K-5 and K-r! Let's Do It, RIGHT! Comparing to their competitors!

SpartanWarrior · 10-16-2010, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

This is what DPR review had to say when they tested the 7D (Comparing the D300s and the k-7 and the 50D).

"Again, the graphs below confirm what we can see in the sample crops. The 50D produces more chroma noise than the EOS 7D at higher ISOs. The Pentax K-7 is still slightly worse than the Nikon and EOS 7D at very high ISOs but the gap is smaller in RAW. At high ISOs the the 7D and its closest rival, the Nikon D300S, are more or less level in terms of chroma noise."

NOTE THE "SLIGHTLY WORSE" AND "GAP IS SMALLER IN RAW".

This is with the K-7. Later the K-x was reported as the best APS-C iso performer, and to beat it one has to get a FF. The K-x has about a 1.5 to 2 stop advantage over the K-7at high iso.

Now early reports seems to imply the K-5 to have as good as a high iso perfromance as that to the K-x.

Now, why in the world would anyone ask such a question as you pose ? yet many do (not just you....I am sorry if this looks like I am targetting you, not my intention, just the pattern I am seeing). the 7D and the D300s only had a slightly better high iso performance than even the K-7 for god sake...the k-5 will run circles around them.

I too am so glad the K-5 is priced the way it is....hopefully that will help with this mass inferiority comples Penatxians seems to have.

The D300s and the 7D are not even in the same league to the K-5 for iso performance., they were only slightly better than the K-7 at very high iso...the D7000 however could be comapred with the K-5 for high iso performance.

No No sorry, I can post 2 comparison shots 1 with the 7D and one with the K7 the 7D is more than a stop better and I guarantee that...
but you should at least add this also
Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail.

All in all the EOS 7D is, considering its impressively high resolution for an APS-C camera, doing a very decent job. On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. Images taken with the two very high test ISO settings are not always pretty to look at. However, the two 'Hi' settings are there in case you need them and the output is certainly usable at smaller sizes.
and in RAW
With noise reduction turned off we get a more accurate idea of how noisy these sensors are and the image looks slightly different to what we've seen above in the JPEG section of this page. The Pentax K-7 is much closer to the pack but it also becomes clear that the 7D produces a cleaner image than the 50D and, at very high ISOs, also than the D300S. This explains to a degree the 50D's slightly softer JPEG output at high ISOs. Its JPEG engine has to apply more chroma noise reduction than on the 7D in order to get noise onto the same level. He was just stating that the K-7 was better than in Jpeg,
and about the K-5 running circles around the 7D or the D300s we'll wait for the reviews but I honestly don't think it will be better the same maybe, as in Dxo canon 7D has slightly better high ISO noise than Kx and I see that from my friends Kx after ISO 6400 detail from 7D is better and a little better NC.

Last edited by SpartanWarrior; 10-16-2010 at 09:04 AM.

LeeRunge · 10-16-2010, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

This is what DPR review had to say when they tested the 7D (Comparing the D300s and the k-7 and the 50D).

"Again, the graphs below confirm what we can see in the sample crops. The 50D produces more chroma noise than the EOS 7D at higher ISOs. The Pentax K-7 is still slightly worse than the Nikon and EOS 7D at very high ISOs but the gap is smaller in RAW. At high ISOs the the 7D and its closest rival, the Nikon D300S, are more or less level in terms of chroma noise."

NOTE THE "SLIGHTLY WORSE" AND "GAP IS SMALLER IN RAW".

This is with the K-7. Later the K-x was reported as the best APS-C iso performer, and to beat it one has to get a FF. The K-x has about a 1.5 to 2 stop advantage over the K-7at high iso.

Now early reports seems to imply the K-5 to have as good as a high iso perfromance as that to the K-x.

Now, why in the world would anyone ask such a question as you pose ? yet many do (not just you....I am sorry if this looks like I am targetting you, not my intention, just the pattern I am seeing). the 7D and the D300s only had a slightly better high iso performance than even the K-7 for god sake...the k-5 will run circles around them.

I too am so glad the K-5 is priced the way it is....hopefully that will help with this mass inferiority comples Penatxians seems to have.

The D300s and the 7D are not even in the same league to the K-5 for iso performance., they were only slightly better than the K-7 at very high iso...the D7000 however could be comapred with the K-5 for high iso performance.

