K-7 - K20D High ISO comparison Shots

Ray Pulley · 05-22-2009, 03:29 PM

K7¸ß¸ÐÌá¸ßÁËÂð£¿K7ÓëK20D¸ß¸Ð¿ØÔë±íÏÖÔ*Í¼PK£¬Ã¨É÷Èë - ÎÞ¼ÉÂÛÌ³

Pre-release firmware, so this is not really fair, but it reminded me how good the K20D is at 1600.

Apologies if this is a dupe.

Ray

GLXLR · 05-22-2009, 03:38 PM

Looks fake to me. Why would the sensor perform worse than the predecessor? (yet at same resolution)

soalle · 05-22-2009, 03:40 PM

Pre-production firmware!

Ray Pulley · 05-22-2009, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by GLXLR

Looks fake to me. Why would the sensor perform worse than the predecessor? (yet at same resolution)

Because it is not the same sensor.

It is a 4 channel readout, which is needed to get the frame rate up to the 5fps. This has noise implications that a 2 channel readout does not have (the K20D is 2 channel).

We also have all new circuits and a new Prime processor, new electronics insise (different noise and inerference charachteristics), different wiring, a new SR mechanism, new algorithms, etc..

This K-7 also does not have the final firmware and processing algorithms, and also may not even have final production circuit boards in it.

There is no surprise about it being a bit noisier than the K20D.

The initial K20D images were noisier than the final production release as well. In fact, IIRC, quite similar to what you see here on the K-7.

Ray

nosnoop · 05-22-2009, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

Pre-release firmware, so this is not really fair

Not only is it not fair, it is quite pointless, really.
Early firmware output has very little bearing as to what the final firmware output would look like. Remember the horribly noisy first photos leaked for the K10D?

Ray Pulley · 05-22-2009, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by nosnoop

Not only is it not fair, it is quite pointless, really.
Early firmware output has very little bearing as to what the final firmware output would look like. Remember the horribly noisy first photos leaked for the K10D?

Seems as if we have lots of "forum police" here nowadays. It is starting to feel a lot like the "other" forum here these days.

Have you been objecting to the thousands of pointless threads speculating about the features and performance of the K-7, many even before ANYTHING was known for sure?

If you think a thread is pointless, feel free to NOT read it.

Ray

joerg · 05-22-2009, 05:20 PM

I know that this is not final firmware, but wow, the k20d did quite a bit better here. Pentax has fallen behind just a bit in noise levels so for this camera to go backwards or even stay the same might not be a good thing. Also seems to me that a firmware update will have less to do with sensor performance and more to do with changes to noise reduction.

Ted1212 · 05-22-2009, 06:23 PM

The K7 noise seems less destructive, look at the blacks under the flash for example. The K7 is usable up to 2500 on these.

ricardobeat · 05-22-2009, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

Because it is not the same sensor.

It is a 4 channel readout, which is needed to get the frame rate up to the 5fps. This has noise implications that a 2 channel readout does not have (the K20D is 2 channel).

We also have all new circuits and a new Prime processor, new electronics insise (different noise and inerference charachteristics), different wiring, a new SR mechanism, new algorithms, etc..

This K-7 also does not have the final firmware and processing algorithms, and also may not even have final production circuit boards in it.

There is no surprise about it being a bit noisier than the K20D.

The initial K20D images were noisier than the final production release as well. In fact, IIRC, quite similar to what you see here on the K-7.

Ray

Those are visibly not production-quality shots. You wouldn't accept that ISO 6400 noise from a P&S. Wait until someone has a production model in his hands, with final firware, to make your comparisons.

According to most reviews the 4 channel readout should offer better noise performance. People "in the know" have mentioned that it can even make images too buttery for a pentaxian

er1kksen · 05-22-2009, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

Seems as if we have lots of "forum police" here nowadays. It is starting to feel a lot like the "other" forum here these days.

Have you been objecting to the thousands of pointless threads speculating about the features and performance of the K-7, many even before ANYTHING was known for sure?

If you think a thread is pointless, feel free to NOT read it.

Ray

I think he was referring to the comparison between images from a K20D and images from a K-7 with preproduction firmware as pointless, not this thread. In fact, he might agree that this thread has a useful point indeed: to point out that the mentioned comparison is in fact pointless, hopefully staving off any underinformed naysayers who might jump on the comparison and start bashing the K-7 as a result.

KungPOW · 05-22-2009, 07:39 PM

Some speculation follows...

Pentax may have the K-7 sensor and software "tweaked" in the beta test bodies to do next to no noise reduction. They might even have that part of the software turned off.

Why?

So they have a bunch of testers send back all their high ISO shots giving Pentax a large sample of typical High ISO shots to use to adjust the noise reduction software.

I expect software/image engineers spend hours with thousands of images like the ISO 1600 K-7 image here and they adjust and tweak until they get the best overall results with a wide variety of images from many different shooters with many different styles. I'm not sugesting they tweak each individual image, but rather run them through the software in bulk, and review the results.

