On 11-10-02 3:05 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-10-02 2:52 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Note that the image quality of the K20 isn't bad, and in good light, it's
pretty good but it took some practice to be able to match the low light
perfprmance of the K100 with it.
Larry you *must* have meant to compare the low light perf of the K-x. The
K100D has poor low light performance that the K20D *easily* beats, with no
effort at all. No comparison whatsoever.
Nope. I had put so much effort into every tweak I could to get everything out
of the K100, that when I first tried using the K20 in low light, the results
were worse than what I was getting with the K100.
I can only assume that your K20D was, unhappily, a bad copy.
Even once I got it working, it always had that annoying blue noise. I was
eventually able to get a stop or two better performance out of the K20, but I
was never pleased with it's low light performance. That's why I got the K-x
when I could pretend to afford one.
I don't see any annoying blue noise of which you speak.
I regularly shoot my K20D @ ISO 3200. Here are just a few examples from
a jazz venue notorious for low light from gelled tungsten spots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_m_walker/5029160697
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_m_walker/5029780304
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_m_walker/5029162869
1/90th sec, f/1.4, ISO 3200.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_m_walker/5029786364
1/8th, f/2.8, ISO 3200.
When I try ISO 3200 on the K100D Super, I get colour banding so bad I
can't even Photoshop it into usefulness.
-bmw
--
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.
