How to shoot high ISO. A PENTAX K-3 III Showcase

[@findefuchs]

Even with completely black backgrounds 12.800 is doable with some noise reduction in lightroom. It turns the noisy blacks into real blacks. This saved me multiple times...😅

[@richarddebertin6742]

Thank you for reassuring me that shooting at 6400 or 12800 does not ruin the photo

[@PentaxBlogger]

I push my Pentax KR, K-5II, and K-3II up to ISO 6400, sometimes even 12,800, so there’s no reason the K-3 Mark III shouldn’t go that high. It has a super effective internal noise reduction system. The raw files from the K-3 Mark III are practically free of chromatic noise, and honestly, better than a lot of other cameras even with traditional NR applied. That’s what I found after running some tests between different options for upgrading my old K-3II. While the K-3 Mark III delivers relatively noise-free images, you don’t really have much control over it. Plus, I’m not a fan of the colors-they feel kind of muted and flat compared to older models that, sure, had more noise, but also gave you richer, more vibrant colors. External noise reduction can often do a better job than the in-camera processing. I’ve been debating whether to upgrade my K-3II to the K-3 Mark III or switch to a Sony A6700. The A6700 handles fine detail, like fabric or plants, better, but it also allows for more noise-there’s a lot of it in the unprocessed files. I mention the A6700 because it uses the same sensor as the K-3 Mark III, but the latter gives you a cleaner image straight out of the camera, which is great for JPEG shooters. So, in that case, the K-3 Mark III is a solid choice for a journalist or someone who needs quick, usable JPEGs. If we’re talking JPEG, I actually prefer the output from the K-3III. But if we’re talking RAW files, I’ve gotta give it to the Sony-it allows for much better noise reduction in post. Pentax’s weird nonlinear processing on the K-3 Mark III really messes with the ability to apply any additional noise reduction in almost all the software I’ve tried. It’s frustrating because it eats up some details, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Using modern tools like DxO PureRAW doesn’t improve things much on the K-3 Mark III, but strangely, a cleaned-up file from the old K-3II doesn’t fall far behind a non-cleanable K-3III file. So, yeah, choosing the right upgrade for my K-3II is tougher than I thought. In the end, autofocus performance might be the deciding factor. As for the claim in that video, that no extra noise reduction was applied to those images-totally believable! The camera handles it internally already. Especially with video, it's even less noticeable. --- And on your other point, you're totally right-getting exposure nailed is key. A lot of people shoot in auto and don’t fully take advantage of their sensor's dynamic range, then bump up exposure in post, which just blows up the noise. If you get the exposure spot on, high ISO isn’t really a big deal. Contrast is also super important. Even at low ISO, a shot in bad contrast will never look good. All it does is mask things or force you into artificially lighting stuff, but that’s not really photography anymore. So, yeah, I completely agree with the video overall.

[@jimzielinski946]

I've played with the AI noise reduction feature in ON1 using my Pentax kiii monochrome. I'm blown away by what that software can do. Even when pushed to ridiculous iso's, you can get usable images depending on how fussy you want to be about artifacts. I suspect other softwares may have something similar in AI processing.

[@jw48335]

Photons to Photos' graph for dynamic range on the k3 is freaky 😂

[@peterlebengood7160]

Another interesting topic Kobie. I do mostly nature/wildlife photography and use both a K-3 MIII and K-1 MII. I have found during low light situations that the K-3 MIII performs as well and sometimes a bit better than the K-1 MII. My ceiling on both cameras is ISO 12800. Your point regarding available photons is spot on from my experience. I feel the new APSC sensor high ISO performance is right there with the current full frame sensor. Thanks as always for your wonderful content.

[@billkennon319]

If the rumored K1 III comes out with state of the art improvements in sensor it will be interesting to see what ISO it can accommodate. I see 12,800 as a practical limit, but a lot of it has to do with whether the picture needs to be cropped. A 25,600 ISO with no cropping can be as good as 12,800 cropped. I do use Topaz Photo AI and it does a good job overall. It reaches a limit in fine hair detail (like your squirrel) and the texture of feathers. But it certainly can help smooth out the background. As always, great video!

[@suhailzubaid9192]

If one is not into photography to make money then it does not really matter. I blog to document my hiking trips and take photos in JPEGs on the go with ISO as high as 12800. I can tell you that my followers dont even notice noise/grains. Now, some of you may laugh at it, but I apply noise reduction within camera sometimes and that has worked for me too.

[@rrysiekk]

..as always useful information, and short and to the point ! :)

[@GeorgeLee-c8t]

I have long thought a well exposed image shot at high ISO is way better than a poorly exposed image.

[@TheSquirrelMafia]

I shoot the K-3II to ISO 12800 at times & I think it's usable, but I don't really pixel peep. Same with my K-50. I guess I have a higher tolerance for noise, but then again I do post process the DNG files & use my own noise reduction settings. I can definitely say that I'd have no problem shooting the K-3III to ISO 25600 if I had one. Same with a KP. The K-70 & KF to ISO 12800. They have "cleaner" images at that ISO when compared to the K-3II & K-50, but the image quality falls apart after ISO 12800.

[@scrptwic]

Kobie I have photographed very useable pictures at high ISO with both the K3-11 which I limit to ISO 6400 and the Pentax K3 Mark-111 which I limit to 12800 . I have found the lens is just as important as the camera body some are sharp at 2.8 or faster. The Pentax 16-50 2.8 is very good , Pentax 35mm 2.8 very good , Pentax nifty 50 1.7 good lens Takumar 50 mm 1.4 sharp very shallow depth of field. Samyang 14mm 2.8 Milky Way lens very good in low light and Rokinon 20 mm1.8 good in low light flares in bright lights at 1.8