Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-15-2010, 05:49 PM   #31
Forum Member
Timichango's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 62
Am I missing something here? Is there a higher-res version of this photo that everyone's looking at?

I can't draw any informed conclusions at the res of the linked file...

04-15-2010, 06:26 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,932
I see quite a bit of "grain" in the black part of the camera and lens and even the table behind it. To see it at this size, you would see quite a lot with pixel peeping. Wheatfield is right. If you push the files (particularly the jpegs) very much on the K7 noise just pops out.
04-16-2010, 07:44 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Henryjing: Nope, I really love K-7
Yes, I thought so--by sarcasm, I meant do I detect it towards the K-x users. I say this because I think your posted shot is excellent and I know there has been some trash flung at the K7 for High ISO performance by a small following here.
04-16-2010, 07:47 AM   #34
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Marc Sabatella: I'm wondering how you guys are seeing much noise at all at the posted size. I can't for the life of me see anything I'd call "horrible" here.
Agreed, & precisely what I am thinking.

04-16-2010, 10:39 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I see quite a bit of "grain" in the black part of the camera and lens
I do see what you are seeing, but I don't draw the same conclusions from this that others are. We're talking deep shadows on what appears to have been an underexposed image pushed in PP from JPEG, then reduced using an unknown resampling algorithm and at unknown JPEG quality settings (read: posterization artifacts may be in play here too). We also have no idea what NR setting may have been used. Bottom line is that nothing I am seeing appears out line for what I'd expect. Shoot and process a K100D, K20D, or even K-x the same way and you'll see roughly the same thing as far as anyone can tell at the posted size. Which is why I say, judging anything from this seems impossible.
04-16-2010, 12:14 PM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 144
looks fine

Even though it looks over-processed, it sure looks better than what I get with my K10d at 800.

Of course, I love my K10 and never would sell it....
04-16-2010, 12:39 PM   #37
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,210
I would tend to agree with Henry that this isn't exactly a shining endorsement of the K-7 although, like everyone else, one can only speculate about what processing and settings etc he used.

It is worth noting that his other two shots of the same subject, exposed even less (!) (here and here) look better noise-wise. That said they were taken a couple of hrs earlier so perhaps the light had changed somewhat and well they are a little on the dark side.
04-16-2010, 02:22 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
That image has the shadow glowiness resultant of taking an underexposed shot and then getting jiggy on the Fill Light slider in Lightroom. I know I can get much better iso1600 shots than that out of my K-7.

04-16-2010, 02:24 PM   #39
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Has this guy come back to make any more comments about the photo? I'm curious to what his answers are to all of our questions about this? I guess it would help if I actually read the whole thing, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's been back yet, so I was just curious about that.
04-16-2010, 02:35 PM   #40
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
I dont think it looks all that bad, but I know the k-7 can do much better than this at 800 if properly exposed. something I have learned the hard way since getting mine, as I always liked to under expose slightly. thats easy to do on my istD without much negative impact, not so much on the k-7.
04-16-2010, 05:10 PM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 167
the photo seems ok, it is not that nosiy i think. 1600 is still useful for k7
04-16-2010, 09:27 PM   #42
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
K7 body + Kx sensor = KaBlam!

My brain exploded with the sheer power of it's awesomeness.. :-/
04-17-2010, 10:26 AM   #43
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Daedbird Quote
Even though it looks over-processed, it sure looks better than what I get with my K10d at 800.

Of course, I love my K10 and never would sell it....
I got shots with the K10D at 1600 that look great. Indoor, after sunset, no flash, under regular bulb light. And on an 8x12 inch print, you can't see any noise.

The OP shot is not illustrative of what you can get with the K-7. I'm not sure how you can get the pattern of noise that can be seen on the lens hood in that shot. The K-7 noise just doesn't look this way. Like someone else mentioned earlier, I find the K-7 noise to look more like film grain. The K10D does get such noise pattern in extreme conditions, but even so, they would not show like this in a scaled down image - maybe in a crop.
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, iso800, k-7, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Horrible IQ, is it my lens or camera? Crepusculum Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 62 11-07-2009 12:43 PM
K7 Noise at ISO800 CX15 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 11-03-2009 06:49 AM
Detroit's Beautiful, Horrible Decline deadwolfbones General Talk 37 09-26-2009 07:54 AM
K200D vs *ist DS at ISO800 ogl Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 04-26-2008 09:13 AM
My horrible LBA... Vulpix Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 03-07-2007 07:53 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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