Last I checked dxo stated the 7d had a slightly BETTER iso than the kx. I own both the K7 and 7d and can tell you your very wrong when it comes to "slightly" better ISO on the 7d vs K7. The 7d is usable to 6400 with no issue and 12800 with some PP work. It hands down beats the K7 no contest. I would say the KX is a fair comparison to the 7d in terms of noise and the K5 will be very similar to it. Don't try to make the 7d out to be equal to the K7 it is not. I speak from experience of owning both and testing them side by side.

Not even in the same league is beyond a stretch.

SpartanWarrior · 10-16-2010, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by LeeRunge

Last I checked dxo stated the 7d had a slightly BETTER iso than the kx. I own both the K7 and 7d and can tell you your very wrong when it comes to "slightly" better ISO on the 7d vs K7. The 7d is usable to 6400 with no issue and 12800 with some PP work. It hands down beats the K7 no contest. I would say the KX is a fair comparison to the 7d in terms of noise and the K5 will be very similar to it. Don't try to make the 7d out to be equal to the K7 it is not. I speak from experience of owning both and testing them side by side.

Not even in the same league is beyond a stretch.

I also like Pentax don't get me wrong, I posted some comparison shots between the 7D and K-7 in dpreview a few months ago and the thread was deleted vanished.

LeeRunge · 10-16-2010, 09:17 AM

It looks to me that the K5 is going to be very close to the KX/7d in ISO. I am trying to restore a little sanity to those who have been waiting for so long for a improved ISO K7 and got it. It looks like we got a K7 with a higher megapixel KX sensor in it.

pcarfan · 10-16-2010, 09:22 AM

FYI:

I was quoting what DPR said of the sensors in question, not my opinion on them. So, I am wrong only if DPR iso tests are meaningless.

KungPOW · 10-16-2010, 09:45 AM

Truth is the D7000 is getting massive attention. Having the K-5 directly compaired is not a bad thing. The primary market is the same for both cameras, and these camers will be compaired buy anyone buying into a system.

The preliminary high ISO shots from the D7000 look exceptional, as do those from the K-5.

The D300s is getting long in the tooth. It was a minor upgrade from the D300 (vintage summer 2007), and it is expected to get an upgrade in the next 6 months. For most people, the D7000 is a better buy then the D300s.

As it stands today, the cameras that are in the same market are:

D7000, D300s, K-5, 60D, 7D

Interesting that Canon and Nikon each have two in the bracket.

LeeRunge · 10-16-2010, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

FYI:

I was quoting what DPR said of the sensors in question, not my opinion on them. So, I am wrong only if DPR iso tests are meaningless.

Well the review for the K7 was made before the review for the 7d and did not include it in direct comparison however the 7d review did compare it to the k7

"Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail.

All in all the EOS 7D is, considering its impressively high resolution for an APS-C camera, doing a very decent job. On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. Images taken with the two very high test ISO settings are not always pretty to look at. However, the two 'Hi' settings are there in case you need them and the output is certainly usable at smaller sizes."

Comparison pictures between the 7d and competition at 6400.

Attached Images

SpartanWarrior · 10-16-2010, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

FYI:

I was quoting what DPR said of the sensors in question, not my opinion on them. So, I am wrong only if DPR iso tests are meaningless.

Dpreview did not say that it was slightly worse what they meant was in raw the K7 is better than it is in jpeg.
Besides dpreview was meaningless to all pentax when they gave the 550D a better score than the Kx.

pcarfan · 10-16-2010, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by LeeRunge

Well the review for the K7 was made before the review for the 7d and did not include it in direct comparison however the 7d review did compare it to the k7

Yeah! that's why I also had to go to the 7D review for the quote, did you miss that ?

"Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail.

This is in regards to jpeg and not RAW, the k-7 jpeg's do indeed suck. I was talking about RAW DPR conclusion

All in all the EOS 7D is, considering its impressively high resolution for an APS-C camera, doing a very decent job. On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. Images taken with the two very high test ISO settings are not always pretty to look at. However, the two 'Hi' settings are there in case you need them and the output is certainly usable at smaller sizes."

Comparison pictures between the 7d and competition at 6400.

Also, at iso 6400 (aka very high iso), the 7D is indeed better.

pcarfan · 10-16-2010, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by SpartanWarrior

Dpreview did not say that it was slightly worse what they meant was in raw the K7 is better than it is in jpeg.
Besides dpreview was meaningless to all pentax when they gave the 550D a better score than the Kx.

I don't know what else to say other than to repeat what I put in those quotations was a direct cut and paste from the DPR 7D review ? So, I assume DPR meant what they wrote

kittykat46 · 10-16-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by LeeRunge

Well the review for the K7 was made before the review for the 7d and did not include it in direct comparison however the 7d review did compare it to the k7

"Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail.

