K-7 sensor vs K20d sensor

nosnoop · 06-18-2009, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

recycling old slogans.

What's your point exactly?
We all know that it is based on K20D sensor. Whether you call it a "modification", "redesign", "improved" or whatever is entirely up to you. And GordonBGood's analysis of the K-7 RAW file did prove that the sensor layout was indeed new and redesigned, together with other details.

Quote:

...the rest is a marketing bs.
local marketing sidekicks (like Roland)...
repeating like parrots....

What you have written is also entirely your own speculation. And there is no point in getting personal in forum discussion

Mystic · 06-18-2009, 01:17 PM

A lot of us guessing from what we've seen in videos and previews, another part believes in something that they want to believe..
yet..

what the firmware 1.00 raw files are telling us?

in my opinion the noise is a little different, than in k20d, although it's similar..
but that's also only my guess/opinion

In my k20d in high iso's some blue banding is visible.. a lot more unnatractive noise is visible and from 3200 it's not acceptable..

is the noise visible in K-7 raw files show any of the characteristics of k20d?

is the change is the evidence of different noise reduction strategy? or it's evidence of different physical characteristics of the sensor?

according to "nosnoop" what GordonBGood analysis is telling?

could you elaborate more on this? or provide link..?

thanks everybody for a discussion.

ogl · 06-18-2009, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

which places ? the same people are repeating the same things in all those places... as for "that the photosites are larger with less space between them, that the microlenses are larger" it is the exactly same thing that was told about K20D sensor when people where crying about 14.6mp before K20D release... recycling old slogans.

deejjjaaaa has 3 days read-only at Russian penta-club for trolling. and immediately began to abase Samsung or Pentax here.
his attitude now - to make D300 higher, and to lower K-7, he wrote at Penta-Club only how good D300 and how K-7 pitiful.

Votesh · 06-18-2009, 09:11 PM

Who's roland? All I'm saying is that speculation/information from any source outside of the engineers and others in the know at pentax is unreliable at best at the moment. People that aren't in this inner circle are merely guessing at the differences between the two sensors.

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

local marketing sidekicks (like Roland) are not privy to those details either... they only have an access to marketing materials ahead of us, that's it...

ogl · 06-18-2009, 09:30 PM

Falk Lumo: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D

maybe it's interesting

**Ash** · 06-19-2009, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Falk Lumo: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D

maybe it's interesting

Hard to know what to make of his review.
K-7's still in its 'beta' phase although I'm not surprised anyway.
From the results I'm hard pressed to agree with him though that the K20D has the slight edge over the K-7. Quite identical...

Perhaps a *little* more chroma noise in K-7's ISO 800 and 1600 shots compared with the K20D, but the K-7's were just a touch sharper.

Mystic · 06-19-2009, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Falk Lumo: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D

maybe it's interesting

hmm.. interesting.. but really..
difficult to say anything..

same observations as "ash"

falconeye · 06-19-2009, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Mystic

hmm.. interesting.. but really..
difficult to say anything..

same observations as "ash"

I thought that the conclusion is clear if you combine it with the findings of GordonBGood:

The sensors of K-7 and K20D, as different as they may be, have the same read-out noise from the variable gain amplifiers and the same overall noise from the full well capacity.

What remains to be studied is a better control of large scale artifacts such like banding which is very important in practice and I feel, the K-7 has a clear edge here.

Mystic · 06-19-2009, 07:04 AM

well I believe the best thing is that so much detail is preserved even in the highest ISO numbers, so as the technology will progress we will see less and less noise.

if to compare canon 5d and 5d mk II.. the sensors are of the same size.. but the noise levels differ..

so k-7 of today and k-7 of tomorrow might experience just about the same leap..

having in mind that they already are capapble of capturing so many details....

also when production models will appear the absence of blue banding in high ISOs will make a lot of difference, when comparing with k20d.. the noise in k20d is unattractive while the noise in k-7 is more pleasant to the eye..

thanks Falconeye for the test.

deejjjaaaa · 06-19-2009, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by nosnoop

And GordonBGood's analysis of the K-7 RAW file did prove that the sensor layout was indeed new and redesigned, together with other details.

no,

I 'd quote Falk here

Quote:

I thought that the conclusion is clear if you combine it with the findings of GordonBGood:

The sensors of K-7 and K20D, as different as they may be, have the same read-out noise from the variable gain amplifiers and the same overall noise from the full well capacity.

What remains to be studied is a better control of large scale artifacts such like banding which is very important in practice and I feel, the K-7 has a clear edge here.

so it is not a new sensor, it is an improvement of existing one (faster readout and no banding)... and any changes in IR/AA/CFA that are laying in front of the sensor surface should not be attributed to the sensor design...

ogl · 06-19-2009, 10:31 AM

After all this pictures it seems to me that sensor is not a bit tweaked...It's NEW sensor and e t.c.
AA filter is weaker than K20D's too. IMO.
Experiences with the new K-7 Camera - Page 8 - ClubSNAP Photography Forums

jeffkrol · 06-19-2009, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

no,

I 'd quote Falk here

so it is not a new sensor, it is an improvement of existing one (faster readout and no banding)... and any changes in IR/AA/CFA that are laying in front of the sensor surface should not be attributed to the sensor design...

