[John Cafarella]

..but not with final version hardware, still it looks quite good.

http://falklumo.blogspot.com/

Ah, guess where I saw it first.....

[ogl]

It's good, but SENSOR is different. Not serial.

[lol101]

It's good, but SENSOR is different. Not serial.

Different? How do you know?

Different as in "night and day" or as in "some minor tweaks are still possible"?

[Jaleel]

Different? How do you know?

Different as in "night and day" or as in "some minor tweaks are still possible"?

ogl knows everything

[ogl]

Different? How do you know?

Different as in "night and day" or as in "some minor tweaks are still possible"?

Disclaimer:
Preliminary test, firmware is final but the sensor in my preproduction camera is said by Pentax to be different from the final one!

[sezme]

Looking at the RAW files, it appears that these are all about 1 stop underexposed. Therefore, I consider the ISO 3200 noise representative of a well exposed image at ISO 6400. Therefore ... Looks good! The ISO 6400 shot has way more noise than the 3200 shot, but again, 1 stop underexposed so really it can be considered pushed to ISO 12800 - and not all that different from K10D at ISO 1600.

Thanks to Falk Lumo. These are the best presented high ISO shots so far.

[PentaxPoke]

Yes, especially considering that underexposure emphasizes the noise, these are quite good!

[RMabo]

Firmware 1.0 in beta cameras means there is still beta hardware and not production hardware, this means - beta versions of the sensor and not production version of the sensor.

As I have said so many times before, we need production cameras with production hardware and with production firmware. Then we can judge the true image quality.

[Stefan Carey]

Is every brand of camera afflicted by so many false leads created by poor quality images supposedly representative, but in actual fact pre-1.0 firmware or hardware? I am seeing the same pattern here as the K-m: some of the initial photos are rubbish, than a few good ones produced on a non-English website, etc. etc. then is lots of silly talk about image quality as if beta material is final.


Why does this seem to happen each time they release a new camera? The result is that some might not realise they photos are nowhere near as good as they can be. (Pentax image quality is mostly superb and will always be.) Is the intention to fuel debate? It seems to me maybe Pentax (or the camera industry's marketing traditions?) is shooting itself in the foot with a well loaded K-7 by not controlling what is published more tightly. As analogy, you do not release a book to selected readers, then fine tune it, and then sell it.

Perhaps it lies in the fact that camera beta testing is done publicly and then seized upon by those do not understand what beta testing is, or prefer not to understand for their own reasons. This can create posts like this: "I am concerned about model XYZ image quality" before the camera is released. Lots of pointless discussions ensue.

But what Pentax might have done is to lower expectations at a time when people might be holding off to buy the new model because the title of the post creates a first impression in the list of posts. Some might change their mind. Who knows if I am right? People's main fear is poor image quality. Why not think about if or how this fear created by early mediocre photos way below what the camera is capable of translate into sales losses pre-release and work backwards?

Or perhaps my whole question is unimportant because the vast bulk of customers do not visit this or other technically oriented sites (IMHO)?

Would it be better to exercise tighter control at the start? What do other brands do?

[GaryM]

Is every brand of camera afflicted by so many false leads created by poor quality images supposedly representative, but in actual fact pre-1.0 firmware? Some I think could even be deliberate brand assassination. I wonder.

Why does this seem to happen every single time they release a camera. The result is that some might not realise they photos are nowhere near as good as they can be.

Is the intention to fuel debate? It seems to me Pentax are shooting themselves in the foot. Then you get posts with the title "I am concerned about model XYZ image quality" before the camera released with lots of pointless discussions. But what you have done is to lower expectations when people might be hlding off to uy the new model, and then they will change their mind. Who knows if I am right?

People main fear is poor image quality. Why not think about if or how this fear translates into sales losses pre-release and work backwards?

Would it be better to exercise tighter control at the start? What do other brands do?

This is a non-issue. The number of people debating this online is a tiny tiny tiny tiny percentage of the market. The professional reviews will have a *vastly* bigger impact on the sales of the K-7 than any pre-release chatter in online photo forums.

[jeffkrol]

Ah, guess where I saw it first.....

Let me guess.... here:
Yesterday, 02:28 PM
K-7 High Iso noise in tungsten light with final firmware
I did a very quick and dirty test of K-7 high iso noise in tungsten light with final firmware.

All the full size original samples are linked from here:

Falk Lumo: K-7 final firmware and tungsten high iso noise


I've yet to prepare a real noise test where I can compare K20D and K-7 side by side.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/63439-my-k-7-alpha...rt-blog-4.html

[Rondec]

I think the real question is why you are shooting high ISO. If you are taking photos at night of static objects, you are much better using a tripod and using low ISO. The place where high ISO helps is when there is some light, and you need a fast shutter speed (for example sports) and you can't use a flash. Looks to me like the K-7 will do OK, but certainly not be a whole lot better than the K20.

[jimby]

Perhaps it lies in the fact that camera beta testing is done publicly and then seized upon by those do not understand what beta testing is, or prefer not to understand for their own reasons. This can create posts like this: "I am concerned about model XYZ image quality" before the camera is released. Lots of pointless discussions ensue.

Yes.

Most people do not understand that a large part of digital camera development is software development. Many people don't understand what firmware is, or what can or can't be done in firmware. Nor do they understand the concepts of Alpha or Beta software. Most have no idea about such practices as software regression testing, or why adding a seemingly minor change can cause a big delay in development.

You see this in people asking for another firmware update for the K20D. Ain't gonna happen. The engineers are finishing up the K7 and moving on to the next camera in the pipeline; they are not going back to rewrite code for the K20D.

And finally, many don't understand that in a digital camera the hardware, cpu performance, bus speed, processing pipeline, firmware etc. are very tightly integrated.

Cameras are no longer mechanical boxes for holding strips of film

[wll]

I think the real question is why you are shooting high ISO. If you are taking photos at night of static objects, you are much better using a tripod and using low ISO. The place where high ISO helps is when there is some light, and you need a fast shutter speed (for example sports) and you can't use a flash. Looks to me like the K-7 will do OK, but certainly not be a whole lot better than the K20.

Rondec,

For me, the high iso is important for concert stuff. Sometimes with my DS I was shooting 1600iso and 1/8th ... very hard to do when you have folks on stage "rock'n out" :-)

I want a good 3200-4500iso if possible. I also just started using TAV mode and think it will be very useful. Setting my lowest shutter speed to 1/30th and letting the auto iso (I have mine set to 1600-4500) do its thing.

Just my thoughts.

wll