[JohnBee]

It's funny...As for me, 7D has the worst APC-S sensor. I've tested RAW from 7D with DCRAW and compare with GX20....
GX20 is much better at ISO1600.

I think DCRAW is the weak link in this case. From what I've experienced, the 7D seems to respond very positively to ACR6/LR3, out-resolving the K20D by a significant margin in RAW(noise pattern, grain and detail).

K20D ISO1600 NR0 v1.01


EOS7D ISO1600 NR0


PS. I have nothing for or against the K20D. But I have no issues acknowledging better systems either

[Blue]

I think DCRAW is the weak link in this case. From what I've experienced, the 7D seems to respond very positively to ACR6/LR3, out-resolving the K20D by a significant margin in RAW(noise pattern, grain and detail).

K20D ISO1600 NR0 v1.01


EOS7D ISO1600 NR0


PS. I have nothing for or against the K20D. But I have no issues acknowledging better systems either

This is supposed to be convincing?

[JohnBee]

This is supposed to be convincing?

Such things are best interpreted for what they are. The trick here of course, is to assess the information from an individual stand-point and draw your own conclusions.

K20D ISO1600 NR0, ACR6


EOS 7D, ISO1600 NR0, ACR6


Or not...

[JeffJS]

Wedding I shot 3 weeks ago. Not bad. 31 limited, f2, 1/200, 12,800 ISO. DNG No NR in camera or applied in ACR (usually has default of 25 suppressing color noise)



100% crop

THAT'S the phenomenal ISO 12,800 everyone keeps raving about on the Kx? I'm sure you did what you could with what you had. I'm not knocking your photo but sorry, that would be an ISO I would not be using unless I Absolutely had to simply to document an event.

[youky63]

This is supposed to be convincing?

What is not convincing here?
7D is much sharper and keep much more details.

[Blue]

What is not convincing here?
7D is much sharper and keep much more details.

Really? It depends on the part of the image. Furthermore, you don't know if tripod was used, what lenses were used and lastly, its comparing a 2 year old model with the current model. Given that I paid $678 for my K20d body 2 years ago, I am not convinced. What we are seeing here is part of it depends on which software and settings are used.

[JohnBee]

Really? It depends on the part of the image. Furthermore, you don't know if tripod was used, what lenses were used and lastly, its comparing a 2 year old model with the current model. Given that I paid $678 for my K20d body 2 years ago, I am not convinced. What we are seeing here is part of it depends on which software and settings are used.

Both tests were conducted on a tripod at: ISO1600, 1/250s, 70mm f/8.0

The comparison was posted in response to ogl's post who claimed that the GX20(K20D) outperformed the 7D in RAW with DCRAW

For what it's worth, I think it's quite clear that the 7D outresloves the K20 sensor in every aspect of the scene(no exceptions). However, since I only processed for NR and resolution, there is always the possibility that curves and adjustments between each sample will affect final rendering with respect to surface and structure.

TBH. I don't think anyone's trying to put down Pentax here. Especially since(as you mentioned) the 7D is a far newer system. Though I think this puts to rest that the 7D is somehow impaired with regard to IQ.

[vizjerei]

How about not in ACR6? but in other RAW processor?

[Big G]

I will put up my own personal tests this evening of ISO 1600 and ISO 6400 comparisons on another thread to put yet another myth to bed.

[Blue]

Both tests were conducted on a tripod at: ISO1600, 1/250s, 70mm f/8.0

The comparison was posted in response to ogl's post who claimed that the GX20(K20D) outperformed the 7D in RAW with DCRAW

For what it's worth, I think it's quite clear that the 7D outresloves the K20 sensor in every aspect of the scene(no exceptions). However, since I only processed for NR and resolution, there is always the possibility that curves and adjustments between each sample will affect final rendering with respect to surface and structure.

TBH. I don't think anyone's trying to put down Pentax here. Especially since(as you mentioned) the 7D is a far newer system. Though I think this puts to rest that the 7D is somehow impaired with regard to IQ.

Out of curiosity, which 70mm lenses? To be clear, I never stated nor implied the 7d was impaired but thought quite the contrary. Also I meant, there wasn't anything in those image to get me thinking about switching systems. To be honest, there are certain lenses in all systems that interest me.