I have the K-7, my brother has the 7D and 50D, and we frequently use the cameras side by side at family outings and events, and I often borrow his 7D

as he lives about 5 minutes away.
We're all photography fanatics.....

The 7D is clearly a higher performing camera in almost all areas, except size and weight. My smallish hands and not-muscular arms prefer the K-7.
The High-ISO gap is less in RAW, but its still there, and very obvious above ISO 1600.
The 50D has better JPEG than the K-7, but not the RAW files,

AF speed ? I have very active pre-school kids, and its often a challenge chatching them with AF. The 7D is Way better than the K-7 here.

Its worth noting the 7D was pretty costly for an APS-C camera when launched last year.

The K-7 still works for me, for the price I paid for it and I Will get the K-5.
The K-5 MRSP is looking less and less of an issue by the day as the AAA+ quality K-5 shots pop up on the Internet.

SpartanWarrior · 10-16-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

I don't know what else to say other than to repeat what I put in those quotations was a direct cut and paste from the DPR 7D review ? So, I assume DPR meant what they wrote

You said that the 7D is marginally better than the K-7 please point out where you read that because I can't see it,, everybody can believe what they want but the 7D is more than a stop better.

LeeRunge · 10-16-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

Also, at iso 6400 (aka very high iso), the 7D is indeed better.

If you drop down to 1600 or below the image quality is pretty close on both. You have the megapixel advantage with the 7d and if you use in-camera settings to boost the sharpness it is a large difference, but at normal resolutions you can't see much difference.

My bad on missing your pulling from the 7d review.

Hopefully someone with a 7d gets a K5 and can post side by sides, or if you know an owner borrow the camera.

SpartanWarrior · 10-16-2010, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by kittykat46

I have the K-7, my brother has the 7D and 50D, and we frequently use the cameras side by side at family outings and events, and I often borrow his 7D

as he lives about 5 minutes away.
We're all photography fanatics.....

The 7D is clearly a higher performing camera in almost all areas, except size and weight. My smallish hands and not-muscular arms prefer the K-7.
The High-ISO gap is less in RAW, but its still there, and very obvious above ISO 1600.
The 50D has better JPEG than the K-7, but not the RAW files,

AF speed ? I have very active pre-school kids, and its often a challenge chatching them with AF. The 7D is Way better than the K-7 here.

Its worth noting the 7D was pretty costly for an APS-C camera when launched last year.

The still K-7 works for me, for the price I paid for it and I Will get the K-5.
The K-5 MRSP is looking less and less of an issue by the day as the AAA+ quality K-5 shots pop up on the Internet.

This is also what I see with my 7D and K-7 that I had, the 7D trumps it everywhere other than size but oh well how do you think I got 19 inc arms lol

kales · 10-16-2010, 11:00 AM

don't know how they test the sensor but I believe nothing in DxO after I saw they rank D90 as highest ISO score in crop sensors. that's funny and ridiculous.
imaging is a system work, technically and pratically you can't test sensor alone.

side to side shoot at the same condition will be more convincing for me.

Originally posted by LeeRunge

Last I checked dxo stated the 7d had a slightly BETTER iso than the kx. I own both the K7 and 7d and can tell you your very wrong when it comes to "slightly" better ISO on the 7d vs K7. The 7d is usable to 6400 with no issue and 12800 with some PP work. It hands down beats the K7 no contest. I would say the KX is a fair comparison to the 7d in terms of noise and the K5 will be very similar to it. Don't try to make the 7d out to be equal to the K7 it is not. I speak from experience of owning both and testing them side by side.

Not even in the same league is beyond a stretch.

