[melander]

there is as much detail in the 51k shot on the k-5 as in the 6400 shot on the k-7, looking at the M.up text

[blizzard]

You might be correct about that, it does look to me as if the focus on the K-5 might be a little farther back.

Also of note, upon looking through the camera settings again, while both are set to the "bright" profile, the K-5 is at default settings whereas the K-7 is set to Fine sharpness +3. Do those settings have any effect on the raw file?

I think your right --the focus is off.
thanks for the good work

[rparmar]

I also stated that the K-7 low ISO photos are sharper. That's not running the K-5 down, it is a personal observation that IMO everyone here should be able to see. The fact that few have commented on it is disappointing.

Well, some of us have noted this. The K-5 and presumably K-r are following the K-x. This means the K-7 is the last in a line of cameras that sacrificed nothing for high ISO. The plastic, less detailed, look is instead what I expect from other brands.

However the difference may not be enough to matter in a practical sense, whereas the addition of 2EV might guarantee a photo where before one had nothing.

[telfish]

Well, some of us have noted this. The K-5 and presumably K-r are following the K-x. This means the K-7 is the last in a line of cameras that sacrificed nothing for high ISO. The plastic, less detailed, look is instead what I expect from other brands.

However the difference may not be enough to matter in a practical sense, whereas the addition of 2EV might guarantee a photo where before one had nothing.

Not sure you can take that opinion based on a very few samples. Who knows if the lens and body are calibrated together.

I suggest we wait to make these sort of judgements until more examples from more people using different lenses are available.

My K-5 will be with me tomorrow so I can make that judgement for myself using my known lenses and tuning the AF on each of them.

Terry

[Eric Seavey]

Thanks you so much. Your tests are very informative. Basically, in practice there is not a whole lot of difference until you get to ISO 3200 and 6400.

My theory is that I choose noise over image blur any time when trying to take a sharp shot, and the K-5 will now allow us to crank the ISO up to 6400 and produce reasonable color and detail.

Eric

[rparmar]

Not sure you can take that opinion based on a very few samples. Who knows if the lens and body are calibrated together.

It's true, I can make assumptions based only on available information. If this changes my conclusions will change.

However, since the K-5 carries on from the K-x I would have to have definitive proof the logical outcome of image quality as it relates to sensor design is not true, rather than the other way around.

[kittykat46]

Well, some of us have noted this. The K-5 and presumably K-r are following the K-x. This means the K-7 is the last in a line of cameras that sacrificed nothing for high ISO. The plastic, less detailed, look is instead what I expect from other brands.

However the difference may not be enough to matter in a practical sense, whereas the addition of 2EV might guarantee a photo where before one had nothing.

It is possible that in having such an excellent quality High-ISO output, "some" compromises have had to be made to low-ISO output, either at the level of the sensor design from Sony, or how Pentax defined the image processing.

So far I don't see anything that's of a concern. The K-5's ISO 100 and 200 output looks superb, and I wouldn't ever call it "plastic". Some of the real-life, low-ISO K-5 shots made with good glass which other forum members have posted look sharp enough to hurt your eye

I'm not sure if anyone remarked on it, but there is the familiar Black-object noise visible on the K-7 even at ISO 100 (e.g. the Mamiya body and lens surface). On the K-5 its practically non-existent.
For me, due to my area of photographic interest, that alone is almost enough reason to upgrade to the K-5.

[rparmar]

So far I don't see anything that's of a concern. The K-5's ISO 100 and 200 output looks superb, and I wouldn't ever call it "plastic".

It is a subtle effect that might not ever make itself visible and might in any case be minor compared with the other benefits of the sensor. But I notice it in the K-x, especially in editing. After all, it is the subtle difference in IQ that makes Pentax worth using.

[Zubati Kit]

The improvement looks like clean two stops to my eyes... the apparent "lack" of difference comes from K7 having different image processing pipeline - ie it process darker by default, and therefore hides some of the noise if the image was processed in the same way. (not by the user, but by the camera defaults)...

So for real time shooting 2 stops for sure and maybe even a bit more, but I will be happy with having a 2 stops gain