are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?

Either 1/2 stop or 1/3 stop increments.
Actually the K10D does it amazingly I have mine permanently in Av mode, and the front dial adjusts ISO in 1/3 stop increments. Pressing the green button switches to auto ISO (and you can specify the range of auto too).

Mongoose is right - it's physics. And it's not a problem in real life.
You've just got to know your tools

Matt

so since the K10 already does all this wonderful stuff, is it much less noisy in low light than the older models?

it doesnt seem to be ahaed of the field on shadow noise especially from the tests i've seen, but then tests are often badly performed...

I still think its missing a trick to set iso pre exposure when it could be done post with much better knowledge of what the exposure actually was.

I also think that its not the best use of a limited available file resolution to record the data linearly, even though that is how the CCD works.

its quite normal in other fields to map values between different devices to make the best use of the available resolution.

the output of the CCD is still analogue so mapping it should be easy. if our eye regards each halving of light as being the same increment then it would make sense to allocate resolution that way.

although - we don't do it in audio capture either, but then audio is all 24bit capture now so it isnt really needed anymore.

I guess the K10D is 22bit capture, but then instantly and linearly converted back to 12bit which seems such a waste!

amplitude mapping noise reduction systems were used in analog in the bad old days of 12bit or tape. I guess thats what I'm advocating here until we get 16bit raw files.

actually i think some cameras do a bit of this sort of mapping anyway at the bright end. but the stuff i've seen about it was unclear. it might have just been for in camera jpg conversion which isnt really relevant.

Thomas,
It's wonderful, and the results are different. I find ISO1600 perfectly usable, especially with Silkypix Developer Studio and its noise reduction. Overall the K10D is a definite jump in quality.

No one said the K10D didn't I have a hunch that they've made it non-linear in the conversion from 22 to 12 anyway. The highlight control is much more film like, and I can pull loads more detail out of the shadows compared to the *ist-D (the shadows have far less noise).

The *ist-D was excellent, and I pushed it to its limit and have consistently got quality results from it (several have asked if the prints were from medium format). The K10D is much better, a complete joy to use (fast, intuitive etc) and is only lacking one or two very minor things - it's nearly my perfect camera

To be honest - as you haven't actually got a K10D, you don't know what you're missing

Matt

good points, i will keep thinking about it, although i don't know if i'll afford a K10 before the next new thing comes out...

i guess i'm frustrated with trying to nail the exposure so the resolution is where i want it, its much more than just filling the histogram (and in low light even that is hard enough).

i have a real world example of that, but it will be a day or 2 before i can dig it out and post.

Bracketing might help.

G

Matt, could you please stop that. I still have the *istD and are quite happy with it. It's posts like yours that make me want a K10D because they are giving me a taste of what I am missing.
I really would like to stay with the *istD for another while.

On the topic: It would be complete waste if the 22-bit conversion would be instantly and linearly converted back to 12 bit (wouldn't that just mean chopping of the 10 LSB's?). I don't think the Pentax engineers are stupid and I sincerely hope that the marketing department didn't talk them into doing such stupid things. Therefore I assume that it's not as straight forward as that.

Prieni

Prieni,

Here's some comfort.

My K10D has a problem at the moment, so I have dusted off the *ist D.

It's a pleasure to use, and reminds me of when I had both a Z1-P and a Super A. Although the former was the better camera in terms of spec., I preferred to use the latter. It was just smaller and nicer and simpler. And of course it did the job. Same with the *ist D.

In my view the only thing wrong with the *ist D is that it's slow to process the images, and in consequence fills the buffer rather quickly.

If that's not a problem with your style of shooting, then the *ist D is still a wonderful camera, and frankly the inage quality is not massively worse than the K10D. Using a good lens affects the final image more than the inate difference between the cameras (IMHO).

G

George,

thanks for your words of comfort. As I said I am happy with the *istD and the processing speed doesn't bother me too much. I have a 75 x 50 cm print that I made from a shot and this is marvellous. I guess that is exactly the point why I haven't made the jump to the K10D yet.

Cheers,
Prieni

Prieni,

Agree 100% with George.

