On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A test snap of a friend ...
Olympus E-5, Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/40 second.
Very impressive for ISO 3200 out of a small sensor.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Really nice for 3200.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A test snap of a friend ...
Olympus E-5, Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/40 second.
Very impressive for ISO 3200 out of a small
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course that's just
one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
Paul
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A test snap of a friend ...
Olympus E-5, Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/40 second
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course
that's just one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
Wow, that bad, huh? :-p
--
Steve Desjardins
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course
that's just one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
If a few sample pics I saw tell the truth, the K-5 is roughly a couple stops
ahead of that. We'll see soon.
Dario
--
PDML
On 10/22/2010 2:43 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course
that's just one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
If a few sample pics I saw tell the truth, the K-5 is roughly a couple
stops ahead of
Boris Liberman wrote:
On 10/22/2010 2:43 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course
that's just one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
If a few sample pics I saw tell the truth, the K-5 is roughly a
--
From: paul stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: new camera ... ISO 3200 sample
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course that's
just one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
I think that's called damning
On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
--
From: paul stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: new camera ... ISO 3200 sample
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course
that's just one sample, but I'd put it on a par
After shooting indoors with Fuji 800 for years and living with the grain,
Godfrey's photo looks spectacular at ISO 3200. For me, improvements in
resolution and noise reduction on digital in the past 6 years have been very
impressive.
Jeffery
On Oct 22, 2010, at 8:43 AM, P N Stenquist wrote
On Oct 22, 2010, at 8:43, P N Stenquist wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
--
From: paul stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: new camera ... ISO 3200 sample
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course
: Re: OT: new camera ... ISO 3200 sample
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course that's
just one sample, but I'd put it on a par with the K7 at 3200.
I think that's called damning with faint praise.
William Robb
Well, that's not my intent. I'm perfectly happy
On 22 October 2010 10:06, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] Of course, they don't think to look for the noise.
Oh silly people who have no idea how to look at photos. They were
probably looking at the subject, weren't they! The poor fools...
--M.
--
\/\/o/\/\ --
, at 8:43, P N Stenquist wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
--
From: paul stenquist
Subject: Re: OT: new camera ... ISO 3200 sample
Good, but not stunning in terms of high ISO performance. Of course that's
just one sample
A test snap of a friend ...
Olympus E-5, Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/40 second.
(downsized and sharpened for web, 925 pixels tall, 100K)
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/PA210099s.jpg
(original out of the camera JPEG, full size, 6.2 Mbytes, no
modifications at all)
http
It appears that you focused on the far eye. Otherwise quite impressive.
On 10/22/2010 12:50 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A test snap of a friend ...
Olympus E-5, Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/40 second.
(downsized and sharpened for web, 925 pixels tall, 100K)
http
.
On 10/22/2010 12:50 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A test snap of a friend ...
Olympus E-5, Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH
ISO 3200 @ f/4 @ 1/40 second.
(downsized and sharpened for web, 925 pixels tall, 100K)
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/PA210099s.jpg
(original out of the camera JPEG, full size
I haven't shot a lot of low light pics with the K7, even though I'm
already up over 7000 frames. But I had occasion to do so today,
shooting in a rather dark barn on a farm. Exposure here is right out
of the camera no tweaking. Both pics are full frame. A bit of smart
sharpening on the
: K7D at ISO 3200
I haven't shot a lot of low light pics with the K7, even though I'm
already up over 7000 frames. But I had occasion to do so today,
shooting in a rather dark barn on a farm. Exposure here is right out
of the camera no tweaking. Both pics are full frame. A bit of smart
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On
Behalf Of
P N Stenquist
Sent: 10 October 2009 21:38
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: K7D at ISO 3200
I haven't shot a lot of low light pics with the K7, even though I'm
already up over 7000 frames. But I had
...@comcast.net
Subject: Re: K7D at ISO 3200
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 2:17 PM
OOooops
Here's the other one:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9885282size=lg
Both are with the DA* 60-250 btw.
On Oct 10, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Chris Mitchell
- unless there's
something
you're not telling us about Grace
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On
Behalf Of
P N Stenquist
Sent: 10 October 2009 21:38
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: K7D at ISO 3200
I haven't shot a lot of low light
Looks, good, Paul. Thanks for posting! Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: P N Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 3:37 PM
Subject: K7D at ISO 3200
I haven't shot a lot of low light pics with the K7
Revisited this pic today. I'm still very impressed with the high ISO
performance of the K20D. This was shot with the FA 50/1.4 at f2.8,
1/30th.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7191694size=lg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Hummm, indeed.
