High ISO noise - Sony A99 vs Pentax K3 - first impressions, and software NR

[BigMackCam]

OK, I know this is comparing apples and oranges, however...

 

I've been a Pentax shooter for a good few years now, and I absolutely love my K3. I'm very impressed with it from a high ISO perspective when coupled with Lightroom 6. Shooting RAW from the camera, and using the default Color Noise Reduction setting and Luminance of usually no more than 25 (but up to 50 if shooting at really high ISO - ie. 25600+), I get very pleasing results.

 

Today, I took delivery of a Hasselblad HV kit (the re-bodied A99) with Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 version 1 lens (as some of you will know, B&H have been doing a hugely-discounted deal on these unloved Hassies). Now, given the A99 is two years older than the K3, I expected the older full frame sensor to be a little noisier than the later APS-C one, and so it is - at least at higher ISO settings (6400 and above is fairly noticeable). However, there is certainly more dynamic range with the full frame sensor, which is good news.

 

Anyway, I was playing around with NR in post-processing. Lightroom 6 works wonders with the RAW files from my K3, but I was struggling to get equally good results for the HV / A99... So I tried Google Nik Dfine 2. I've used this before with K3 files and didn't like the results as much as from Lightroom, but I figured I'd try it with the Hassy's files, and I'm *really* impressed. In fact, I'm getting equally good results now up to ISO 25,600 based on the few tests I've done (admittedly, not exhaustive). My preferred method is to let Lightroom do the colour noise reduction (it is streets ahead of Dfine 2 in this area), then edit in Dfine 2 to sort out the Luminance noise. It works a treat.

 

It has really set me thinking - why would the luminance noise reduction algorithms in Lightroom work so well for the K3's output, but not for the A99, while it's the other way round with Dfine 2? It doesn't bother me at all... it just means I have to use a slightly different workflow for high ISO files from the Hassy, but I'm fascinated to understand why this is the case.

 

I need to do more testing, but this is what I've found so far.

 

Very happy indeed with the HV / A99, even if it is now older technology - the EVF is a dream

[BigMackCam]

OK, a bit more testing...

 

I think I need to adjust my working method in LR6. It seems I need to add more luminance noise reduction in LR6 for the HV / A99 than I do for the K3... but if I balance it carefully, I can actually get better results than my first Dfine 2 efforts. So... apologies for the post, and please disregard until I've come up with something more conclusive, LOL

[BigMackCam]

Further testing, and it seems that - unsurprisingly - I get different results depending on the image. But, as a general rule, my original findings were broadly correct. More often than not, I get a much better result on A99 "ARW" files by allowing LR6 to do the colour noise reduction, then using Dfine 2 for luminance noise...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

I think you have two factors here:

 

(1) Sony's raw files tend to be a bit noisier than other brands

 

(2) Lightroom is not the best raw-converter for Sony files.

 

These two things may seem like negatives, but actually they are good.

 

The lighter in-camera noise processing also means that the raw files retain more details. That means that you can fine tune noise reduction and sharpening to get the exact balance you want.

 

Furthermore, using CaptureOne for Sony (free) will improve your results across the board. I've basically stopped using Lightroom, because it gives me much flatter and duller images from Sony files.

 

 

 

 

[fiveform]

I think you have two factors here:

 

(1) Sony's raw files tend to be a bit noisier than other brands

 

(2) Lightroom is not the best raw-converter for Sony files.

 

These two things may seem like negatives, but actually they are good.

 

The lighter in-camera noise processing also means that the raw files retain more details. That means that you can fine tune noise reduction and sharpening to get the exact balance you want.

 

Furthermore, using CaptureOne for Sony (free) will improve your results across the board. I've basically stopped using Lightroom, because it gives me much flatter and duller images from Sony files.

Along the lines of RAW conversion of Sony files, I have bodies from A7, a6000, A77ii through the RX10 and RX100M3. I have read in many places how CaptureOne is a superior RAW file converter and have purchased the full copy for Sony, mainly so I could tether several of my Sonys in the studio. I'll agree on the superior RAW conversion, additional contrast, sharpness and overall quality.  What I'm having problems with is the CaptureOne UI which is going to put me on a six month learning curve in being able to achieve the same level of ease and confidence I have with LR6. The logic just seems like it's from another planet for me and totally un-intuitive. I could, perhaps use PhaseOne for import and LR6 for edits, but we'll see.  Right now I don't need one more thing to get in my way since I've got so many other elements of my digital workflow working so well.....

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

^^^

 

I had the same problem. At first I converted raw files to tifs in C1 and exported them to Lightroom for editing.

 

Then I came across PhaseOne‘s video tutorials. Watching them made me realise how powerful and easy to use C1 is.

 

Also, the user interface is fully customisable. I put the tools in the order I normally use them, which helps a lot.

 

Another bonus is that C1 does layers, so you get some PhotoShop action too.

[BigMackCam]

Thank you for the replies, folks. Apologies for not responding sooner; I haven't had a chance to come back to the forum just lately.

 

An update on my various findings and tests...

 

I've finally settled on a standard starting point in Lightroom 6 noise reduction of Luminance 25, Detail 75, Contrast 0; Colour 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50 - and for sharpening, Amount 50, Radius 0.7, Detail 25, Masking 50. That gives me a very good balance between noise reduction and detail retention. Obviously I can tweak these as necessary, but it seems like a very good starting point.

 

One thing I've noticed makes a huge difference in Lightroom is *not* using the "Adobe Standard" camera profile (which leaves my HV / A99 images looking pretty washed out). The "Camera Standard" profile, with the Vibrance rolled down a little, gives much nicer results. Better still, I created a dual-illuminant profile using the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, and that works very well indeed. My images now look very accurate when compared to the scene I'm capturing, both in colour and contrast.

 

I do find that higher ISO images from the HV / A99 suffer from more red colour noise (compared to my Pentax cameras at the same ISO settings). This is particularly noticeable above ISO 6400, and is especially prevalent at the highest ISOs - 20000 and worst of all, 25600. That said, with the settings I'm using, I'm still getting very useable images right the way up to ISO 12800, depending on subject content. I'm particularly impressed by the amount of shadow data I can recover in clipped areas - I thought my Pentax K3 was good in this respect, but the HV / A99 is very special here.

 

Regarding Capture One 9 Express for Sony...

 

I've downloaded it, but for some reason it does not "see" any of my .ARW files. It sees my Pentax .DNG files, and other image file types, but not my .ARW files... very strange. Any advice would be extremely welcome If I can get it to work, I'm very open to the idea of using that instead of Lightroom - though, as I say, with the right camera profile selected, I'm finding Lightroom much better now.