The Pentax K-r has arrived!!!

frank · 10-13-2010, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

Okay if those are just resized instead of 100% magnification cropped, then they are pretty meaningless because one cannot get a sense of how the actual noise looks like. Even DCs with tiny sensors will look just as good once downsized. Thanks for the effort though.

Here are a few sample photos converted from RAW, no other post processing done:

ISO 1600:

ISO 3200:

ISO 6400:

ISO 12800:

And 100% crops of the above photos:

ISO 1600:

ISO 3200:

ISO 6400:

ISO 12800:

All taken by K-r and a DA35 macro.

Pablom · 10-13-2010, 11:16 AM

is that a pink kit lens I see?
it's a new thing, isn't it?
do they come in all camera colors now?
does anyone care?

alessandro63 · 10-13-2010, 11:18 AM

Not really meaningless: they can give an idea of the noise level in a small print.
Of course, if for "actual noise" you mean the 100% screen-view noise, I agree they are not useful. But some people are not interested in staring at huge posters from a distance of 40cm!

Originally posted by wlachan

Okay if those are just resized instead of 100% magnification cropped, then they are pretty meaningless because one cannot get a sense of how the actual noise looks like. Even DCs with tiny sensors will look just as good once downsized. Thanks for the effort though.

r0ckstarr · 10-13-2010, 11:19 AM

Thanks for posting those. ISO 12,800 looks similar to ISO 3200 on my K7 (with NR).

jake14mw · 10-13-2010, 11:19 AM

Wow these are unbelievable. Really. Hard to believe no noise reduction was done on this. How is the AF performance? Hi ISO is only one small part of the pie.

frank · 10-13-2010, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by jake14mw

Wow these are unbelievable. Really. Hard to believe no noise reduction was done on this. How is the AF performance? Hi ISO is only one small part of the pie.

AF is pretty fast even w a slow AF lens like the DA35 macro, and it's very easy to focus w/ DA 1770 mounted even under pretty dark environment. I don't have any other camera with me to compare with, but I feel it's abit faster than K7.

deadwolfbones · 10-13-2010, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by jake14mw

Wow these are unbelievable. Really. Hard to believe no noise reduction was done on this. How is the AF performance? Hi ISO is only one small part of the pie.

See the OP...

Originally posted by creampuff

AF is really fast and locks positively without hesitation. I would say it betters the K-7 and K-x, and I have been told the K-5 is even better still. Live View is a breeze to use and fast, dare I say a notch better than the K-7. When set at Continuous Shooting (Hi), you'll get approximately six images per second and every one of the exposures were sharp and spot on. Anyone having doubts about the camera not being suitable for action shooting should work on their technique because the camera is plenty fast and accurate.

Raylon · 10-13-2010, 11:27 AM

Not very impressed with that 12800 100% you posted. It really destroyed the details.

dgaies · 10-13-2010, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Raylon

Not very impressed with that 12800 100% you posted. It really destroyed the details.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

I thought there was quite a bit of detail preservation in the 100% crop of the iso 12800 shot.

audiobomber · 10-13-2010, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

The K-r is a very responsive and competent camera... AF is better than the K-x, which was a bit better than the K-7, which in turn was a lot better than the K20D. And small touches like the larger LCD screen and the visible AF points do add up to a camera that's easy to like. For price to performance it is definitely up there. But wait for the K-5... it is a lot more camera...

It is a nice camera, but I don't feel any pull at all to get a K-r. I may replace the K-x with a K-5 (after the big price drop)

, and keep the K20D. It's hard to make a plan at this point, before reviews are in.

ohyouloveme · 10-13-2010, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

I thought there was quite a bit of detail preservation in the 100% crop of the iso 12800 shot.

it's stunning for an ISO numbered 12800

wlachan · 10-13-2010, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

All the original RAW images are resized to jpegs 900 pixels on the long side (quality 8), they have not been cropped or straightened at all.

iso3200 looks too good to be true, my K-m is usable up to iso800 only. Now I hope K-5 won't be any inferior like the K-7 to the K-x (but somehow I think it will). :ugh:

Originally posted by alessandro63

Not really meaningless: they can give an idea of the noise level in a small print.
Of course, if for "actual noise" you mean the 100% screen-view noise, I agree they are not useful. But some people are not interested in staring at huge posters from a distance of 40cm!

Downsized jpeg on screen is not really directly comparable to small prints. The problem with noise is not just how much details, but the noise pattern itself which can break an image.

creampuff · 10-13-2010, 11:37 AM

Noise comparison at 100% crop. Default camera settings, no pp or noise reduction done. Click image for larger size.
Please note the images were shot handheld, so the focus and alignment might be a little off but the difference in noise/grain is visible.

chibiunko · 10-13-2010, 11:38 AM

Looks good, Love the Pink color

wlachan · 10-13-2010, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

Noise comparison at 100% crop. Click image for larger size.

I bet the noise would be more pronounced in tungsten environment which is rather typical for the need of high iso.

