So horrible at ISO800

Timichango · 04-15-2010, 05:49 PM

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...

**Rondec** · 04-15-2010, 06:26 PM

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.

Jewelltrail · 04-16-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

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.

Jewelltrail · 04-16-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

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.

Marc Sabatella · 04-16-2010, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

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.

Daedbird · 04-16-2010, 12:14 PM

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....

Nass · 04-16-2010, 12:39 PM

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.

FullertonImages · 04-16-2010, 02:22 PM

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.

jct us101 · 04-16-2010, 02:24 PM

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.

séamuis · 04-16-2010, 02:35 PM

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.

phzy2003 · 04-16-2010, 05:10 PM

the photo seems ok, it is not that nosiy i think. 1600 is still useful for k7

Shahmatt · 04-16-2010, 09:27 PM

K7 body + Kx sensor = KaBlam!

My brain exploded with the sheer power of it's awesomeness.. :-/

Laurentiu Cristofor · 04-17-2010, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Daedbird

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.

04-16-2010, 12:14 PM	#36
Daedbird Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 156	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....

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

04-15-2010, 05:49 PM	#31
Timichango Forum Member 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
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	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
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: 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
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: 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
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Rondec 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, 12:39 PM	#37
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	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
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	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
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	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
séamuis 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
phzy2003 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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-16-2010, 09:27 PM	#42
Shahmatt 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
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Daedbird 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.