Its a bit noticable on the left side of the tiger, in the one leg and paw.
But, very impressive,.
Any noise reduction in PP applied Paul, or as is.
Dave
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revisited this pic today. I'm still very impressed
The noise must to be very strong on your monitor for you to mistake a
lion for a tiger...
David J Brooks wrote:
Hummm, indeed.
Its a bit noticable on the left side of the tiger, in the one leg and paw.
But, very impressive,.
Any noise reduction in PP applied Paul, or as is.
Dave
On
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The noise must to be very strong on your monitor for you to mistake a
lion for a tiger...
I panicked
Dave
David J Brooks wrote:
Hummm, indeed.
Its a bit noticable on the left side of the tiger, in the one leg
I'm impressed! May have to get me one of those. ;)
Jack
--- On Tue, 4/22/08, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: ISO 3200
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 9:26 AM
Revisited this pic today
ISO is impressive. Another sweet Grace shot too. Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: PESO: ISO 3200
Revisited this pic today. I'm still very
No noise reduction in PP. High ISO noise reduction in camera is set
to Weak.
Paul
On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
Hummm, indeed.
Its a bit noticable on the left side of the tiger, in the one leg
and paw.
But, very impressive,.
Any noise reduction in PP applied Paul,
On 06/02/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What has film got to do with the K10D's lack of ISO 3200?
I can appreciate that in certain situations the advantages of having ISO
3200 available outweigh it's disadvantages.
I've taken very usable printable ISO 1600/3200 shots
Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What has film got to do with the K10D's lack of ISO 3200?
I can appreciate that in certain situations the advantages of having
ISO
3200 available outweigh it's disadvantages.
I've taken very usable printable ISO 1600/3200 shots with the *istD
(after some
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
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
On 2/06/07 8:15 AM, Paul Stenquist, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This shot was taken in very dim light. Just a bit of room tungsten lighting at
night.
That's amazing Paul.
It looks as if it was under a full lighting. Perhaps you brightened it up a
bit. I see no appreciable noise for 1600.
BTW,
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
Paul, I suggest each time you describe the way you took a shot you
insert a word steady somewhere ;-).
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
Yes, it's considerably brighter than the actual lighting. Quite a bit colder as
well. But it seemed to look good that way.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/06/07 8:15 AM, Paul Stenquist, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This shot
The blue channel streaking was reportedly fixed with the last firmware upgrade.
We shall see.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh the under exposed shots are terrible (the K10D is less forgiving
than the D when it comes to
How about Shake Reduction? :-)
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul, I suggest each time you describe the way you took a shot you
insert a word steady somewhere ;-).
On 2/6/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that would be in line with modern times...
On 2/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about Shake Reduction? :-)
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul, I suggest each time you describe the way you took a
On 07/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The blue channel streaking was reportedly fixed with the last firmware
upgrade. We shall see.
Not so I believe, the blue channel noise is a sensor product and we
are likely stuck with it. Whereas the problem that was fixed (solid
vertical
From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: K10D @ ISO 3200
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:35:56 +1100
On 07/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The blue channel streaking
On 07/02/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if this was the problem seen in my last moon shot with the *ist D
when noise reduction was turned on.
My apologies Tom, I shouldn't have said dark frame, I meant the
sensors masked dark reference pixels.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE
From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: K10D @ ISO 3200
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:11:52 +1100
On 07/02/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if this was the problem seen in my
11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
DiGiorgi
Sendt: 5. februar 2007 22:27
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: K10D @ ISO 3200
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash
Nice photo! I'd love to see an 11x14 print of that ... to see how
that film stands up to enlargement. A web rez derived from a scan
really tells almost nothing about the print you can make from it.
G
On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
Good question, Godfrey. I shot 1600 ASA Fuji
presentation (Wondershare
Flash Slide Show Builder).
This is a *ist D ISO 3200 shot IIRC:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/39757593/in/photostream/
Regards
Jens Bladt
Nytarkort / Greeting Card:
http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85
I made a 12 x 18 print from Fuji 1600. It was grainy of course, but
nice. The high speed Fuji color print film is rather good. Ditto
Kodak's Portra 800.
Paul
On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Nice photo! I'd love to see an 11x14 print of that ... to see how
that film
I was always disappointed in the quality of 35mm color work enlarged
to 11x or bigger unless I was shooting with ASA 100 film. That's why
I loved medium format so much for larger prints. 5x7 or 8x12 wasn't
as much of an issue.
