Yes, indeed. He waits until there is very good light.

That's it, really. This sort of conversation morphed from the original post when Nigel asked why people needed f2.8 lenses rather than f4, and we wandered off into "niche" photography.

But there is a general point, and you nailed it, Rich. My combination of bodies and lenses do what I want them to do, for the most part. What I'd want for a K-1 Mk II is not necessarily what someone else would want. Having said that, there are several glaring weaknesses that we should see addressed, such as AF, buffering, and video.

I also use a K3 for birds, all wildlife, actually, as it affords more reach.

This set up, with a DA*300 is quite adequate for birds in flight, generally, though small fast birds are a problem. It's not a "niche" problem I can afford to solve by spending the sorts of money involved with a Nikon 400/f2.8, that's for sure.

Having said that, improved AF would help on a K-1 Mk2, and I would then think about using that for birds in flight, rather than my K3.

I was wondering that too.

I love my K-1. And I have a K3 and K5 too, so can compare. But i don't use it for everything.

I'd consider a 2nd gen, depending on what has been improved.

I'd agree that you can use the noise creatively, if that's what you want. Also, different people will have different ideas on what is a high enough image quality for them.

I don't think you should be surprised, though, that when you are taking photos in a professional environment, or when you may be in competition with other photographers for business, or even if you want to print big, then image quality, as well as creativity, is in high demand.

It's horses for courses, really.

I also don't think ISO 6400 is the maximum for a K-1, even with those things above in mind. I've got good ones at ISO8000, but I'd admit that this seems more hit and miss. 6400 is eminently usable for high quality gig images.

lol! Mistyped!

The thread was derailed by a question, which seems to have been answered!

Quite right!

But I did say 1/250th of a second, not 1/25th!

I agree. But you have to look at it this way. Many gig venues have pits especially for photographers. These are in a corridor between the stage and the crowd. Having photontgraphers in front of paying people is something that should really last a short period, so that the crowd can enjoy the performance without that distraction. I think it works perfectly well like that, and any good photographer will get decent images in that time.

I also agree that it is impossible to get those images from the end of gigs unless the venue allows the photographers to then mingle with the audience and take shots throughout, and that is often at the discretion of the artist. You never really know until you get there.

Occasionally. you get a shot like you say, as above, that would be possible at ISO 1600. But it's rare. I wish!

You'll know The Ritz in Manchester, John, won't you? I've shot there. You'd think that would be well lit, wouldn't you? Well, it is a great place to shoot, because there's decent light, much much of it is back light, and you still need to shoot at ISO 6400 with a K-1.

Gig photography - normally, 3 songs, no flash. Unless it's a small venue, but it's still no flash.

Thanks, that adds a bit more reasoning.

To answer your question, no, I do not do as you suggest. I have found, like it seems you have found, that the noise is pretty horrible when you boost the exposure in post. My best results are when my image is well exposed at the time of taking.