10-13-2010, 11:37 AM	#58
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953 Original Poster	Noise comparison at 100% crop. Default camera settings, no pp or noise reduction done. Click image for larger size. Please note the images were shot handheld, so the focus and alignment might be a little off but the difference in noise/grain is visible. Last edited by creampuff; 10-13-2010 at 11:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro My Pentax 100mm 2.8 SMC Marco lens just arrived!	entropy.uk	Post Your Photos!	2	09-14-2010 10:25 AM
The Pentax K-7: The era of in-camera High Dynamic Range Imaging has arrived!	HermanLee	Pentax News and Rumors	2	05-20-2009 10:40 PM
My Pentax kit has arrived!	Henrik Kristensen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	05-18-2008 11:32 PM
Pentax K10D arrived - First Pic	Timbuctoo	Post Your Photos!	7	11-09-2007 01:03 PM
My 77 Ltd. Has Arrived!	balofagus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	02-09-2007 09:59 PM

10-13-2010, 11:13 AM	#46
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Originally posted by wlachan Okay if those are just resized instead of 100% magnification cropped, then they are pretty meaningless because one cannot get a sense of how the actual noise looks like. Even DCs with tiny sensors will look just as good once downsized. Thanks for the effort though. Here are a few sample photos converted from RAW, no other post processing done: ISO 1600: ISO 3200: ISO 6400: ISO 12800: And 100% crops of the above photos: ISO 1600: ISO 3200: ISO 6400: ISO 12800: All taken by K-r and a DA35 macro.

10-13-2010, 11:16 AM	#47
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	is that a pink kit lens I see? it's a new thing, isn't it? do they come in all camera colors now? does anyone care?

10-13-2010, 11:18 AM	#48
alessandro63 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 57	Not really meaningless: they can give an idea of the noise level in a small print. Of course, if for "actual noise" you mean the 100% screen-view noise, I agree they are not useful. But some people are not interested in staring at huge posters from a distance of 40cm! Originally posted by wlachan Okay if those are just resized instead of 100% magnification cropped, then they are pretty meaningless because one cannot get a sense of how the actual noise looks like. Even DCs with tiny sensors will look just as good once downsized. Thanks for the effort though.

10-13-2010, 11:19 AM	#49
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	Thanks for posting those. ISO 12,800 looks similar to ISO 3200 on my K7 (with NR).

10-13-2010, 11:19 AM	#50
jake14mw Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Connecticut, USA Posts: 977	Wow these are unbelievable. Really. Hard to believe no noise reduction was done on this. How is the AF performance? Hi ISO is only one small part of the pie.

10-13-2010, 11:24 AM	#51
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Originally posted by jake14mw Wow these are unbelievable. Really. Hard to believe no noise reduction was done on this. How is the AF performance? Hi ISO is only one small part of the pie. AF is pretty fast even w a slow AF lens like the DA35 macro, and it's very easy to focus w/ DA 1770 mounted even under pretty dark environment. I don't have any other camera with me to compare with, but I feel it's abit faster than K7.

10-13-2010, 11:24 AM	#52
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by jake14mw Wow these are unbelievable. Really. Hard to believe no noise reduction was done on this. How is the AF performance? Hi ISO is only one small part of the pie. See the OP... Originally posted by creampuff AF is really fast and locks positively without hesitation. I would say it betters the K-7 and K-x, and I have been told the K-5 is even better still. Live View is a breeze to use and fast, dare I say a notch better than the K-7. When set at Continuous Shooting (Hi), you'll get approximately six images per second and every one of the exposures were sharp and spot on. Anyone having doubts about the camera not being suitable for action shooting should work on their technique because the camera is plenty fast and accurate.

10-13-2010, 11:27 AM	#53
Raylon Guest	Not very impressed with that 12800 100% you posted. It really destroyed the details.

10-13-2010, 11:32 AM	#54
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Raylon Not very impressed with that 12800 100% you posted. It really destroyed the details. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I thought there was quite a bit of detail preservation in the 100% crop of the iso 12800 shot.

10-13-2010, 11:33 AM	#55
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by creampuff The K-r is a very responsive and competent camera... AF is better than the K-x, which was a bit better than the K-7, which in turn was a lot better than the K20D. And small touches like the larger LCD screen and the visible AF points do add up to a camera that's easy to like. For price to performance it is definitely up there. But wait for the K-5... it is a lot more camera... It is a nice camera, but I don't feel any pull at all to get a K-r. I may replace the K-x with a K-5 (after the big price drop) , and keep the K20D. It's hard to make a plan at this point, before reviews are in.

10-13-2010, 11:34 AM	#56
ohyouloveme Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 79	Originally posted by dgaies I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I thought there was quite a bit of detail preservation in the 100% crop of the iso 12800 shot. it's stunning for an ISO numbered 12800

10-13-2010, 11:35 AM	#57
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by creampuff All the original RAW images are resized to jpegs 900 pixels on the long side (quality 8), they have not been cropped or straightened at all. iso3200 looks too good to be true, my K-m is usable up to iso800 only. Now I hope K-5 won't be any inferior like the K-7 to the K-x (but somehow I think it will). :ugh: Originally posted by alessandro63 Not really meaningless: they can give an idea of the noise level in a small print. Of course, if for "actual noise" you mean the 100% screen-view noise, I agree they are not useful. But some people are not interested in staring at huge posters from a distance of 40cm! Downsized jpeg on screen is not really directly comparable to small prints. The problem with noise is not just how much details, but the noise pattern itself which can break an image.

10-13-2010, 11:38 AM	#59
chibiunko New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 17	Looks good, Love the Pink color

10-13-2010, 11:42 AM	#60
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by creampuff Noise comparison at 100% crop. Click image for larger size. I bet the noise would be more pronounced in tungsten environment which is rather typical for the need of high iso.