fast glass is not available or indeed even feasible at many focal length (anyone ever seen a 300/1.2?)

And often, one needs *both* a large aperture and a high ISO to capture a given scene.

[jacksonpritt]

Depends, I suppose, on whether your goal in photography is to have completely perfect images of a limited range of subjects, or perhaps slightly less perfect pictures of subjects that actually interest you more. If the only subjects you are interested in are ones that can be shot effectively at ISO 200, great, but some of us have a wider range of interests than that.

Damn, snarky!

[Pentaxor]

Agreed. I usually keep one of these in my bag just in case I'm forced to use the popup flash.

Gary Fong Puffer

or the Lightscoop !

[jpzk]

Agreed. I usually keep one of these in my bag just in case I'm forced to use the popup flash.

Gary Fong Puffer

Yeah! I have one of these too and it does come in very handily!
JP

[Rondec]

I don't hate tripods, but I hate on-camera flash. And sometimes because of space or mobility considerations, tripods or off-camera flash aren't really options. Sometimes, you can't even bounce an on-camera flash effectively. And if I'm reduced to the choice between direct on-camera flash and available light with high ISO, I'll take the available light every time.

And then you still have to deal with moving subjects. This past weekend, I shot an indoor event with very poor lighting. Even with my 50-135mm f/2.8, I needed ISO1600 to get shutter speeds in the 1/30 range. Shake Reduction was great and replaced my need for a tripod. But as the subjects were mostly a bunch of excited kids, subject movement was something I had to worry about. Saying "Hold perfectly still for 1 full second while I take this picture" isn't an option. So high ISO it is.

This is exactly the situation where high iso really won't cut it. A flash is necessary for taking photos of kids in such a situation. Neither a tripod, shake reduction or high iso will get you shutter speeds necessary to freeze kid motion and preferrably you would shoot with a little more DOF the f2.8.

[Pentaxor]

Here it is folks,

I had a k20d in the past, sold it, and recently purchased the kx. While everyone raves about the high iso capabilities, I find that in comparison to the detail the k20d is capable of is night and day under the same picture settings and shooting conditions. Maybe I was spoiled by the high IQ I don't know but I yearn for the high IQ that I once had.

To get to the point, yes seems like every review I see describes how bad the noise is on the k7 beyond 1600...BUT in jpegs only except for dpreview. On there they also take into consideration the noise levels in RAW and to my suprise the k7 is right there with the rest in noise levels.

To anyone out there that owns a k7...does anyone have any examples of high iso shots run through noise ninja? I wonder how that would compare to the kx then?

Apparently whatever noise control in the k7 jpegs is much lower even at the highest settings to retain detail and I prefer it that way as you can always reduce the noise, but never get back the detail that was smudged away from the start.

Can anyone help?
Thank you

here is an image I posted in another thread Pentax High ISO gallery. this is an in-camera jpeg w/o any camera NR which was later pulled down and resized to fit here and then applied with a NR software. this was shot at ISO 3200 at 300mm.



and the same shot both without any camera NR and also w/o NR software application.



I prefer the one without any NR.

the NOISEWARE PRO is a powerful NR software. sometimes it's too good for it's own good. it can render an image too cleanly, sometimes eliminating the natural feeling. IMO, the noise can give you that sense of drama and detail.

noiseware a very handy tool honestly speaking, especially in salvaging images. however, I would prefer leaving some noise rather than eliminating them completely. I try to avoid using NR as much as possible as NR would definitely eat some of the details off, and as long as the noise is at an acceptable level, I don't need to use noiseware.

[jpzk]

the NOISEWARE PRO is a powerful NR software. sometimes it's too good for it's own good. it can render an image too cleanly, sometimes eliminating the natural feeling. IMO, the noise can give you that sense of drama and detail.

noiseware a very handy tool honestly speaking, especially in salvaging images. however, I would prefer leaving some noise rather than eliminating them completely. I try to avoid using NR as much as possible as NR would definitely eat some of the details off, and as long as the noise is at an acceptable level, I don't need to use noiseware.

I concur with you with leaving everything "as is" (from a camera stand point) and then, and only then, if you must take care of noise issues, do it in PP.
However, I tend to disagree that NoisewarePro is maybe too good for it's own good (quote): you can actually use as much or as little NR as you wish. Personally, I always try at 20% first, at "very low frequency" and watch what happens. Most of the time, it is sufficient and will not cause "lissage", keeping details intact.
Of course, if you let NoisewarePro on automatic mode, it will certainly use the "very high frequency" and at a higher percentage of noise reducing, therefore eliminating quite a few details, and also causing this bleaching effect of what I call "lissage".

All NR softwares work that way and it is up to the user to "not over do it"!

Cheers.
JP

[harleynitelite]

After looking at some of the examples that some have posted I've decided the k-x just isn't for me and its on to the k7. Despite what most reviews say about its potential problems in regards to high iso in jpeg, I'd gladly shoot in raw then post process as needed in order to stick with pentax and get the k7.

Personally, I love the underdog and wouldn't have it any other way.

[pcarfan]

After looking at some of the examples that some have posted I've decided the k-x just isn't for me and its on to the k7. Despite what most reviews say about its potential problems in regards to high iso in jpeg, I'd gladly shoot in raw then post process as needed in order to stick with pentax and get the k7.

Personally, I love the underdog and wouldn't have it any other way.

With high iso the k-x definitely has the lead. K-7 does a lot of others much better than the K-x. You have to make the choice.

Check this review, in a different language but images speaks for themselves.
Review - Pentax K-X - PHOTO FORUM / PHOTOGRAPHY / PHOTO ALBUM / PHOTO BAZAR - Photo forum

Google translation
Google Translate

If you check the 100% crop images at iso3200, the jpeg 100% crops are much better, where as RAW is sort of comparable to what I get with some minor NR with the K-7. I wonder what is so special about the jpeg engine.

P.S: After checking those images especially the baby picture at iso6400, I have to say it is mighty nice to be able to get that for family snapshots. It is hard to ignore the K-x.