K7 + Topaz Denoise 5 or K5

Workingdog · 12-07-2010, 10:37 AM

I currently own both a K10D and a K7. Neither sensor is outstanding in the area of high iso noise. The K5 however has been touted as outstanding in this area.
Other than high iso noise the K7 and K5 seem to be pretty equal for my type of photography.
So, for about 80 bucks US I can purchase one of the best noise reduction software packages out there vs pony up roughly 20x that much for a K5. I don't mind the extra workflow.

This seems like a no brainer to me, or am I wrong? Input from experienced Topaz (later versions)+K7 users and maybe some examples would be appreciated.

Adam · 12-07-2010, 10:47 AM

K5 because preventing noise is better than trying to fix it!

JohnBee · 12-07-2010, 10:52 AM

I think it really depends on what you're expectations are.
If(for example), you're only looking for a modest boost in sensitivity then I think the K-7 could do very well up-to/about ISO2200 with a little TLC.
However if you want to run in the range of ISO3200 or 6400 then you'll likely have to accept the compromises that come with a system like the K-7 at those sensitivities.

Based on my observations I'd say the two systems can be summarized as follows:

K-7
ISO200 - 800 ( superb)
ISO1200 - 1600 (excellent)
ISO2000 - 3200 (good)
ISO4000 - ... (Tough sell)

K-5
ISO200 - 1600 ( superb)
ISO2000 - 3200 (Excellent)
ISO4000 - 6400 (Very good)
ISO1200 - 25600 (Acceptable)
... (Tough sell)

Though conditions can vary depending on a number of factors, this is more or less what I found in my observations.

hcc · 12-07-2010, 11:53 AM

+1 with JohnBee

I can only speak of the K-7 and low-light conditions. I do not have the K-5 and cannot comment on it. Also I do not care about high ISO; I want simply to do some real shooting in low light conditions.

I achieve excellent low-light performances with my K-7 using either of the two techniques:

- with some in-camera PP, it is possible to get very nice shots either with in-camera PP (see K-7 High ISO Success!)

- with some dedicated noise reduction software (Noiseware in my case).

The first one requires no PP nor any software. You simply the camera on-board High-ISO noise reduction and it works fine. I tends to prefer the second technique: that is, you do no noise-reduction in-camera and you perfom NR afterwards in your computer.

The third method to deal with low-light conditions is a fast prime lens (eg f1.4). In very dark conditions, this is the best technique using MF.

Hope that the comment will help....

Workingdog · 12-07-2010, 04:20 PM

Johnbee,

I've seen some of your other posts where you are a pretty big proponent of Topaz Denoise. Wondering if your observations above for K5 and K7 are with or without NR post processing?
I have found that I can use up to ISO 1600 with the K7 using the NR in Paintshop Pro. If I can get a better result at 3200 with Topaz I'll be happy.

I'm going to download the free 30 day trial for myself and find out, maybe even post the results.

JohnBee · 12-08-2010, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Workingdog

Wondering if your observations above for K5 and K7 are with or without NR post processing?

Yes absolutely.
Though I'd probably try and avoid NR up until ISO1600 for the K-7 and ISO3200 on the K-5. Or at best, apply it incrementally or selectively.

Quote:

I have found that I can use up to ISO 1600 with the K7 using the NR in Paintshop Pro. If I can get a better result at 3200 with Topaz I'll be happy.

From ny own experiences, I've found ISO3200 on the K-7 can prove sit between moderate to difficult in terms of NR difficulty(based on shooting conditions).
Then again, I think the results will vary greatly on the demands or expectations from person to person, as I think you yourself mentioned in your initial post.

Looking forward to hearing the results on your trials btw.

Boris · 12-08-2010, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Workingdog

I'm going to download the free 30 day trial for myself and find out, maybe even post the results.

This is what I did. Apparently not every denoising software offers fully functional 30 day trial. I downloaded it, played with it and within a week was convinced that it would be $80 well spent.

YMMV of course.

hcc · 12-08-2010, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

From ny own experiences, I've found ISO3200 on the K-7 can prove sit between moderate to difficult in terms of NR difficulty(based on shooting conditions).

