Full K-7 review up at Imaging Resource

gazonk · 08-21-2009, 12:25 AM

Sorry if it has been mentioned before, but a few hours ago imaging resource announced that its complete K-7 review up, and they seem happy with the camera.

Ash · 08-21-2009, 12:30 AM

No surprises there.
It's simply an awesome camera.
Glad to see they agree.

pcarfan · 08-21-2009, 04:45 AM

Link

Pentax K-7 Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

eva2000 · 08-21-2009, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Ash

No surprises there.
It's simply an awesome camera.
Glad to see they agree.

Indeed it is!

gfmucci · 08-21-2009, 10:23 AM

IR apparantly thought the "green line" issue was of so little consequence (or the problem didn't show up on their test units) they didn't mention it anywhere in their review.

Just out of fairness to their readers, and to maintain crediblity of their site, I thought it should have been mentioned in some fashion, even if to say: "A small number of K-7 owners have noted a faint vertical green line appears under some conditions. This is thought to be caused by overheating of the sensor after extensive use of the video mode. This anomaly did not appear in our test photos."

Maybe they did say something, but I missed it.

rawr · 08-21-2009, 12:21 PM

It was a very good review. Balanced and even a little bit Pentax enthusiastic, which is rare. I think they are rooting for the little guy, and good on them.

For me personally, given my interest in high ISO etc, this was the main notable quotable:

- JPEG and RAW dynamic range scores below average for an APS-C sensor
- Image noise higher than K20D at high ISOs

which pretty much tallies up with the consensus view here. It was also supported by their image results.

But on the plus side they did also go out of their way to say detail stayed good and print quality was excellent at high ISO.

Amazing amount of test images too in their review. Very useful.

**cwood** · 08-21-2009, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by gfmucci

IR apparantly thought the "green line" issue was of so little consequence (or the problem didn't show up on their test units) they didn't mention it anywhere in their review.

Just out of fairness to their readers, and to maintain crediblity of their site, I thought it should have been mentioned in some fashion, even if to say: "A small number of K-7 owners have noted a faint vertical green line appears under some conditions. This is thought to be caused by overheating of the sensor after extensive use of the video mode. This anomaly did not appear in our test photos."

Maybe they did say something, but I missed it.

I'm not sure they needed that statement to maintain credibility. There is still no indication of how prevalent the problem may or may not be in spite of the fact that some people seem to want to talk about little else with the camera.

I was driving a Chevy Suburban once that burst into flames while I was driving it but car reviews don't need to say "these vehicles have been known to burst into flames on occasion"

asw66 · 08-21-2009, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by rawr

For me personally, given my interest in high ISO etc, this was the main notable quotable:

- JPEG and RAW dynamic range scores below average for an APS-C sensor
- Image noise higher than K20D at high ISOs

which pretty much tallies up with the consensus view here. It was also supported by their image results.

Yes, as a K20D owner I confess to feeling a little smug after seeing these images. So why has the IQ gone backwards in these respects? I'm inclined to guess either:

The video function introduces some compromises in the sensor
This is just a firmware problem that will be fixed in a few months

Would anyone care to enlighten me?

kittykat46 · 08-22-2009, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by gfmucci

IR apparantly thought the "green line" issue was of so little consequence (or the problem didn't show up on their test units) they didn't mention it anywhere in their review.

Just out of fairness to their readers, and to maintain crediblity of their site, I thought it should have been mentioned in some fashion, even if to say: "A small number of K-7 owners have noted a faint vertical green line appears under some conditions. This is thought to be caused by overheating of the sensor after extensive use of the video mode. This anomaly did not appear in our test photos."

Maybe they did say something, but I missed it.

It they encountered the green line in their test unit, yes, it would have been fair comment for them to mention it. Doesn't look like it.

Quality issues , covered by warranty, are normally not part of the scope of a performance review unless proven to be a widespread or an inherent design defect. Its not like new Canon and Nikon models are all defect free either....

Urkeldaedalus · 08-22-2009, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by asw66

Yes, as a K20D owner I confess to feeling a little smug after seeing these images. So why has the IQ gone backwards in these respects? I'm inclined to guess either:

The video function introduces some compromises in the sensor
This is just a firmware problem that will be fixed in a few months

Would anyone care to enlighten me?

In the same review, they also go on to laud the great quality of the prints, giving Pentax props for not smearing out detail in favor of noise reduction. I'm beginning to wonder if the amount of noise is actually a design decision (compromise) made by the engineers based on the limitations of the sensor. But that's just speculation on my part.

In any case, if you use noise reduction software you can make a K-7 image look just about identical to a K20D image at the same ISOs, so it's sort of a moot point.

Big G · 08-22-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus

In any case, if you use noise reduction software you can make a K-7 image look just about identical to a K20D image at the same ISOs, so it's sort of a moot point.

