K-5 vs. K-7 comparison files wanted

yeatzee · 04-25-2011, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Dr_who

Sure, one question thou, how do I do oddball iso's like 640. Might seem like a stupid question, but doesn't it just go by 200, 400, 800, 1600 ect.?

I forget not everyone has their camera set up like mine

Its a camera setting for everything to be in 1/3 ev's (or at least I think thats what its called) so you get more options

I usually dont need the full "normal" ISO so it works well.

Winder · 04-25-2011, 05:51 PM

Comparisons on screens have a purpose, but I am more interested to see how much of a difference it makes in the final print.

When I was shooting a lot with my Olympus E-3 me and several other photographers in the area did a print test. We had one Canon 40D and whatever the Nikon was (D200 I think). We each shot the same event and selected 10 images to make 11x14 prints out of. We then mixed them all together and let two other photographers pick through them to see if they could tell what was what.

There was no one camera that was that was obvious in the prints. There is a big difference between pixel peeping 100% crops on a LCD display and looking at prints hanging on the wall.

What ended up happening is they selected the images that had similar styles and grouped them together. The IQ was pretty much equal in the final prints.

Dr_who · 04-25-2011, 06:07 PM

yeatzee I am uploading ones with a colourful outof focus background now. Should be up and ready soon.

Winder thats a very good point, and I'm sure print size plays a big role. But its always good to know if you decide to print poster sized or something. but I agree for smaller prints it probably has very little difference.

Winder · 04-25-2011, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Dr_who

yeatzee I am uploading ones with a colourful outof focus background now. Should be up and ready soon.

Winder thats a very good point, and I'm sure print size plays a big role. But its always good to know if you decide to print poster sized or something. but I agree for smaller prints it probably has very little difference.

There is no doubt that print size matters, but viewing distance also matters. I have done 24x36 promotional posters for musicians and a local brewery with the K-7.

I never intended the images to be used like that. I was shooting for their website or I would have used the 5D. They liked them and wanted to make posters out of them, and they looked really good.

K-5 is an awesome camera. There is no doubt it is a step up. BUT if you can't get professional results with a K-7, it is not the cameras fault.

Last edited by Winder; 04-25-2011 at 07:34 PM.

yeatzee · 04-25-2011, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Winder

There is no doubt that print size matters, but viewing distance also matters. I have done 24x36 promotional posters for musicians and a local brewery with the K-7.

I never intended the images to be used like that. I was shooting for their website or I would have used the 5D. They liked them and wanted to make posters out of them, and they looked really good.

K-5 is an awesome camera. There is no doubt it is a step up. BUT if you can't get professional results with a K-7, it is not the cameras fault.

I get just fine results from my K-7, see and judge for yourself: Flickr: yeatzee (now 17, but still learning)'s Photostream

The issue is that I go to great lengths to get the greatest IQ possible for my macro's (stacking for example) and ISO 400 on the K-7 is essentially reaching that point for me (though with lightroom processing It is actually quite decent now that I look back ). Im hoping I could maybe even go beyond that with the K-5 opening new possibilities for me.

Dr_who · 04-25-2011, 07:59 PM

Yeatzee when you do photo stacking of something that small, do you just move in anf out ad take as many photos as you can or is there a method to your gathering of images to use for stacking

yeatzee · 04-25-2011, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Dr_who

Yeatzee when you do photo stacking of something that small, do you just move in anf out ad take as many photos as you can or is there a method to your gathering of images to use for stacking

There's two methods.

1. Shoot as many frames without moving side to side but forward and backward hoping you get a couple shots that mesh well together

2. Start a sequence from where I want the closest part of the subject to the camera to be in focus and move my way on back

Im gunna take a look at the photos now

yeatzee · 04-25-2011, 10:03 PM

Ok, wow thats exactly what I was looking for! Very revealing!

Quick look for y'all

K-5 @ ISO 800 original DNG
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5656110393_8e7d71d635_o.jpg

K-5 @ ISO 800 with my normal detail edit in lightroom 3
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5656110421_52903d91a2_o.jpg

Wow, cleans up nicely! Check the bokeh color transition!

edit:

and the K-7 in comparison - WOW

@ ISO 800 original
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5656149173_57360696f0_o.jpg

@ ISO 800 with my normal detail edit in lightroom 3 (if I remember correctly, pretty much the same used for above)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5656148129_193ffb08b6_o.jpg

Dr_who · 04-25-2011, 10:23 PM

Glad the pictures I took were helpful to you. That unopened pack of 5 rainbow colored pens made a nice background

From what I've seen at 1600 ISO I think you'd probably get the same results after PP as the K7 at 800 or even slightly better.