G
On Feb 6, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I made a
I certainly prefer MF enlargements for the most part, but sometimes
grain is cool. This is the Fuji 1600 shot that I printed at 12x18. It
was shot for a Toyota television commercial that included some
stills, but I liked it as a big print. I printed it on an Epson 1200,
and it hung in my
I have heard ther's a setting somewhere that will allow for exposing
according to ISO 3200.
I can't find anything in the manual. Is this true? How?
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
Nytarkort / Greeting Card:
http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html
--
No virus found in this outgoing message
The rumor has it that in the future Pentax will release a camera micro
code that will enable both ISO 50 and ISO 3200 'cause one of the beta
versions had it. Currently we're confined to 100-1600 range.
Cheers.
On 2/5/07, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have heard ther's a setting
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash photography a lot.
Not pretty - and it disturbs the subject a lot. Sometimes so much, I cant
take pictures. I guess I could underexpose by one stop. If I shoot Raw)DGN
it's probably OK to brighten up later.
Thanks anywasy for answering
- Original Message -
From: Jens Bladt
Subject: RE: K10D @ ISO 3200
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash photography a
lot.
Not pretty - and it disturbs the subject a lot. Sometimes so much, I
cant
take pictures. I guess I could underexpose by one stop. If I
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash photography a
lot. Not pretty - and it disturbs the subject a lot. Sometimes so
much, I
cant take pictures. I guess I could underexpose by one stop. If I
shoot Raw)DGN
it's probably OK to brighten up later.
Whatever did you do
I'm looking forward only to the 50.
J
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash
photography a
lot. Not pretty - and it disturbs the subject a lot. Sometimes so
much, I
cant take pictures. I guess I could underexpose
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 01:27:22PM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash photography a
lot. Not pretty - and it disturbs the subject a lot. Sometimes so
much, I
cant take pictures. I guess I could underexpose by one stop. If I
shoot
On Feb 5, 2007, at 2:28 PM, John Francis wrote:
Whatever did you do when you were shooting with 35mm film? Any color
film over ASA 800 is pretty much crap, and even ASA 400 is crap when
you get to an 11x14 inch print.
Portra 800 wasn't bad. And I certtainly wouldn't call Kodak's 400
At 06:27 AM 6/02/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
From: Jens Bladt
Darned - I do lots of ISO 3200 shots. I don't like flash photography a
lot. Not pretty - and it disturbs the subject a lot. Sometimes so
much, I
cant take pictures. I guess I could underexpose by one stop. If I
shoot Raw
On 9/14/06 12:51 AM, P. J. Alling, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since they claim and extra stop in SR over the K100D maybe that's where
the extra stop is coming from.
According to a Japanese article, extra stop comes from more robust
magnet/coil over K100D's and the improved SR algorithm.
Ken
On 13/9/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed:
While I generally agree, I found the Pentax DSLR's to produce very
film-like results at high ISO's. The Canon and Nikon's are more
objectionable (Although my D50 is extremely clean at 800).
And for those who don't find it objectionable:
possible!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: istDS Noise @ ISO 3200 - again
Whoops! Forgot the URL
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200
I quit like that don't find it objectionable at all.
Sometimes I forget how good a snapper you are.
:-)
Dave
At 03:18 PM 14/09/2006, you wrote:
On 13/9/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed:
While I generally agree, I found the Pentax DSLR's to produce very
film-like results at high
On 14/9/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sometimes I forget how good a snapper you are.
You can simulate my aperture any time you like.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
The temptation.
But I wouldn't do that.
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 14/9/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sometimes I forget how good a slapper you are.
You can stimulate my aperture any time you like.
-
Email sent
On 9/14/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The temptation.
But I wouldn't do that.
Since when?
Go for it ;-)
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 14/9/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sometimes I forget how good a slapper you are.
You can stimulate my
On 9/14/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/9/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sometimes I forget how good a snapper you are.
You can simulate my aperture any time you like.
Good thing I just finished my drink...
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
from the 10D, despite the higher resolution.
Paul
On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Whoops! Forgot the URL
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the Pentax
DSLR's. Here's a large section from a photo I took last month @
Godders'
reception. It shows
for noise. But I too have
found that my *istD is remarkably free of noise at high ISO. I expect
even better performance from the 10D, despite the higher resolution.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the
Pentax DSLR's. Here's a large section from
PROTECTED]
To: PDML PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: istDS Noise @ ISO 3200 - again
Whoops! Forgot the URL
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the Pentax
DSLR's. Here's a large section from a photo I took last month @ Godders'
reception
.. or so says Pentax Imaging.
http://tinyurl.com/gulfl
Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
.. or so says Pentax Imaging.
http://tinyurl.com/gulfl
Shel
And if you click on Specifications, it goes to 1600.
