K-x Comparometer

ogl · 11-18-2009, 03:48 AM

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.

gazonk · 11-18-2009, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by ogl

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.

gazonk · 11-18-2009, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by ogl

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.

gazonk · 11-18-2009, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by knoxploration

...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?

ogl · 11-18-2009, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

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.

ogl · 11-18-2009, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

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.

audiobomber · 11-18-2009, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by ricardobeat

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.

unkabin · 11-18-2009, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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.

audiobomber · 11-18-2009, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by unkabin

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.

Originally posted by unkabin

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.

Originally posted by unkabin

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.

ogl · 11-18-2009, 08:09 AM

For me K-x is camera of paradoxes.

melander · 11-18-2009, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

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

pxpaulx · 11-18-2009, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

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?

unkabin · 11-18-2009, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by melander

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.

glanglois · 11-18-2009, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by pxpaulx

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.

ogl · 11-18-2009, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by unkabin

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.

11-18-2009, 05:24 AM	#36
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by gazonk 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, 08:53 AM	#44
glanglois Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Madison, Wis., USA Posts: 1,506	Yup, SR has a purpose Originally posted by pxpaulx 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.

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

11-18-2009, 03:48 AM	#31
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl 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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl 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
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by knoxploration ...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 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by gazonk 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, 07:08 AM	#37
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by ricardobeat 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
unkabin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Moorhead, MN Posts: 176	Originally posted by audiobomber 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
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by unkabin 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. Originally posted by unkabin 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. Originally posted by unkabin 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 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	For me K-x is camera of paradoxes.

11-18-2009, 08:25 AM	#41
melander Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Sweden, Umea Posts: 876	Originally posted by audiobomber 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
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Originally posted by gazonk 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
unkabin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Moorhead, MN Posts: 176	Originally posted by melander 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, 08:55 AM	#45
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by unkabin 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.