Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 10, 2007, 7:41 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Cool comparison mtngal, thanks for sharing it. I agree with your conclusion, the K100 does look better at 1600 but the K10 1600 is clearly better than the K100 3200. I could not see any "banding" or anything unusual in the K10 photos though.

Thanks again,

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 5:44 AM   #22
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

NonEntity1 wrote:
Quote:
Cool comparison mtngal, thanks for sharing it. I agree with your conclusion, the K100 does look better at 1600 but the K10 1600 is clearly better than the K100 3200. I could not see any "banding" or anything unusual in the K10 photos though.

Thanks again,

Tim
Well you're not going to see banding in these lighting conditions. I get it with my DL sometimes at concerts where there's a couple of light resources in a dark environment with a lot fo smoke added to the setup. It's normal for any camera...solution is a fast lens
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 8:29 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
thkn777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831
Default

well... ISO3200 at my DL2 looks almost like ISO400 on my Oly C770... will do 1:1 comparisons at a later date. With this in mind I am sure I'll shoot at ISO3200 now and then if that means I get some keepers from it. At normal conditions I allow up to ISO1600 which is very usable for me.

As for the original post... I am somewhat astoninshed that the 10mp chip and the K10 in general is so close at ISO1600 compared to "only" 6mp.

In old analog days I used some high ISO film (1600/3200) at some occasions and it was grainy - everyone knew that you have to pay a price for the high ISO. With this in mind I'd rate the ISO3200 pics produced by the current Pentax cameras at least decent, if not good!

My 2 cents,
Th.
thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 9:02 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Thank you for taking on this task, Harriet. It's really valuable to all of us, I think.

A thing I would like to see is how these pictures compare after post processing like noise reduction etc. That would show what one can expect to squeeze out of these cameras when using all means and tools.


style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 11:02 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

Great job on the comparisons mtngal. Definitely shows that Pentax has their processing engine for this sensor tweaked to very high standards....Don
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 12:14 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Kjell - I thought about doing some of these with noise reduction, after I did the original thread. There were so many images, I hated to put more on this thread, but since you asked - I didn't process all of them, but did do both jpg versions from the K10 (because I thought one showed a bit more pattern than the other), along with the 2 bright K100 pictures (ISO 1600 and ISO 3200). Hope8 more images won't kill off some of you on dial-up (I've included 100% crops, too).

I use Neat Image - I downloaded it first, tried it and seemed to get along with it so have stayed with it. Some people prefer Noise Ninja and I've certainly seen outstanding results from it, but have never tried it, only because I've been happy with Neat Image.

Technical stuff for Neat Image users - skip this paragraph if you don't know anything about the program or aren't interested in the nuts and bolts of what I did (and the variations I introduce by how I did it). If you are familiar with the program, you can either let the program analyze each picture or you can develop "profiles" for each camera/ISO settings. Because I thought lenses might play a minor factor and because I don't use it much with the Pentax, I've never bothered to develop profiles, so I let the software analyze each picture, then sampled a couple of places to get the highest quality sample I could (varied from the high 80s to low 90s) - this automatically introduces differences. I used the same amount of chromatic (100%)and luminance (65%)reduction for all pictures - it gave a reasonable balance for my tastes between noise and detail. If I had pushed it to 100% luminance noise reduction the picture would have had less noise, but would have lost too much detail and looked far too over-processed for me.

None of them have had additional sharpening done to them. Normally I would adda littleUSM to anything I've run through Neat Image - improves the edges and does a little to recover some of the detail that gets lost through the noise reduction process.

I thought they all cleaned up quite well, though the program only did a so-so job with the ISO 3200 pictures. I think that the K10's pictures kept more detail, even viewed 100% crop, than the K100's 1600 pictures, which really surprised me (had expected the K100 to do better because they had a bit less noise to begin with). There could be lots of possible explanations for this, including just the particular pictures I used (hardly a statistical sample!). But it did convince me that the K100 can produce very useable pictures at 1600.

K10, bright, full frame:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 12:15 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

K10 bright, 100% crop:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 12:16 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

K10, natural, full frame:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 12:17 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

K10 Natural, 100% Crop. I included more of the back with the 100% crops because I wanted to show the detail that was lost as well as the noise that disappeared in the OOF dark background.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 12:19 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

K100, ISO 1600, bright. I didn't do the K100 natural versions because I didn't see much difference between them when it came to noise.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:28 PM.