DXOMark releases benchmarks for K-7 - result ordinary

[rawr]

Finally, DXO Labs have updated their DXOMark database to include the Pentax K-7, as well as the Canon 7D, Sony A500 and A500, and the Nikon D3000 and D300s. But not the K-x yet, alas.

New data for Canon S90, G11 and 7D; Sony A500 and A550; Pentax K7; Nikon D300s and D3000

The numbers for the K-7 are in the middle of the pack across a range of measures, including color depth, dynamic range and low-light ISO relative to other brands. And relative to the K20D all the numbers are a slight step backwards:

K-7
Overall score: 61
Color depth: 22.6
Dynamic range: 10.6
Low-light ISO: 536

K20d
Overall score: 65.4
Color depth: 22.9
Dynamic range: 11.1
Low-light ISO: 639

The chart below illustrates the new DXOMark DSLR scores for low-light ISO, including the K-7:



I've updated the thread I originally started many months ago on the specific issue of the K-7's low-light ISO performance. I expect the discussion around this will continue in the same lively vein as it has before.

K7 high ISO - will it be competitive?

[ogl]

Nothing new. It's true.

[eigelb]

PLEAS kick the samsung sensor in the outer space !!!

[mithrandir]

Except for the low light category, the K10D continues to kick butt.

[eigelb]

pentax k10d

Overall score: 65.9
Color depth: 22.7
Dynamic range: 11.6
Low-light ISO: 522

K-7
Overall score: 61
Color depth: 22.6
Dynamic range: 10.6
Low-light ISO: 536

[kevinschoenmakers]

Except for the low light category, the K10D continues to kick butt.

It's weird how the K10D is better than the K20D, and the K20D is better than the K-7. It should be the other way around.

[mithrandir]

It's weird how the K10D is better than the K20D, and the K20D is better than the K-7. It should be the other way around.

This is what has kept me from upgrading. There are technical features on the K7 that I would love to have, but I am not willing to step down from my K10D to get them.

[Miserere]

There is no reason the K-7 should be worse than the K200D at high ISO.

[arpaagent]

Interesting that the K200D is ranked higher than the K-7. I have a K200D and a K-7 and truthfully I can't get much more from high ISO on K-7 than I could out of the K200D, so I wouldn't have expected the K-7 to be much higher. But to be lower is either an insult to the K-7 or to DXOs testing procedures and ranking formula. K200D has a CCD sensor while the K-7 has a CMOS, not sure if that makes a difference.

K200D is a great camera, but performance-wise K-7 blows it out of the water, so I'm still glad I got a K-7. And I don't rely on high ISO too much, so not a dealbreaker by any means.

However, it does suck that benchmarks such as these make it appear as if Pentax is stepping backwards when it comes to sensor quality. Definitely would give skeptics and Canikonians something to point at when dissing Pentax.

[jeffkrol]

It's weird how the K10D is better than the K20D, and the K20D is better than the K-7. It should be the other way around.

K10 has one of the best DR figures around (or did). This ranking is not unexpected.
Some cameras do have HPN that hurts though.
K7 has somewhat higher noise in the shadows then expected (consider it growing pains for the Samsung sensor since they concentrated (my guesstimation) on the fps over any other parameters.
My spin, on looking at the DXO sensor numbers (which include DR AND resolution) I would conclude that despite the noise (which is easily eliminated to recover the DR) it is high in the resolution numbers... which I would prefer anyways. Though some want the sensor canned I give Pentax credit for the effort and hope that the next gen is better.
OR a higher MP CMOS from Sony....which will be tough to get decent video out of.
IF Samsung is serious about sensors they will clear this up next gen....

[arpaagent]

There is one result which wasn't expected:

DxO measures a better dynamic range at higher ISO for the K-7.

This shouldn't be ignored as the ability to push shadows at higher ISO is useful.

I'm confused by your statement. I'm looking at the DXO dynamic range graph for the K-7, and the dynamic range gets worse from ISO 100 to ISO 1600. The K-7 is worse at all ISOs for DR than the K200D, K20D, and D5000 according to DXOs marks.

Is it better than something else? I'm just looking for a qualification of the statement.

[falconeye]

I'm confused by your statement.

You are perfectly right. I confused colors which are pretty close ...

I deleted my above post because it is in error. Thank you for having spotted it.

[LeDave]

I love how they put the K200D has better high ISO than the K-7. Then the K200D and K-m is so far apart and they both share the same sensor. Then the D300 that shares the same sensor as the D90 and D5000 but is way way apart from eachother, I understand that the D90 has better high ISO than the D300 due to it's more "tweaked out" sensor that was released later, but there's no way it would be this big of a difference.This chart is full of epic phail, this site has lost its credibility.

[kickboxingpenguin]

im embarassed... after months of researching the k-7 saying to myself "eh iso isnt that bad, look at all these features to distract you from that"... i might have to return my camera and go to canon =(

[JohnBee]

The latest K-7 scores bellow the K200D?

Pentax should be ashamed...
I hope they fired someone for this because the Kx sensor is what should of been put into the K-7.