Oh the under exposed shots are terrible (the K10D is less forgiving than the D when it comes to exposure IMO). But even the correctly exposed frames have this streaky blue channel noise through it.
In the busy parts of the shot isn't so noticeable, but in the black areas it stands out like a sore thumb to me. Cheers, Dave On 2/6/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. Maybe they're underexposed a bit? This shot was taken in very > dim light. Just a bit of room tungsten lighting at night. But it's > right on with exposure. I think it was something like f2 @ 1/8th second. > On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:47 AM, David Savage wrote: > > > Sweet shot Paul. > > > > I admit, I have got good results at 1600 with the K10D in decent > > light. But in really poor light the shots I have are quite noisy. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > > > On 2/6/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Maybe you should have your camera checked out, David. I find that > >> noise > >> at 1600 with my K10D is quite minimal, less than with my *istD. > >> This is > >> shot at 1600, and it's cropped to about 60%. No noise reduction. > >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5247870&size=lg > >> Paul > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
