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 Aug 23, 2008, 10:48 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

jelpee wrote:
Quote:
IMHO the untouched versions are too grainy for my liking although the PP'd image seems acceptable. I often wonder if the extreme capabilities of modern bodies have more merit on paper than in practice? My experience with high ISO in low light has yielded marginal results even with the K20D. I therefore try to stay with 200-400 ISO ratings and use a fast lens instead.

Good subject to toss around and discuss!

Jay
I too think the untouched are too grainy, but, if you have to get the shot and use it, it is good to know you can still get it. Needs processing afterwards though. I wish I could stay between 200-400 ISO too, but shooting wildlife in our dull climate dictates otherwise. Nice on sunny days though....cheers...Don
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2008, 11:16 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

(Just my HMO): The unretouched images are a little too degraded for my liking although the retouched images are acceptable. I ofter wonder though if the "super" specs on today's bodies (such as the K20D) look better on paper than in practice!

Even when using my K20D, I have gotten marginal results at ISO ratings > 800. For the most part I keep my ISOs < 800 and use a fast lens to make the best of the available light when a fast shutter speed is needed.

Good discussion topic...thanks for the opportunity to weigh in.

Jay
Wingman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2008, 8:28 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
RedStickMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 447
Default

Kman -
Thanks.
I drew a simple mask over the bird and ran the pic through Neat Image using the "remove all noise" setting. This just effected the unmasked areas (background). Then I reversed the mask and ran it through Neat Image again with a less aggressive setting and removed some of the noise from the bird area.

A tiny bit of USM and that was it.

RedStickMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2008, 9:45 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

Not to change the subject a little, but I was reading today about the K20 having lots of noise with jpg's at any ISO setting. Have those of you with the K20 found that to be true? Do you need to shoot everything in RAW?

By the time the K40 comes out I may be able to upgrade from my K100. In the meantime, I just read and ponder. Thanks for any input.

Patty
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2008, 7:26 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,327
Default

My K20Dappears to begood through about ISO 800. Beyond that noise has to be treated with some PP. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic when it comes to noise:?
Wingman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2008, 11:50 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

RedStickMan wrote:
Quote:
Kman -
Thanks.
I drew a simple mask over the bird and ran the pic through Neat Image using the "remove all noise" setting. This just effected the unmasked areas (background). Then I reversed the mask and ran it through Neat Image again with a less aggressive setting and removed some of the noise from the bird area.

A tiny bit of USM and that was it.
Thanks RSM. I really have to learn to use layers. Never delved into them...sounds like a very useful method...cheers...Don
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2008, 11:52 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

nhmom wrote:
Quote:
Not to change the subject a little, but I was reading today about the K20 having lots of noise with jpg's at any ISO setting. Have those of you with the K20 found that to be true? Do you need to shoot everything in RAW?

By the time the K40 comes out I may be able to upgrade from my K100. In the meantime, I just read and ponder. Thanks for any input.

Patty
I can't speak for jpg, as I only shoot RAW. I like the flexibility of RAW for exposure and WB, and only use jpg for snapshots which are rare and few. But I don't find the noise levels excessive using RAW and processing to jpg...cheers..Don
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2008, 4:11 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

nhmom wrote:
Quote:
Not to change the subject a little, but I was reading today about the K20 having lots of noise with jpg's at any ISO setting. Have those of you with the K20 found that to be true? Do you need to shoot everything in RAW?

By the time the K40 comes out I may be able to upgrade from my K100. In the meantime, I just read and ponder. Thanks for any input.

Patty
Hey Patty,
I don't have the K20, but from what I've seen on this site, the K20 delivers a much better pic at 3200 than mine can at 800 iso. That's the primary reason I want one.
GW

Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2008, 7:28 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

This will make a great print, that much noise is practically negligible in a print.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2008, 10:17 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
nhmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202
Default

Thanks for the comments on the noise at high ISO's. I was at the camera store today and held the K20. It wasn't as large/heavy as I thought it would be. Made me want it even more. Going from 6MP to 14MP would be a substantial jump. I've been shooting in RAW a lot lately. I can't even imagine how large the 14MP RAW files are.

So, GW, how do we go about getting one now rather than buying a used one 5 years from now? :-)

Patty
nhmom 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 5:25 PM.