Tue Jan 19 02:43:20 CST 2010 Dario Bonazza wrote:
> Igor Roshchin wrote: > > > I had a chance to test K-x over the weekend using high-ISO in > > low-light setting. > > As I wrote in another thread, it was very underwhelming with > > 16-50/2.8, > > but that was a problem of the lens (in my very subjective opinion). > > > > It did great with 50-135/2.8: > > > > ISO-3200: > > http://42graphy.org/swing/lonestar-2010/_IGP4428.html > > http://42graphy.org/swing/lonestar-2010/_IGP0114.html > > > > ISO-1600: > > http://42graphy.org/swing/lonestar-2010/_IGP0292.html > > http://42graphy.org/swing/lonestar-2010/_IGP0310.html > > http://42graphy.org/swing/lonestar-2010/_IGP0323.html > > > > > > It's a hard decision... > > I like K-7's feel and AF-performance and > > other features better, but as many pointed out, K-x's matrix is > > _MUCH_ better at high ISO. > > Speaking of boats... welcome on board, Igor. Together with Bill Robb and I, > we are now three men in a boat (to say nothing of the K-9...err... dog) > asking for a K-7 equipped with the K-x sensor/processor. > > Dario > HAR! And as we all learned in another thread, - K-9 doesn't let Bill to switch from Pentax. Igor Tue Jan 19 08:52:05 CST 2010 David J Brooks wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dario Bonazza > <dario.bonazza at virgilio.it> wrote: > > Igor Roshchin wrote: > > > >> It's a hard decision... > >> I like K-7's feel and AF-performance and > >> other features better, but as many pointed out, K-x's matrix is > >> _MUCH_ better at high ISO. > > > > BTW, a K-7 equipped with the K-x sensor/processor would make a Pentax > > FF > > camera much less urgent. > > Hoya, are you listening? > > If you would like to speak to a representative, please press 1. If you are obsessive-compulsive, press 1 repeatedly. ... If you are paranoid, we know who you are and what you want. Stay on the line so we can trace your call. It will be ignored. Tue Jan 19 06:55:02 CST 2010 paul stenquist wrote: > These are excellent, but k7 is rather good at relatively high ISO as > well. Better than most give it credit for. This pic, shown here > recently, is at 1600, and even with contrast boosting to give it a > gritty look, the noise is minimal: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10521648 That's a very nice photo! Paul, I agree that it is possible to do good pictures with K-7 at 1600. - I posted one just recently http://pdml.net/pipermail/pdml_pdml.net/2010-January/205671.html My point is rather that with K-x one can push further; and it is also more consistent. I suspect that at high ISO-s K-7's latitude become very shallow, and hence slightly larger dynamic range of the scene or slight error in the exposure (underexposure) make the photo unusable. All three of the ISO-1600 that I listed, were pushed by +0.3- +0.6 up in exposure (in LR). This one: http://42graphy.org/swing/lonestar-2010/_IGP0172.html was pushed to +1. Tue Jan 19 06:13:08 CST 2010 Christine Aguila wrote: > Wow, that is impressive, but everything does great with the DA* 50-135mm > :-). Cheers, Christine Is it like ketchup? ;-) Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
