My K-7 alpha test report and blog

Yohan Pamudji · 06-18-2009, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I personally think the baseball/ipod shot at ISO 1600 is very good - every bit as good as my supposedly 'superior at high iso' D90 would do in that tough lighting situation.

I'd shoot the K-7 at ISO 1600 with confidence based on that shot.

.

I'd go to 1600 with confidence too. Unfortunately I shoot at 3200 a lot (more than 1600 even), and 3200 isn't so hot in the samples I've seen so far.

falconeye · 06-18-2009, 11:39 AM

All people who got fw 1.0 post here or in Germany. So, why even look at dpr?

Mr. The Guy · 06-18-2009, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by melander

I see alot of, "only as good as K20D" around at dpreview. Do I got a faulty K20D because the K-7 images just owns my k20d, its sits in the corner crying right now when I showed the pictures to it.

Shitty camera or just general DPR scumbags?

Everyone has to justify their decisions in their own minds regardless of what the evidence shows. When people can't afford new stuff which is obviously better than what they have, they have to slander it, and everyone who disagrees with them. As a salesperson, this is one of the most difficult parts of my job. Making the buyer feel good about their previous decision, but still getting them to understand why it's time to move forward.

Let's just look at it logically. The K*0D sensor was Samsung's first APS-C sensor. This new sensor is the next generation. It's going to be no better? Two commercial companies are going to invest massively in R&D and developing a new product and its output is going to be no better?

Once the firmware is finalized and production sensors are released, it is going to be appreciably better than the K20D. But, then the justifications as above will still be prevalent, and competitors will be posting purposefully bad samples to help maintain their competitive position.

soalle · 06-18-2009, 05:12 PM

Question question question question:

so with the 1.0 firmware is it possible to do AF during movie capturing?

Any news on that?

falconeye · 06-18-2009, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by soalle

Question question question question:

so with the 1.0 firmware is it possible to do AF during movie capturing?

Any news on that?

Didn't I say it yet? No AF during movie recording with v1.00. Only before start of movie. And CAF didn't look (significantly) improved either. It is definitely still not using the most clever algorithm you could think off

Edvinas · 06-18-2009, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Didn't I say it yet? No AF during movie recording with v1.00. Only before start of movie. And CAF didn't look (significantly) improved either. It is definitely still not using the most clever algorithm you could think off

Man, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? Bo to bed

falconeye · 06-18-2009, 06:20 PM

New blog entry:
Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D

ISO 1600
Upper row: 1/500s, lower row: 1/1000s
Left side: K-7, right side: K20D
100% crops

For the complete description of the test, and all other ISO values, please visit the full blog as linked above.

In one sentence:
At least for raw file pixel noise in black&white subjects, the K-7 and K20D sensors are equivalent.

Now, before a crowd of thinkers jump upon me ... I know that this is from a preproduction camera (albeit with final firmware). Nevertheless, the differences will be small enough to come to this conclusion. And IMHO, to match noise and detail from a K20D is a good thing.

**Rondec** · 06-18-2009, 06:33 PM

I guess it looks pretty good to me. Understand however that I don't shoot at high ISO to try to hand hold nightscape photos in the dark. I never really understood that. Just use a tripod! High ISO is to get fast enough shutter speed to take photos in darkish (but still illuminated) areas. I think the tungsten photos are perfect for looking at that.

VHDEL · 06-18-2009, 06:44 PM

Thank you very much for taking the time doing comparison tests
I have a K10 but no K20, although I do have a K7 ordered.

From the ISO samples on your blog, to me the K20 seems a bit soft compared to the K7.
Lets hope the final production model improves the ISO a little.

Cheers

**Sailor** · 06-18-2009, 07:04 PM

Thanks for the effort that you put into your comparison. Looks to me like the K-7 (in pre-production form) has more pronounced noise than does the K20d but with a bit more detail. What I believe is a common trade-off. Useful info; thanks again.

Jer

**stanleyk** · 06-18-2009, 07:05 PM

Yohan-

Two questions.

What do you shoot at 3200? I never go above 400. I'm not being sarcastic, I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. I'm curious.

Where are you in Mississippi? I was born there; Cleveland. My grandmother still lives in Jackson. I was just over there last week visiting.

Thanks!

yipchunyu · 06-18-2009, 07:23 PM

how are the performance with low iso? I think the K20D is not very good compare to K10D

Yohan Pamudji · 06-18-2009, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by stanleyk

Yohan-

Two questions.

What do you shoot at 3200? I never go above 400. I'm not being sarcastic, I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. I'm curious.

