Q7 vs Q ISO comparison RAW

**crewl1** · 09-25-2013, 11:41 AM - **1 Like**

For these shots I used the FA501.4 on a tripod with the K-Q adapter.
RAW format was imported to Lightroom and cropped to see a shadow area.
LR appears to do WB and sharpness adjustment but does not add any NR.
I just exported after the crop.
The results from the two cameras are ... different.
Q7 seems to render more detail at base ISO and noise increase is linear.
On the Q it almost appears as if in camera NR is applied up to ISO3200, and these are shot in RAW.

First the Q7 at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800

Q7 100

Q7 200

Q7 400

Q7 800

Q7 1600

Q7 3200

Q7 6400

Q7 12800

Here the Q at 125, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400

Q 125

Q 200

Q 400

Q 800

Q 1600

Q 3200

Q 6400

The full scene for reference:

Last edited by crewl1; 10-02-2013 at 05:00 PM.

**pearsaab** · 09-25-2013, 12:07 PM

very interesting larry...my visual opinion the q looks good up to 400 but the q7 is 200??? are my eyes just not seeing it right? would love to be able to see the 200 and 400 next to each other if that was an option...thanks for doing this!!!!

**crewl1** · 09-25-2013, 12:40 PM

To me it seems like the Q is usable up to 800 if you do some noise reduction, and the Q7 is usable to 1600.

If someone has suggestions on how to place images side by side on here please let me know, I am not sure how to do it.

imtheguy · 09-25-2013, 03:04 PM

I can certainly concur with your "full stop" advantage as I had already shot both in the field and with JPGs saw that iso400 was about my limit on the Q w/o significant nr but could shoot to iso800 comfortably with the Q7 and achieve about the same noise level. So yes, about one stop advantage to the Q7 IMO.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 09-27-2013, 11:10 AM

From what I can see from those posted, they are less than one stop apart. It appears that the Q might have a bit more auto smoothing, so the Q7 is a tad sharper with a bit more noise at any given ISO.

What you are willing to accept is a personal decision, but I have been setting the Q auto ISO at 1000 iso maximum. If exposure is proper (not under), I can accept working with the 1000 ISO images in Lightroom.

audiobomber · 09-27-2013, 12:38 PM - **1 Like**

No way there's a full stop difference in noise performance. The MX-1 uses the same sensor as the Q7, and is about half a stop better than a Q at ISO 3200, even less difference below 3200, (per DXO). I don't mind the look of ISO 1600 Q photos, because the noise looks like film grain.

I am considering a Q7, not for a small noise improvement, but because I like the wider focal lengths of the lenses with the larger sensor. The 02's 40mm FOV sounds ideal to me, and the zoom ranges are nicer too.

imtheguy · 09-27-2013, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

No way there's a full stop difference in noise performance. The MX-1 uses the same sensor as the Q7, and is about half a stop better than a Q at ISO 3200, even less difference below 3200, (per DXO). I don't mind the look of ISO 1600 Q photos, because the noise looks like film grain.

I am considering a Q7, not for a small noise improvement, but because I like the wider focal lengths of the lenses with the larger sensor. The 02's 40mm FOV sounds ideal to me, and the zoom ranges are nicer too.

as always....YMMV.

audiobomber · 09-27-2013, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by imtheguy

as always....YMMV.

The whole point of the DXO testing is to objectively measure performance, because human perception is unreliable. As amply demonstrated in this thread.

**barondla** · 09-28-2013, 04:53 AM

Human perception is all that matters in photography.
thanks
barondla

audiobomber · 09-28-2013, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by barondla

Human perception is all that matters in photography.
thanks
barondla

I can't agree with that. Photography is a mix of technical capabilities and human perception.

I have no argument when someone says the Q is only acceptable up to ISO 400, or ISO 3200. That is personal preference. I get sticky about objective matters like SNR, DR, or tonal range. These things are measurable. There is no one-stop difference in SNR between the Q and Q7 raw images, there is a maximum of 1/2 stop. That is a fact. Disagreement can only be due to improper evaluation or different processing.

vonBaloney · 09-28-2013, 09:24 AM

I'm assuming your Q is set for lowest possible in-camera NR? (Can't be turned off altogether.) Can it be turned off on the Q7?

ChrisJ · 09-29-2013, 05:52 AM - **1 Like**

I hope you don't mind Crew1, here they are side by side at 200 ISO

[

]

The Q7 has a lot more detail, there are a few caveats here, these are very low res, but I would expect an even more marked difference at full resolution.

