[jamesk8752]

The more I study these samples the more the same thought keeps coming up. While the extra 4 MP does increase resolution slightly over the K10D I wonder how much the noise could have been reduced if they had left it at 10MP or boosted it to just 12MP's. It is what it is and I suspect this is a case of marketing trumping engineering.

Regards,

Ken

You may be right, but the resolution increase is very noticeable to me, in spite of all the naysayers who state it isn't significantly better on theoretical grounds. Details in foliage, for example, are remarkably better. As noise is quite controllable I think the extra resolution is a great advance, for me at least...

[rparmar]

Thank you for your work and observations!

[regken]

You may be right, but the resolution increase is very noticeable to me, in spite of all the naysayers who state it isn't significantly better on theoretical grounds. Details in foliage, for example, are remarkably better. As noise is quite controllable I think the extra resolution is a great advance, for me at least...

I'm no theorist but my eye says there is an improvement and suspect it will show up on large prints. My bet is that corner and edge distortion on less expensive DA lenses like the 50-200 are going to start showing up big time. The old DA kit lens will probably be very bad, that's why they came out with a new one.

Is there any chance you could try some of your less expensive M series lenses to see how they handle the extra resolution? Maybe a M 28 f2.8, not a bad lens not not world class either. Consumer grade DA's may have a problem. The older FF lenses may still be OK because of the larger area.

Thanks,
Ken

[raz]

- K20D AF seems faster than with my K10D in low light. Haven't tried trap focus yet.
- I really haven't noticed much improvement in the LCD but it's definitely better.
- Live view works but I really don't see myself using it very much. Like all EVFs it lags a bit in updating the image, and I've always preferred a live optical VF. Haven't tried the 21FPS burst mode yet - another gimmick IMO, although same may find a use for it.

Regards, Jim

thanks for the answers

[janneman]

Today I sent Gordon several test shots at ISO 100 in PEF for analysis of the low ISO noise floor.

Regards, Jim

The ones he is now commenting on in the other forum??? Seems kinda negative on the actual DR. Maybe scientifically true, and the pixelpeepers and most probably reviewers will follow his approach (Do we hear "just" coming up??). However, if the highlights are better (as he agrees) then one does not need to underexpose as much to get decent pictures in strong highlight scenes, therfore the shadow-areas do not need to be pushed as much, therefore they will show less noise, but even if they show noise, if the noise looks better haven't we gained DR, at least as it appears in our eyes???

Or am I missing something?

[regken]

The ones he is now commenting on in the other forum??? Seems kinda negative on the actual DR. Maybe scientifically true, and the pixelpeepers and most probably reviewers will follow his approach (Do we hear "just" coming up??). However, if the highlights are better (as he agrees) then one does not need to underexpose as much to get decent pictures in strong highlight scenes, therfore the shadow-areas do not need to be pushed as much, therefore they will show less noise, but even if they show noise, if the noise looks better haven't we gained DR, at least as it appears in our eyes???

Or am I missing something?

You have a valid point. I think a normally exposed image from the K20D will have a little better "Look" than the same image from a K10D. Gorden is very scientific and great at crunching numbers. It's looking more and more like the K20D has a very slight advantage on noise. About 1/2 stop in RAW according to Gorden. The resolution will be a little better. If we ignore the deep shadows the DR will be just about the same. All in all very little improved image performance over the K10D, certainly not $700 worth. It looks like you would have to do a lot of heavy pixel peeping to see the difference.

I wanted this to be a winner and was ready to buy but now am becoming more pessimistic about the value of upgrading.

[bravobrown]

If the highlight end is better, I don't think there is any reason at all to be pessimistic here. It is MUCH easier for the eye to see differences in highlights than similar differences in the darkest shadows. We will just need to take a more Canonic type of approach and get used to exposing to the right again. Personally, I find that easier than spending all of my time bringing up the shadows anyway. It's much more satisfying to save a seemingly blown out sky than getting a teensy bit of extra detail out of the shadows.