Splitting hairs here a bit. Granted CFA/AA filter/ hot mirror ect. are minor tweaks but they do come as a package (particularly the CFA). 4 channel vs 2 channel readout also implies a "new" sensor design... Maybe "new and improved (just)" is appropriate.

deejjjaaaa · 06-19-2009, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

Splitting hairs here a bit. Granted CFA/AA filter/ hot mirror ect. are minor tweaks but they do come as a package (particularly the CFA).

yes, of course, like *istD, *istDLs, *istDSs all were different sensors because they had different sets of glass&plastic in front of them...

Originally posted by jeffkrol

4 channel vs 2 channel readout also implies a "new" sensor design... Maybe "new and improved (just)" is appropriate.

that part (part) of the sensor might of course be completely redesigned to make readout faster and deal w/ some banding... anyways we have to wait just ~2 weeks and we shall see what is the difference.

jeffkrol · 06-19-2009, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

yes, of course, like *istD, *istDLs, *istDSs all were different sensors because they had different sets of glass&plastic in front of them...

that part (part) of the sensor might of course be completely redesigned to make readout faster and deal w/ some banding... anyways we have to wait just ~2 weeks and we shall see what is the difference.

So if a sensor switches from RGB pattern to CMY pattern is it a different enough sensor?
I suspect with the D vs ds/dl the Sony catalog would probably have a different part number.. but just a guess...

Pentaxor · 06-19-2009, 07:04 PM

as long as it's an APS-C architecture, be it Canon, Nikon or Pentax, they cannot be considered using a new sensor but rather as a modification or improvement of the sensor designs built for the APS-C body. atleast that what appears to be the definition. the only way to know that it's a new sensor is to see the sensor itself. one can either believe it's a new sensor or not, not limited on the results but knowing sensor architecture design, and I don't think that we or there are one of those geeks here in this forum to explain and investigate that to us.

if some people want a new sensor design, then they should ask Pentax build a 30x22 size of frame design above the APS-C design. atleast, that's the surest way of saying that it's an improvement in sensor frame size architecture. nothing new.

06-18-2009, 01:17 PM	#17
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490 Original Poster	well A lot of us guessing from what we've seen in videos and previews, another part believes in something that they want to believe.. yet.. what the firmware 1.00 raw files are telling us? in my opinion the noise is a little different, than in k20d, although it's similar.. but that's also only my guess/opinion In my k20d in high iso's some blue banding is visible.. a lot more unnatractive noise is visible and from 3200 it's not acceptable.. is the noise visible in K-7 raw files show any of the characteristics of k20d? is the change is the evidence of different noise reduction strategy? or it's evidence of different physical characteristics of the sensor? according to "nosnoop" what GordonBGood analysis is telling? could you elaborate more on this? or provide link..? thanks everybody for a discussion.

06-19-2009, 04:28 AM	#22
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490 Original Poster	hmm Originally posted by ogl Falk Lumo: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D maybe it's interesting hmm.. interesting.. but really.. difficult to say anything.. same observations as "ash"

06-19-2009, 07:04 AM	#24
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490 Original Poster	.. well I believe the best thing is that so much detail is preserved even in the highest ISO numbers, so as the technology will progress we will see less and less noise. if to compare canon 5d and 5d mk II.. the sensors are of the same size.. but the noise levels differ.. so k-7 of today and k-7 of tomorrow might experience just about the same leap.. having in mind that they already are capapble of capturing so many details.... also when production models will appear the absence of blue banding in high ISOs will make a lot of difference, when comparing with k20d.. the noise in k20d is unattractive while the noise in k-7 is more pleasant to the eye.. thanks Falconeye for the test.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x Sony Sensor vs K-7 Samsung Sensor	karl79	Video Recording and Processing	9	09-23-2010 09:35 AM
Does K20D has orientation sensor?	sharathk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	09-04-2009 08:53 PM
CMOS Sensor - K20d	ruemiser	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	02-12-2008 10:24 AM
Sensor cleaning: Pec-Pads or Sensor Swabs	gadgetnu	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	29	09-24-2007 10:52 AM
Sensor cleaning > Sensor Swab > void warranty?	Twinky	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	07-28-2007 01:10 AM

06-18-2009, 12:49 PM	#16
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa recycling old slogans. What's your point exactly? We all know that it is based on K20D sensor. Whether you call it a "modification", "redesign", "improved" or whatever is entirely up to you. And GordonBGood's analysis of the K-7 RAW file did prove that the sensor layout was indeed new and redesigned, together with other details. Quote: ...the rest is a marketing bs. local marketing sidekicks (like Roland)... repeating like parrots.... What you have written is also entirely your own speculation. And there is no point in getting personal in forum discussion

06-18-2009, 07:54 PM	#18
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa which places ? the same people are repeating the same things in all those places... as for "that the photosites are larger with less space between them, that the microlenses are larger" it is the exactly same thing that was told about K20D sensor when people where crying about 14.6mp before K20D release... recycling old slogans. deejjjaaaa has 3 days read-only at Russian penta-club for trolling. and immediately began to abase Samsung or Pentax here. his attitude now - to make D300 higher, and to lower K-7, he wrote at Penta-Club only how good D300 and how K-7 pitiful.