-Adam
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
.. or so says Pentax Imaging.
http://tinyurl.com/gulfl
Shel
And if you click on Specifications, it goes to 1600.
And if you read at the bottom, it says Specifications are subject to
change. LOL.
-Adam
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
that it only goes down to
200. I'm looking forward to having 100iso on the K10D.
- Original Message -
From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: K10D ISO 3200 is Available ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I don't know about the DL but I find on the D ISO 1600 3200 are very
usable. Especially with the judicious use of noise reduction software in PP.
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_1.htm
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Noise%20Test/Misc_008.htm
Sometimes it's the difference between
It's definitely a horses for courses thing. I like film grain, but really
dislike digital noise.
- Original Message -
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: K10D ISO 3200 is Available
-
From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: K10D ISO 3200 is Available ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
.. or so says Pentax Imaging.
http://tinyurl.com/gulfl
Shel
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the Pentax DSLR's.
Here's a large section from a photo I took last month @ Godders' reception.
It shows Marnie looking at her Optio. I made no adjustments to the image
other than to correct the white balance. The image is just how
, but really
dislike digital noise.
- Original Message -
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: K10D ISO 3200 is Available ...
I don't know about the DL but I find on the D ISO 1600 3200
Whoops! Forgot the URL
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the Pentax
DSLR's. Here's a large section from a photo I took last month @ Godders'
reception. It shows Marnie looking at her Optio. I made no adjustments to
the image other than to correct the white balance
You forgot the link Shel.
Dave
At 11:14 AM 14/09/2006, you wrote:
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the Pentax DSLR's.
Here's a large section from a photo I took last month @ Godders' reception.
It shows Marnie looking at her Optio. I made no adjustments to the image
Considering it's ISO 3200, the noise is good. That is speaking in relative
terms. I just find to my eyes, shots at such high ISO aren't satisfying,
hence I just don't use those settings.
It's just personal preference.
James
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED
Sensitivity equivalent...
Since they claim and extra stop in SR over the K100D maybe that's where
the extra stop is coming from. I didn't see it in the preview of the
Custom Menu on the dpreview site.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
.. or so says Pentax Imaging.
http://tinyurl.com/gulfl
Shel
Marnie's looking a bit pale...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
There were some comments about how noisy ISO 3200 is with the Pentax DSLR's.
Here's a large section from a photo I took last month @ Godders' reception.
It shows Marnie looking at her Optio. I made no adjustments to the image
other than
Most complaints about excessive noise at reasonable ISO settings are,
in my experience, almost always due to underexposure.
Digital exposure evaluation should be predicated on getting as much
exposure as possible without saturating the pixels where you want
detail in the highlights, and
Rob Studdert wrote on
Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:52:40 -0800 :
On 26 Nov 2005 at 20:29, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Hi All,
I think I've seen somebody discussing this issue here on the list,
but couldn't find it now.
I've noticed this artefact: when shooting at ISO 3200 in the room
with tungsten
Message]
From: Igor Roshchin
I think I've seen somebody discussing this issue here on the list,
but couldn't find it now.
I've noticed this artefact: when shooting at ISO 3200 in the room
with tungsten light, there are vertical color lines appearing
in the image.
In some cases those
On 28 Nov 2005 at 18:54, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Yes, I was talking about HORIZONTAL (i.e. along the long edge).
http://bard-cafe.komkon.org/PhotoIgor/2005-11-13-Baryudin/.scaled/IMGP2159.jpg
That's not nice, and that image sends my theory to the vertical file.
and less pronounced:
Hi All,
I think I've seen somebody discussing this issue here on the list,
but couldn't find it now.
I've noticed this artefact: when shooting at ISO 3200 in the room
with tungsten light, there are vertical color lines appearing
in the image.
In some cases those lines are more pronounced
,
but couldn't find it now.
I've noticed this artefact: when shooting at ISO 3200 in the room
with tungsten light, there are vertical color lines appearing
in the image.
In some cases those lines are more pronounced at certain temperature
(color balance) settings.
What is the reason for this behavoir
On 26 Nov 2005 at 20:29, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Hi All,
I think I've seen somebody discussing this issue here on the list,
but couldn't find it now.
I've noticed this artefact: when shooting at ISO 3200 in the room
with tungsten light, there are vertical color lines appearing
in the image
92 matches
Mail list logo
