K7 at 3200 ISO

Tim Øsleby maritimtim at gmail.com
Fri Oct 9 09:46:54 EDT 2009


2009/10/9 Bruce Walker <bruce.walker at gmail.com>:
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
>>
>> 2009/10/9 Christine  Aguila <caguila at earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>> I forgot to post these.  I tried the K7 at Central Camera a while back.
>>> These were shot as jpegs, aperture priority, pattern metering, no
>>> exposure
>>> bias.  These are 1200 pixels on the long end and fairly big files.
>>> Shutter/aperture info is stated above shot.  Just an FYI.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Straight jpeg @ 3200 *no* noise reduction in lightroom
>>>
>>> http://www.caguila.com/caguila/k73200iso/content/k7_test_photos_4_of_14__large.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Straight jpeg @ 3200 *noise reduction in lightroom:  luminance & color
>>> slider all the way to 100*
>>>
>>> http://www.caguila.com/caguila/k73200iso/content/k7_test_photos_4_of_14__1_large.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers, Christine
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. That's a lot cleaner than what I've learned to expect from
>> K20D.
>
> I've seen noise performance like that from the K20D, and darned close from
> the K100Ds.  The _critical_ thing is getting proper exposure.  If you tweak
> up any dark areas after the fact, the noise shows up.  If Christine were to
> play with the Fill Light slider, or had shot these down a stop and raised it
> up, you'd see way more noise here.
>
> So you *should* get relatively low noise like this from your K20, Tim. The
> trouble I find is that in really dark rooms one tends to underexpose a stop
> or two to keep the shutter speed high enough for hand-holding or monopod
> use.
>
> -bmw
>

I've seen and made K20 shots with similar noise performance.
But as I said. I would not _expect_ it.
I found that exposure was K10D even more critical at 800 ISO.

That's why I'm very curious about exposure with K-7. I've played with
one for an evening, but havent really tried it out.


-- 
MaritimTim

http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/




More information about the PDML mailing list