06-18-2009, 09:11 PM	#19
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	Who's roland? All I'm saying is that speculation/information from any source outside of the engineers and others in the know at pentax is unreliable at best at the moment. People that aren't in this inner circle are merely guessing at the differences between the two sensors. Originally posted by deejjjaaaa local marketing sidekicks (like Roland) are not privy to those details either... they only have an access to marketing materials ahead of us, that's it...

06-18-2009, 09:30 PM	#20
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Falk Lumo: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D maybe it's interesting

06-19-2009, 02:48 AM	#21
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by ogl Falk Lumo: Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D maybe it's interesting Hard to know what to make of his review. K-7's still in its 'beta' phase although I'm not surprised anyway. From the results I'm hard pressed to agree with him though that the K20D has the slight edge over the K-7. Quite identical... Perhaps a little more chroma noise in K-7's ISO 800 and 1600 shots compared with the K20D, but the K-7's were just a touch sharper.

06-19-2009, 06:27 AM	#23
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Mystic hmm.. interesting.. but really.. difficult to say anything.. same observations as "ash" I thought that the conclusion is clear if you combine it with the findings of GordonBGood: The sensors of K-7 and K20D, as different as they may be, have the same read-out noise from the variable gain amplifiers and the same overall noise from the full well capacity. What remains to be studied is a better control of large scale artifacts such like banding which is very important in practice and I feel, the K-7 has a clear edge here.

06-19-2009, 07:28 AM	#25
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by nosnoop And GordonBGood's analysis of the K-7 RAW file did prove that the sensor layout was indeed new and redesigned, together with other details. no, I 'd quote Falk here Quote: I thought that the conclusion is clear if you combine it with the findings of GordonBGood: The sensors of K-7 and K20D, as different as they may be, have the same read-out noise from the variable gain amplifiers and the same overall noise from the full well capacity. What remains to be studied is a better control of large scale artifacts such like banding which is very important in practice and I feel, the K-7 has a clear edge here. so it is not a new sensor, it is an improvement of existing one (faster readout and no banding)... and any changes in IR/AA/CFA that are laying in front of the sensor surface should not be attributed to the sensor design...

06-19-2009, 10:31 AM	#26
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	After all this pictures it seems to me that sensor is not a bit tweaked...It's NEW sensor and e t.c. AA filter is weaker than K20D's too. IMO. Experiences with the new K-7 Camera - Page 8 - ClubSNAP Photography Forums

06-19-2009, 10:53 AM	#27
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa no, I 'd quote Falk here so it is not a new sensor, it is an improvement of existing one (faster readout and no banding)... and any changes in IR/AA/CFA that are laying in front of the sensor surface should not be attributed to the sensor design... Splitting hairs here a bit. Granted CFA/AA filter/ hot mirror ect. are minor tweaks but they do come as a package (particularly the CFA). 4 channel vs 2 channel readout also implies a "new" sensor design... Maybe "new and improved (just)" is appropriate.

06-19-2009, 11:15 AM	#28
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by jeffkrol Splitting hairs here a bit. Granted CFA/AA filter/ hot mirror ect. are minor tweaks but they do come as a package (particularly the CFA). yes, of course, like istD, istDLs, istDSs all were different sensors because they had different sets of glass&plastic in front of them... Originally posted by jeffkrol 4 channel vs 2 channel readout also implies a "new" sensor design... Maybe "new and improved (just)" is appropriate. that part (part*) of the sensor might of course be completely redesigned to make readout faster and deal w/ some banding... anyways we have to wait just ~2 weeks and we shall see what is the difference.

06-19-2009, 01:16 PM	#29
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa yes, of course, like istD, istDLs, istDSs all were different sensors because they had different sets of glass&plastic in front of them... that part (part*) of the sensor might of course be completely redesigned to make readout faster and deal w/ some banding... anyways we have to wait just ~2 weeks and we shall see what is the difference. So if a sensor switches from RGB pattern to CMY pattern is it a different enough sensor? I suspect with the D vs ds/dl the Sony catalog would probably have a different part number.. but just a guess...

06-19-2009, 07:04 PM	#30
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	as long as it's an APS-C architecture, be it Canon, Nikon or Pentax, they cannot be considered using a new sensor but rather as a modification or improvement of the sensor designs built for the APS-C body. atleast that what appears to be the definition. the only way to know that it's a new sensor is to see the sensor itself. one can either believe it's a new sensor or not, not limited on the results but knowing sensor architecture design, and I don't think that we or there are one of those geeks here in this forum to explain and investigate that to us. if some people want a new sensor design, then they should ask Pentax build a 30x22 size of frame design above the APS-C design. atleast, that's the surest way of saying that it's an improvement in sensor frame size architecture. nothing new.