Where are you in Mississippi? I was born there; Cleveland. My grandmother still lives in Jackson. I was just over there last week visiting.

Thanks!

Being a working stiff (programmer), I hardly ever get to shoot for myself while light is good. So typical indoor light + high enough shutter speed to prevent motion blur = ISO 3200. I don't shoot a ton of weddings, but I think all but one of them I shot at least some if not majority at ISO 3200. Also night time events like Taste of Mississippi. Used to shoot some sports, and those gyms and fields are lit like dungeons, but I don't do much of that anymore. So there's all sorts of stuff I shoot or have shot where ISO 3200 is required and even a clean ISO 6400 would be very welcome. And that's with fast glass (f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, among others). I always try to shoot at as low an ISO as possible to avoid noise, but it's always better to get a noisier sharp shot than a less noisy but blurry shot so unfortunately higher ISOs come into play a lot for me.

I'm Clinton, just outside Jackson as you probably know. Small world!

Class A · 06-18-2009, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D

Thanks a lot.

The K-7 shots show slightly more moiré. Better focus and/or (hopefully) not a stronger AA filter?

Can't wait to see your resolution tests.
I noticed you did a JCPentax on me w.r.t. my "Is LiveView useable for critical focusing" question, but I'm happy to wait for the respective blog entry.

Originally posted by stanleyk

What do you shoot at 3200? ... I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers.

Badly lit scenes where movement may occur. Say a bar with Jazz musicians. Long shutter speeds only give you blur. You can open up the aperture but then the DOF becomes so thin at some point that hardly anything is in focus and most of the time not the part you want.

rawr · 06-18-2009, 08:15 PM

Put me down as one who regularly shoots at high-ISO's.

It gives you are a very welcome shooting flexibility - in terms of shooting environments but also practical lens usage - and generally increases your options a lot.

I also hate using flash.

06-18-2009, 11:46 AM	#78
Mr. The Guy Senior Member	Justification Originally posted by melander I see alot of, "only as good as K20D" around at dpreview. Do I got a faulty K20D because the K-7 images just owns my k20d, its sits in the corner crying right now when I showed the pictures to it. Shitty camera or just general DPR scumbags? Everyone has to justify their decisions in their own minds regardless of what the evidence shows. When people can't afford new stuff which is obviously better than what they have, they have to slander it, and everyone who disagrees with them. As a salesperson, this is one of the most difficult parts of my job. Making the buyer feel good about their previous decision, but still getting them to understand why it's time to move forward. Let's just look at it logically. The K*0D sensor was Samsung's first APS-C sensor. This new sensor is the next generation. It's going to be no better? Two commercial companies are going to invest massively in R&D and developing a new product and its output is going to be no better? Once the firmware is finalized and production sensors are released, it is going to be appreciably better than the K20D. But, then the justifications as above will still be prevalent, and competitors will be posting purposefully bad samples to help maintain their competitive position.

06-18-2009, 06:20 PM	#82
falconeye Pentaxian	Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D New blog entry: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D ISO 1600 Upper row: 1/500s, lower row: 1/1000s Left side: K-7, right side: K20D 100% crops For the complete description of the test, and all other ISO values, please visit the full blog as linked above. In one sentence: At least for raw file pixel noise in black&white subjects, the K-7 and K20D sensors are equivalent. Now, before a crowd of thinkers jump upon me ... I know that this is from a preproduction camera (albeit with final firmware). Nevertheless, the differences will be small enough to come to this conclusion. And IMHO, to match noise and detail from a K20D is a good thing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version E-mail to a Friend	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sony Alpha 900	dylansalt	Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc.	18	10-27-2010 11:01 AM
Any field test report for the kr?	opiedog	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	09-15-2010 11:47 AM
rawtherapee v3.0 alpha 1 is out	deejjjaaaa	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	01-07-2010 08:41 PM
sigma 35-135mm alpha IV	pdxbmw	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	12-29-2009 12:47 PM
Sony Alpha dSLR-A200	deejjjaaaa	Pentax News and Rumors	52	01-09-2008 02:30 PM

06-18-2009, 10:42 AM	#76
Yohan Pamudji Senior Member	Originally posted by jsherman999 I personally think the baseball/ipod shot at ISO 1600 is very good - every bit as good as my supposedly 'superior at high iso' D90 would do in that tough lighting situation. I'd shoot the K-7 at ISO 1600 with confidence based on that shot. . I'd go to 1600 with confidence too. Unfortunately I shoot at 3200 a lot (more than 1600 even), and 3200 isn't so hot in the samples I've seen so far.

