k7 vs A850. That was fast!!!!

C.W Tsorotes · 08-27-2009, 04:37 PM

The image speaks for itself.

I'd never buy a Sony digicam always found them to be overpriced and underperforming, yet people buy them because "It's a sony!"

I remember when I use to work in electrical retail I this burly mean looking guy come in wanting a Sony sound system, I asked him "Why not something better?" he goes "What's better than Sony?" I go "Oh well Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, etc" He looked at my confused and puzzled.

*deadwolfbones* · 08-27-2009, 04:58 PM

Note that the Sony image is magnified further. Resize to K-7 resolution and I imagine it'll look a lot sharper.

Pentaxor · 08-27-2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by deadwolfbones

Note that the Sony image is magnified further. Resize to K-7 resolution and I imagine it'll look a lot sharper.

I did the opposite. I magnified the K-7 resolution to match the Sony's image size. the Sony is quite soft and missed some details.

shaolin95 · 08-27-2009, 09:22 PM

I am confused..how accurate or reliable is that comparison?
I ask because I compared the K20D (which I am yet to receive) and it looks sharper than almost any camera there (at leat the face on the first picture). Even sharper than the Nikon D700 which so expensive.
The only that I saw that beats is right there with it is the K-7.
Am I way off or are those images not quite such a good way to compare after all?
I would be glad if my K20D is THAT good! :-)

Pentaxor · 08-27-2009, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by shaolin95

I am confused..how accurate or reliable is that comparison?
I ask because I compared the K20D (which I am yet to receive) and it looks sharper than almost any camera there (at leat the face on the first picture). Even sharper than the Nikon D700 which so expensive.
The only that I saw that beats is right there with it is the K-7.
Am I way off or are those images not quite such a good way to compare after all?
I would be glad if my K20D is THAT good! :-)

I dunno what lens were used for the K-7 and the Sony. but if let's say that they used a 70 LTD lens for the K-7 and a Zeiss 50 for the Sony, I think Sony needs to have a better cpu for it's camera.

*edl* · 08-27-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by shaolin95

I am confused..how accurate or reliable is that comparison?
I ask because I compared the K20D (which I am yet to receive) and it looks sharper than almost any camera there (at leat the face on the first picture). Even sharper than the Nikon D700 which so expensive.
The only that I saw that beats is right there with it is the K-7.
Am I way off or are those images not quite such a good way to compare after all?
I would be glad if my K20D is THAT good! :-)

That's a good question. I think these comparisons aren't very helpful at all, you can take any image and sharpen it in PP.

Camera responsiveness and lens selection are far more important to most photographers. Measurebators will find anything to discuss though.

The K20D is a fine camera with a very competent sensor, but FF has better IQ than APS-C.

**Marc Langille** · 08-27-2009, 10:14 PM

I am not sure why this is posted in the SLR Lens discussion when it's about camera bodies or am I mistaken? Moving to the DSLR forum for now...

Originally Posted by edl

The K20D is a fine camera with a very competent sensor, but FF has better IQ than APS-C.

Perhaps your statement is a little too broad in it's context? I have seen many amazing images taken with APS-C with top spec glass in the right hands.

If I am wrong, then I guess I am doomed to second rate images unless I switch to FF...

Regards,
Marc

krypticide · 08-27-2009, 11:24 PM

I don't think it has to do with sharpening. The A850 is clearly missing details that the K-7 is picking up. Very strange. Would be interesting to see what lenses are used.

Incidentally, looks like the Sony's WB is off.

*edl* · 08-27-2009, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Marc Langille

I am not sure why this is posted in the SLR Lens discussion when it's about camera bodies or am I mistaken? Moving to the DSLR forum for now...

Perhaps your statement is a little too broad in it's context? I have seen many amazing images taken with APS-C with top spec glass in the right hands.

If I am wrong, then I guess I am doomed to second rate images unless I switch to FF...

Regards,
Marc

Marc,

My statement is actually very specific. I said that FF has better IQ than APS-C. Much like APS-C has better IQ than 4/3, or 4/3 has better IQ than point and shoots, etc. When you compare the technical aspects this cannot be disputed. I'm not even talking about glass. I'm just talking about sensor size.

However, IQ has very little to do with amazing images. Amazing images are captured by amazing photographers, not the camera - right?

Regards,
Edmund

PS - Don't worry about your photos, no one will ever accuse them of being "second-rate."

mistergee · 08-27-2009, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Pentaxor

I did the opposite. I magnified the K-7 resolution to match the Sony's image size. the Sony is quite soft and missed some details.

Yet other comparison pictures tell a different story.
Sony on the left, K-7 on right.

jct us101 · 08-27-2009, 11:51 PM

Comparing apples and hand grenades again.

Pentaxor · 08-28-2009, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by mistergee

Yet other comparison pictures tell a different story.
Sony on the left, K-7 on right.

can you provide the link for these images?

ogl · 08-28-2009, 01:28 AM

Canon 5D Mk II is a bit SOAPY too.

mistergee · 08-28-2009, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Pentaxor

can you provide the link for these images?

Same Imaging Resource "Comparometer" page as the original post.

Select the cameras and choose pictures from dropdown list.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page