10-16-2010, 09:08 AM	#17
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	Originally posted by pcarfan This is what DPR review had to say when they tested the 7D (Comparing the D300s and the k-7 and the 50D). "Again, the graphs below confirm what we can see in the sample crops. The 50D produces more chroma noise than the EOS 7D at higher ISOs. The Pentax K-7 is still slightly worse than the Nikon and EOS 7D at very high ISOs but the gap is smaller in RAW. At high ISOs the the 7D and its closest rival, the Nikon D300S, are more or less level in terms of chroma noise." NOTE THE "SLIGHTLY WORSE" AND "GAP IS SMALLER IN RAW". This is with the K-7. Later the K-x was reported as the best APS-C iso performer, and to beat it one has to get a FF. The K-x has about a 1.5 to 2 stop advantage over the K-7at high iso. Now early reports seems to imply the K-5 to have as good as a high iso perfromance as that to the K-x. Now, why in the world would anyone ask such a question as you pose ? yet many do (not just you....I am sorry if this looks like I am targetting you, not my intention, just the pattern I am seeing). the 7D and the D300s only had a slightly better high iso performance than even the K-7 for god sake...the k-5 will run circles around them. I too am so glad the K-5 is priced the way it is....hopefully that will help with this mass inferiority comples Penatxians seems to have. The D300s and the 7D are not even in the same league to the K-5 for iso performance., they were only slightly better than the K-7 at very high iso...the D7000 however could be comapred with the K-5 for high iso performance. Last I checked dxo stated the 7d had a slightly BETTER iso than the kx. I own both the K7 and 7d and can tell you your very wrong when it comes to "slightly" better ISO on the 7d vs K7. The 7d is usable to 6400 with no issue and 12800 with some PP work. It hands down beats the K7 no contest. I would say the KX is a fair comparison to the 7d in terms of noise and the K5 will be very similar to it. Don't try to make the 7d out to be equal to the K7 it is not. I speak from experience of owning both and testing them side by side. Not even in the same league is beyond a stretch. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Comparing DA 18-55mm AL II and DA* 16-50mm	GregK8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	04-30-2011 12:46 AM
Do you find the KX autofocus speed abit slow compared to its competitors?	aaronius	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	02-11-2010 10:36 PM
No new and real competitors for Pentax K-7?	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	19	06-08-2009 05:23 PM
Comparing the DA 16-45 f/4 to old FA 28-80	Petermgr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	08-26-2008 06:23 AM
Magazine Review: K20D/SDM AF.C performance vs. 8 competitors (Good Info!)	falconeye	Pentax News and Rumors	141	05-09-2008 06:04 AM

10-16-2010, 08:08 AM	#16
SpartanWarrior Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sparta, Greece. Posts: 104	Originally posted by pcarfan This is what DPR review had to say when they tested the 7D (Comparing the D300s and the k-7 and the 50D). "Again, the graphs below confirm what we can see in the sample crops. The 50D produces more chroma noise than the EOS 7D at higher ISOs. The Pentax K-7 is still slightly worse than the Nikon and EOS 7D at very high ISOs but the gap is smaller in RAW. At high ISOs the the 7D and its closest rival, the Nikon D300S, are more or less level in terms of chroma noise." NOTE THE "SLIGHTLY WORSE" AND "GAP IS SMALLER IN RAW". This is with the K-7. Later the K-x was reported as the best APS-C iso performer, and to beat it one has to get a FF. The K-x has about a 1.5 to 2 stop advantage over the K-7at high iso. Now early reports seems to imply the K-5 to have as good as a high iso perfromance as that to the K-x. Now, why in the world would anyone ask such a question as you pose ? yet many do (not just you....I am sorry if this looks like I am targetting you, not my intention, just the pattern I am seeing). the 7D and the D300s only had a slightly better high iso performance than even the K-7 for god sake...the k-5 will run circles around them. I too am so glad the K-5 is priced the way it is....hopefully that will help with this mass inferiority comples Penatxians seems to have. The D300s and the 7D are not even in the same league to the K-5 for iso performance., they were only slightly better than the K-7 at very high iso...the D7000 however could be comapred with the K-5 for high iso performance. No No sorry, I can post 2 comparison shots 1 with the 7D and one with the K7 the 7D is more than a stop better and I guarantee that... but you should at least add this also Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail. All in all the EOS 7D is, considering its impressively high resolution for an APS-C camera, doing a very decent job. On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. Images taken with the two very high test ISO settings are not always pretty to look at. However, the two 'Hi' settings are there in case you need them and the output is certainly usable at smaller sizes. and in RAW With noise reduction turned off we get a more accurate idea of how noisy these sensors are and the image looks slightly different to what we've seen above in the JPEG section of this page. The Pentax K-7 is much closer to the pack but it also becomes clear that the 7D produces a cleaner image than the 50D and, at very high ISOs, also than the D300S. This explains to a degree the 50D's slightly softer JPEG output at high ISOs. Its JPEG engine has to apply more chroma noise reduction than on the 7D in order to get noise onto the same level. He was just stating that the K-7 was better than in Jpeg, and about the K-5 running circles around the 7D or the D300s we'll wait for the reviews but I honestly don't think it will be better the same maybe, as in Dxo canon 7D has slightly better high ISO noise than Kx and I see that from my friends Kx after ISO 6400 detail from 7D is better and a little better NC. Last edited by SpartanWarrior; 10-16-2010 at 09:04 AM.

