Derby Chang wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Derby Chang wrote:
[ ... ]
There is less noise across the entire ISO range.
That makes more sense, yes...
But when you don't have
to amplify the signal (i.e. when you are in low ISO), the noise is less
apparent to begin with. Only when
I don't deny that the K20D high ISO is less noisy than the K10D. I use
ISO 3200 6400 often. I haven't investigated the various high ISO NR
settings. I just set it to weak left it when I first got the camera.
However I do shoot a quite a few of long exposures 10+ minutes, the
inability to turn
David, could you post a sample of a 10 minute exposure with the K10?
I have tried some shots around 3 minutes with mine, NR on, and they
are almost totally red. This is at iso 1600. 800 is only marginally
better. And they were in a reasonably dark site, mag 6+ skies.
Walt
On 7/1/08, David Savage
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Why to buy a K20D?
I don't deny that the K20D high ISO is less noisy than the K10D. I use
ISO 3200 6400 often. I haven't investigated the various high ISO NR
settings. I just set it to weak left it when I first got the camera
Now worries Walt (I've posted these before.):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2209/2258045616_6bbe97702c_o.jpg
K10D, DA* 16-50mm f2.8 @ 16mm, 1208 seconds (~20min) @ f4, ISO 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2119/2481946623_1e672bebcc_o.jpg
K10D, DA* 16-50mm f2.8 @ 16mm, 969 seconds (~16min) @
David,
Why high ISOs at all for shots like these? Here's a 36
minute exposure of some star trails I did last year
with the K10D:
http://www.primelensphoto.com/star_trails.jpg
Notice the tiny bit of sensor bloom in the upper
middle left of the frame.
This was RAW, ISO 100, f6.3. Can't remember
Nobody reacted on this one.
This should be checked in the sensor spec. Is that available?
I would not be surprised if certain sensors can be set in a mode for
higher sensitivity, sacrificing on other characteristics.
Jos
Toralf Lund wrote:
since the sensor itself has a fixed sensitivity.
Those are shot at ISO 100 Brendan. I don't recommend high ISO for
this kind of shooting.
I do use high ISO test shots to help work out exposure times for ISO
100. Such as this one to determine how much light painting I needed:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/K10D/Vacant%20Eyes.jpg
For got to add that it was shot at ISO 1600 for 1.5 min.
Cheers,
Dave
At 10:59 AM 2/07/2008, David Savage wrote:
Those are shot at ISO 100 Brendan. I don't recommend high ISO for
this kind of shooting.
I do use high ISO test shots to help work out exposure times for ISO
100. Such as this one
Ahh, gotcha.
Nice shot, and sorry about the bees.
--- David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those are shot at ISO 100 Brendan. I don't recommend
high ISO for
this kind of shooting.
I do use high ISO test shots to help work out
exposure times for ISO
100. Such as this one to determine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To get serious about this, the ISO number doesn't just multiply the signal.
There are other factors, most notably heat, that determine how much noise
will acompany that multiplication.
I'm not sure I understand that. You mean, the gain stage adds noise?
Well
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't know why it works from a technical point of view, but it
works:-). The K20D yields very good high ISO pics with noise control
set to the minimum. If I get the results I want, I don't worry a lot
about why I got them.
If you are just a happy user of a
P. J. Alling wrote:
Some sensors handle the boost much better than others,
Yes, but wouldn't that be because there is less noise to begin with? I.e
they have better performance at *all* ISOs?
and the choices
in processing made by the manufacturer, (as well as hardware), can
affect the
No, it's not the result of image processing you could apply in
PhotoShop. I shoot only RAW. The RAW data is far superior. It's
apparently the result of a sensor that generates less heat at high
ISO than the K10D sensor.
Paul
On Jun 30, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Paul Stenquist
No. Less satisfactory high ISO performance in some cameras the result
of noise generated at the time the data is recorded. Camera
processing choices come into play to a significant degree only when
shooting jpegs. I've yet to shoot a jpeg with the K20D.
Paul
On Jun 30, 2008, at 3:51 AM,
Toralf Lund wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Some sensors handle the boost much better than others,
Yes, but wouldn't that be because there is less noise to begin with? I.e
they have better performance at *all* ISOs?
and the choices
in processing made by the manufacturer, (as well
For sensor it makes no difference if you have high iso setting with low
light and aperture wide open or bright sun with small aperture.
Both cases sensor receives little light and noise contriutes significantly
Amplification does not improve signal to noise ratio, because both are
amplified
Derby Chang wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Indeed. But one of the questions I was asking was really, is the output
on the poorer performers just a result of bad processing choices that
might be fixed on the outside?
- Toralf
Not quite. The voltages coming out of the
Paul Stenquist wrote:
No, it's not the result of image processing you could apply in
PhotoShop. I shoot only RAW. The RAW data is far superior.