The sample pictures also revealed my new K5 has some dust spots I should have a closer look at lol. I hope its just dust and not stains *crosses fingers*

yeatzee · 04-25-2011, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Dr_who

Glad the pictures I took were helpful to you. That unopened pack of 5 rainbow colored pens made a nice background

From what I've seen at 1600 ISO I think you'd probably get the same results after PP as the K7 at 800 or even slightly better.

The sample pictures also revealed my new K5 has some dust spots I should have a closer look at lol. I hope its just dust and not stains *crosses fingers*

They made a great background

Here's the ISO 400 results:

ISO 400 K-5 original
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5656195127_1ca249045e_o.jpg

ISO 400 K-5 normal lightroom edit
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5656194201_168d188557_o.jpg

ISO 400 K-7 original
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5656196615_8cd7d1a35c_o.jpg

ISO 400 K-7 normal lightroom edit
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5656195757_c3883fa26d_o.jpg

Looks good

30v iPentax · 04-25-2011, 11:36 PM

Onkohan taitamattomuutta tai tahallista tarkentaa vikaan. Toinen vaihtoeto on roiskia ilman jalustaa. K-5 on paras, voi olla mailmanparas.

amoringello · 04-26-2011, 03:32 AM

Quote:

I said close focus since bokeh was required so I could see how it was dealt with by each sensor noise-wise.

How much does the sensor affect bokeh? It should be mainly a result of the lens.
Pixel-per-pixel there may be some differences, but circles of confusion aside, there shoud not be much difference for the image form a realistic viewing distance.

Is there any real-world difference to be found?
Just curious. I have not heard of the sensor playing a significant part in bokeh.

If you're just looking for noise within smooth areas... just aim at a flat wall and set out of focus.
The only grain you should see is that of the sensor and from the tiny bokeh that the lens aberrations might create.

Designosophy · 04-26-2011, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by robtcorl

Perhaps this one:
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

Yes, that was the one - I'm going to bookmark it this time. Thanks!

audiobomber · 04-26-2011, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Designosophy

Yes, that was the one - I'm going to bookmark it this time. Thanks!

Be aware when using the Comparometer that the jpeg photos are not directly comparable. Test photos are shot using manufacturer's defaults. For the K20D for example, that means no noise reduction, for the K-x, it's Medium NR starting at ISO 800. I recommend you download raw and ignore the Comparometer jpegs.

PS Their K20D photos are a blurry mess, all taken with a defective Sigma lens. The Comparometer should be a great tool, but it's not used very well.

Designosophy · 04-26-2011, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by amoringello

How much does the sensor affect bokeh? It should be mainly a result of the lens.
Pixel-per-pixel there may be some differences, but circles of confusion aside, there shoud not be much difference for the image form a realistic viewing distance.

Is there any real-world difference to be found?
Just curious. I have not heard of the sensor playing a significant part in bokeh.

If you're just looking for noise within smooth areas... just aim at a flat wall and set out of focus.
The only grain you should see is that of the sensor and from the tiny bokeh that the lens aberrations might create.

I think that the OP uses his camera for a very specific purpose, so wants to see if the K-5 is enough of an upgrade in this exact usage. When comparing, it always makes sense to have as few variables in the comparison as possible.

Yes, the lens determines the smoothness of what reaches the sensor, but the sensor's interpretation has an impact. I think that the difference between the K-5 and K-7 is greater with respect to color noise than luminosity noise, particularly at higher ISO. Another consideration for K-7 vs K-5 is low-ISO noise. The K-7 has some visible noise even at ISO 100 (when viewed at 100%). The K-5 has virtually no noise at its lowest ISO settings - 80 & 100. I can attest to the K-7 low-ISO noise myself.