Then when everone is happy with how the software cleans the image, it becomes firmware.

Again, I don't know anything about the process, this is just speculation.

er1kksen · 05-22-2009, 08:45 PM

I think it's pretty obvious from the comparison shots that that preproduction K-7 is doing a LOT of noise reduction, actually. And not the type I'm looking for. Fortunately, by the time I'm able to afford a K-7 I should also have a more capable computer and be back to shooting RAW.

robgo2 · 05-22-2009, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

Seems as if we have lots of "forum police" here nowadays. It is starting to feel a lot like the "other" forum here these days.

Have you been objecting to the thousands of pointless threads speculating about the features and performance of the K-7, many even before ANYTHING was known for sure?

If you think a thread is pointless, feel free to NOT read it.

Ray

So now you're policing the police. This thread is a perfect example of how nasty rumors get started. Not one of us has any idea how these images were made and whether they are genuine. You have every right to post them, but others have the right to call you on it.

Rob

ricardobeat · 05-22-2009, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

I think it's pretty obvious from the comparison shots that that preproduction K-7 is doing a LOT of noise reduction, actually. And not the type I'm looking for. Fortunately, by the time I'm able to afford a K-7 I should also have a more capable computer and be back to shooting RAW.

It looks compressed actually, the blur makes it look less noisy, but you can notice there is absolutely no chroma noise reduction going on.

jaad75 · 05-22-2009, 11:02 PM

I think it looks better than K20D in these samples, the problem is that you people don't know where to look... K20D cuts deep shadows very quickly and there is absolutely no detail to recover, K-7 seems to have more DR over there. Take a look at blue and red channels in both cameras - K-7 has much less blue noise, so it's gonna look much better with boosted blue channel when compensating for tungsten (which is where you would probably use higher ISO anyway). I can already make this early pre-production sample look better than the one made with K20D - I'm really thrilled to see what they can archive when they finally tweak the software and hardware to the optimal level...

05-22-2009, 03:29 PM	#1
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 497	K-7 - K20D High ISO comparison Shots K7¸ß¸ÐÌá¸ßÁËÂð£¿K7ÓëK20D¸ß¸Ð¿ØÔë±íÏÖÔ*Í¼PK£¬Ã¨É÷Èë - ÎÞ¼ÉÂÛÌ³ Pre-release firmware, so this is not really fair, but it reminded me how good the K20D is at 1600. Apologies if this is a dupe. Ray

05-22-2009, 03:44 PM	#4
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 497 Original Poster	Lots of Reasons Originally posted by GLXLR Looks fake to me. Why would the sensor perform worse than the predecessor? (yet at same resolution) Because it is not the same sensor. It is a 4 channel readout, which is needed to get the frame rate up to the 5fps. This has noise implications that a 2 channel readout does not have (the K20D is 2 channel). We also have all new circuits and a new Prime processor, new electronics insise (different noise and inerference charachteristics), different wiring, a new SR mechanism, new algorithms, etc.. This K-7 also does not have the final firmware and processing algorithms, and also may not even have final production circuit boards in it. There is no surprise about it being a bit noisier than the K20D. The initial K20D images were noisier than the final production release as well. In fact, IIRC, quite similar to what you see here on the K-7. Ray

05-22-2009, 04:34 PM	#6
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 497 Original Poster	Pointless? Originally posted by nosnoop Not only is it not fair, it is quite pointless, really. Early firmware output has very little bearing as to what the final firmware output would look like. Remember the horribly noisy first photos leaked for the K10D? Seems as if we have lots of "forum police" here nowadays. It is starting to feel a lot like the "other" forum here these days. Have you been objecting to the thousands of pointless threads speculating about the features and performance of the K-7, many even before ANYTHING was known for sure? If you think a thread is pointless, feel free to NOT read it. Ray

05-22-2009, 08:53 PM	#13
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Ray Pulley Seems as if we have lots of "forum police" here nowadays. It is starting to feel a lot like the "other" forum here these days. Have you been objecting to the thousands of pointless threads speculating about the features and performance of the K-7, many even before ANYTHING was known for sure? If you think a thread is pointless, feel free to NOT read it. Ray So now you're policing the police. This thread is a perfect example of how nasty rumors get started. Not one of us has any idea how these images were made and whether they are genuine. You have every right to post them, but others have the right to call you on it. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 05-23-2009 at 01:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-r vs K-x high ISO comparison	soalle	Pentax News and Rumors	7	11-01-2010 04:55 AM
K7 high iso noise comparison	cyy47	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	08-02-2010 02:19 AM
High ISO comparison, Pentax KX and Canon T1i	interested_observer	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	05-07-2010 12:41 PM
Kx / K20D comparison on high ISO	kasv	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	12-02-2009 03:26 PM
k20d High ISO test shots 200-6400	PentaxPoke	Pentax DSLR Discussion	44	04-27-2009 08:02 PM

05-22-2009, 03:38 PM	#2
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Looks fake to me. Why would the sensor perform worse than the predecessor? (yet at same resolution)

05-22-2009, 03:40 PM	#3
soalle Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Italy -> Canada -> Belgium -> Switzerland Photos: Gallery Posts: 233	Pre-production firmware!