Just my opinion, but I think we're jumping the gun a little relying on Gordon's thoughts about DR (from a camera he doesn't own). He's really technical and comes up with some great stuff, but shouldn't we wait for an actual scientific controlled test? Even though DR typically drops with higher mgpxls, I'm guessing we may get a nice surprise once the real tests appear.

[*isteve]

If the highlight end is better, I don't think there is any reason at all to be pessimistic here. It is MUCH easier for the eye to see differences in highlights than similar differences in the darkest shadows. We will just need to take a more Canonic type of approach and get used to exposing to the right again. Personally, I find that easier than spending all of my time bringing up the shadows anyway. It's much more satisfying to save a seemingly blown out sky than getting a teensy bit of extra detail out of the shadows.

Just my opinion, but I think we're jumping the gun a little relying on Gordon's thoughts about DR (from a camera he doesn't own). He's really technical and comes up with some great stuff, but shouldn't we wait for an actual scientific controlled test? Even though DR typically drops with higher mgpxls, I'm guessing we may get a nice surprise once the real tests appear.

Well, having USED one I cant wait for the price to come down. They have fixed SO MANY issues with the K10D and the IQ is notably better at high ISO. I still havnt seen a valid comparison so I take all so called "measurements" to date with a pinch of salt.

Nor can I see the effects of Gordons calculations in actual images, in fact quite the opposite. In several samples I still have from testing the two back to back, the K20 has less shadow noise (lower SD according to Photoshop) at least at ISO200.

[regken]

Well, having USED one I cant wait for the price to come down. They have fixed SO MANY issues with the K10D and the IQ is notably better at high ISO. I still havnt seen a valid comparison so I take all so called "measurements" to date with a pinch of salt.

Nor can I see the effects of Gordons calculations in actual images, in fact quite the opposite. In several samples I still have from testing the two back to back, the K20 has less shadow noise (lower SD according to Photoshop) at least at ISO200.

i think you hit the nail on the head when you say you are waiting for the price to drop. Yes they fixed a lot of things but I think the verdict is still not in on how much the IQ has been improved. I've gone from "I hope I can hold out until the price comes down" to " I'll wait till it hits $900" to "I might get it when it hits $900".

[*isteve]

i think you hit the nail on the head when you say you are waiting for the price to drop. Yes they fixed a lot of things but I think the verdict is still not in on how much the IQ has been improved. I've gone from "I hope I can hold out until the price comes down" to " I'll wait till it hits $900" to "I might get it when it hits $900".

Agreed, the K10D works great in its favourite element, but the K20D just expands the envelope, but as I am displaying a few art prints around these days, the ability to print larger is a real plus. However after returning far too many 16-50's I have decided not to be an early adopter.

[jamesk8752]

If the highlight end is better, I don't think there is any reason at all to be pessimistic here. It is MUCH easier for the eye to see differences in highlights than similar differences in the darkest shadows. We will just need to take a more Canonic type of approach and get used to exposing to the right again. Personally, I find that easier than spending all of my time bringing up the shadows anyway. It's much more satisfying to save a seemingly blown out sky than getting a teensy bit of extra detail out of the shadows.

Just my opinion, but I think we're jumping the gun a little relying on Gordon's thoughts about DR (from a camera he doesn't own). He's really technical and comes up with some great stuff, but shouldn't we wait for an actual scientific controlled test? Even though DR typically drops with higher mgpxls, I'm guessing we may get a nice surprise once the real tests appear.

You make a couple of good points.

Regarding exposure, in my limited(so far) testing the K20D seems to expose a bit more to the right than my older cameras. Maybe Pentax has tightened up their exposure algorithm...

Regarding dynamic range, I agree that it's much to early to bail out based on Gordon's observations. We need to see if the noise floor issue is theoretical rather than observable in practical shooting. And if I'm right that the K20D exposes more to the right than its predecessors, its real-world DR will not suffer much, if at all.

Like iSteve, I continue to feel that the K20D is a nicely-sorted camera which improves on the K10D in many respects. I'm delighted with it!

Regards, Jim