How does contemporary insanely high ISO compare to K20D'S?

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'm just curious about the feature and if there was any improvement...<br>

Which max ISO do you consider usable at default pixel count now and with the older camera?<br>

Where is your pixel binning starting point on the ISO scale?<br>

I'd be grateful for K100D vs modern comparsions too. (from those who skipped the K20D)<br>

I'm expecting no miracles , I read that other brands appear to have added their highest ISO settings mainly for bragging rights too, but it would be nice to know if I am missing anything. - Thanks in advance.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I don't know what those insanely high ISO specs even mean but I can tell you the jump in IQ at, say, ISO 2000 between the K100D K20D (I had both) and the K-5 really knocked my socks off. Now, "usability" is a very slippery standard--so many variables--but I certainly get more usable shots (in terms of noise) with the k-5 (etc) bodies than with their predecessors. </p>

<p> </p>

[DWScott]

<p>This is totally subjective, but on my *ist DL the highest ISO I would use was 800. On my K20D the highest I would use was 1600. On my K5 the highest I would use is 6400. The K5 is the first digital camera I have used that is obviously more sensitive to light than my own eyes.</p>

 

[User_502260]

<p>A few years ago I was at a wedding where the photographer used a Canon 5DIII with on-camera flash. The 5DIII doesn't have the raw resolution of a D800 but was reckoned to have better high ISO performance. The photographer showed me his technique of bouncing the on-camera flash off of high ceilings and walls which were pretty far away. At the higher ISO settings this worked. I later saw the results and they were good. Years ago a person shooting a wedding with medium format film equipment would have used a far more powerful flash to get the same results. The combination of image stabilization and improved high ISO performance really improved image quality in difficult lighting situations. When you add improved AF the combination is even better. I like using my Pentax K-x at 800 especially with flash. Over 800 the results are still usable but then it will depend on how large a print you want to make. I still make large prints with medium format film equipment but if I needed to shoot at a high ISO I would get a newer DSLR.</p>

[michael_elenko]

Jochen,

What is acceptable ISO depends upon somewhat subjective standards. For my K20D ISO 800 was about it, with 200-400

best. When I had the K-3, I could use 12,800 for sports but that's not fine art! 3200 was good enough, but 800 far better.

With my Canon 5Dmk 3 also 12,800 for sports. 800 far better, 200 preferred but my ambitions are greater.

 

I dislike fixating upon a single aspect in a complex system though. I still think the K20D has the best ergonomics in the

Pentax line. I felt the K-3 a step backwards both menu wise and in not conveying more complicated controls as

effectively. I also think the K20-D color rendition is identifiable meaning more unique and that's a positive. Just seems less

coldly digital.

 

ME

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>

<p>I felt the K-3 a step backwards both menu wise and in not conveying more complicated controls as effectively.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I do like some of the advances the K-3 offers but I agree with Michael on this. I loved the K20D menu & controls. </p>