Ignoring noise, is the K-5 much better then the K-7?

Abstract · 09-23-2010, 11:45 PM

Let me try to explain, Lets say noise is not an issue for me, neither is auto-focus and fps(5 is enough imo) is there much advantage to the K-5? I mean I remember when the K-7 hit and the K20D went down to 500 bucks at many sites(Bestbuy,walmart,etc...) so if that happens again, well it seems like a giant deal.

Now is the Image quality suppose to be better on the K-5 ignoring noise all together, I am talking about color, depth of field, etc...

(Sorry if this topic was done before I looked but if it exists, point me there.)

I hope I made this clear...and yeah I know the K-5 is not out but from what I hear is that it uses the same sensor as the Nikon 7000(?) so I thought this would be ok to ask.

WerTicus · 09-23-2010, 11:58 PM

Well, just dynamic range, probably but no one really knows what the new sensor will perform like yet.

1080p video...

colour will be better at higher iso...

And the ability to turn off dfs...

ummm otherwise i think you've mentioned the variable as not being important to you.

Abstract · 09-24-2010, 12:01 AM

Video is neat but I rather use a dedicated video camera honestly, nice to have though. When we talk about higher iso, do we mean 1600+?

Mikheil88 · 09-24-2010, 12:16 AM

As I understand, High ISO is 1600+, but many pros prefer to use ISO 800 at most (or even ISO 400) coupled with a decent tripod and vibroreduction system because even if the noise reduction system is perfect, lower ISO-s still have better image qualities than high ISO ones.

but an amateur can shoot even at ISO 3200 if extreme quality picture is not necessary.

What you might be interested in K-5 is the fact that it's cold resistant (-10 C degrees) and weather resistant (although i've heard that K-7 is weather resistant as well), but still, changing K-7 on K-5 wouldn't be wise in my opinion.

Abstract · 09-24-2010, 12:21 AM

Yeah I am deciding between the two atm, If it does drop to 499.99 like the K20D did though it might be hard to justify double or more the cost of the K-5. Decisions Decisions....

I never go beyond 800 myself, thats when the tripod comes out. Although I do use a Nikon D40 so maybe noise is more of a problem on there...

Hmmm I was under the impression that the K-5 and K-7 had the same weather protection etc...?

Stiv · 09-24-2010, 12:23 AM

Yeah one of the reasons I went with the K-7 over other DSLRs was video, and I've practically never used it.

From the specs I've seen I'm happy enough that my recent k-7 purchase wasn't a bad decision, however if I was in the market today I'd still go with a k-5 assuming the price difference wasn't huge because noise is a bit of an issue for me.

Mikheil88 · 09-24-2010, 12:24 AM

Regarding decisions between two cameras, K-r is about to enter the market in October and I hope K-x's price will drop a bit...

Both, K-x and K-7 are good choices within their price range IMO

Abstract · 09-24-2010, 12:27 AM

Both the K-r and K-x would not suit me, what attracts me to the K-7 and K-5 is all the control over the camera, I really want this type of control, I love my D40 and all but man is it limited.

WerTicus · 09-24-2010, 01:00 AM

800 on a k-7 will look like 3200 on a k-5
so to say you wont use high iso is probably not true once you get a camera that can do it well..

rustynail925 · 09-24-2010, 01:05 AM

Dont forget the improved AF

Mikheil88 · 09-24-2010, 01:06 AM

One can use high ISO even when its noise reduction is bad. The matter is, when needed images with as best quality as possible, lower ISO and tripod seems to give you better results.

Abstract · 09-24-2010, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by WerTicus

800 on a k-7 will look like 3200 on a k-5

Really? I didn't think the K-7 looked that bad compared to my D40...Is this confirmed? Is it a reality or does it sacrifice detail for less noise(something I know Pentax was always against)

Like I looked at K-7 images compared to D300 and noticed that the K-7 had more nosie but the photos looked better due to it keeping more detail at higher ISO's.

WerTicus · 09-24-2010, 01:44 AM

DxOMark - Compare sensors

as you can see the k-7 does not really perform much better than the d40, but it does so with twice as many pixels.

The k-x destroys it and if the k-5 is better than the k-x then yes you can expect 800 iso on the k-7 to = 3200 on the k-5. But we dont really know yet.

Abstract · 09-24-2010, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by WerTicus

DxOMark - Compare sensors

as you can see the k-7 does not really perform much better than the d40, but it does so with twice as many pixels.

The k-x destroys it and if the k-5 is better than the k-x then yes you can expect 800 iso on the k-7 to = 3200 on the k-5. But we dont really know yet.

So...The noise will be worse or the same on my D40(double pixels I assume is worse)?

Maybe I should just save for the K-5.... :ugh:

WerTicus · 09-24-2010, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Abstract

So...The noise will be worse or the same on my D40(double pixels I assume is worse)?

Maybe I should just save for the K-5.... :ugh:

Well technically the k-7 is twice as good because it performs the same with half the light per sensor site.

But from your pov all you'll get is 14mp vs 6mp, with the same sort of noise and iso and dr performance.

where as the k-5 has more than double the performance and more than double the pixels.

however. you said you didnt care about these things?

