[UnknownVT]

FWIW - Imaging-Resource.com have posted their first shots/test images of the Pentax K-r

Pentax K-r Digital Camera Samples - First Shots - The Imaging Resource!

[dcmsox2004]

+1....thanks vincent.... always respected i.r. for reviews and detailed information....
dave m

[Mystic]

from what I saw at IR, k-r's ISO 3200 and 6400 are 0,1% better than kx's

anybody see differently?

I mean it's equal or better, not worse! that's is the point.

[UnknownVT]

from what I saw at IR, k-r's ISO 3200 and 6400 are 0,1% better than kx's
anybody see differently?
I mean it's equal or better, not worse! that's is the point.

I do...
they are very close - but that there are the measurable differences in the DxO Mark:


Having said that, I'd be happy with the IQ of either - and any differences to me will not be visible for my kind of photography - and probably well within any experimental errors that I could conduct -

But getting back to the Imaging-Resource.com test images - I'll just use ISO6400 - since it was explicitly cited, and I am interested in any visible improvements at ISOP6400 and beyond, since I use ISO3200 on the K-x and find it more than acceptable, but the ISO6400 marginal

Mannequin Face - ISO6400 -


Necklace -


Shadow -


Details -


all these 100% crops should still have the EXIF attached (caveat: PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)

Note in particular the necklace, and shadow noise comparisons.

The mannequin face may be more down to individual preferences - but compare in particular the near corner of the lips and the edge of the nose - IMHO the K-x renders these better - this is a particularly telling crop to use comparing with other dSLRs too.

The detail crop of the paintbrush and circular slide rule - again is very close and open to preference - I think I may prefer the K-r rendition, but it seems marginally noisier.

So as one can see even at pixel peeping level it is close and I would say for my purposes I'd be happy with either IQ.

More direct comparison photos in thread by devorama:
K-r vs. K-x ISO samples (or return of the ISO flower!)

The direct links to devorama's side-by-side ISO flower comparisons

All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | low-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | grey_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If anything the K-x seems to be just a bit better than then K-r - especially on the last grey elevator ISO series - but that could be just down to slight focus differences.

[Mystic]

I do...
they are very close - but that there are the measurable differences in the DxO Mark:


Having said that, I'd be happy with the IQ of either - and any differences to me will not be visible for my kind of photography - and probably well within any experimental errors that I could conduct -

But getting back to the Imaging-Resource.com test images - I'll just use ISO6400 - since it was explicitly cited, and I am interested in any visible improvements at ISOP6400 and beyond, since I use ISO3200 on the K-x and find it more than acceptable, but the ISO6400 marginal

Mannequin Face - ISO6400 -


Necklace -


Shadow -


Details -


all these 100% crops should still have the EXIF attached (caveat: PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)

Note in particular the necklace, and shadow noise comparisons.

The mannequin face may be more down to individual preferences - but compare in particular the near corner of the lips and the edge of the nose - IMHO the K-x renders these better - this is a particularly telling crop to use comparing with other dSLRs too.

The detail crop of the paintbrush and circular slide rule - again is very close and open to preference - I think I may prefer the K-r rendition, but it seems marginally noisier.

So as one can see even at pixel peeping level it is close and I would say for my purposes I'd be happy with either IQ.

More direct comparison photos in thread by devorama:
K-r vs. K-x ISO samples (or return of the ISO flower!)

The direct links to devorama's side-by-side ISO flower comparisons

All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | low-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | grey_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If anything the K-x seems to be just a bit better than then K-r - especially on the last grey elevator ISO series - but that could be just down to slight focus differences.

wow, you did quite a big job.. well now, what I see is:

kr is a tad bit noisier but retains a tad bit more details..

so.. the battle is super close.

[UnknownVT]

kr is a tad bit noisier but retains a tad bit more details..
so.. the battle is super close.

Really?

The oft used standard rhetoric is more noise, but retains more detail....
but if one looks at the necklace comparison -
doesn't that show the K-x has less noise and retains better detail?
or do my eyes need adjusting?

[Mystic]

Really?

The oft used standard rhetoric is more noise, but retains more detail....
but if one looks at the necklace comparison -
doesn't that show the K-x has less noise and retains better detail?
or do my eyes need adjusting?

well, that particular test show that kx is better you win

[UnknownVT]

well, that particular test show that kx is better you win

It's not about winning -
I too really wanted the K-r to be an improvement over the K-x -
which means that Pentax are improving their IQ with each subsequent offering -
but unfortunately wishful thinking cannot be a substitute for actual results and direct comparison.

Fortunately for us at least the K-r is not any worse than the K-x for any real practical usage -
but to say the K-r IQ is better than the K-x is really just in the realms of "wishful thinking"
- don't worry, this is not meant to be a dig at you -
I am very prone to this myself -
that is until I actually took the time to examine the comparable images posted out there.

Again I emphasize that the IQ is close - but unfortunately the K-r is not better than the K-x from any comparison I have made (and I'll be the first to admit I probably have not found all the comparable images out there).....

