Originally posted by deadwolfbones It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII.
I'd like to see some raw images (they must be in there somewhere) because these jpegs don't look that good to me: heavy NR (look at the red napkin, the patterns on it are completely obliterated by ISO 1600) and bad demosaïcing artifacts (look at the markings on bottle on the right: false colors everywhere)... it maybe my eyes but on my calibrated monitor, the 5DMkII (and even MkI) and D700 look quite a bit better with much less NR and no artifacts I can spot.
Edit: I found the raw and downloaded a few from various brands and models, just develop them in LR or RawTherapee with 0 NR, 0 sharpening or other corrections and then one can make a better comparison...
K-x stands its ground very well in the APS-C category (best in class?) but still is no FF (compare to D700 or original 5D for comparable resolution, 5DMkII has higher noise and higher resolution) and still has traces of NR in raw at ISO above 1600.
So the
turned to
on the raw side!
On the other hand, just look at the images at ISO 1600&3200 from k-x and 7D... clearly, resolution has a hefty price in terms of noise and it really looks like NR is mandatory to get anything decent at higher ISO, not really what I would call a "class leading performance", except if you're looking only at resolution. My choice goes to K-x for IQ.
Last edited by lol101; 11-17-2009 at 03:52 PM.