[illdefined]

I posted this thread assuming the K-r sensor would be the well regarded Sony sensor in the NEX-5, based on the latest rumor of the K-r being 14mp vs. 12mp. This would make sense to me considering the current entry-level camera landscape and Pentax continues to sell the K-x. I suppose in this scenario, the K-r would be in more of a K200D slot and Pentax would have a nice product range at 12, 14 and 16mp.

You can compare the NEX-5 sensor with the K-x sensor at Imaging-Resource.com

[alessandro63]

Sure I missed the official news saying the new cameras will have Sony sensors aboard.
Is it really the only possible choice?

[Asahiflex]

I would not mind a Samsung sensor though. The ones in the K20D and the K-7 are great at base ISO's. Let's not forget the K-7 outperforms the K-x at base iso in every way. I like the colors of the K-7 more than those from the K-x.

[G.T]

However, I would not be surprised if Pentax was hanging at 12MP or 14MP. We all know that a greater number of photosites at a given sensor size brings in more noise. So if they don't want to take any risk with a NR which could be a bit too agressive (and by "agressive" I mean, reducing image details a bit too much), and on SLR's the difference is greatly brought by the lenses. That's where you win a battle, IMO. Lenses and extras like the in-body SR.

Remember Canon stepped back to 10MPix on its G11, while my Optio P80 offers 12. Considering its price, there must be a good reason OK, we're not into the same class, with the G11 costing... more than twice my Optio. The G11 must provide less noise, too. That's a matter of physics there, not magic.

[illdefined]

However, I would not be surprised if Pentax was hanging at 12MP or 14MP. We all know that a greater number of photosites at a given sensor size brings in more noise. So if they don't want to take any risk with a NR which could be a bit too agressive (and by "agressive" I mean, reducing image details a bit too much), and on SLR's the difference is greatly brought by the lenses. That's where you win a battle, IMO. Lenses and extras like the in-body SR.

Remember Canon stepped back to 10MPix on its G11, while my Optio P80 offers 12. Considering its price, there must be a good reason OK, we're not into the same class, with the G11 costing... more than twice my Optio. The G11 must provide less noise, too. That's a matter of physics there, not magic.

Sure, but keep in mind that the best high ISO performing camera in this comparison had 18mp on a sensor that's physically slightly smaller than the others (1.6x vs 1.5x). when you and others say its more than just the megapixel count, that goes both ways.

[JohnBee]

Let's not forget the K-7 outperforms the K-x at base iso in every way. I like the colors of the K-7 more than those from the K-x.

In RAW performance, I found both to be indistinguishable(even resized to match), however the Kx seemed to have a slight lead with SNR in area's such as blue sky etc.

Having said that, I often wondered if the K-7 didn't have better image processing than the Kx rather than a better sensor.

[rawr]

I'd wait for DxoMark to profile the Sony sensors before jumping to any conclusions about either one. dpreview's tests are useful but not as rigorous. DXO produces Sony camera profiles very quickly. Shouldn't be long to wait.

[thibs]

If you don't believe me, just count the reviews telling people who already have a K20D to sit this one out. It should've been better or equal to than the K20D in every aspect, as hopefully these new Pentax models will be.

Well it is. I know lots of people don't agree but noise in K-7 really isn't more bothering than K20D. If anything it is more pleasant. In the end, the picture is more easily usable. For me that's the only important thing. The rest is either BS or careful measurements (thinking about Falk's work) but which do not translate into a loss in real life.

I really don't understand this crusade against K7, usually (not pointing anyone specifically) from people who didn't even tried it properly.

[Kenn100D]

IMHO i think we should also consider how the two companies approach for processing. There might be a big difference when it comes to BionZ and PRIME. Sensor as it is used as a tool to get the photo the process to get the output from that tool is different when it reaches the cameras processor. its like a translator from different language to english.

[illdefined]

Well it is. I know lots of people don't agree but noise in K-7 really isn't more bothering than K20D. If anything it is more pleasant. In the end, the picture is more easily usable. For me that's the only important thing. The rest is either BS or careful measurements (thinking about Falk's work) but which do not translate into a loss in real life.