Isn't some of the noise reduction logic applied even in raw mode?
It's
apparently the result of a sensor that generates less heat at high
ISO
Toralf Lund wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Some sensors handle the boost much better than others,
Yes, but wouldn't that be because there is less noise to begin with? I.e
they have better performance at *all* ISOs?
Well yes, obviously.
and the choices
in processing made by the
The K20D may well display less noise at low ISO as well, but noise isn't really
a factor in this range. If you don't see it, it isn't worth worrying about. I
can say for sure that the K20D is less noisy than the K10D at ISO 400. At ISO
200, I can't recall having ever noticed noise with either
Underexposure and correction in conversion always results in severe noise.
Don't kow why. But I know it happens, so I avoid it. And yes there is some
noise reduction logic applied to high ISO images in the K20D. You are able to
choose a level. I have mine set to weak, I believe. However, the
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:38:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Underexposure and correction in conversion always results in severe noise.
Don't kow why. But I know it happens, so I avoid it . . .
It happens because noise is (by definition) pretty much random.
If you underexpose by two
John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:38:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Underexposure and correction in conversion always results in severe noise.
Don't kow why. But I know it happens, so I avoid it . . .
It happens because noise is (by definition) pretty much random.
Toralf Lund wrote:
Derby Chang wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Indeed. But one of the questions I was asking was really, is the output
on the poorer performers just a result of bad processing choices that
might be fixed on the outside?
- Toralf
Not
2008/6/30 Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it's not the result of image processing you could apply in
PhotoShop. I shoot only RAW. The RAW data is far superior. It's
apparently the result of a sensor that generates less heat at high
ISO than the K10D sensor.
I'm not too sure about this.
With 8000 frames on the K20D I'm sure it's less noisy thatn the K10D at any ISO
above 400. In fact, 1600 is comparable to about 600 on the K10. And the K10D
doesn't shoot 6400. It wouldn't dare:-).
Paul
-- Original message --
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, you can turn off high ISO noise reduction. You just can't turn off long
exposure noise reduction, but you can set it to auto where it will remain off
if excessive heat buildup isn't indicated.
But for me the performance is what counts. And the camera performs better than
any other Pentax
Paul Stenquist wrote:
In truth, the K20D is an excellent high ISO performer, [ ... ]
I've been meaning to ask some questions about this for a long time,
since it doesn't really make sense to me when people say that a certain
camera is has a good high ISO performance. I mean, doesn't the ISO
I don't know why it works from a technical point of view, but it
works:-). The K20D yields very good high ISO pics with noise control
set to the minimum. If I get the results I want, I don't worry a lot
about why I got them.
Paul
Paul
On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Paul
To get serious about this, the ISO number doesn't just multiply the signal.
There are other factors, most notably heat, that determine how much noise will
acompany that multiplication. Thus, a camera can, indeed, be a good high ISO
performer. And the K20D is exactly that. But as I noted before,
or something before the noise isnt very noticable.
JC OCONNELL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Why to buy a K20D?
To get serious about
In addition to the amount of noise, there seems to be an emerging
awareness that all noise is not equal. Some noise doesn't look so
bad. It seems to be more like film grain. Other noise is just...
well... noise.
GS
http://georgesphotos.net
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Paul Stenquist
--- George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In addition to the amount of noise, there seems to
be an emerging
awareness that all noise is not equal. Some noise
doesn't look so
bad. It seems to be more like film grain. Other
noise is just...
well... noise.
GS
I thought that the DP
Some sensors handle the boost much better than others, and the choices
in processing made by the manufacturer, (as well as hardware), can
affect the output in pleasant or unpleasant ways.
Toralf Lund wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
In truth, the K20D is an excellent high ISO performer, [ ...
Hey gang...
Been too busy of late to post anything in a while.
But, I have been thinking of purchasing the K20D and
for the first ever, I need help on this one.
For those of you who've taken the plunge already, I
have to ask why? I'm mostly looking for a second digi
body and I'm in the process
In truth, the K20D is an excellent high ISO performer, but like most
digital cameras, correct exposure is essential. Underexpose and the
noise multiplies. That's why you hear mixed reviews. But a properly
exposed ISO 1600 shot from the K20D is approximately equivalent in
noise levels to a
The increased resolution is obviously a great feature.
As you say, it's especially nice when you need to
crop.
It's good to hear that your high ISO experience has
been better than some have reported. I rarely shoot
above 400 but it would be nice to know I can if
needed.
Thanks for your input.
MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why to buy a K20D?
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday, June 28, 2008, 2:02 PM
The increased resolution is obviously a great feature.
As you say, it's especially nice when you need to
crop.
It's good to hear that your high ISO
39 matches
Mail list logo
