Pentax Q7 High-ISO Samples

Docrwm · 06-19-2013, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Adam

I'll post some more today, along with other samples.

Thanks, I really appreciate your taking the time to do these and sharing them with us.

gazonk · 06-19-2013, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Adam

They're full size crops

Thanks, Adam! That's pretty impressive, certainly better than my K10D that I replaced only a year ago...

Kenn100D · 06-19-2013, 08:12 AM

Wow my Q is new but old.=)

Phil A · 06-19-2013, 01:44 PM

Many thanks for taking the time to do this.

If you have one, I'd love to see what the fisheye lens is like on the larger sensor Q7 and whether it's
wider..
cropped, but slightly wider
cropped and no wider at all than the Q.

Adam · 06-19-2013, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Phil A

Many thanks for taking the time to do this.

If you have one, I'd love to see what the fisheye lens is like on the larger sensor Q7 and whether it's
wider..
cropped, but slightly wider
cropped and no wider at all than the Q.

I don't have the fisheye, unfortunately. I only have the 02 and maybe the 01 lens (can't remember for sure).

johnmflores · 06-19-2013, 08:13 PM

Why do I have a sudden craving for ice cream?

Adam · 06-19-2013, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Phil A

Many thanks for taking the time to do this.

If you have one, I'd love to see what the fisheye lens is like on the larger sensor Q7 and whether it's
wider..
cropped, but slightly wider
cropped and no wider at all than the Q.

Hmm, now that I think about it, the 03, 04, 05 lenses will work in a cropped mode on the Q7. Pentax states this in their Japanese Q7 press release.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

snostorm · 06-20-2013, 12:10 PM

As a jpg shooter, I can tell you that the custom image settings and high ISO NR settings are important, and the smaller the sensor, the more important they become. If the High ISO NR is set to Auto, then there will be significant smearing as ISO increases and the camera uses higher levels of NR. The in-camera NR is not sophisticated at all, as speed must be a priority, and the Q's processor needs to be physically small, so is not the most powerful. Using custom image settings of +2 for either Sharpening or Contrast will accentuate noise at any ISO with any compact sensor, and setting both at +2 really doesn't make much sense to me in a sampling comparing images at all ISO settings..

Shooting jpg generally gets a bad rap from a lot of people, but I don't really think that most people have ever used jpgs optimally. There's really no reason not to treat jpgs much differently than RAW in at least one sense -- assume that some PP will be necessary, and set the camera up to give the best base image for PP, then use the much more sophisticated PP editing tools that are available for use with a computer's much more powerful processor to give the best possible final image.

Adding contrast in-camera will shrink DR at higher ISO (where it becomes more limited naturally -- in addition to the limitation already imposed by the eight bit depth in jpg compared to the 12 bit depth of RAW), and it's pretty easy to see that adding contrast to noise will only make it more noticeable -- and small sensors show visible noise, even at base ISO. Adding in-camera sharpening which only uses local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask) only exacerbates the noise problem. Shooting jpgs at default custom image settings with in-camera NR set to its lowest would probably give a better indication of IQ potential of the sensor in a comparison like this.

I'm not trying to resurrect the RAW vs jpg debate here, just adding a critique of the methodology used in these examples from a jpg shooter.

. . . and many kudos to Adam for taking the time and trouble to supply the Quser Qommunity with some very early examples and impressions of what to expect from the Q7 when other sites feel that the concept of this system can be easily dismissed. Despite not really being a fan of the Q system, he continually adds information and insights to our Qommunity.

Scott

gazonk · 06-21-2013, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

Adding contrast in-camera will shrink DR at higher ISO (where it becomes more limited naturally -- in addition to the limitation already imposed by the eight bit depth in jpg compared to the 12 bit depth of RAW), and it's pretty easy to see that adding contrast to noise will only make it more noticeable -- and small sensors show visible noise, even at base ISO. Adding in-camera sharpening which only uses local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask) only exacerbates the noise problem. Shooting jpgs at default custom image settings with in-camera NR set to its lowest would probably give a better indication of IQ potential of the sensor in a comparison like this.

Very good advice! When my daughter got a K100D as a present as a 15 year old, I helped her getting the most out of her JPEGs (which she used in the first months before starting to use only RAW) by setting the camera to Natural mode and with minimal sharpening etc. There's a world of difference in what you can do with a K100D image shot in Natural mode and in Bright mode - the latter's images are almost impossible to process if you want a less contrasty and saturated image, while it's a piece of cake in PP to add sharpening, saturation etc. to the Natural images.

audiobomber · 06-21-2013, 08:32 AM

What NR setting was used for the jpegs? Direct comparison to actual Q photos would be a lot more telling. I don't see any significant difference in sensor performance on DXOMark for Q vs. MX1.