04-25-2011, 10:03 PM	#23
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675 Original Poster	Ok, wow thats exactly what I was looking for! Very revealing! Quick look for y'all K-5 @ ISO 800 original DNG http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5656110393_8e7d71d635_o.jpg K-5 @ ISO 800 with my normal detail edit in lightroom 3 http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5656110421_52903d91a2_o.jpg Wow, cleans up nicely! Check the bokeh color transition! edit: and the K-7 in comparison - WOW @ ISO 800 original http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5656149173_57360696f0_o.jpg @ ISO 800 with my normal detail edit in lightroom 3 (if I remember correctly, pretty much the same used for above) http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5656148129_193ffb08b6_o.jpg Last edited by yeatzee; 04-25-2011 at 10:17 PM.

04-26-2011, 06:07 AM	#28
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Originally posted by robtcorl Perhaps this one: Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Yes, that was the one - I'm going to bookmark it this time. Thanks! Last edited by Designosophy; 04-26-2011 at 06:08 AM. Reason: Forgot to say thanks.

04-26-2011, 06:21 AM	#29
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Designosophy Yes, that was the one - I'm going to bookmark it this time. Thanks! Be aware when using the Comparometer that the jpeg photos are not directly comparable. Test photos are shot using manufacturer's defaults. For the K20D for example, that means no noise reduction, for the K-x, it's Medium NR starting at ISO 800. I recommend you download raw and ignore the Comparometer jpegs. PS Their K20D photos are a blurry mess, all taken with a defective Sigma lens. The Comparometer should be a great tool, but it's not used very well. Last edited by audiobomber; 04-26-2011 at 06:43 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to batch rename files after files imported and tagged in Photoshop Elements	raider	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	03-14-2013 10:36 PM
Help with DNG files	pentaxian_tmb	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	09-22-2009 12:26 AM
RAW files	milesy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	07-28-2009 07:19 AM
Corrupted Files	highyellow1	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	06-28-2009 03:38 PM

04-25-2011, 05:09 PM	#16
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Dr_who Sure, one question thou, how do I do oddball iso's like 640. Might seem like a stupid question, but doesn't it just go by 200, 400, 800, 1600 ect.? I forget not everyone has their camera set up like mine Its a camera setting for everything to be in 1/3 ev's (or at least I think thats what its called) so you get more options I usually dont need the full "normal" ISO so it works well.

04-25-2011, 05:51 PM	#17
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Comparisons on screens have a purpose, but I am more interested to see how much of a difference it makes in the final print. When I was shooting a lot with my Olympus E-3 me and several other photographers in the area did a print test. We had one Canon 40D and whatever the Nikon was (D200 I think). We each shot the same event and selected 10 images to make 11x14 prints out of. We then mixed them all together and let two other photographers pick through them to see if they could tell what was what. There was no one camera that was that was obvious in the prints. There is a big difference between pixel peeping 100% crops on a LCD display and looking at prints hanging on the wall. What ended up happening is they selected the images that had similar styles and grouped them together. The IQ was pretty much equal in the final prints.

04-25-2011, 06:07 PM	#18
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	yeatzee I am uploading ones with a colourful outof focus background now. Should be up and ready soon. Winder thats a very good point, and I'm sure print size plays a big role. But its always good to know if you decide to print poster sized or something. but I agree for smaller prints it probably has very little difference.

04-25-2011, 07:13 PM	#19
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Dr_who yeatzee I am uploading ones with a colourful outof focus background now. Should be up and ready soon. Winder thats a very good point, and I'm sure print size plays a big role. But its always good to know if you decide to print poster sized or something. but I agree for smaller prints it probably has very little difference. There is no doubt that print size matters, but viewing distance also matters. I have done 24x36 promotional posters for musicians and a local brewery with the K-7. I never intended the images to be used like that. I was shooting for their website or I would have used the 5D. They liked them and wanted to make posters out of them, and they looked really good. K-5 is an awesome camera. There is no doubt it is a step up. BUT if you can't get professional results with a K-7, it is not the cameras fault. Last edited by Winder; 04-25-2011 at 07:34 PM.

04-25-2011, 07:52 PM	#20
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Winder There is no doubt that print size matters, but viewing distance also matters. I have done 24x36 promotional posters for musicians and a local brewery with the K-7. I never intended the images to be used like that. I was shooting for their website or I would have used the 5D. They liked them and wanted to make posters out of them, and they looked really good. K-5 is an awesome camera. There is no doubt it is a step up. BUT if you can't get professional results with a K-7, it is not the cameras fault. I get just fine results from my K-7, see and judge for yourself: Flickr: yeatzee (now 17, but still learning)'s Photostream The issue is that I go to great lengths to get the greatest IQ possible for my macro's (stacking for example) and ISO 400 on the K-7 is essentially reaching that point for me (though with lightroom processing It is actually quite decent now that I look back ). Im hoping I could maybe even go beyond that with the K-5 opening new possibilities for me.

