K-x ISO 1600 shots

Nicked from a post on Pentaxforums .. I was concerned that the high ISO shots were going to be better on this camera than the K-7.

As the K20D and K-7 are similar there are plenty of users on here that should be able to give an opinion.

Those two pictures look pretty good to me as ISO 1600. I don't know if this helps but I was testing the high ISO performance of my K-7 last week at an aquarium. It was dark, and flash wan banned, and of course the fish were moving around so the only way I could get the shutter speeds i was looking for was to whack up the ISO. I have attached a couple here, although these are ISO 3200 rather than 1600. The result are a little mixed. The first (big shiny fish) is pretty good I think for that high ISO (others will know better than me if this is usual). the other two are noticeably more noisy...










Apologies if I have gone a bit off-topic as these are not ISO 1600.

Regards

Mat W

I think the latter two are possibly underexposed. the first one looks ok.

Mike P: those look prety good for a budget camera.

Mike I think Pentax are on to winner with the K-x

I must admit the K-x shots look clear enough at the high ISO, but is it the camera or photographer that has the severe lean?

I just hope Pentax havent shot themselves in the foot here. Releasing a "budget" model with better ISO performance than their flagship body isn't going to exactly help sales.

On the other hand if Pentax sell 3 to 1 ratio the balance books will start to look very healthy.

That could lead to more bodies and a full starter/ intermediate/ professional range.

Perhaps Pentax will move back to Sony sensors for a K7 upgrade?

strangely, Sony's full frame cameras get a bad press for sensor noise.

Yikes ... ISO 3200 shot.




ISO 6400.

These are fantastic results. Pentax should market the K-x as a low-light camera, or at least it should feature strongly in the ads. Forget the K-7- this is the big one. Or am I getting carried away:

Are these RAW or jpegs straight from camera? If they're RAW, any idea how they've been processed? I think these need to be answered before we either write off the K-7 or herald the K-x as the successor to the D3.

As we've seen from the DPreview review of the K-7, there's really not any difference in the noise performance between any of the cameras (K-7, K20D, D300, 50D) when shooting RAW. Is the D90 any different (assuming the K-x does use the same sensor)?

Dan

To be honest Im not sure but I will say that although the ISO 1600 shots look very clean they do seem to lack detail so I am wondering if they are jpeg straight out the camera with the noise control set to high (if its an option). As for the 3200 and 6400 again they look clean but not a lot of detail in the shots to see whats what.

Hi Mike, any idea what noise reduction settings were used for the K-X pics ?