06-18-2009, 11:39 AM	#77
falconeye Pentaxian	All people who got fw 1.0 post here or in Germany. So, why even look at dpr?

06-18-2009, 05:12 PM	#79
soalle Senior Member	Question question question question: so with the 1.0 firmware is it possible to do AF during movie capturing? Any news on that?

06-18-2009, 06:08 PM	#80
falconeye Pentaxian	Originally posted by soalle Question question question question: so with the 1.0 firmware is it possible to do AF during movie capturing? Any news on that? Didn't I say it yet? No AF during movie recording with v1.00. Only before start of movie. And CAF didn't look (significantly) improved either. It is definitely still not using the most clever algorithm you could think off

06-18-2009, 06:19 PM	#81
Edvinas Pentaxian	Originally posted by falconeye Didn't I say it yet? No AF during movie recording with v1.00. Only before start of movie. And CAF didn't look (significantly) improved either. It is definitely still not using the most clever algorithm you could think off Man, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? Bo to bed

06-18-2009, 06:33 PM	#83
Rondec Site Supporter	I guess it looks pretty good to me. Understand however that I don't shoot at high ISO to try to hand hold nightscape photos in the dark. I never really understood that. Just use a tripod! High ISO is to get fast enough shutter speed to take photos in darkish (but still illuminated) areas. I think the tungsten photos are perfect for looking at that.

06-18-2009, 06:44 PM	#84
VHDEL Forum Member	Thank you very much for taking the time doing comparison tests I have a K10 but no K20, although I do have a K7 ordered. From the ISO samples on your blog, to me the K20 seems a bit soft compared to the K7. Lets hope the final production model improves the ISO a little. Cheers

06-18-2009, 07:04 PM	#85
Sailor Site Supporter	Thanks for the effort that you put into your comparison. Looks to me like the K-7 (in pre-production form) has more pronounced noise than does the K20d but with a bit more detail. What I believe is a common trade-off. Useful info; thanks again. Jer

06-18-2009, 07:05 PM	#86
stanleyk Site Supporter	Yohan- Two questions. What do you shoot at 3200? I never go above 400. I'm not being sarcastic, I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. I'm curious. Where are you in Mississippi? I was born there; Cleveland. My grandmother still lives in Jackson. I was just over there last week visiting. Thanks!

06-18-2009, 07:23 PM	#87
yipchunyu Senior Member	how are the performance with low iso? I think the K20D is not very good compare to K10D

06-18-2009, 07:56 PM	#88
Yohan Pamudji Senior Member	Originally posted by stanleyk Yohan- Two questions. What do you shoot at 3200? I never go above 400. I'm not being sarcastic, I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. I'm curious. Where are you in Mississippi? I was born there; Cleveland. My grandmother still lives in Jackson. I was just over there last week visiting. Thanks! Being a working stiff (programmer), I hardly ever get to shoot for myself while light is good. So typical indoor light + high enough shutter speed to prevent motion blur = ISO 3200. I don't shoot a ton of weddings, but I think all but one of them I shot at least some if not majority at ISO 3200. Also night time events like Taste of Mississippi. Used to shoot some sports, and those gyms and fields are lit like dungeons, but I don't do much of that anymore. So there's all sorts of stuff I shoot or have shot where ISO 3200 is required and even a clean ISO 6400 would be very welcome. And that's with fast glass (f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, among others). I always try to shoot at as low an ISO as possible to avoid noise, but it's always better to get a noisier sharp shot than a less noisy but blurry shot so unfortunately higher ISOs come into play a lot for me. I'm Clinton, just outside Jackson as you probably know. Small world!

06-18-2009, 07:59 PM	#89
Class A Pentaxian	Originally posted by falconeye Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D Thanks a lot. The K-7 shots show slightly more moiré. Better focus and/or (hopefully) not a stronger AA filter? Can't wait to see your resolution tests. I noticed you did a JCPentax on me w.r.t. my "Is LiveView useable for critical focusing" question, but I'm happy to wait for the respective blog entry. Originally posted by stanleyk What do you shoot at 3200? ... I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. Badly lit scenes where movement may occur. Say a bar with Jazz musicians. Long shutter speeds only give you blur. You can open up the aperture but then the DOF becomes so thin at some point that hardly anything is in focus and most of the time not the part you want.

06-18-2009, 08:15 PM	#90
rawr Pentaxian	Put me down as one who regularly shoots at high-ISO's. It gives you are a very welcome shooting flexibility - in terms of shooting environments but also practical lens usage - and generally increases your options a lot. I also hate using flash.