Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-25-2013, 11:41 AM - 1 Like   #1
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
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.
09-25-2013, 12:07 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,625
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
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
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
Loyal Site Supporter
imtheguy's Avatar

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
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,464
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
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
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
Loyal Site Supporter
imtheguy's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Virginia Beach
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,950
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
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
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by imtheguy Quote
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
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,224
Human perception is all that matters in photography.
thanks
barondla
09-28-2013, 05:55 AM   #10
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
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.
09-28-2013, 09:24 AM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,989
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
Veteran Member
ChrisJ's Avatar

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
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,246
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
09-29-2013, 07:56 AM   #14
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
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.


QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
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
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
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.)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, iso, iso comparison, mirrorless, nr, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top