Full Frame So They Say

Why? For festivals I remember managing with slide film pushed to 800 (Ok the colours were not fab ) and even in our appallingly dimly lit folk club I didn't go above 3200 with a K01.

for example, at Outlook Festival in Croatia;




Imagine how much better this would have been if I could have been shooting at 25000 rather than 6400. It just about works, but the smoke looks horrible and becuase it's the sigma 10-20mm at f/4 (with noise reduction in Lightroom), it's softer than I would like.

Maybe I should get a K5IIs in the meantime, I heard it's a bit better than the K3 even.

Or actually 1600 that the EXIF says

At 10mm you could've gone much slower than 1/160s. I would've gone as low as ISO400, 1/40s at 10mm and had plenty of headroom for lifting shadows.

(For this kind of setup I'd be using M mode with spot metering - but I keep an eye on all three values in the viewfinder, working the ISO/Tv/Av together)

Matt

My mistake on the ISO. You're of course right, but at the time I thing I had run from the pit and those were the settings I had for the 70-200mm 2.8 if I remember, I saw the shot and took it. My point is that a FF sensor would have had much less quality loss.

Was it pushed in post-processing?

Because at those settings I would have expected a cleaner image (even on the K7).

Matt

I agree Matt. See the image below shot at a small festival last year with the K-5, also at ISO 1600.

Stafford Galli at T-Fest 2013:




Regards
David

[/quote]It just about works, but the smoke looks horrible and becuase it's the sigma 10-20mm at f/4 (with noise reduction in Lightroom), it's softer than I would like.[/quote]I had a Sigma 10-20mm and image quality was poor -I must have had a bad example.

You need more than high ISO in poor light. You need a top
quality lens with high contrast as well... I doubt if the
Sigma 10-20mm has that.

When AP used to test lenses in LPMM they did two tests one
in normal light and one in poor light..... it sorted the men
from the boys.

I think DXO also use low light on some of their lens tests.

--

Good point.




This was K5, ISO3200, f/8, 1/20s, 12mm (Pentax DA12-24)
Razor sharp and clear at 18x12"

And I know I'd get a little bit more out of the K5iis...

Matt

David's image hits the spot, oozing with quality.

I used to shoot quite happily at 400 ASA (Tri-X) on film, which was fast enough coupled with f/2.8 and f/2 lenses. There is masses of light on stage.

Here's one shot on a W90 compact:

All DXOMark scores are in fact based on low light.....

"DxOMark Score is based on low-light conditions (150 lux and 1/60s exposure time). We chose these conditions because we believe low-light performance is very important in photography today, and because photographers need to know how well lenses perform at their widest aperture."

http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores/DxOMark-Score

The final result is dependant on the camera body used...

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8671938754/dxomark-introduces-perceptual-mpix-s...


--

for example, at Outlook Festival in Croatia;




Imagine how much better this would have been if I could have been shooting at 25000 rather than 6400. It just about works, but the smoke looks horrible and becuase it's the sigma 10-20mm at f/4 (with noise reduction in Lightroom), it's softer than I would like.

Maybe I should get a K5IIs in the meantime, I heard it's a bit better than the K3 even.[/quote]Well that photo is pretty 'orrible I admit. But here's one taken in much worse light on a K01 - folk club with no stage lights and all the lights in the room turned off except for on fluorescent tube! The exif says 85mm/2.8 but I own no such lens - I think it was an old Tamron 90mm/2.5 macro wide open.




Whereas the K7 did struggle a bit. This one is at half the ISO of above shot.

Better ISO abilities, however that is achieved, allows for faster shutter speeds, which means many a write off shot from concerts etc could be acceptable. You can't always control the lighting conditions, or the movement of your subject.

Exactly. I can't see the point in arguing against improvements in camera performance.

The k5 is still staggeringly capable in low light. One of the things it retains (in my recent tests) is colour saturation. The images soften at 6400, but are still very pleasant. I find that the lack of AA filter is a bonus with noise because you don't have to sharpen as much, so the noise isn't enhanced further. And the focusing in low light from the K5ii era onwards is just brilliant.
I believe that if Pentax go for 'full frame' they will be all over the noise issue and it could be a terrific piece of kit. Personally (as some of you will appreciate) I hope they don't bring one out now!
David, that image is stunning.
John, W90!! blimey, very nice.
Matt, you have a touch with noise that seems to elude most of us, so your image is like a spike in the graph and doesn't count!