+1 again with JohnBee.

I have used successfully the K-7 up to ISO 3200 and post-processing the photos with Noiseware. The results are very pleasing.

Noiseware can be installed freely but you cannot do batch processing. You need to buy the (plug-in or standalone) full version to do batch processing and to save the EXIF. Otherwise, the free version has all the other NR features.

**fs999** · 02-07-2011, 03:09 AM

DeNoise 5 is far better than the free NoiseWare program (older version)...

wjax · 02-13-2011, 06:36 PM

I just upgraded from the K7 to the K5, mainly because of noise issues. No matter how good the noise reduction software is (I own Noiseware (my fave), Denoise, and Nik Dfine) you still lose some detail with corrections. To me it is worth it to own the K5 and not have to correct for noise up to about ISO 3200 but I am paying an extra $600 for the privilege.

JeffJS · 02-13-2011, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by wjax

I just upgraded from the K7 to the K5, mainly because of noise issues. No matter how good the noise reduction software is (I own Noiseware (my fave), Denoise, and Nik Dfine) you still lose some detail with corrections. To me it is worth it to own the K5 and not have to correct for noise up to about ISO 3200 but I am paying an extra $600 for the privilege.

Since you Just upgraded you will soon learn you got a LOT more than just high ISO capability for your money. The true value of it all will still be personal opinion though.

Enjoy your new camera.

KxBlaze · 02-13-2011, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Workingdog

I currently own both a K10D and a K7. Neither sensor is outstanding in the area of high iso noise. The K5 however has been touted as outstanding in this area.
Other than high iso noise the K7 and K5 seem to be pretty equal for my type of photography.
So, for about 80 bucks US I can purchase one of the best noise reduction software packages out there vs pony up roughly 20x that much for a K5. I don't mind the extra workflow.

This seems like a no brainer to me, or am I wrong? Input from experienced Topaz (later versions)+K7 users and maybe some examples would be appreciated.

I think it's a little unfair to compare software to an actual camera. If the only thing you are concerned with is noise at high ISO then save the $ and get Topaz DeNoise. As others have said the K5 will give you much much more than just better high ISO capabilities so if you want an all around better camera then get the K5. I suggest asking yourself if you will actually benefit from all that the K5 will give you over the K7 or again, are you only worried about less noise at high ISO?

12-07-2010, 10:37 AM	#1
Workingdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: York, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 736	K7 + Topaz Denoise 5 or K5 I currently own both a K10D and a K7. Neither sensor is outstanding in the area of high iso noise. The K5 however has been touted as outstanding in this area. Other than high iso noise the K7 and K5 seem to be pretty equal for my type of photography. So, for about 80 bucks US I can purchase one of the best noise reduction software packages out there vs pony up roughly 20x that much for a K5. I don't mind the extra workflow. This seems like a no brainer to me, or am I wrong? Input from experienced Topaz (later versions)+K7 users and maybe some examples would be appreciated.

12-08-2010, 12:17 AM	#6
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Workingdog Wondering if your observations above for K5 and K7 are with or without NR post processing? Yes absolutely. Though I'd probably try and avoid NR up until ISO1600 for the K-7 and ISO3200 on the K-5. Or at best, apply it incrementally or selectively. Quote: I have found that I can use up to ISO 1600 with the K7 using the NR in Paintshop Pro. If I can get a better result at 3200 with Topaz I'll be happy. From ny own experiences, I've found ISO3200 on the K-7 can prove sit between moderate to difficult in terms of NR difficulty(based on shooting conditions). Then again, I think the results will vary greatly on the demands or expectations from person to person, as I think you yourself mentioned in your initial post. Looking forward to hearing the results on your trials btw. Last edited by JohnBee; 12-08-2010 at 01:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Topaz DeNoise Interface	Rory	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	12	11-16-2010 09:41 PM
Best way to use Topaz DeNoise 5?	robgo2	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	1	09-03-2010 10:59 PM
Topaz Labs DeNoise 4.1	Canada_Rockies	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	06-24-2010 07:54 AM
Topaz DeNoise	ordinaryimages	Pentax DSLR Discussion	32	06-12-2010 09:09 PM
Topaz Denoise 4 just released!	JohnBee	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	05-07-2010 07:46 AM

12-07-2010, 10:47 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	K5 because preventing noise is better than trying to fix it!