10-16-2010, 09:12 AM	#18
SpartanWarrior Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sparta, Greece. Posts: 104	Originally posted by LeeRunge Last I checked dxo stated the 7d had a slightly BETTER iso than the kx. I own both the K7 and 7d and can tell you your very wrong when it comes to "slightly" better ISO on the 7d vs K7. The 7d is usable to 6400 with no issue and 12800 with some PP work. It hands down beats the K7 no contest. I would say the KX is a fair comparison to the 7d in terms of noise and the K5 will be very similar to it. Don't try to make the 7d out to be equal to the K7 it is not. I speak from experience of owning both and testing them side by side. Not even in the same league is beyond a stretch. I also like Pentax don't get me wrong, I posted some comparison shots between the 7D and K-7 in dpreview a few months ago and the thread was deleted vanished.

10-16-2010, 09:17 AM	#19
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	It looks to me that the K5 is going to be very close to the KX/7d in ISO. I am trying to restore a little sanity to those who have been waiting for so long for a improved ISO K7 and got it. It looks like we got a K7 with a higher megapixel KX sensor in it.

10-16-2010, 09:22 AM	#20
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	FYI: I was quoting what DPR said of the sensors in question, not my opinion on them. So, I am wrong only if DPR iso tests are meaningless.

10-16-2010, 09:45 AM	#21
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Truth is the D7000 is getting massive attention. Having the K-5 directly compaired is not a bad thing. The primary market is the same for both cameras, and these camers will be compaired buy anyone buying into a system. The preliminary high ISO shots from the D7000 look exceptional, as do those from the K-5. The D300s is getting long in the tooth. It was a minor upgrade from the D300 (vintage summer 2007), and it is expected to get an upgrade in the next 6 months. For most people, the D7000 is a better buy then the D300s. As it stands today, the cameras that are in the same market are: D7000, D300s, K-5, 60D, 7D Interesting that Canon and Nikon each have two in the bracket.

10-16-2010, 09:45 AM	#22
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	Originally posted by pcarfan FYI: I was quoting what DPR said of the sensors in question, not my opinion on them. So, I am wrong only if DPR iso tests are meaningless. Well the review for the K7 was made before the review for the 7d and did not include it in direct comparison however the 7d review did compare it to the k7 "Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail. All in all the EOS 7D is, considering its impressively high resolution for an APS-C camera, doing a very decent job. On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. Images taken with the two very high test ISO settings are not always pretty to look at. However, the two 'Hi' settings are there in case you need them and the output is certainly usable at smaller sizes." Comparison pictures between the 7d and competition at 6400. Attached Images

10-16-2010, 09:48 AM	#23
SpartanWarrior Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sparta, Greece. Posts: 104	Originally posted by pcarfan FYI: I was quoting what DPR said of the sensors in question, not my opinion on them. So, I am wrong only if DPR iso tests are meaningless. Dpreview did not say that it was slightly worse what they meant was in raw the K7 is better than it is in jpeg. Besides dpreview was meaningless to all pentax when they gave the 550D a better score than the Kx.

10-16-2010, 10:37 AM	#24
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by LeeRunge Well the review for the K7 was made before the review for the 7d and did not include it in direct comparison however the 7d review did compare it to the k7 Yeah! that's why I also had to go to the 7D review for the quote, did you miss that ? "Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail. This is in regards to jpeg and not RAW, the k-7 jpeg's do indeed suck. I was talking about RAW DPR conclusion All in all the EOS 7D is, considering its impressively high resolution for an APS-C camera, doing a very decent job. On a pixel level it shows comparable amounts of both luminance and chroma noise to its most direct competitor, the Nikon D300S, but its higher nominal resolution will give it an advantage when printing or displaying an image on a screen. Images taken with the two very high test ISO settings are not always pretty to look at. However, the two 'Hi' settings are there in case you need them and the output is certainly usable at smaller sizes." Comparison pictures between the 7d and competition at 6400. Also, at iso 6400 (aka very high iso), the 7D is indeed better.

