Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-18-2009, 03:48 AM   #31
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
For $600 of K-x body - camera is rather good. If we say about cameras with CMOS sensor.

K-7 is noisier, but sharper and has more resolution and faster and WR and e.t.c.
D300s is the same.

But IQ of K-x for high ISO is rather cool. For my eyes, it's the best APS-C camera in terms of noise.

11-18-2009, 05:12 AM   #32
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Is it JPEG? I don't see that AA filter is weak in RAW files.
Yes, this is the jpegs from IR - a screenshot from the comparometer. Different RAW converters behave differently wrt. these artifacts. I haven't used the Pentax PPL converter much, but I've tried it on a few images where both the Adobe and Apple converters give a lot of artifacts, and PPL seems to fare better.
11-18-2009, 05:13 AM   #33
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
But IQ of K-x for high ISO is rather cool. For my eyes, it's the best APS-C camera in terms of noise.
I don't think it beats the 7D, at least not on the same print size.
11-18-2009, 05:15 AM   #34
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
...and with the K-x sensor in the K-7, they might've been sitting on the fence because another spec didn't meet their requirements (resolution, framerate, whatever...)
I saw a reviewer comment that the K-x had a pretty strong jello effect in video mode. Maybe the K-x sensor didn't quite meet the speed specs for the K-7?

11-18-2009, 05:23 AM   #35
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Yes, this is the jpegs from IR - a screenshot from the comparometer. Different RAW converters behave differently wrt. these artifacts. I haven't used the Pentax PPL converter much, but I've tried it on a few images where both the Adobe and Apple converters give a lot of artifacts, and PPL seems to fare better.
PPL has no good debayer and rather weak sharpness algorithm.
The results from PPL and in-camera JPEG are rather similiar.
11-18-2009, 05:24 AM   #36
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
I don't think it beats the 7D, at least not on the same print size.
It's hard to say. 7D has very narrow DR. K-x has huge DR.

Last edited by ogl; 11-18-2009 at 07:34 AM.
11-18-2009, 07:08 AM   #37
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by ricardobeat Quote
god, it justs smacks the k-7 in the face. i'm almost feeling sorry for having bought it
I guess I'll have to keep repeating this. The Comparometer photos are straight from the camera jpegs at default settings. For the K-7, that means no NR below ISO 3200 and not much at 3200-6400. The only way to do a fair comparison of noise is to download raw files and apply your own NR. If you don't want to bother, GordonBGood says the K-x is one ISO stop faster than the K-7. He also said there are lots of improvements yet to be made in digital technology. What that means I believe is that we should all expect our digital cameras to be one-upped every few months.

Last edited by audiobomber; 11-18-2009 at 07:17 AM.
11-18-2009, 07:17 AM   #38
Senior Member
unkabin's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Moorhead, MN
Posts: 176
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I guess I'll have to keep repeating this. The Comparometer photos are straight from the camera jpegs at default settings. For the K-7, that means no NR below ISO 3200. The only way to do a fair comparison of noise is to download raw files and apply your own NR. If you don't want to bother, GordonBGood says the K-x is one ISO stop faster than the K-7. He also said there are lots of improvements yet to be made in digital technology. What that means I believe is that we should all expect our digital cameras to be one-upped every few months.
Yes. If you shoot jpg, this is meaningful. If you shoot raw, it isn't. And I'll say again, if you shoot jpg, the K7 fares better from 800 down, equal I think at 1600 in the few comparisons I've seen. This 1600 (800) down range incorporates the vast majority of the photos taken by the vast majority of shooters, and rightfully so. In any camera, lower is better. Buying the Kx over the K7 only for the high ISO would be kind of like buying a Ferrari to take the kids to school. There are some bragging rights, I suppose. If, on the other hand, you're considering price, weight, the whole package, that's different. Then the Kx can make a lot of sense for a lot of people. But a lot of people on this forum seem completely spellbound by this stop or so of ISO advantage.