[pingflood]

Wedding I shot 3 weeks ago. Not bad. 31 limited, f2, 1/200, 12,800 ISO. DNG No NR in camera or applied in ACR (usually has default of 25 suppressing color noise)



100% crop

OK, I'll share a 7D one I just snapped, indoors under poor lighting (compact fluorescent in a yellow light fixture, ugh). NR in LR3 applied but not to the point of obliterating detail (see the 100% crop).

ISO 12,800


100% crop

[Slowpoke Rodriguez]

@Pingflood:
Consider me impressed.

[jon.partsch]

OK, I'll share a 7D one I just snapped, indoors under poor lighting (compact fluorescent in a yellow light fixture, ugh). NR in LR3 applied but not to the point of obliterating detail (see the 100% crop).

ISO 12,800


100% crop

Okay, it's obvious that the 7D beats the K20! It's not a fair comparison. the 7D is newer and way more expensive. The K20 is an excellent camera in many ways, especially for the time in which it was released. What's really important is that you are happy with the results you can get with your gear! If you can shoot, and be sucessfull with the gear you have, that's all that matters. Somewhere in these forums recently, someone posted that they shoot professionally with a K-x. That's fantastic that they can make money and be satisfied with inexpensive tools! A friend of mine is finishing up her first professional project in a long time after becoming a new mommy. She did the whole thing (a "alternative" style pin-up series) with an EOS 350 with a kit lens and edited in Photoshop 7 (albeit with $3000 in lighting and radio triggers).

The point is - can you get satisfying results, or even results you can sell if that's your goal, with the equipment you have? If so, that's great - there's no sense in comparing apples to oranges - just upgrade when your current equipment no longer meets YOUR needs

PS - I LOVE the "grain" in that portrait shot, pingflood! Nice work

[pingflood]

Okay, it's obvious that the 7D beats the K20! It's not a fair comparison. the 7D is newer and way more expensive. The K20 is an excellent camera in many ways, especially for the time in which it was released. What's really important is that you are happy with the results you can get with your gear! If you can shoot, and be sucessfull with the gear you have, that's all that matters. Somewhere in these forums recently, someone posted that they shoot professionally with a K-x. That's fantastic that they can make money and be satisfied with inexpensive tools! A friend of mine is finishing up her first professional project in a long time after becoming a new mommy. She did the whole thing (a "alternative" style pin-up series) with an EOS 350 with a kit lens and edited in Photoshop 7 (albeit with $3000 in lighting and radio triggers).

The point is - can you get satisfying results, or even results you can sell if that's your goal, with the equipment you have? If so, that's great - there's no sense in comparing apples to oranges - just upgrade when your current equipment no longer meets YOUR needs

PS - I LOVE the "grain" in that portrait shot, pingflood! Nice work

Hi, and thanks. I posted it as a comment to the K-x shot; I know it would be unfair to compare to the K20D since it is getting to be "old" in DSLR terms. I had a K20D and it was and IMO still is a great camera, and at ISO 800 or lower it produces some spectacularly good files. High ISO is not so bueno though, but when it came out it did pretty well even there compared to the competition.

And yes, what matters is that you get the results you want. I can't really justify having the gear I do since I just shoot as a hobby, but it is the only hobby I really spend any money on so I "splurge" a bit on it because it's fun.

[jpzk]

Hi, and thanks. I posted it as a comment to the K-x shot; I know it would be unfair to compare to the K20D since it is getting to be "old" in DSLR terms. I had a K20D and it was and IMO still is a great camera, and at ISO 800 or lower it produces some spectacularly good files. High ISO is not so bueno though, but when it came out it did pretty well even there compared to the competition.

And yes, what matters is that you get the results you want. I can't really justify having the gear I do since I just shoot as a hobby, but it is the only hobby I really spend any money on so I "splurge" a bit on it because it's fun.

Just my ten-cents comment:

I have some good pics, of birds, stationary or in flight, taken with the K20D at ISO 1000-1250 and unless one pixel peeks, the results are actually more than satisfactory.
Of course, I would like to see some samples taken with both the K5 and the K-r ... that'll soon enough.

However, one can't really compare the 7D with the K20D, but I will likely be pleasantly surprised when the real tests come out, comparing it (the 7D) with either the K5/K-r. ((according to what's "on paper" at this time, including ongoing rumours)).

JP