[Priyantha Bleeker]

DxOMark - Compare sensors

DXOmark results from the D7000 are there !

Things I notice:
- DR of the K-5 is higher overall
- SNR is higher(marginal) of the K-5

[TOUGEFC]

Overall score the the K5 is still 6th and now the next aps-c is the d7000 coming in at 10th.
Go Pentax!

[AngryCorgi]

No shock here. The variance (even in the "smoothed" area) is minimal. I didn't think the in-camera NR was very strong if it was present, and as the graphs show, its fairly conservative. Its small enough that I can't observe a significant difference between comparitve shots when looking at shadow noise.

Personally, I thought the DR of the D7000 was going to be 0.5EV lower than they show here. Since the folks at DXO apparently don't care about the preservation of color in their DR evaluation, they probably are giving the camera more highlight headroom than I consider usable.

[Rondec]

Basically, the same sensor with slightly different manipulation by the camera. Not a huge surprise, although I have to say that from what I have seen, high iso K5 files are more easily worked with than are those from the D7000.

[oliver939]

what shall we expect from this test, considering that it a sensor comparison and both D7000 and K5 have the same sensor ?

It may tell just a bit about the electronic behind but I'm not sure this is really a big deal

[AngryCorgi]

The real question is can Sony's camera make the most of the sensor? The A580 should have the same opportunity for success.

[Scottie137]

what shall we expect from this test, considering that it a sensor comparison and both D7000 and K5 have the same sensor ?

It may tell just a bit about the electronic behind but I'm not sure this is really a big deal

I think the "big deal" ( you're right, its not really), is that there were many who were convinced that Pentax was hopelessly incapable of competing with CaNikon. This demonstrates that given a level playing field, Pentax can be every bit as good if not better. If they decide they really do want to be in this for the long haul, and a FF camera eventually comes to fruition, we may someday, see the end of the,"end of pentax" posts...nah!

[falconeye]

Look at the figures. It is almost for sure that Nikon and Pentax used the very same sensor.

A difference between 14.1 and 13.9 EV in max. DR is small enough as is the differences in true base ISO sensitivities (70 vs. 83). Look at the 18% SNR curve: identical to the line width. Color sensitivity is almost identical to the line width too and the good D7000 is certainly not due to a weaker color filter.

The differences are small enough to be explained by differences in the color filter, sample variation and the famous "capacitor"

But anyway, luck has it that Pentax comes out on top of the pack. And will stay there for a couple of months.

K-5 is APS-C camera 2010/2011 with the best image quality (*)
(*) according to renowned worldwide-leading imaging sensor test laboratory DxO labs,
and in all three test categories: dynamic range, noise and color sensitivity; with a score of 82 DxOMarks / 16.3 MP.

I am glad to report that the news have now been shared with marketing and sales key persons at Pentax Europe HQ. Let's hope they find a way to profit from it.

[falconeye]

Overall score the the K5 is still 6th and now the next aps-c is the d7000 coming in at 10th.
Go Pentax!

If going by the overall score at all, I would say,

K-5 is 4th (a tie of three) while the D7000 is 8th (another tie of three).

[Class A]

It is almost for sure that Nikon and Pentax used the very same sensor.

So you think the publication of different pixel pitches 4.75 µm (K-5) vs 4.73 µm (D7000) is an error?

Also, it seems odd that Nikon didn't go for the ISO 80 as well, given that it would have helped to get better scores.

In any event: Rocking news for Pentax that the K-5 managed to stay ahead by a whisker! Not important for photographers, but might be very useful for marketing and market success.

[AngryCorgi]

So you think the publication of different pixel pitches 4.75 µm (K-5) vs 4.73 µm (D7000) is an error?

It is likely that the pixel count was taken into account and measured against the gross pixel surface dimensions, rather than the mapped pixel surface dimensions.

[falconeye]

So you think the publication of different pixel pitches 4.75 µm (K-5) vs 4.73 µm (D7000) is an error?

Also, it seems odd that Nikon didn't go for the ISO 80 as well, given that it would have helped to get better scores.

In any event: Rocking news for Pentax that the K-5 managed to stay ahead by a whisker! Not important for photographers, but might be very useful for marketing and market success.

I noted that the overview page figures are cited as "Manufacturer specifications". We shouldn't read more into them than we already know from other sources. They are really not that precise.

Also, I don't think there is an ISO 80/100 difference. The Nikon ISO 100 is in fact an ISO 83 already (91 for Pentax). I think the D7000 may already uses the full sensor's base ISO at iso 100 while the Pentax does not. If not and Nikon missed to make 83 a 70 at ISO 100, then all the better for Pentax. Some games can only be won if the other makes a mistake

What strikes me more though is the shape of DR curves K-5 vs. D7000. I would have expected something like the tonal range or 18% charts. However, rather than the ISO 3200 bump, I see the deviation slowly creep in between ISO 400 and ISO 3200 with no particular bump between 1600 and 3200. That's also rather distinct from the K-x (which even "beats" K-5 DR at ISO 6400+) and K-r.

I've no convincing explaination ATM. The raw-level NR may just be applied a bit more cleverly than DxO assumes. Nevertheless, the good scores at ISO 80, 100 and 200 are not affected by all of this. So, the landscape score isn't too.

One possibility could be that at ISO 400, 800, 1600 and 3200, 6400, dark tones below 2.5%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40% resp. are processed with increasing strength, like -0.2 dB, -0.4 dB, -0.8 dB, -1.6 dB, -1.6 dB flat. But that's pure speculation.

[Reportage]

Look at the figures. It is almost for sure that Nikon and Pentax used the very same sensor.

A difference between 14.1 and 13.9 EV in max. DR is small enough as is the differences in true base ISO sensitivities (70 vs. 83). Look at the 18% SNR curve: identical to the line width. Color sensitivity is almost identical to the line width too and the good D7000 is certainly not due to a weaker color filter.

The differences are small enough to be explained by differences in the color filter, sample variation and the famous "capacitor"

But anyway, luck has it that Pentax comes out on top of the pack. And will stay there for a couple of months.

K-5 is APS-C camera 2010/2011 with the best image quality (*)
(*) according to renowned worldwide-leading imaging sensor test laboratory DxO labs,
and in all three test categories: dynamic range, noise and color sensitivity; with a score of 82 DxOMarks / 16.3 MP.

I am glad to report that the news have now been shared with marketing and sales key persons at Pentax Europe HQ. Let's hope they find a way to profit from it.

pretty much expected...when DXO produces a result not shared by general public, its not taken seriously. But when it produces results that is somewhat expected then almost everyone refers to it.

[kittykat46]

Don't tell me some bright engineer in Pentax was given an assignment - go study how dXOMark does its measurement and come back with some recommendations on how to tweak the sensor performance give us that little bit of an edge.

Its not unheard of in the corporate world , if the index is a well publicised and respected one, but I'm just toying around here...

[Gimbal]

Well it was fun being the high-iso king, even if it only was for a couple of days.