09-23-2010, 11:45 PM	#1
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Ignoring noise, is the K-5 much better then the K-7? Let me try to explain, Lets say noise is not an issue for me, neither is auto-focus and fps(5 is enough imo) is there much advantage to the K-5? I mean I remember when the K-7 hit and the K20D went down to 500 bucks at many sites(Bestbuy,walmart,etc...) so if that happens again, well it seems like a giant deal. Now is the Image quality suppose to be better on the K-5 ignoring noise all together, I am talking about color, depth of field, etc... (Sorry if this topic was done before I looked but if it exists, point me there.) I hope I made this clear...and yeah I know the K-5 is not out but from what I hear is that it uses the same sensor as the Nikon 7000(?) so I thought this would be ok to ask.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SR noise in K-x	Hemi345	Video Recording and Processing	3	02-17-2011 09:17 PM
Noise	Nubi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	06-28-2010 02:17 PM
Another.....K-7 noise.....	the swede	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	10-17-2009 02:57 AM
Noise	Simon23	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	05-12-2009 08:03 AM
cs3 noise filter vs. noise ninja vs. ???	reknelb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	03-04-2008 04:55 PM

09-23-2010, 11:58 PM	#2
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Well, just dynamic range, probably but no one really knows what the new sensor will perform like yet. 1080p video... colour will be better at higher iso... And the ability to turn off dfs... ummm otherwise i think you've mentioned the variable as not being important to you.

09-24-2010, 12:01 AM	#3
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388 Original Poster	Video is neat but I rather use a dedicated video camera honestly, nice to have though. When we talk about higher iso, do we mean 1600+?

09-24-2010, 12:16 AM	#4
Mikheil88 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Tbilisi Posts: 97	As I understand, High ISO is 1600+, but many pros prefer to use ISO 800 at most (or even ISO 400) coupled with a decent tripod and vibroreduction system because even if the noise reduction system is perfect, lower ISO-s still have better image qualities than high ISO ones. but an amateur can shoot even at ISO 3200 if extreme quality picture is not necessary. What you might be interested in K-5 is the fact that it's cold resistant (-10 C degrees) and weather resistant (although i've heard that K-7 is weather resistant as well), but still, changing K-7 on K-5 wouldn't be wise in my opinion.

09-24-2010, 12:21 AM	#5
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388 Original Poster	Yeah I am deciding between the two atm, If it does drop to 499.99 like the K20D did though it might be hard to justify double or more the cost of the K-5. Decisions Decisions.... I never go beyond 800 myself, thats when the tripod comes out. Although I do use a Nikon D40 so maybe noise is more of a problem on there... Hmmm I was under the impression that the K-5 and K-7 had the same weather protection etc...?

09-24-2010, 12:23 AM	#6
Stiv Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 55	Yeah one of the reasons I went with the K-7 over other DSLRs was video, and I've practically never used it. From the specs I've seen I'm happy enough that my recent k-7 purchase wasn't a bad decision, however if I was in the market today I'd still go with a k-5 assuming the price difference wasn't huge because noise is a bit of an issue for me.

09-24-2010, 12:24 AM	#7
Mikheil88 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Tbilisi Posts: 97	Regarding decisions between two cameras, K-r is about to enter the market in October and I hope K-x's price will drop a bit... Both, K-x and K-7 are good choices within their price range IMO

09-24-2010, 12:27 AM	#8
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388 Original Poster	Both the K-r and K-x would not suit me, what attracts me to the K-7 and K-5 is all the control over the camera, I really want this type of control, I love my D40 and all but man is it limited.

09-24-2010, 01:00 AM	#9
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	800 on a k-7 will look like 3200 on a k-5 so to say you wont use high iso is probably not true once you get a camera that can do it well..

09-24-2010, 01:05 AM	#10
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	Dont forget the improved AF

09-24-2010, 01:06 AM	#11
Mikheil88 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Tbilisi Posts: 97	One can use high ISO even when its noise reduction is bad. The matter is, when needed images with as best quality as possible, lower ISO and tripod seems to give you better results.

09-24-2010, 01:16 AM	#12
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388 Original Poster	Originally posted by WerTicus 800 on a k-7 will look like 3200 on a k-5 Really? I didn't think the K-7 looked that bad compared to my D40...Is this confirmed? Is it a reality or does it sacrifice detail for less noise(something I know Pentax was always against) Like I looked at K-7 images compared to D300 and noticed that the K-7 had more nosie but the photos looked better due to it keeping more detail at higher ISO's.

09-24-2010, 01:44 AM	#13
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	DxOMark - Compare sensors as you can see the k-7 does not really perform much better than the d40, but it does so with twice as many pixels. The k-x destroys it and if the k-5 is better than the k-x then yes you can expect 800 iso on the k-7 to = 3200 on the k-5. But we dont really know yet.

09-24-2010, 01:52 AM	#14
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388 Original Poster	Originally posted by WerTicus DxOMark - Compare sensors as you can see the k-7 does not really perform much better than the d40, but it does so with twice as many pixels. The k-x destroys it and if the k-5 is better than the k-x then yes you can expect 800 iso on the k-7 to = 3200 on the k-5. But we dont really know yet. So...The noise will be worse or the same on my D40(double pixels I assume is worse)? Maybe I should just save for the K-5.... :ugh:

09-24-2010, 02:35 AM	#15
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Originally posted by Abstract So...The noise will be worse or the same on my D40(double pixels I assume is worse)? Maybe I should just save for the K-5.... :ugh: Well technically the k-7 is twice as good because it performs the same with half the light per sensor site. But from your pov all you'll get is 14mp vs 6mp, with the same sort of noise and iso and dr performance. where as the k-5 has more than double the performance and more than double the pixels. however. you said you didnt care about these things?