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 11, 2007, 1:19 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

K100 ISO 1600 crop:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 1:20 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

K100, ISO 3200, bright, full frame:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 1:21 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

K100 ISO 3200, bright, 100% crop:
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 3:19 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

I have to admit, I slightly prefer the ISO 3200 K100 shots to the ISO 1600 K10 shots. The K10 at ISO 1600 does have better colors and detail, but there is some kind of vertical banding going on in there, especially in the natural shot. I don't know if I'm being accurate with the term, but there are visible vertical bars throughout the image, especially visible in the table to the lower right. almost resembling the look of an inkjet printout.

Thanks for the efforts MtnGal, I know how time consuming these kinds of projects can get. I'd be interested to see some comparisons where the K10 has an obvious advantage, like photos of a well lit scene with lots of detail to show off how much more detail the K10 can pick up with it's extra resolution.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 5:07 PM   #35
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 60
Default

Corpsy

That looks like reflections or shadows from her bookcase onto the very shiny tabletop, not banding. If you look at the k100 pics vs the k10 pics, the duck is in a different location. In the k10 pics there is reflection or shadows from the bookcase. Check out the tip of the ducks nose against bookcase position and you will see what I mean.
Peggy
pmanza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 5:36 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I agree with you, Corpsy - it does look like there's some sortof slight pattern to the noise in the natural one, though not so much with the bright mode, and not in the duck's reflection but in the OOF bookcase. It cleans up in Neat Image well, and I wouldn't hesitate to use the K10 with high ISOs. The 3200 K100 pictures have to be taken with noise - when I got rid of the noise on that picture, I lost far more detail that I would ever accept (well, unless it wasa sunset or something), so my personal preference would be the cleaned upK10's 1600 over the K100's 3200, but that's my personal preference. The K100's 1600 is better, especially out of the camera.

WhenI first got the K10, I did some comparison shots with my two M 50mm lenses that are posted here. Some are with the K10 and some with the K100 (the boring tire track pictures, I was looking for sharpness comparisons). The funny thing is that if you look at the full frame picture, reduced to fit here, you really can't tell the difference between the two cameras - the extra mp detail is lost through the resizing. On the other hand, you can see the extra information captured by the 10 mp when you look at the 100% crops.

My personal feeling is that the K10's advantage over the K100 (both have SR)for most people will be in the ergonomics, controls, and weather proofing, not particularly the image quality (with the exception of the white balance being better in my opinion with the K10). Note I said "most" - those like Roger and Tomwill use those extra mp for wildlife photography, and I've found it helps (but isn't that big of a deal) with some flowers when I can't get that close to them.

Hope I didn't shock anyone with these thoughts, and don't get me wrong because I love my K10 and use it as my primary camera. I'm still keeping the K100,because itsnice to have a second camera body - keep a wide angle (usually the kit lens) on one cameraand a telephoto of some sort on the other. Now that I've actually done some comparisons, it'll give me choices when I need high ISOs.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 5:55 PM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

thanks harriet. this is great and i hope you get to feeling better. an observation?

does bright/natural have any effect when shooting RAW ??? i would think not.

another ???? don't you think to really ck the b/n difference would work better at showing the diff if you used brightly/different colored subjects.

how do the raw+jpg compare to each other when downloaded. how did you convert the raw files?

roy
  Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2007, 7:39 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

robar wrote:
Quote:
does bright/natural have any effect when shooting RAW ??? i would think not.

another ???? don't you think to really ck the b/n difference would work better at showing the diff if you used brightly/different colored subjects.

how do the raw+jpg compare to each other when downloaded. how did you convert the raw files?

roy
1. I think it does make a difference - whatever the camera does in bright mode is transferred with the file - I actually first observed this when I had the DS - one rainy weekday I spent my lunch hour taking even more boring pictures of rolls of paper with yellow stickers and red marks visible on them. I shot raw and changed sharpness, contrast, and saturation along withvivid and natural. The only one thatshowed a noticeable change was thevivid - the pictures were definitely sharper and more saturated(thought too sharp). The effect of bright on the K10 and K100 is more to my taste than the vivid was on the DS.

2. The only thing I was looking at between the bright vs. natural was whether the camera does some sort of processing (what I had observed before with the DS) that might make a difference in the noise pattern, I wasn't comparing color rendition at all (did that a while ago) - besides, I love the texture of the wood on the duck and it would be more interesting than a painted one. I went back and looked at the couple of other pictures I took but didn't process to post here, and in those, the pattern is equally evident in both the bright and the natural ones. I think the two I processed here arejust variances, perhaps due to slightly different lighting.

3. I used ACR to process the raw files (I use DNG sinceACR doesn't recognize the K10yet). I took the suggestion to set the sharpness and raw to 0 and change the curve to linear. I looked at the pictures with Photo Browser and they look exactly the same, but they don't in ACR (I was using Bridge to view them). The color was slightly different, the contrast more so (but then I have a linear curve set as default in ACR). The noise looked the same to me in both sets (raw making no difference).

And finally, I'm feeling better (can eat again, I think). Just in time for a weekend get-away, and hopefully some birding pictures if all goes right.
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 5:10 AM.