Originally posted by Class A 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.