Adam · 06-21-2013, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

What NR setting was used for the jpegs? Direct comparison to actual Q photos would be a lot more telling. I don't see any significant difference in sensor performance on DXOMark for Q vs. MX1.

There are no NR settings on the Q7, like on other Q's. I'll be able to shoot some direct comparisons next month so you can compare the two side-by-side. The Q7 should be noticeably better because of the lower pixel density, but it's definitely not going to be night and day as both sensors are still quite small.

audiobomber · 06-21-2013, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Adam

There are no NR settings on the Q7, like on other Q's. I'll be able to shoot some direct comparisons next month so you can compare the two side-by-side. The Q7 should be noticeably better because of the lower pixel density, but it's definitely not going to be night and day as both sensors are still quite small.

Thanks, I'll look forward to seeing that. The main interest for me in the new sensor is the less extreme crop factor, which should help somewhat with K-mount lenses.

stormtech · 06-21-2013, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Adam

There are no NR settings on the Q7, like on other Q's..

Huh? My Q has NR settings on it - menu tab 2 - 5th item in the list.

Adam · 06-21-2013, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

Huh? My Q has NR settings on it - menu tab 2 - 5th item in the list.

Crap, I was thinking of the MX-1. In any case, can't wait until I have both cameras in hand.

stormtech · 06-21-2013, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Crap, I was thinking of the MX-1. In any case, can't wait until I have both cameras in hand.

That's ok - I forget about the myriad of settings between my K-5 and Q all the time. As Scott (snostorm) has proven in his past posts, getting the NR and sharpening down low does a lot for the Q images.

Looking forward to your comparison shots - I'm very interested in the Q7 and your examples and comparisons will help me make an educated decision.

06-19-2013, 03:26 PM	#20
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597 Original Poster	Originally posted by Phil A Many thanks for taking the time to do this. If you have one, I'd love to see what the fisheye lens is like on the larger sensor Q7 and whether it's wider.. cropped, but slightly wider cropped and no wider at all than the Q. I don't have the fisheye, unfortunately. I only have the 02 and maybe the 01 lens (can't remember for sure). Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-21-2013, 09:23 AM	#26
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber What NR setting was used for the jpegs? Direct comparison to actual Q photos would be a lot more telling. I don't see any significant difference in sensor performance on DXOMark for Q vs. MX1. There are no NR settings on the Q7, like on other Q's. I'll be able to shoot some direct comparisons next month so you can compare the two side-by-side. The Q7 should be noticeably better because of the lower pixel density, but it's definitely not going to be night and day as both sensors are still quite small. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-21-2013, 10:16 AM	#29
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597 Original Poster	Originally posted by stormtech Huh? My Q has NR settings on it - menu tab 2 - 5th item in the list. Crap, I was thinking of the MX-1. In any case, can't wait until I have both cameras in hand. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DPreview K-01 RAW high ISO samples botched!	JohnBee	Pentax K-01	8	05-04-2012 05:08 AM
K-5 low light/High ISO samples	johnmflores	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	21	04-19-2011 05:03 PM
Nikon D7000 High ISO Samples	vancmann	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	48	11-05-2010 06:38 PM
Dedicated Pentax K5 High ISO samples Thread	vancmann	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	11-03-2010 09:25 AM
Some K-r high ISO JPEG samples	Asahiflex	Pentax News and Rumors	34	10-11-2010 04:29 PM

06-19-2013, 07:43 AM	#16
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by Adam I'll post some more today, along with other samples. Thanks, I really appreciate your taking the time to do these and sharing them with us.

06-19-2013, 07:51 AM	#17
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Adam They're full size crops Thanks, Adam! That's pretty impressive, certainly better than my K10D that I replaced only a year ago...

06-19-2013, 08:12 AM	#18
Kenn100D Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paranaque City, Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 697	Wow my Q is new but old.=)

06-19-2013, 01:44 PM	#19
Phil A Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 40	Many thanks for taking the time to do this. If you have one, I'd love to see what the fisheye lens is like on the larger sensor Q7 and whether it's wider.. cropped, but slightly wider cropped and no wider at all than the Q.

06-19-2013, 08:13 PM	#21
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Why do I have a sudden craving for ice cream?