But to show shots taken side-by-side, in the same conditions and even time-frame -
we can use devorama's thread
K-r vs. K-x ISO samples (or return of the ISO flower!)
and his direct comparison images - ref:
All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
All sizes | low-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
All sizes | grey_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I've taken the 100% crops of the two cited ISOs from each of those series:

high-key:


Low-key:


Grey:


Like I said is close enough that it probably will not make any practical difference in my kind of photography -
but unfortunately much as I would like to wish it - the K-r's IQ is not better than the K-x - if anything in the High-key and Grey elevator series the K-x seems to have less noise and retain more detail. In the low-key there just isn't enough detail to judge well - but the K-x does have less noise.

But it is so close that probably different samples may give different results - however you now have Imaging-Resource.com and devorama's results - it's still a very small and statistically insignificant sample
- but unfortunately both sets do seem to favor the K-x albeit very, very close - the fact is from these limited and statistically insignificant results the K-r is not better than the K-x.

[Vantage-Point]

Hi everybody,
It should not surprise anyone that What UnKnownVt said about the sample pictures and the DxO Mark sensors scores: the Kx images are slightly better at iso 6400. I am not a Kr hater. On the contrary, The Kr I ordered just arrived at my house yesterday (1-11-11). The color depth is slightly better on the Kr (22.9 bits to 22.8 for the Kx) and it shows in the picture. The picture taken with the Kr is slightly more vivid. However the Kr picture has more noise than the Kx picture. This makes sense since the sports (low light ) iso rating is higher on the Kx (811) than on the Kr (755) and to me that is also noticable in the pictures shown.

[Deimos]

Slightly more noise and slightly more detail with the K-r from the IR shots as far as I can see. I think the K-r is a much better and more complete camera than the k-x, but it is true that IQ and low light are not much improved and maybe slightly less than the k-x. All the other features and benefits of the K-r make it a better tool imho. After all the difference between the images above are pretty much completely negligible at the end of the day. Nobody is going to notice the difference outside of shooting test screens.

Mind you thats what all people seem to do most of on this forum

[UnknownVT]

Slightly more noise and slightly more detail with the K-r from the IR shots as far as I can see.

It is very close and kind of moot for any real, practical usage -
but if we are pixel peeping -
people seem to insist that the K-r has to have more detail since it has more noise -
but I do not see the K-r having any more detail than the K-x
- as shown in this direct IR comparison -
or am I wrong...
again?

Necklace -

[Deimos]

Well, it differs from one shot to another. In the green jacket photo I still see a bit more shadow detail in some areas even though there is more noise. Less in other areas

If you look at the first shot up top with the two faces, once again more noise, but it looks to me like a nice bit more shadow detail same with the photo of the brush and ruler, the ruler has much more detail with the k-r

it is all pretty much negligable though at the end of the day

[UnknownVT]

Well, it differs from one shot to another. In the green jacket photo I still see a bit more shadow detail in some areas even though there is more noise. Less in other areas

If you look at the first shot up top with the two faces, once again more noise, but it looks to me like a nice bit more shadow detail same with the photo of the brush and ruler, the ruler has much more detail with the k-r

it is all pretty much negligable though at the end of the day

I guess different people see things differently - the fact that we do see and have different takes shows how close it is -

I already said I had a preference for the K-r paintbrush and slide-rule crop
- but I think the K-r is just rendered slightly darker and therefore giving better contrast on the slide-rule that makes the K-r look better.

still, I do not see the K-r giving more detail:

[eddie1960]

Not being dedicated to either camera my view is the Kr is evolutionary in other ways. Last year I bought (and subsequently returned ) a Kx. it was a great little camera but I use selective focus a lot. The Kr rectified that. Had I not got a great deal on the K7 I would have ordered a Kr. Still may for the High iso performance.
Typically Pentax releases a camera then addresses areas of concerns in the second model (K10-K20, K7-K6 and from what i see Kx to Kr) Iso performance was not a concern on the Kx, it was actually one of the big sell points. some of the other changes came up as complaints on the Kx and are addressed in the Kr

Did we get everything we want. Nope, but then how would they sell us the next one

[Deimos]

I guess different people see things differently - the fact that we do see and have different takes shows how close it is -

I already said I had a preference for the K-r paintbrush and slide-rule crop
- but I think the K-r is just rendered slightly darker and therefore giving better contrast on the slide-rule that makes the K-r look better.

still, I do not see the K-r giving more detail:

Well with the face images if you look at the whole image not a random crop, the shadow detail in the cheeks and nose etc seems a bit better to me with the k-r, maybe its the extra contrast like you mention, maybe the k-x has a tiny bit of NR by default, I dunno. but hands down the k-x beats it on noise everywhere

I bought the k-r for the extra features/handling over the k-x not increased iq/iso but the k-x is one hell of a camera especially for the money. I would never really use iso 6400 on either of these cameras, I do use 1600 all the time on the k-r with no NR and it is amazing, 3200 can also be very useable.