Yes indeed, this is what crossed my mind on the K-7 the other day. I'm a K20D + RAW shooter, and the perceived "very slightly noisier" K-7 samples had me a bit "meh" about it, but then I realised i'd be shooting the K-7 in RAW and could apply the necessary noise reduction anyway! So yeah, moot point.

JHfwp · 08-22-2009, 12:47 PM

That was a great review. My doubts about the camera have been erased, but I'm waiting to see what Pentax has planned as far as telephoto lenses go. If there's nothing in the immediate future I don't think I'll be getting one, and I don't think Pentax will gain any market share worth mentioning.

**séamuis** · 08-22-2009, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus

In the same review, they also go on to laud the great quality of the prints, giving Pentax props for not smearing out detail in favor of noise reduction. I'm beginning to wonder if the amount of noise is actually a design decision (compromise) made by the engineers based on the limitations of the sensor. But that's just speculation on my part.

In any case, if you use noise reduction software you can make a K-7 image look just about identical to a K20D image at the same ISOs, so it's sort of a moot point.

not a speculation at all. its been known for quite some time, that Pentax does this on purpose. most people, especially those who are used to or prefer the canikon approach put it down as a flaw. but its not, its a purposeful choice to preserve detail, which can easily be lost at high ISO.

nostatic · 08-22-2009, 01:00 PM

Given a choice between some software programmer deciding how much NR is appropriate and my own eyes, I'll choose the later.

Once you're made it "low noise" and tossed the data, you can't get it back.

It also could be that the K7 has a weaker AA filter than K20d and/or competition. Plenty of debate about AA filters and image definition...

snogglethorpe · 08-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

It also could be that the K7 has a weaker AA filter than K20d and/or competition. Plenty of debate about AA filters and image definition...

AA filter has nothing to do with sensor noise though...

08-21-2009, 12:25 AM	#1
gazonk Pentaxian	Full K-7 review up at Imaging Resource Sorry if it has been mentioned before, but a few hours ago imaging resource announced that its complete K-7 review up, and they seem happy with the camera.

08-21-2009, 10:54 PM	#8
asw66 Senior Member	Originally posted by rawr For me personally, given my interest in high ISO etc, this was the main notable quotable: - JPEG and RAW dynamic range scores below average for an APS-C sensor - Image noise higher than K20D at high ISOs which pretty much tallies up with the consensus view here. It was also supported by their image results. Yes, as a K20D owner I confess to feeling a little smug after seeing these images. So why has the IQ gone backwards in these respects? I'm inclined to guess either: The video function introduces some compromises in the sensor This is just a firmware problem that will be fixed in a few months Would anyone care to enlighten me?

08-22-2009, 12:31 PM	#10
Urkeldaedalus Pentaxian	Originally posted by asw66 Yes, as a K20D owner I confess to feeling a little smug after seeing these images. So why has the IQ gone backwards in these respects? I'm inclined to guess either: The video function introduces some compromises in the sensor This is just a firmware problem that will be fixed in a few months Would anyone care to enlighten me? In the same review, they also go on to laud the great quality of the prints, giving Pentax props for not smearing out detail in favor of noise reduction. I'm beginning to wonder if the amount of noise is actually a design decision (compromise) made by the engineers based on the limitations of the sensor. But that's just speculation on my part. In any case, if you use noise reduction software you can make a K-7 image look just about identical to a K20D image at the same ISOs, so it's sort of a moot point.

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
Imaging Resource reviews K-x - in full	rawr	Pentax News and Rumors	4	03-17-2010 01:55 PM
Imaging-Resource full review of K-x	UnknownVT	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	03-12-2010 11:35 AM
imaging resource on k-7	jeffkrol	Pentax News and Rumors	6	06-09-2009 07:35 AM
K20D Review on Imaging Resource	ftpaddict	Pentax News and Rumors	7	02-18-2009 01:55 PM
Imaging Resource K20D Review	Rush2112	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	02-17-2009 06:29 AM

08-21-2009, 12:30 AM	#2
Ash Community Manager Loyal Site Supporter	No surprises there. It's simply an awesome camera. Glad to see they agree.

08-21-2009, 04:45 AM	#3
pcarfan Pentaxian	Link Pentax K-7 Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

08-21-2009, 06:21 AM	#4
eva2000 Senior Member	Originally posted by Ash No surprises there. It's simply an awesome camera. Glad to see they agree. Indeed it is!

