K10D High ISO with Kit WR lens

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Hi,<br>

Yesterday night, I had a chance to take pictures of a prominent economist who lectures in Harvard. He visited Fremont, CA and I had the k10D with the kit lens. Inexplicably, I left my tamron 28-75mm in my camera bag in the car but the lighting in the restaurant was decent for the kit lens to handle both with and without flash<br>

All the pictures are in the web page: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/55871877@N00/sets/72157624366301526/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/55871877@N00/sets/72157624366301526/</a><br>

Some pix I like are (obviously without flash) @ ISO around 1250/ 1000:<br>

<P><IMG SRC=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4737954414_341d90ceee_b.jpg><br>

<P><IMG SRC=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4737324347_d23ddece08_b.jpg></p>

<p>

<p>Please let me know what you think<br>

One thing: With the tamron lens, I could have gone for wider apertures for limited DOF<br>

Any other feedback appreciated<br>

Thanks,<br>

Mugundhan</p>

</p>

[RickW]

<p>For this purpose, the K10D worked very nicely. You wouldn't be able to get large prints to look good, but for small prints or the web it was fine. The shadow of the lens is apparent in the flash-lit pix 8882-5.</p>

<p>Rick</p>

[trw]

<p>I've always found my K10D to be very good at high ISO in low-contrast situations - or situations that can be made low-contrast through skillfull use of flash.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Given the circumstances I think these came out well enough. In a few of the flash images, it looks like the lens cast a shadow in at the bottom edge of the center of the frame. Was the lens hood in use?</p>

[stanrb]

<p>Those images are not bad for high ISO. Goes to show the capabilites of the camera and lens</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>At this point I am still surprised people seem surprised at usable K10D high ISO images.</p>

<p>Sadly, it really shows how important marketing, and more so in the internet age word of mouth is.</p>

<p>The rampant rumors that K10D was useless above 400 or maybe 640, or perhaps it was 800 spread like wildfire through the interwebs, eventually people believed them. Certain people sit in a room and take photos of blank walls in the dark, then analyze pixels at 1:1 or even 2:1 ratio and spread myths. Then people whom have loyalties to other brands read these ridiculous subjective test and spread them as fact. The fact is most of these test are performed by techno geeks whom don't care about photography and probably aren't even photographers. The only thing they care about is more technology being put into a DSLR, not the photographic process or the final photograph.</p>

<p>The K10D was my lesson in not believing speculation till I see it first hand. Since then I am very skeptical of anything I read in terms of camera or lens quality. I've noticed similar negativity to lenses that people aren't in favor of. They spread myths, I suppose in hopes that if the lens sells poorly it will be discontinued and the lens they envisioned will come to market.</p>

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Hi Andrew,<br>

Yes, I had the hood and I did not realize the shadow until you guys pointed out, I was so enamoured of my flashless photos, I guess :)<br>

This is the weather resistant kit lens and I am very surprised to see how nice and sharp the lens is considering that I got the DA55-300 and this lens for total $350 from craigslist!<br>

As Justin said, high ISO's are defintely usable as long as exposure is nailed, otherwise it is a real problem.<br>

Kit lens is real good even when wide open and these kind of images are not helping me in moving to K7 or Kx :)</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>I've shot plenty of K10D at ISO 1600, it's not ideal, but it's fine. The only issue I had was banding. As pointed out, exposure, as always, is a bit deal in the final technical IQ.</p>

[raybrizzi]

<p>I know it makes absolutely no sense, but my Pentax K10D just keeps getting better and better. When i first got it, noise was terrible above 400. But last weekend, i forgot to change my ISO back from the concert shots from the night before, and I shot 40 pictures at 1600 at a pool party in the late afternoon. And they looked great except for 2 or 3 that were very underexposed. This has nothing to do with hype or posts. There was much more noise at the beginning. Maybe quantum effects over time are responsible :)</p>