On 2/25/2013 9:04 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much testing have you done with high ISO? I don't
mean 100% blowups where you can see every blemish, but full-image shots
on a large monitor or large-ish prints (like the 13x20 I have).
I wouldn't have believed how little noise there is at 6400 without this
test. I do believe DxOMark, so I'll probably still try to stick below
1600, but given a situation where I need a higher ISO to get a shot, I'd
rather get the shot -- the amount of detail and lack of noise is amazing.
When I first got the K-5 I ran it through its paces and pulled several
12 x 18 inch prints and a few 17 x 20's on on my Epson 3800. Granted, I
used the crappy (but cheap) enhanced matte paper so the output was not
the highest.
I printed some bug macros with nice clean backgrounds. I had been
working with a K-7and before that a K-10D (which I felt were roughly
equivalent wrt to noise). My conclusion was that in the ISO ranges I
normally worked with the K-5 was one or two stops better wrt noise. At
higher ISO's there was no comparison between the K-5 and the other
bodies (especially at the ISO's that those bodies could not reach.)
I shoot bugs mostly at ISO 400 and sometimes at ISO 200 if things are
going well. The main reason for the high iso (for me, ISO 400 is "high
iso") is to limit motion blur due to the subject's movement. More often
than not I can control the camera enough to eliminate any motion blur
caused by me.
I never felt that the ISO 400 images I got with the K7 and K10D were as
good as I wanted - they were much better than comparable film images but
still seemed a little noisy to me. I find that the K5 at ISO 400 is as
good or a little better than the those cameras at ISO 200 wrt noise, and
much better wrt dynamic range and other characteristics. At ISO 200 the
K5 has a noise profile that is really great, so I still try to shoot at
that ISO when I can.
Like I said in my original post - the ISO quality of the K-5 is
marvelous and will only get better as cameras improve. But that does not
mean that it is a given and you can just ignore ISO and take i for
granted. If it is a matter of getting the shot or not I will crank it
up, but I will also ask myself if there was something I could have done
to get the shot at a lower ISO. Sometimes that is not possible - like
shooting bands under availble light, where you gotta use what light is
available.
For most everything I do, I can figure out a way to shoot at lower ISO's
and those techniques usually improve image quality not only wrt ISO.
Needing to get the shot is important but I am far more happy on days
when I come back with with one very satisfactory shot vs lots of
mediocre shots, and I am wiling to accept the constraints that technique
imposes to get that result. I am willing to give up "getting the shot"
in many cases if it means I get the one or two good shots. And again
(for the third time here) if you need high ISO you need it, so use it.
But if it can be done with a lower ISO then go that way.
Seeing that it can be done better, see how to do it better, and then
actually doing it better is what the game is all about, IMO.
Mark
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