I really don't understand this crusade against K7, usually (not pointing anyone specifically) from people who didn't even tried it properly.

what you're saying may be true Thibs but thats a subjective view. I love my K-7 and carry it daily, but i always remember how stunned i was when i first saw an ISO 1600 from my old K20D and what a let down it was to see an interior ISO 400 shot when i first got my K-7. In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the market does.

The overall narrative and unfortunate conclusion to the industry and all-important review sites was that the K-7 compromised its high-ISO ability for video. This definitely affected its sales and therefore Pentax is forced to react.

Not only must it react, it will be under the magnifying glass with the added pressure of the K-7 not living up to its monstrous pre-release hype last year.

all fingers crossed.

[Fototim]

Even if the K-7 was merely supposed to be an improved K20D, (The K-7 was supposed to be a new paradigm for Pentax and priced accordingly), then it crucially failed in the one aspect that most consider the most important, image quality. ...

Hm. Did K-7 fail in image quality? I can't compare directly, because I don't own K-7. But my impression (after reading lot of reviews, talking with K-7 users, and looking at lots of pictures from both cameras) is that K-7 is slightly worse on high ISO when exposure is correct. BUT, the exposure system on K-7 is improved a lot. and getting correct exposure is vital when using high ISO.

So bottom line, (to me) K-7 seems on par (or most likely better) than K20 on image quality in practical use.

[illdefined]

So bottom line, (to me) K-7 seems on par (or most likely better) than K20 on image quality in practical use.

it's definitely no better. I've had mine since it came out and "exposing to the right" is an absolute MUST at high-ISO, whereas with my old K20D i harldy ever had to think about it. I have to *work*, either at the time of the shot or in post, to get my K-7 files to look as good as my K20D files.

regardless, and again, the K-7 narrative on the review sites (and camera stores) is what really matters to the market as a whole. not our individual experiences with it (unfortunately).

[wll]

So bottom line, (to me) K-7 seems on par (or most likely better) than K20 on image quality in practical use.

The reason I did not buy a K-7 is because it did not measure up (sensor wise at higher ISO) to my K-20D ... I did not want to go backwards, yes the K-7 has all the bells and whistles, but so what ... it is performance that counts !


wll

[garyk]

Only thing I would like is the k-x sensor in the k-7 body. Reading this Pentax has already shot themselfs in the foot with the k-7. Now all will be very careful before buying the next Pentax.
Another thing i do not understand is the lens line up. Isn't Hoya a premier glass and optics designer.
Pentax just isn't giving me that warm and fuzzy feeling. I am kinda worried.

Too bad for them. Just bad business.

[dosdan]

We all know that a greater number of photosites at a given sensor size brings in more noise.

And we all know that if both images are printed out at the same size, the extra individual pixel noise, spread out over the extra pixels, after root-mean-squaring, then both images appear to have the same apparent noise level, except that the higher Mpix version has the potential to have more detail.

Assuming the same size sensor, e.g. APS-C, and the same sensor technology level (with a high fill-factor), there is a noise difference between the big-pixel sensors & small-pixel sensors which see-saws at low & high ISOs as mentioned in the summary below.


See
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html,
particularly
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize


Emil Martinec's summary:
Among the important measures of image quality are signal-to-noise ratio of the capture process, and resolution. It was shown that for fixed sensor format, the light collection efficiency per unit area is essentially independent of pixel size, over a huge range of pixel sizes from 2 microns to over 8 microns, and is therefore independent of the number of megapixels. Noise performance per unit area was seen to be only weakly dependent on pixel size. The S/N ratio per unit area is much the same over a wide range of pixel sizes. There is an advantage to big pixels in low light (high ISO) applications, where read noise is an important detractor from image quality, and big pixels currently have lower read noise than aggregations of small pixels of equal area. For low ISO applications, the situation is reversed in current implementations — if anything, smaller pixels perform somewhat better in terms of S/N ratio (while offering more resolution)
...
Rather than having strong dependence on the pixel size, the noise performance instead depends quite strongly on sensor size — bigger sensors yield higher quality images, by capturing more signal (photons).


So regarding noise performance, MF > FF > APS-C > P&S.

Dan.