08-21-2009, 10:23 AM	#5
gfmucci Forum Member	IR apparantly thought the "green line" issue was of so little consequence (or the problem didn't show up on their test units) they didn't mention it anywhere in their review. Just out of fairness to their readers, and to maintain crediblity of their site, I thought it should have been mentioned in some fashion, even if to say: "A small number of K-7 owners have noted a faint vertical green line appears under some conditions. This is thought to be caused by overheating of the sensor after extensive use of the video mode. This anomaly did not appear in our test photos." Maybe they did say something, but I missed it.

08-21-2009, 12:21 PM	#6
rawr Pentaxian	It was a very good review. Balanced and even a little bit Pentax enthusiastic, which is rare. I think they are rooting for the little guy, and good on them. For me personally, given my interest in high ISO etc, this was the main notable quotable: - JPEG and RAW dynamic range scores below average for an APS-C sensor - Image noise higher than K20D at high ISOs which pretty much tallies up with the consensus view here. It was also supported by their image results. But on the plus side they did also go out of their way to say detail stayed good and print quality was excellent at high ISO. Amazing amount of test images too in their review. Very useful.

08-21-2009, 01:12 PM	#7
cwood Site Supporter	Originally posted by gfmucci IR apparantly thought the "green line" issue was of so little consequence (or the problem didn't show up on their test units) they didn't mention it anywhere in their review. Just out of fairness to their readers, and to maintain crediblity of their site, I thought it should have been mentioned in some fashion, even if to say: "A small number of K-7 owners have noted a faint vertical green line appears under some conditions. This is thought to be caused by overheating of the sensor after extensive use of the video mode. This anomaly did not appear in our test photos." Maybe they did say something, but I missed it. I'm not sure they needed that statement to maintain credibility. There is still no indication of how prevalent the problem may or may not be in spite of the fact that some people seem to want to talk about little else with the camera. I was driving a Chevy Suburban once that burst into flames while I was driving it but car reviews don't need to say "these vehicles have been known to burst into flames on occasion"

08-22-2009, 12:22 AM	#9
kittykat46 Veteran Member	Originally posted by gfmucci IR apparantly thought the "green line" issue was of so little consequence (or the problem didn't show up on their test units) they didn't mention it anywhere in their review. Just out of fairness to their readers, and to maintain crediblity of their site, I thought it should have been mentioned in some fashion, even if to say: "A small number of K-7 owners have noted a faint vertical green line appears under some conditions. This is thought to be caused by overheating of the sensor after extensive use of the video mode. This anomaly did not appear in our test photos." Maybe they did say something, but I missed it. It they encountered the green line in their test unit, yes, it would have been fair comment for them to mention it. Doesn't look like it. Quality issues , covered by warranty, are normally not part of the scope of a performance review unless proven to be a widespread or an inherent design defect. Its not like new Canon and Nikon models are all defect free either....

08-22-2009, 12:47 PM	#11
Big G Veteran Member	Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus In any case, if you use noise reduction software you can make a K-7 image look just about identical to a K20D image at the same ISOs, so it's sort of a moot point. Yes indeed, this is what crossed my mind on the K-7 the other day. I'm a K20D + RAW shooter, and the perceived "very slightly noisier" K-7 samples had me a bit "meh" about it, but then I realised i'd be shooting the K-7 in RAW and could apply the necessary noise reduction anyway! So yeah, moot point.

08-22-2009, 12:47 PM	#12
JHfwp Senior Member	That was a great review. My doubts about the camera have been erased, but I'm waiting to see what Pentax has planned as far as telephoto lenses go. If there's nothing in the immediate future I don't think I'll be getting one, and I don't think Pentax will gain any market share worth mentioning.

08-22-2009, 12:57 PM	#13
séamuis Site Supporter	Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus In the same review, they also go on to laud the great quality of the prints, giving Pentax props for not smearing out detail in favor of noise reduction. I'm beginning to wonder if the amount of noise is actually a design decision (compromise) made by the engineers based on the limitations of the sensor. But that's just speculation on my part. In any case, if you use noise reduction software you can make a K-7 image look just about identical to a K20D image at the same ISOs, so it's sort of a moot point. not a speculation at all. its been known for quite some time, that Pentax does this on purpose. most people, especially those who are used to or prefer the canikon approach put it down as a flaw. but its not, its a purposeful choice to preserve detail, which can easily be lost at high ISO.

08-22-2009, 01:00 PM	#14
nostatic Veteran Member	Given a choice between some software programmer deciding how much NR is appropriate and my own eyes, I'll choose the later. Once you're made it "low noise" and tossed the data, you can't get it back. It also could be that the K7 has a weaker AA filter than K20d and/or competition. Plenty of debate about AA filters and image definition...

08-22-2009, 04:17 PM	#15
snogglethorpe Forum Member	Originally posted by nostatic It also could be that the K7 has a weaker AA filter than K20d and/or competition. Plenty of debate about AA filters and image definition... AA filter has nothing to do with sensor noise though...