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 Nov 5, 2005, 6:59 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Ironman11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 19
Default

ejgladwin wrote:
Quote:
I've been very pleased with it at 1600 and even 3200. I think how pleased or disappointed you are will depend on how realistic your expectations are

If you want really high ISOs with virtually no noise you're gonna have to spend a few thousand on a high end Canon model or something like that. You can't expect the cheaper prosumer models to match them.

It definitely helps to shoot in RAW and convert with something like RawShooter Essentials. JPEG straight from the camera does tend to come out noisier I think.

But like I said before, depending on the subject, you can easily get 8x12 inch prints at ISO 1600 with very little noticable noise from a Pentax *ist DS.

Edward - http://photos.edgladwin.com/
I totally agree. I can shoot 11x14's without much noise, at ISO 1600!
Ironman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 10:06 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 9
Default

i have had little trouble with low light by switching to an old manual lens i have
1:1.4 50mm lens and a 1: 1.25 135mm lens i have had a lot of success
in some verry low light situations such as poor lit wedding receptions

rogueknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 10:22 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 99
Default

I often use the DS at 3200 with my old A1,4/50 for my daughter's theatre-group at school.

I enjoy the quality of those pictures. The noise is very low compared with other DSLR's - and compare it with high-speed films .....
tekade_alfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 11:02 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

If you shoot with the high ISO dont forget to shoot RAW. It will let you get that little bit extra out of what it gives you
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 7:49 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

ejgladwin wrote:
Quote:
If you want really high ISOs with virtually no noise you're gonna have to spend a few thousand on a high end Canon model or something like that. You can't expect the cheaper prosumer models to match them.
Really? I believe many would argue that the high-end Canon models such
as the 1D Mark II actually have more noise than the lower-end models such
as the 20D. Even though the high-end 1D Mark II has larger photodiodes
(pixels) than the 20D, it's images seem to be noisier at the same ISO. Is it
due to using a larger chip, or is it simply sue to using less noise reduction
on the high-end model? Who can say for sure? Just because it's a professional
camera that costs far more than others doesn't mean it will have less noise.


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 8:17 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Default

Ah, I was just saying that because I saw a review of a high end Canon in a photography magazine a few months ago (I forget the exact model) and they said that there was barely any difference in noise between the high and low ISO settings, that you only really needed to use the low ISO settings if you wanted to make sure you got slower shutter speeds. Otherwise, you may as well just leave it on the higher ISO settings.

Of course the magazine may just have been exaggerating to make sure that Canon didn't spend the advertising money elsewhere And of course, what one reviewersees of as "barely any difference" another reviewer may see as a huge difference.

I probably shouldn't say things based on one half remembered magazine article though Perhaps someone would like to send me Canon's latest and most expensive camera so I can test for myself
ejgladwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 8:36 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
...barely any difference in noise between the high and low ISO settings, that you only really needed to use the low ISO settings if you wanted to make sure you got slower shutter speeds. Otherwise, you may as well just leave it on the higher ISO settings.
Any photography magazine that dares to say that shouldn't be considered
a very trustworthy source for reviews. There is definitely a difference between
the low ISOs and the high ISOs. Even if the difference was small, it would still
be better to go for the low ISOs because of the fact that it will produce a cleaner
image. It's a digital camera for crying outloud! How hard can it be to change the
ISO?:? The only time high ISOs should be used is when higher sensitivity is truly
needed.


-Ted

dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 9:02 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this whole thread has gotten off the subject. we're talking about iso ratings when the bottom actual line about low light images is basicly about the lens you are using. all the major brands will do a fine job if you spend the $$ required for a low light setting. a 50,f1.2-.4 will do quite a lot.. i just bought a 135,f2.5 that's giving good images in lower light. yes, iso settings will make a difference but a good, fast lens will be better. just make sure you have the $$ to do it..
  Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2005, 10:27 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

Yeh robar is right. If you have the $$ for a fast lens, you are going to be able to use lower iso's without a problem. But those extra stops usually cost your hip pocket.


Also, high ISO images are not as saturated as lower ISO, and the colours seem a bit dull. Feel free to correct this statement if im wrong
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2005, 1:07 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Hi,

I'm also considering buying a DS and specifically was concerned about the cameras ability to take low-light shots. I realize that ISO isn't the only factor here, but it did seem from the CameraLabs review that the DL (they don't have a DS review) didn't perform as well as other price-point cameras with higher ISO -- see http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pe...DL/page4.shtml .

Does anyone know if the DL is inferior (in terms of chip, etc.) to the DS or should I expect the same noise levels on the DS?

Maybe these slightly higher-than-competition noise levels are not practically significant? Some of the sample photos on this forum certainly looked very nice, but it's unclear to me whether the noise would become obvious on a large printed photo.

Thanks for the help! I really like the features, lens history, build quality, size & ergonomics of the DS, so I'm hoping that I can satisfy any concerns about picture quality.

Cheers,
Hans
hozn 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 1:04 PM.