K-7 High ISO NR (pics)

Started Jun 28, 2009 | Discussions
Joe Barnhart Veteran Member • Posts: 3,393
Want to see a FF camera with huge noise?

Try shooting FILM.

Really, all this "sky is falling" talk about noise is watering me off. Noise is the flip side of detail. You either get lots of both or little of both.

I happen to like the way the K7 noise LOOKS. I think that will become as important a factor as bokeh in the future, and Pentax is ahead of the pack by paying attention to it now.

OP LSD Regular Member • Posts: 102
Re: K-7 High ISO NR (pics)

yes.

OP LSD Regular Member • Posts: 102
Re: Thanks LSD

jamesm007 wrote:

a jpeg at iso3200, (still in bright color mode?) and its clean, try

Yes, it's still in bright color mode. Changed sharpness and Contrast to 0

SpartanWarrior
SpartanWarrior Veteran Member • Posts: 3,023
Re: Want to see a FF camera with huge noise?

I myself really like the K-7 so far and once the professional reviews like dpreview, dcresource, cameralabs come out things will get put in place;) i had the Canon 40D that i sold with the Tamron 17-50 and bought the K20D a few months ago. I have now sold my K20D and am waiting for the K-7 to get in stores, btw my K20D with the DA 17-70 put my 40D with the Tamron 17-50 to shame in the IQ department;)
--
300.

 SpartanWarrior's gear list:SpartanWarrior's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon 500mm F5.6E PF Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 +3 more
wy2lam Veteran Member • Posts: 3,337
Re: Want to see a FF camera with huge noise?

Joe Barnhart wrote:

Really, all this "sky is falling" talk about noise is watering me
off. Noise is the flip side of detail. You either get lots of both
or little of both.

Nonsense. You're saying that as S goes up, N also goes up. From this logic, S/N measures are meaningless.

I happen to like the way the K7 noise LOOKS. I think that will
become as important a factor as bokeh in the future, and Pentax is
ahead of the pack by paying attention to it now.

I like how the noise looks, too - still, a clean image with details is infinitely preferable to "the best noise available", because you can add any type of noise in PP.

By the way, the D300 also a film-like noise. So, Pentax is definitely not the first one paying such attention.

 wy2lam's gear list:wy2lam's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix HS35EXR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
Joe Barnhart Veteran Member • Posts: 3,393
Detail is not 'signal'

wy2lam wrote:

Joe Barnhart wrote:

Really, all this "sky is falling" talk about noise is watering me
off. Noise is the flip side of detail. You either get lots of both
or little of both.

Nonsense. You're saying that as S goes up, N also goes up. From this logic, S/N measures are meaningless.

I did not say "signal" I said DETAIL. The fact is that the sensors used in different brands of camera have very similar basic noise characteristics. The noise is dictated largely by the physics of the device -- light-gathering size of the pixel, bulk material properties, etc. The difference in the way cameras look is largely due to post-processing of the sensor data.

Those cameras which opt for "lowest noise" do so at the expense of smoothing detail -- edges or (usually) textures. That is what gives some people the buttery smooth images they lust for. I do not like the buttery smooth approach as it leads to images that look plastic and fake (to me).

A shot taken at ISO 1600 or 3200 better damn well have some noise because the algorithm to remove only noise while leaving all image detail in place DOES NOT EXIST.

Again, if you want to see what a noisy image looks like just look at a piece of FILM push-processed to ISO 1600. Photographers who complain about the noise of APS-C at those speeds will be horrified to see the noise of film when exposed at a similar speed.

(P.S. I know all about S/N. I hold an MSEE from Berkeley and I've worked in test and measurement my whole career.)

Lukasz J Trzebinski Regular Member • Posts: 334
Re: Detail is not 'signal'

Noise, here, noise, there noise everyrwhere. Is this the only thing people concentrate on today?

I think there is something wrong with me I happen to like noise in my picture, and hate when too much nr is used. I happen to like the noise that k7 is producing, at least way better than k20 (IMO). If my pictures would be clean at anything above 1600 I am preatty surre I would be upset. Noise can be used creatively and it should not be as much of an issue as some of you make it to be. If you expected dramatic improvment over the K20D I guess you been not paying attention to the production upgrades from model to model in the past.
--
*ist DL, K20D
DA* 50-135
DA* 16-50
FA 50 1.4
FA 35 2
and few others.

wy2lam Veteran Member • Posts: 3,337
Re: Detail is not 'signal'

Joe Barnhart wrote:

I did not say "signal" I said DETAIL. The fact is that the sensors used in different brands of camera have very similar basic noise characteristics. The noise is dictated largely by the physics of the device -- light-gathering size of the pixel, bulk material properties, etc. The difference in the way cameras look is largely due to post-processing of the sensor data.

In photographic sense, the signal is the detail. "Details" that don't come from signal is not meaningful, because they'd be made up, not real. Like that Genuine Fractal POS software does.

The difference in ways images look also has to do with sensor and circuit design. Micro focusing lenses, insulating material, EM interference are just a few factors that can affect how much noise there is in the final image, before post-processing is even involved. I guess you should already know this, being an MSEE no less.

Those cameras which opt for "lowest noise" do so at the expense of smoothing detail -- edges or (usually) textures. That is what gives some people the buttery smooth images they lust for. I do not like the buttery smooth approach as it leads to images that look plastic and fake (to me).

Some cameras do. And they are not very likeable. But it's not the same as saying "details and noise go up and down together". That is the notion I'm not ready to entertain unless the context is solely confined as a trade-off of de-noise post-processing.

A shot taken at ISO 1600 or 3200 better damn well have some noise because the algorithm to remove only noise while leaving all image detail in place DOES NOT EXIST.

Again, a low-noise image does not necessarily attribute to algorithms. The desire to have clean ISO 3200 image is not heading into a wrong direction, as long as noise-removal calculations are not involved.

Again, if you want to see what a noisy image looks like just look at a piece of FILM push-processed to ISO 1600. Photographers who complain about the noise of APS-C at those speeds will be horrified to see the noise of film when exposed at a similar speed.

Hey, we're shooting digital here. 35mm film is a thing of the distant past. It's like saying Model T can go 30 km/h therefore we should be happy the 2009 car I sell you can go at 70 km/h, but not 100.

Looking backwards should not be used to hinder progress.

(P.S. I know all about S/N. I hold an MSEE from Berkeley and I've worked in test and measurement my whole career.)

Godspeed.

 wy2lam's gear list:wy2lam's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix HS35EXR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
wy2lam Veteran Member • Posts: 3,337
PS.

Joe, I totally agree with your point of view regarding de-noising algorithms, just that I was looking for the discussion to be more rigorous, because that statement "noise is the flip side of detail, they go up and down with each other" is too vague if not put into the right context.

 wy2lam's gear list:wy2lam's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix HS35EXR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads