K10D noise characteristics @ iso 1600

[bahadir]

While happy to see Pentax in progress, whichjustifies my lens investment, I'mpuzzled tosee some horrible(comperative!) blotchy, darkandhazy 1600 isoimages from K10D on the web (not onthis forum!). On the other hand, I don't mean to accuse these people whokindlydedicate their time to sharetheir hands on experience. Personally, I owea lot to user reviewssupported with pictures so far, even more than some renowned pro reviews, I might even say!

Ok! To make things short, here I post a picture I shot this morning @ iso 1600 in a relatively gloomycornerof my living room.As you may also see in the exif, it was shot in jpeg mode in natural image tone, without flash and without any in camera or post process.

Btw, I should also reveal that my previous camera which I bought about four months ago and made Pentaxreplace last monthdue to some other reason, was not as good! Perhapsthey have also improved in QC matters in recent lines of production ; )

#1 the big picture!

[bahadir]

#2) %100 crop

[bahadir]

#3 another crop displaying the full plate..

[JohnG]

bahadir wrote:

While happy to see Pentax in progress, whichjustifies my lens investment, I'mpuzzled tosee some horrible (comperative!) blotchy, darkandhazy 1600 isoimages from K10D on the web (not onthis forum!).

Well, I think there are a couple reasons you may see very poor high ISO shots out there:

1. Underexposure. People get in a nasty habit of not thinking and expecting the camera to do all the work - that can lead to exposure issues. High ISO shots will always look better exposed slightly to the right.

2. The subject makes a difference. In the shot you posted there aren't a lot of shadows and not much dark in the frame. Lighting is fairly consistant. That makes it easier to get a good, well exposed shot. Situations like a play, band or sporting event might not have such consistantly lit subjects with so much lighter color tones. In those instances, the noise profile will be worse.

[bahadir]

Thanks for the prompt reply John : ) You're right about that habit of people (see article # 1)!Honestly, I decided to buy the K10D the day I saw a side by side comparison serial with the EOS 40D, posted by asomeone who preferred the 40D over the K10D :-)

As for#2, see the deep dark shadowy parts between the plate and the othernearby items, which still follows smoothly not diminishing the wood texture, withreasonable grainy pattern though. Moreover, as you may have noticed, the picture was a bit underexposed which leaves scope to attain an even brighter result (inboth meanings)!

[mtngal]

I found out something interesting last night when it comes to my particular K10's 1600 picture. Remember my pictures in the camera store and I remarked I couldn't believe how little banding there was on my camera? Well, it occurred to me that I normally use raw only, but had changed to raw+jpg and had used just the jpg version for my comparison to the k20. So yesterday at lunch I went to the library and shot some more 1600 pictures using raw+jpg, including a couple that were really too big of a dynamic range for the camera (and most of the picture was quite dark). I looked at them in Bridge (I use CS2), opened the jpg in photoshop, then looked at the raw version in Lightroom. There was a significant difference in the way the picture looked - the jpg had little detail in the shadows and showed very little banding. Noise wasn't too bad. The LR version showed far more detail in the deep shadows, but also a lot more noise and some banding (still not as much as I had remembered from previous 1600 attempts). I don't know if myLR (in other words, ACR) is set to automatically "balance" the tone or what, but the shadows looked really "pushed" while the jpg didn't. I'm re-thinking howLightroom and ACRworks.

[DigitalGal]

This is interesting for me to read.. any experience is worth to be seen to get better results in shorter time.. selfish, heh?

According to all the tests I have seen and red about (including the one where canon 30d and nikon d300 were compared to k10), the only issue shooting with pentax camera can be WB and exposure matter, requiring more of photographers input (which I don't mind, coz I am used to do it already) to get it right.. tried a few free hand shots last night in living room..

One pic..nothing special, just a snapshot to test..

I have set a manual WB, at 1/4s F4/0, focal lenght 33mm, camera has set ISO 280.. I still have to get a clear idea (to remember while shooting) about all the settings that camera offers in automatic mode..

A pic enclosed:
[line]

[thkn777]

Some days ago I was discussing noise with Daniel, maybe you find that conversation interesting:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80

Now I can't say for the K10D since I own a DL2... but maybe one can reproduce the effects with the K10D too.

Regards,
Th.