04-25-2011, 07:59 PM	#21
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	Yeatzee when you do photo stacking of something that small, do you just move in anf out ad take as many photos as you can or is there a method to your gathering of images to use for stacking

04-25-2011, 08:32 PM	#22
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Dr_who Yeatzee when you do photo stacking of something that small, do you just move in anf out ad take as many photos as you can or is there a method to your gathering of images to use for stacking There's two methods. 1. Shoot as many frames without moving side to side but forward and backward hoping you get a couple shots that mesh well together 2. Start a sequence from where I want the closest part of the subject to the camera to be in focus and move my way on back Im gunna take a look at the photos now

04-25-2011, 10:23 PM	#24
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	Glad the pictures I took were helpful to you. That unopened pack of 5 rainbow colored pens made a nice background From what I've seen at 1600 ISO I think you'd probably get the same results after PP as the K7 at 800 or even slightly better. The sample pictures also revealed my new K5 has some dust spots I should have a closer look at lol. I hope its just dust and not stains crosses fingers

04-25-2011, 10:43 PM	#25
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675 Original Poster	Originally posted by Dr_who Glad the pictures I took were helpful to you. That unopened pack of 5 rainbow colored pens made a nice background From what I've seen at 1600 ISO I think you'd probably get the same results after PP as the K7 at 800 or even slightly better. The sample pictures also revealed my new K5 has some dust spots I should have a closer look at lol. I hope its just dust and not stains crosses fingers They made a great background Here's the ISO 400 results: ISO 400 K-5 original http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5656195127_1ca249045e_o.jpg ISO 400 K-5 normal lightroom edit http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5656194201_168d188557_o.jpg ISO 400 K-7 original http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5656196615_8cd7d1a35c_o.jpg ISO 400 K-7 normal lightroom edit http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5656195757_c3883fa26d_o.jpg Looks good

04-25-2011, 11:36 PM	#26
30v iPentax Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Suomi , Finland Posts: 368	Onkohan taitamattomuutta tai tahallista tarkentaa vikaan. Toinen vaihtoeto on roiskia ilman jalustaa. K-5 on paras, voi olla mailmanparas.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2011, 03:32 AM	#27
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Quote: I said close focus since bokeh was required so I could see how it was dealt with by each sensor noise-wise. How much does the sensor affect bokeh? It should be mainly a result of the lens. Pixel-per-pixel there may be some differences, but circles of confusion aside, there shoud not be much difference for the image form a realistic viewing distance. Is there any real-world difference to be found? Just curious. I have not heard of the sensor playing a significant part in bokeh. If you're just looking for noise within smooth areas... just aim at a flat wall and set out of focus. The only grain you should see is that of the sensor and from the tiny bokeh that the lens aberrations might create.

04-26-2011, 06:24 AM	#30
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Originally posted by amoringello How much does the sensor affect bokeh? It should be mainly a result of the lens. Pixel-per-pixel there may be some differences, but circles of confusion aside, there shoud not be much difference for the image form a realistic viewing distance. Is there any real-world difference to be found? Just curious. I have not heard of the sensor playing a significant part in bokeh. If you're just looking for noise within smooth areas... just aim at a flat wall and set out of focus. The only grain you should see is that of the sensor and from the tiny bokeh that the lens aberrations might create. I think that the OP uses his camera for a very specific purpose, so wants to see if the K-5 is enough of an upgrade in this exact usage. When comparing, it always makes sense to have as few variables in the comparison as possible. Yes, the lens determines the smoothness of what reaches the sensor, but the sensor's interpretation has an impact. I think that the difference between the K-5 and K-7 is greater with respect to color noise than luminosity noise, particularly at higher ISO. Another consideration for K-7 vs K-5 is low-ISO noise. The K-7 has some visible noise even at ISO 100 (when viewed at 100%). The K-5 has virtually no noise at its lowest ISO settings - 80 & 100. I can attest to the K-7 low-ISO noise myself.