On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Mark Roberts <m...@robertstech.com> wrote:
> Yep. I'm extremely happy with the Samsung sensor and can easily wait
> to upgrade. If I do, it'll be because of the lower minimum ISO of 80
> rather than the high ISO settings of the K-5.

OK. Let's look at it on your terms:
In a digital camera, I would argue that lower ISOs are *primarily*
important for the maximum Dynamic Range that they provide. This is
because we often encounter scenes in which the dynamic range is larger
than what of our film (or sensor) can fully capture.

Lower ISO settings mean nothing by themselves, unless you are trying
to shoot the lens wide open and the slowest possible shutter speed.
Their benefits in a digital camera are in (hopefully) lower noise and
higher dynamic range. The actual lowest ISO difference between the K7
and the K5 are not that different (approx. ISO 85 to ISO 75, even
though the SETTINGS say ISO 100 and ISO 80)

When comparing the K5 sensor with the K7 sensor, the Dynamic Range
difference is ASTOUNDING. You can dismiss this as measurbating if you
like, but not when it translates to IQ that you can readily see
(explains the improvement you see with your eye).
http://tinyurl.com/27mntus

Look at the EVs of dynamic range for these three cameras at a few ISOs:

               K7               K-x               K5
ISO 80        -                   -                14.5
ISO  100     10.5            12.5           13.6
ISO 3600      6.8             8.9              9.2
ISO 6400      5.5             8.2              8.1

At the low end, the K5 gives you FOUR more EVs of Dynamic Range. (The
lowly K-x gives you TWO more EVs of Dynamic Range. Even the red ones.)

Looking at it another way, if you like the Dynamic Range that the K7
gets you at ISO 100, you could get an EQUAL DYNAMIC RANGE at ISO 600
(K-x) or ISO 1200 (K5). Shoot any ISOs below those and the K-x and K5
blow the doors off the K7 in dynamic range. Now you can certainly
argue that other factors enter into how you feel about any given
camera, but if you want to discuss the image itself, the Dynamic Range
is hard to poo-poo.

Darren Addy
Kearney, Nebraska

-- 
Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to