11-18-2009, 07:42 AM   #39
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by unkabin Quote
Yes. If you shoot jpg, this is meaningful. If you shoot raw, it isn't.
No, it isn't meaningful even then. Nikon and Canon use heavy NR. K-7 uses less than probably any camera, but it's adjustable. Anyone who prefers smooth jpegs over detailed but noisier can set the K-7 NR to Strong. What they can't do is tell what the resulting jpegs look like by using the Comparometer.

QuoteOriginally posted by unkabin Quote
Buying the Kx over the K7 only for the high ISO would be kind of like buying a Ferrari to take the kids to school. There are some bragging rights, I suppose.
This reminds me of a guy with a Subaru WRX boasting about outrunning a Ferrari Dino in the quarter mile. Great, but I'd much rather have the Ferrari.
Someone said the K-x was like having a Porsche engine in a Volkswagen. That's a good analogy.

QuoteOriginally posted by unkabin Quote
If, on the other hand, you're considering price, weight, the whole package, that's different. Then the Kx can make a lot of sense for a lot of people. But a lot of people on this forum seem completely spellbound by this stop or so of ISO advantage.
I agree, high ISO gets a huge amount of attention. How many camera owners don't even have an outboard flash?

People need to figure out what they want the camera to do, what's important for them and buy the right camera. And then expect that the next camera will outperform it, because the manufacturers are constantly trying to trump themselves and each other.
11-18-2009, 08:09 AM   #40
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
For me K-x is camera of paradoxes.
11-18-2009, 08:25 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sweden, Umea
Posts: 871
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
No, it isn't meaningful even then. Nikon and Canon use heavy NR. K-7 uses less than probably any camera, but it's adjustable. Anyone who prefers smooth jpegs over detailed but noisier can set the K-7 NR to Strong. What they can't do is tell what the resulting jpegs look like by using the Comparometer.



This reminds me of a guy with a Subaru WRX boasting about outrunning a Ferrari Dino in the quarter mile. Great, but I'd much rather have the Ferrari.
Someone said the K-x was like having a Porsche engine in a Volkswagen. That's a good analogy.



I agree, high ISO gets a huge amount of attention. How many camera owners don't even have an outboard flash?

People need to figure out what they want the camera to do, what's important for them and buy the right camera. And then expect that the next camera will outperform it, because the manufacturers are constantly trying to trump themselves and each other.
I dont wanna use flash if I can help it. Natural lighting is much better
11-18-2009, 08:30 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 2,869
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
I saw a reviewer comment that the K-x had a pretty strong jello effect in video mode. Maybe the K-x sensor didn't quite meet the speed specs for the K-7?
Didn't that come from the same review that said, in the very next sentence, that turning on SR significantly improved this? This is also an effect on pretty much every dslr with video, isn't it?
11-18-2009, 08:38 AM   #43
Senior Member
unkabin's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Moorhead, MN
Posts: 176
QuoteOriginally posted by melander Quote
I dont wanna use flash if I can help it. Natural lighting is much better
I don't want to shoot high ISO if I can help it. Low ISO is much better. The Kx looks great if you must shoot predominantly in high ISO. Most people don't. The Kx also seems like a great camera for the price in general, but high ISO ain't everything.
11-18-2009, 08:53 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
Yup, SR has a purpose

QuoteOriginally posted by pxpaulx Quote
Didn't that come from the same review that said, in the very next sentence, that turning on SR significantly improved this? This is also an effect on pretty much every dslr with video, isn't it?
Right. It took until the next paragraph but he did make a off-hand remark that the wobblies weren't really a problem if he used the camera properly (my snarky paraphrase).

And speaking of wobblies, I haven't heard from the IWW lately.

Never mind, I just found the headline: "Berry-Picking Vietnamese Guest Workers Go On Strike". Glad to hear that they're still hard at it.
11-18-2009, 08:55 AM   #45
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by unkabin Quote
I don't want to shoot high ISO if I can help it. Low ISO is much better. The Kx looks great if you must shoot predominantly in high ISO. Most people don't. The Kx also seems like a great camera for the price in general, but high ISO ain't everything.
I don't see that K20D is better than K-x at low ISO.
I mean IQ.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New K-7 Comparometer images PentaxPoke Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 07-30-2009 06:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top