My *ist-D doesn't really get used these days - but it's still a great camera, and it's there for the backup I could sell it for a couple of hundred quid, but as it's perfectly usable I'm hanging onto it

Using good lenses, and professionally printed at 8x6 and 12x8 you really can't tell them apart. As I said, others (including at least one pro) have asked if the *ist-D images were MF I have a few 16x12s from the *ist-D which are stunning (even if I say so myself )

Speed is probably the main difference, as the K10D handles RAW files like a *ist-D handling JPG . However, the *ist-D viewfinder indicators are bigger. Ah yes, and the *ist-D is smaller too, and equipped with a 50mm/f1.4 is a delight

Matt

I agree with the above comments, I use my DL2 side by side with my K10D. The DL2 has the 18-55 lens on nearly all the time while the K10D has whatever specialist lens I might think is useful for the days shooting, either a macro or a long tele.

Since most of my work is either macro or long telephoto the 10D gets more use, but I don't hesitate to pull out the DL2 if a wide angle shot presents itself. Except for some specific situations, the DL2 is just as capable of producing a good shot as the K10D, at least in my hands anyway.

PS that last phraise is supposed to berate my abilities with the 10D rather than inflate those with the DL2, before George comments.

certainly at the moment I have no gripes with the DS, its produced some great shots and both my lenses and my skills need improvement before it does.

the one exception to that would be noise at 1600 iso. if perfectly exposed it still looks OK, and I've been playing with neatimage which is amazing! but It's the one area where there's a technical limitation that would actually make a big difference to the quality of the shots i can take. So i'm interested in just how much better the K10D actually is.

faster lenses and more light would make more difference than the camera noise though!

taking good shots of a moving subject illuminated by one or two 60W bulbs, usually poorly placed relative to the subject, often with coloured filters on them... i think it comes under the heading "recreational impossibilities".....

I didn't say the K10D was better at ISO1600. I said different.
The image quality between ISO100 to ISO400 is much better than the *ist-D etc. However, some have said that the *ist-D is better at ISO1600 and ISO3200.

Ultra low light handheld photography is pushing the physics - you're not going to get a good deal better to be honest. Smaller pixels = higher noise anyway. So, yes, you're better off with faster glass - or changing the conditions

Yes, NeatImage is a good product (and take note who did the *ist-D profiles for them )
Silkypix Studio, though, will eek out a good deal more out of the *ist-D, and give you noise reduction directly from RAW too I haven't used NeatImage for a long while...

Matt

[quote="MattMatic"]I tried out silkypix and the noise reduction didn't seem anywhere near as good as what neatimage will do. Or do i have to buy it to make it work fully?

doing it directly from RAW is a huge advantage to the workflow though.

are you saying that silkypix has better NR than neatimage? or just that its still a big improvement on none?

as far as pushing the physics goes, handheld is not so much the limitation but subject movement, and i think there's way more potential in improvement in the sensor technology at low light, until we hit the level of counting individual photons as discussed a lot earlier on this thread! but it is certainly pushing the limits of current technology!

I have bought both. NeatImage has its uses. But I find that Silkypix does the job at ISO1600 perfectly (that's the full version, not the free) - once you know how to work the noise reduction
(George - I know what you're going to say It's on my "todo" list which is rather long )
Matt

Just another thing...

NeatImage works well where the response of the image is very clearly defined. So, JPG out of camera works a treat. RAW is another matter.

Whenever you process a RAW file you are tweaking the response of the CCD, and therefore modifying where the noise sits. So, to get the best results out of NeatImage you have to:
1) Fix your RAW settings in stone for all images, and create a custom NI profile (following their instructions)
or
2) Manually profile NI for each image.

FWIW, I've just pulled out some *ist-D images taken at ISO1600 and ISO3200 in a very, very dark nightclub (Jazz Cafe in London) and Silkypix cleans them boootifully Even an ISO1600 image that was 3 stops underexposed (with shed loads of noise across the image) is easily and quickly cleaned in Silkypix.

Did I say I liked Silkypix???

Matt