Chris

Sandy Hancock · 09-29-2013, 06:30 AM

For those who are interested, on the Q7 the 02 zoom at 5mm is at least as wide as the DA15 on APS-C, and definitely wider than the DA*16-50 at 16mm. It also has less chromatic aberration than either lens, and is sharp corner to corner from f/2.8.

The Q7 is the environment these lenses were designed for. Pixel peeping on a 27" monitor the Q7 files are very clean to 1600: at least a stop better than the earlier iterations.

02 @ 5

DA15

DA*16-50 @ 16

audiobomber · 09-29-2013, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

For those who are interested, on the Q7 the 02 zoom at 5mm is at least as wide as the DA15 on APS-C, and definitely wider than the DA*16-50 at 16mm. It also has less chromatic aberration than either lens, and is sharp corner to corner from f/2.8.

The Q7 is the environment these lenses were designed for.

24-70 is a lot more interesting to me than 28-85. I wasn't going to buy an 01 for my Q, I was waiting for the wide prime. Given the new sensor, if I get a Q7, it will be the 01 kit.

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

The Q7 is the environment these lenses were designed for. Pixel peeping on a 27" monitor the Q7 files are very clean to 1600: at least a stop better than the earlier iterations.

This is important news. You should let DXOMark know, because they've underrated the Q7 by half a stop. Even Pentax only claims 60% improvement in SNR. They must be underselling the new design. (A full stop would be 100%).

drougge · 09-29-2013, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

LR appears to do WB and sharpness adjustment but does not add any NR.

"Appears" being the key word here. Also, it does appear to add NR unless your Q has much less colour noise than mine. Probably only colour NR, but still NR.

A more fair comparison would be from a raw converter where we can know it does the same processing for both cameras (preferably with no NR). For some reason commercial raw converters do their best to hide what they do from the user.

You can use dcraw if you want to trust that it doesn't to anything more than you ask for. (Or you can make the raw files available so someone else can do that.)

09-25-2013, 11:41 AM - 1 Like	#1
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	Q7 vs Q ISO comparison RAW For these shots I used the FA501.4 on a tripod with the K-Q adapter. RAW format was imported to Lightroom and cropped to see a shadow area. LR appears to do WB and sharpness adjustment but does not add any NR. I just exported after the crop. The results from the two cameras are ... different. Q7 seems to render more detail at base ISO and noise increase is linear. On the Q it almost appears as if in camera NR is applied up to ISO3200, and these are shot in RAW. First the Q7 at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800 Q7 100 Q7 200 Q7 400 Q7 800 Q7 1600 Q7 3200 Q7 6400 Q7 12800 Here the Q at 125, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 Q 125 Q 200 Q 400 Q 800 Q 1600 Q 3200 Q 6400 The full scene for reference: Last edited by crewl1; 10-02-2013 at 05:00 PM.

09-28-2013, 05:55 AM	#10
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by barondla Human perception is all that matters in photography. thanks barondla I can't agree with that. Photography is a mix of technical capabilities and human perception. I have no argument when someone says the Q is only acceptable up to ISO 400, or ISO 3200. That is personal preference. I get sticky about objective matters like SNR, DR, or tonal range. These things are measurable. There is no one-stop difference in SNR between the Q and Q7 raw images, there is a maximum of 1/2 stop. That is a fact. Disagreement can only be due to improper evaluation or different processing. Last edited by audiobomber; 09-28-2013 at 07:08 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Q7 Review and Q7 vs Q Comparison	Adam	Pentax Q	1	11-15-2013 05:02 PM
Q 01 prime VS Q 02 zoom image comparison	mamethot	Pentax Q	37	11-01-2013 09:40 AM
Q lens equivalents for Q/Q10 vs Q7	Docrwm	Pentax Q	41	06-27-2013 03:05 PM
Pentax Q7 High-ISO Samples from RAW	Adam	Pentax Q	2	06-23-2013 12:11 PM
K-R VS X100 High Iso Noise Comparison	Ryan Cole	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	02-01-2013 02:36 PM

09-25-2013, 12:07 PM	#2
pearsaab Otis Memorial Pentaxian Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,900	very interesting larry...my visual opinion the q looks good up to 400 but the q7 is 200??? are my eyes just not seeing it right? would love to be able to see the 200 and 400 next to each other if that was an option...thanks for doing this!!!!

09-25-2013, 12:40 PM	#3
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807 Original Poster	To me it seems like the Q is usable up to 800 if you do some noise reduction, and the Q7 is usable to 1600. If someone has suggestions on how to place images side by side on here please let me know, I am not sure how to do it.

