Godfrey DiGiorgi escribió: > On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Carlos Royo wrote: > >> Thanks Boris, Steve, Jack, Thibouille, Paul and everyone who is >> contributing to this thread. Your answers are very useful, the PDML >> is a >> great place to stay in, full of nice people. I should have posted >> this >> question before instead of debating myself for days. >> >> The second part of the question would be: What do you think about the >> high ISO performance of the K10D? Is it much worse than the D or DS? > > I've always found the K10D to be about on par with the DS. It has > better dynamic range at ISO 1600 but a slightly noisier appearance if > you don't get the exposure right on the money. Others have complained > bitterly about noise, pattern artifacts, etc etc, but I've not seen > them in my work. > > I find the K10D to be cleaner than the DS at ISO 800, which most of > the time is as high as I use. > > The DS' ISO 3200 setting I only used a couple of times ... it simply > wasn't very usable at all for my work. >
Thanks Godfrey. As you say, ISO 3200 in the DS is only useful for emergencies. I was more interested in ISO 1600 performance, and your information is what I needed. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
