|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-14-2017, 02:42 AM
|
| |
Of course. But the question is if you have a K5 image at iso 1600 and a K-1 image at iso 1600 (or whatever iso) and you print both of them to an 8 by 10, can you tell the difference. What I have found is that after iso 800 the K-1 image will look better. Downsampling or not, you just see the noise in the K5 pixels more easily than you do in the K-1 image and at a certain iso level, it really starts to make a difference. The end result is that you have a little better than a stop improvement in iso you can shoot for the same size printing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-10-2017, 03:30 AM
|
| |
I think the point is that noise visibility depends on a couple of factors. Obviously the iso used combined with light level shot are important factors. But size an image is viewed is important as well. If you can actually see the individual pixels, then you are much more likely to notice noise in your final image. If, on the other hand there is some sort of binning or averaging going on with the pixels to form the final image, then the noise will not be as noticeable.
Dynamic range is related to noise in that it has to do with the level for a given iso that you can bump the shadows before the noise becomes noticeable.
Resampling for printing or for viewing is not magic, but there is no doubt that it does make images look a lot better than if you zoom in to 100 percent.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-08-2017, 04:07 AM
|
| |
But I still think the question is what happens when you print at a given size or view at a given size. And the answer in my experience is that the K-1 outperforms the K5 significantly. This is so, either because you are binning the pixels of the K-1 which tends to average out the noise, or because you have to up sample the K5 image which tends to worsen its appearance. DXO Mark has chosen to compare images at a 8 megapixel standard "print" size, but I think there does need to be some sort of similar comparison output size, otherwise large megapixel cameras look worse than they really are and low megapixel cameras look better than they really are.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-07-2017, 05:29 PM
|
| |
No, it is because the first thing that we do when we load an image on the computer is zoom to 100 percent. But that is a very different thing on a K5 and a K1. The first thing we should really do is print five images at, say, 16 by 10 inches at various isos and actually compare them. Because once you do that, you realize that a lot of the noisy pixels you see miraculously disappear in the process of printing. And the K1 images will look significantly better than the K5 images after about iso 800.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-06-2017, 08:24 PM
|
| |
If you print/view a K5 image and K1 image at the same size, the K1 image will look a lot cleaner. If you view them at pixel size they'll look the same.
I don't see hot pixels, but I also am not shooting four minute exposures. Seems like you should take an exposure to subtract hot pixels if you are doing long exposures like that.
|