09-25-2013, 03:04 PM	#4
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	I can certainly concur with your "full stop" advantage as I had already shot both in the field and with JPGs saw that iso400 was about my limit on the Q w/o significant nr but could shoot to iso800 comfortably with the Q7 and achieve about the same noise level. So yes, about one stop advantage to the Q7 IMO.

09-27-2013, 11:10 AM	#5
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	From what I can see from those posted, they are less than one stop apart. It appears that the Q might have a bit more auto smoothing, so the Q7 is a tad sharper with a bit more noise at any given ISO. What you are willing to accept is a personal decision, but I have been setting the Q auto ISO at 1000 iso maximum. If exposure is proper (not under), I can accept working with the 1000 ISO images in Lightroom.

09-27-2013, 12:38 PM - 1 Like	#6
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	No way there's a full stop difference in noise performance. The MX-1 uses the same sensor as the Q7, and is about half a stop better than a Q at ISO 3200, even less difference below 3200, (per DXO). I don't mind the look of ISO 1600 Q photos, because the noise looks like film grain. I am considering a Q7, not for a small noise improvement, but because I like the wider focal lengths of the lenses with the larger sensor. The 02's 40mm FOV sounds ideal to me, and the zoom ranges are nicer too.

09-27-2013, 01:49 PM	#7
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Originally posted by audiobomber No way there's a full stop difference in noise performance. The MX-1 uses the same sensor as the Q7, and is about half a stop better than a Q at ISO 3200, even less difference below 3200, (per DXO). I don't mind the look of ISO 1600 Q photos, because the noise looks like film grain. I am considering a Q7, not for a small noise improvement, but because I like the wider focal lengths of the lenses with the larger sensor. The 02's 40mm FOV sounds ideal to me, and the zoom ranges are nicer too. as always....YMMV.

09-27-2013, 05:59 PM	#8
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by imtheguy as always....YMMV. The whole point of the DXO testing is to objectively measure performance, because human perception is unreliable. As amply demonstrated in this thread.

09-28-2013, 04:53 AM	#9
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Human perception is all that matters in photography. thanks barondla

09-28-2013, 09:24 AM	#11
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	I'm assuming your Q is set for lowest possible in-camera NR? (Can't be turned off altogether.) Can it be turned off on the Q7?

09-29-2013, 05:52 AM - 1 Like	#12
ChrisJ Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 316	I hope you don't mind Crew1, here they are side by side at 200 ISO [ ] The Q7 has a lot more detail, there are a few caveats here, these are very low res, but I would expect an even more marked difference at full resolution. Chris

09-29-2013, 06:30 AM	#13
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	For those who are interested, on the Q7 the 02 zoom at 5mm is at least as wide as the DA15 on APS-C, and definitely wider than the DA16-50 at 16mm. It also has less chromatic aberration than either lens, and is sharp corner to corner from f/2.8. The Q7 is the environment these lenses were designed for. Pixel peeping on a 27" monitor the Q7 files are very clean to 1600: at least a stop better than the earlier iterations. 02 @ 5 DA15 DA16-50 @ 16

09-29-2013, 07:56 AM	#14
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock For those who are interested, on the Q7 the 02 zoom at 5mm is at least as wide as the DA15 on APS-C, and definitely wider than the DA*16-50 at 16mm. It also has less chromatic aberration than either lens, and is sharp corner to corner from f/2.8. The Q7 is the environment these lenses were designed for. 24-70 is a lot more interesting to me than 28-85. I wasn't going to buy an 01 for my Q, I was waiting for the wide prime. Given the new sensor, if I get a Q7, it will be the 01 kit. Originally posted by Sandy Hancock The Q7 is the environment these lenses were designed for. Pixel peeping on a 27" monitor the Q7 files are very clean to 1600: at least a stop better than the earlier iterations. This is important news. You should let DXOMark know, because they've underrated the Q7 by half a stop. Even Pentax only claims 60% improvement in SNR. They must be underselling the new design. (A full stop would be 100%).

09-29-2013, 10:05 AM	#15
drougge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Malmö Photos: Gallery Posts: 787	Originally posted by crewl1 LR appears to do WB and sharpness adjustment but does not add any NR. "Appears" being the key word here. Also, it does appear to add NR unless your Q has much less colour noise than mine. Probably only colour NR, but still NR. A more fair comparison would be from a raw converter where we can know it does the same processing for both cameras (preferably with no NR). For some reason commercial raw converters do their best to hide what they do from the user. You can use dcraw if you want to trust that it doesn't to anything more than you ask for. (Or you can make the raw files available so someone else can do that.)