06-19-2013, 08:25 PM	#22
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597 Original Poster	Originally posted by Phil A Many thanks for taking the time to do this. If you have one, I'd love to see what the fisheye lens is like on the larger sensor Q7 and whether it's wider.. cropped, but slightly wider cropped and no wider at all than the Q. Hmm, now that I think about it, the 03, 04, 05 lenses will work in a cropped mode on the Q7. Pentax states this in their Japanese Q7 press release. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-20-2013, 12:10 PM	#23
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	As a jpg shooter, I can tell you that the custom image settings and high ISO NR settings are important, and the smaller the sensor, the more important they become. If the High ISO NR is set to Auto, then there will be significant smearing as ISO increases and the camera uses higher levels of NR. The in-camera NR is not sophisticated at all, as speed must be a priority, and the Q's processor needs to be physically small, so is not the most powerful. Using custom image settings of +2 for either Sharpening or Contrast will accentuate noise at any ISO with any compact sensor, and setting both at +2 really doesn't make much sense to me in a sampling comparing images at all ISO settings.. Shooting jpg generally gets a bad rap from a lot of people, but I don't really think that most people have ever used jpgs optimally. There's really no reason not to treat jpgs much differently than RAW in at least one sense -- assume that some PP will be necessary, and set the camera up to give the best base image for PP, then use the much more sophisticated PP editing tools that are available for use with a computer's much more powerful processor to give the best possible final image. Adding contrast in-camera will shrink DR at higher ISO (where it becomes more limited naturally -- in addition to the limitation already imposed by the eight bit depth in jpg compared to the 12 bit depth of RAW), and it's pretty easy to see that adding contrast to noise will only make it more noticeable -- and small sensors show visible noise, even at base ISO. Adding in-camera sharpening which only uses local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask) only exacerbates the noise problem. Shooting jpgs at default custom image settings with in-camera NR set to its lowest would probably give a better indication of IQ potential of the sensor in a comparison like this. I'm not trying to resurrect the RAW vs jpg debate here, just adding a critique of the methodology used in these examples from a jpg shooter. . . . and many kudos to Adam for taking the time and trouble to supply the Quser Qommunity with some very early examples and impressions of what to expect from the Q7 when other sites feel that the concept of this system can be easily dismissed. Despite not really being a fan of the Q system, he continually adds information and insights to our Qommunity. Scott

06-21-2013, 12:52 AM	#24
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by snostorm Adding contrast in-camera will shrink DR at higher ISO (where it becomes more limited naturally -- in addition to the limitation already imposed by the eight bit depth in jpg compared to the 12 bit depth of RAW), and it's pretty easy to see that adding contrast to noise will only make it more noticeable -- and small sensors show visible noise, even at base ISO. Adding in-camera sharpening which only uses local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask) only exacerbates the noise problem. Shooting jpgs at default custom image settings with in-camera NR set to its lowest would probably give a better indication of IQ potential of the sensor in a comparison like this. Very good advice! When my daughter got a K100D as a present as a 15 year old, I helped her getting the most out of her JPEGs (which she used in the first months before starting to use only RAW) by setting the camera to Natural mode and with minimal sharpening etc. There's a world of difference in what you can do with a K100D image shot in Natural mode and in Bright mode - the latter's images are almost impossible to process if you want a less contrasty and saturated image, while it's a piece of cake in PP to add sharpening, saturation etc. to the Natural images.

06-21-2013, 08:32 AM	#25
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	What NR setting was used for the jpegs? Direct comparison to actual Q photos would be a lot more telling. I don't see any significant difference in sensor performance on DXOMark for Q vs. MX1.

06-21-2013, 09:27 AM	#27
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Adam There are no NR settings on the Q7, like on other Q's. I'll be able to shoot some direct comparisons next month so you can compare the two side-by-side. The Q7 should be noticeably better because of the lower pixel density, but it's definitely not going to be night and day as both sensors are still quite small. Thanks, I'll look forward to seeing that. The main interest for me in the new sensor is the less extreme crop factor, which should help somewhat with K-mount lenses.

06-21-2013, 10:11 AM	#28
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Originally posted by Adam There are no NR settings on the Q7, like on other Q's.. Huh? My Q has NR settings on it - menu tab 2 - 5th item in the list.

06-21-2013, 10:23 AM	#30
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744	Originally posted by Adam Crap, I was thinking of the MX-1. In any case, can't wait until I have both cameras in hand. That's ok - I forget about the myriad of settings between my K-5 and Q all the time. As Scott (snostorm) has proven in his past posts, getting the NR and sharpening down low does a lot for the Q images. Looking forward to your comparison shots - I'm very interested in the Q7 and your examples and comparisons will help me make an educated decision.