10-16-2010, 10:40 AM	#25
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by SpartanWarrior Dpreview did not say that it was slightly worse what they meant was in raw the K7 is better than it is in jpeg. Besides dpreview was meaningless to all pentax when they gave the 550D a better score than the Kx. I don't know what else to say other than to repeat what I put in those quotations was a direct cut and paste from the DPR 7D review ? So, I assume DPR meant what they wrote

10-16-2010, 10:48 AM	#26
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by LeeRunge Well the review for the K7 was made before the review for the 7d and did not include it in direct comparison however the 7d review did compare it to the k7 "Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7. As we go up the sensitivity scale the gap between the Pentax and the others widens even more but the two Canons and the Nikon D300S stay pretty close. As usual the Nikon maintains a very good balance between noise and image detail up to the highest sensitivities. The EOS 50D's approach to noise reduction is more heavy-handed and results in more blurring of fine detail than on the Nikon. Despite its higher nominal resolution and therefore smaller pixel-pitch, the EOS 7D produces a marginally cleaner image than its sister model at higher ISOs, but crucially also manages to retain some more image detail. I have the K-7, my brother has the 7D and 50D, and we frequently use the cameras side by side at family outings and events, and I often borrow his 7D as he lives about 5 minutes away. We're all photography fanatics..... The 7D is clearly a higher performing camera in almost all areas, except size and weight. My smallish hands and not-muscular arms prefer the K-7. The High-ISO gap is less in RAW, but its still there, and very obvious above ISO 1600. The 50D has better JPEG than the K-7, but not the RAW files, AF speed ? I have very active pre-school kids, and its often a challenge chatching them with AF. The 7D is Way better than the K-7 here. Its worth noting the 7D was pretty costly for an APS-C camera when launched last year. The K-7 still works for me, for the price I paid for it and I Will get the K-5. The K-5 MRSP is looking less and less of an issue by the day as the AAA+ quality K-5 shots pop up on the Internet.

10-16-2010, 10:48 AM	#27
SpartanWarrior Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sparta, Greece. Posts: 104	Originally posted by pcarfan I don't know what else to say other than to repeat what I put in those quotations was a direct cut and paste from the DPR 7D review ? So, I assume DPR meant what they wrote You said that the 7D is marginally better than the K-7 please point out where you read that because I can't see it,, everybody can believe what they want but the 7D is more than a stop better.

10-16-2010, 10:48 AM	#28
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	Originally posted by pcarfan Also, at iso 6400 (aka very high iso), the 7D is indeed better. If you drop down to 1600 or below the image quality is pretty close on both. You have the megapixel advantage with the 7d and if you use in-camera settings to boost the sharpness it is a large difference, but at normal resolutions you can't see much difference. My bad on missing your pulling from the 7d review. Hopefully someone with a 7d gets a K5 and can post side by sides, or if you know an owner borrow the camera.

10-16-2010, 10:51 AM	#29
SpartanWarrior Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sparta, Greece. Posts: 104	Originally posted by kittykat46 I have the K-7, my brother has the 7D and 50D, and we frequently use the cameras side by side at family outings and events, and I often borrow his 7D as he lives about 5 minutes away. We're all photography fanatics..... The 7D is clearly a higher performing camera in almost all areas, except size and weight. My smallish hands and not-muscular arms prefer the K-7. The High-ISO gap is less in RAW, but its still there, and very obvious above ISO 1600. The 50D has better JPEG than the K-7, but not the RAW files, AF speed ? I have very active pre-school kids, and its often a challenge chatching them with AF. The 7D is Way better than the K-7 here. Its worth noting the 7D was pretty costly for an APS-C camera when launched last year. The still K-7 works for me, for the price I paid for it and I Will get the K-5. The K-5 MRSP is looking less and less of an issue by the day as the AAA+ quality K-5 shots pop up on the Internet. This is also what I see with my 7D and K-7 that I had, the 7D trumps it everywhere other than size but oh well how do you think I got 19 inc arms lol

10-16-2010, 11:00 AM	#30
kales Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Pluto Posts: 75	don't know how they test the sensor but I believe nothing in DxO after I saw they rank D90 as highest ISO score in crop sensors. that's funny and ridiculous. imaging is a system work, technically and pratically you can't test sensor alone. side to side shoot at the same condition will be more convincing for me. Originally posted by LeeRunge Last I checked dxo stated the 7d had a slightly BETTER iso than the kx. I own both the K7 and 7d and can tell you your very wrong when it comes to "slightly" better ISO on the 7d vs K7. The 7d is usable to 6400 with no issue and 12800 with some PP work. It hands down beats the K7 no contest. I would say the KX is a fair comparison to the 7d in terms of noise and the K5 will be very similar to it. Don't try to make the 7d out to be equal to the K7 it is not. I speak from experience of owning both and testing them side by side. Not even in the same league is beyond a stretch.