[slip]

I am trying to figure out why there is such a wide range in the review as far as noise with the k10 (not banding just noise)
some claim very low noise right up to ISO 1600 and I just read not long ago that at ISO 800 noise becomes intrusive.

any idea why such differences in results?

any input welcome!!

cheers

randy

[klopus]

I am trying to figure out why there is such a wide range in the review as far as noise with the k10 (not banding just noise)
some claim very low noise right up to ISO 1600 and I just read not long ago that at ISO 800 noise becomes intrusive.

Could it be because people are different and have different tolerance for noise? Like with the notion of "Acceptable Sharpness" there's no such a thing as "absolute" noise, only "acceptable" which's extremely subjective and depends upon many factors. Something that looks horrible at 100% crop actually prints smooth at 5x6" and totally dandy as A3 in B/W and barely visible as a whole image displayed on a web as 800x600. Noise isn't a constant measure. It's extremely dependent upon the particular scene, lighting, exposure, WB, color dominance (e.g. blue channel is usually noisier), etc.

Then noise character (e.g. density vs big blotches, luma vs chroma) plays a huge role in aesthetic impact and whether it obscures detail or not. You can have a low noise but "plastic" looking picture where most of the texture details were eaten by over eager NR.

And last but not least people usually post on forums to complain and not to sing praises.

[trog100]

its a subjective thing with no exact way of measuring it.. i dont think its something that could be a quality control thing either..

with my k100 i see noise beginning to be a noticable problem at iso 800 and dont go higher than that unless i really have to.. in fact to me noise is a problem over iso 400 and thats with a k100

with a k10 it would be more of a problem.. its all relative..

my panasonic FZ20 compact has a noise problem at iso 100.. no way is it ever allowed to go over that.. he he

trog

[Jonas B]

Don't you think it just is down to the users preferences?

Thinking of the pattern noise some say it is no problem, even at ISO1600, while other can see it at lower ISO values as well. It can be the same with ordinary noise I guess.

The pattern noise is a good example of "see" and "don't see" phenomenas. For example, some people don't see it unless you tell them what to look for. Other can see it but say it is no problem as long as the picture is correctly exposed (and thus obviously don't mind pattern noise in the medium grey and shadowed areas). Other users again can see it also in pictures taken at lower ISO values where it can make also relatively light backgrounds become "unsmooth". All these different users will obviously describe their cameras a bit different. Reviewers are humans and will react, and write, in their own way. Heck, some reviewers shoots out through their windows using the kit lens and judge the cameras sharpness from the pictures... What can one expect then?

Or, Pentax signal handling and processing is by chance? But that sounds less likely, don't it?

my cents,

EDIT: Lol, I know I type slowly, when starting writing there was no reply posted...

[Jonas B]

ISO100 is high trog. My Minolta A2 is nearly okey up to ISO64...

[Duh_Vinci]

...If you optimise the exposure on a subject by subject basis the noise level is pretty good unless the subject has a lot of lower mid tones and a few very bright (but not light source or specular) highlights...

I'm with Colin on this one! I personally have absolutely no complaints about excessive noise up at 800, rarely use anything above...

Here is an example of 800 (some of the first unprocessed shots from K10D), really wanted to see what is the "noise issues" that so many were talking about...







And few recent shots at ISO 1600 (since it was late and low light outside)





Regards,
D

[mutley]

I'm with Colin on this one! I personally have absolutely no complaints about excessive noise up at 800, rarely use anything above...

Here is an example of 800 (some of the first unprocessed shots from K10D), really wanted to see what is the "noise issues" that so many were talking about...


Regards,
D

Yes, the test was good for that. You see the vertical pattern noise on the left side of the "Micro" shot even though this is only ISO 800 in which it is usually very minimal.

Larry

[RiceHigh]

I have the same question as yours myself, my favourite local photo gear magazine's editor said that the K10D he tested has very obvious noise from ISO 400 and upwards but some of the *real* test shots from K10 end-users I have inspected are having acceptable noise at ISO 800.

So, I just wonder why: Is the K10D behaves very differently under different lighitng conditions or just that they are NOT identical (just like some of the 20D had serious noise at low ISOs than the others)..