05-22-2009, 03:50 PM	#5
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by Ray Pulley Pre-release firmware, so this is not really fair Not only is it not fair, it is quite pointless, really. Early firmware output has very little bearing as to what the final firmware output would look like. Remember the horribly noisy first photos leaked for the K10D?

05-22-2009, 05:20 PM	#7
joerg Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 50	I know that this is not final firmware, but wow, the k20d did quite a bit better here. Pentax has fallen behind just a bit in noise levels so for this camera to go backwards or even stay the same might not be a good thing. Also seems to me that a firmware update will have less to do with sensor performance and more to do with changes to noise reduction.

05-22-2009, 06:23 PM	#8
Ted1212 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: US Posts: 41	The K7 noise seems less destructive, look at the blacks under the flash for example. The K7 is usable up to 2500 on these.

05-22-2009, 07:13 PM	#9
ricardobeat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brazil Posts: 376	Originally posted by Ray Pulley Because it is not the same sensor. It is a 4 channel readout, which is needed to get the frame rate up to the 5fps. This has noise implications that a 2 channel readout does not have (the K20D is 2 channel). We also have all new circuits and a new Prime processor, new electronics insise (different noise and inerference charachteristics), different wiring, a new SR mechanism, new algorithms, etc.. This K-7 also does not have the final firmware and processing algorithms, and also may not even have final production circuit boards in it. There is no surprise about it being a bit noisier than the K20D. The initial K20D images were noisier than the final production release as well. In fact, IIRC, quite similar to what you see here on the K-7. Ray Those are visibly not production-quality shots. You wouldn't accept that ISO 6400 noise from a P&S. Wait until someone has a production model in his hands, with final firware, to make your comparisons. According to most reviews the 4 channel readout should offer better noise performance. People "in the know" have mentioned that it can even make images too buttery for a pentaxian

05-22-2009, 07:17 PM	#10
er1kksen Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by Ray Pulley Seems as if we have lots of "forum police" here nowadays. It is starting to feel a lot like the "other" forum here these days. Have you been objecting to the thousands of pointless threads speculating about the features and performance of the K-7, many even before ANYTHING was known for sure? If you think a thread is pointless, feel free to NOT read it. Ray I think he was referring to the comparison between images from a K20D and images from a K-7 with preproduction firmware as pointless, not this thread. In fact, he might agree that this thread has a useful point indeed: to point out that the mentioned comparison is in fact pointless, hopefully staving off any underinformed naysayers who might jump on the comparison and start bashing the K-7 as a result.

05-22-2009, 07:39 PM	#11
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Some speculation follows... Pentax may have the K-7 sensor and software "tweaked" in the beta test bodies to do next to no noise reduction. They might even have that part of the software turned off. Why? So they have a bunch of testers send back all their high ISO shots giving Pentax a large sample of typical High ISO shots to use to adjust the noise reduction software. I expect software/image engineers spend hours with thousands of images like the ISO 1600 K-7 image here and they adjust and tweak until they get the best overall results with a wide variety of images from many different shooters with many different styles. I'm not sugesting they tweak each individual image, but rather run them through the software in bulk, and review the results. Then when everone is happy with how the software cleans the image, it becomes firmware. Again, I don't know anything about the process, this is just speculation.

05-22-2009, 08:45 PM	#12
er1kksen Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	I think it's pretty obvious from the comparison shots that that preproduction K-7 is doing a LOT of noise reduction, actually. And not the type I'm looking for. Fortunately, by the time I'm able to afford a K-7 I should also have a more capable computer and be back to shooting RAW.

05-22-2009, 10:41 PM	#14
ricardobeat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brazil Posts: 376	Originally posted by er1kksen I think it's pretty obvious from the comparison shots that that preproduction K-7 is doing a LOT of noise reduction, actually. And not the type I'm looking for. Fortunately, by the time I'm able to afford a K-7 I should also have a more capable computer and be back to shooting RAW. It looks compressed actually, the blur makes it look less noisy, but you can notice there is absolutely no chroma noise reduction going on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2009, 11:02 PM	#15
jaad75 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cracow Posts: 457	I think it looks better than K20D in these samples, the problem is that you people don't know where to look... K20D cuts deep shadows very quickly and there is absolutely no detail to recover, K-7 seems to have more DR over there. Take a look at blue and red channels in both cameras - K-7 has much less blue noise, so it's gonna look much better with boosted blue channel when compensating for tungsten (which is where you would probably use higher ISO anyway). I can already make this early pre-production sample look better than the one made with K20D - I'm really thrilled to see what they can archive when they finally tweak the software and hardware to the optimal level...