I am trying to figure out why there is such a wide range in the review as far as noise with the k10 (not banding just noise)
some claim very low noise right up to ISO 1600 and I just read not long ago that at ISO 800 noise becomes intrusive.

any idea why such differences in results?

any input welcome!!

cheers

randy

[dave kitson]

I am trying to figure out why there is such a wide range in the review as far as noise with the k10 (not banding just noise)
some claim very low noise right up to ISO 1600 and I just read not long ago that at ISO 800 noise becomes intrusive.

any idea why such differences in results?

any input welcome!!

cheers

randy

I have a *istD and a K10D.

Noise has been a complete non-issue with the *istD, something I never had to consider unless using ISO 1600 for longish exposures, and even then controllable with PP.

Noise is, as expected, worse with the K10D and it has modified my approach to shooting in other than good light. I am now careful to try to avoid any significant underexposure at ISO400 or above, I limit any auto-ISO to ISO350 and make much more use of the LCD than I did before.

I don't do a lot of high ISO stuff (only ever used 400ASA film twice in 40years) and, subject to the caveats above, it isn't too big a deal for me. I now realise however just how good the *istD is in this regard.

dave

[benjikan]

I have a *istD and a K10D.

Noise has been a complete non-issue with the *istD, something I never had to consider unless using ISO 1600 for longish exposures, and even then controllable with PP.

Noise is, as expected, worse with the K10D and it has modified my approach to shooting in other than good light. I am now careful to try to avoid any significant underexposure at ISO400 or above, I limit any auto-ISO to ISO350 and make much more use of the LCD than I did before.

I don't do a lot of high ISO stuff (only ever used 400ASA film twice in 40years) and, subject to the caveats above, it isn't too big a deal for me. I now realise however just how good the *istD is in this regard.

dave

As I have stated before. I only work at 100 iso. But I am sure that the problem that some users are expressing, can be solved with a firmware update. I will get these concerns to Pentax when I see them this weekend. The President of Pentax France is coming to my shoot with the Commercial Director and the Director of Pro Relations.

[Richard Day]

I have a *istD and a K10D.

Noise has been a complete non-issue with the *istD, something I never had to consider unless using ISO 1600 for longish exposures, and even then controllable with PP.

Noise is, as expected, worse with the K10D and it has modified my approach to shooting in other than good light. I am now careful to try to avoid any significant underexposure at ISO400 or above, I limit any auto-ISO to ISO350 and make much more use of the LCD than I did before.

I don't do a lot of high ISO stuff (only ever used 400ASA film twice in 40years) and, subject to the caveats above, it isn't too big a deal for me. I now realise however just how good the *istD is in this regard.

dave

Hi Dave

Interesting that you should find this, I have found that my K10D is very close to my istD at ISO 1600. In fact sometimes I think it is better!

I show two 100% crops below, the K10D image was resized to 6MP to match and to compare apples with apples.

I apologise for the colour balance differences, very rough and ready! Taken Raw and converted with all normal settings in Silkypix v3. No other PP.

[dave kitson]

Hi Richard

Interesting that you should find this, I have found that my K10D is very close to my istD at ISO 1600. In fact sometimes I think it is better!

I can get usable ISO1600 images with the K10, but have to be careful not to underexpose. My *istD seems much more tolerant.

Cheers
Dave

[sharpshoota]

depends on your standards. My pics are noise free up to 560 ISO. ISO 800 and above are too noisy for my liking. 800 is salvageable but 1600 I definitely wouldn't use. That's my opinion.

[Richard Day]

Hi Richard



I can get usable ISO1600 images with the K10, but have to be careful not to underexpose. My *istD seems much more tolerant.

Cheers
Dave

Agreed, recovering underexposed high ISO's efectively pushes the range up, I do find Silkypix allows you a bit more tolerance than most other converters. The K10D is less tolerant, I'll give you that. I also agree with sharpshoota that using ISO 1600 is only for really desperate measures! I also avoided it with my istD.

When using Auto ISO I usually limit the max to 640, otherwise I set my ISO manually. However I have taken several night shots at ISO 1000 which have been very acceptable. The fact that you can adjust the ISO in 1/3 stop increments on the K10D I find very handy.

[benjikan]

Hi Dave

Interesting that you should find this, I have found that my K10D is very close to my istD at ISO 1600. In fact sometimes I think it is better!

I show two 100% crops below, the K10D image was resized to 6MP to match and to compare apples with apples.

I apologise for the colour balance differences, very rough and ready! Taken Raw and converted with all normal settings in Silkypix v3. No other PP.

The 1600 iso image that you have posted shows absolutely no banding and is consistant with all Sony 10.2 Mp sensore.