12-07-2010, 10:52 AM	#3
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	I think it really depends on what you're expectations are. If(for example), you're only looking for a modest boost in sensitivity then I think the K-7 could do very well up-to/about ISO2200 with a little TLC. However if you want to run in the range of ISO3200 or 6400 then you'll likely have to accept the compromises that come with a system like the K-7 at those sensitivities. Based on my observations I'd say the two systems can be summarized as follows: K-7 ISO200 - 800 ( superb) ISO1200 - 1600 (excellent) ISO2000 - 3200 (good) ISO4000 - ... (Tough sell) K-5 ISO200 - 1600 ( superb) ISO2000 - 3200 (Excellent) ISO4000 - 6400 (Very good) ISO1200 - 25600 (Acceptable) ... (Tough sell) Though conditions can vary depending on a number of factors, this is more or less what I found in my observations.

12-07-2010, 11:53 AM	#4
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	+1 with JohnBee I can only speak of the K-7 and low-light conditions. I do not have the K-5 and cannot comment on it. Also I do not care about high ISO; I want simply to do some real shooting in low light conditions. I achieve excellent low-light performances with my K-7 using either of the two techniques: - with some in-camera PP, it is possible to get very nice shots either with in-camera PP (see K-7 High ISO Success!) - with some dedicated noise reduction software (Noiseware in my case). The first one requires no PP nor any software. You simply the camera on-board High-ISO noise reduction and it works fine. I tends to prefer the second technique: that is, you do no noise-reduction in-camera and you perfom NR afterwards in your computer. The third method to deal with low-light conditions is a fast prime lens (eg f1.4). In very dark conditions, this is the best technique using MF. Hope that the comment will help....

12-07-2010, 04:20 PM	#5
Workingdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: York, PA Photos: Gallery Posts: 736 Original Poster	Johnbee, I've seen some of your other posts where you are a pretty big proponent of Topaz Denoise. Wondering if your observations above for K5 and K7 are with or without NR post processing? I have found that I can use up to ISO 1600 with the K7 using the NR in Paintshop Pro. If I can get a better result at 3200 with Topaz I'll be happy. I'm going to download the free 30 day trial for myself and find out, maybe even post the results.

12-08-2010, 12:25 AM	#7
Boris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Israel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 932	Originally posted by Workingdog I'm going to download the free 30 day trial for myself and find out, maybe even post the results. This is what I did. Apparently not every denoising software offers fully functional 30 day trial. I downloaded it, played with it and within a week was convinced that it would be $80 well spent. YMMV of course.

12-08-2010, 02:15 AM	#8
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Originally posted by JohnBee From ny own experiences, I've found ISO3200 on the K-7 can prove sit between moderate to difficult in terms of NR difficulty(based on shooting conditions). +1 again with JohnBee. I have used successfully the K-7 up to ISO 3200 and post-processing the photos with Noiseware. The results are very pleasing. Noiseware can be installed freely but you cannot do batch processing. You need to buy the (plug-in or standalone) full version to do batch processing and to save the EXIF. Otherwise, the free version has all the other NR features.

02-07-2011, 03:09 AM	#9
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,639	DeNoise 5 is far better than the free NoiseWare program (older version)...

02-13-2011, 06:36 PM	#10
wjax Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 51	I just upgraded from the K7 to the K5, mainly because of noise issues. No matter how good the noise reduction software is (I own Noiseware (my fave), Denoise, and Nik Dfine) you still lose some detail with corrections. To me it is worth it to own the K5 and not have to correct for noise up to about ISO 3200 but I am paying an extra $600 for the privilege.

02-13-2011, 08:05 PM	#11
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by wjax I just upgraded from the K7 to the K5, mainly because of noise issues. No matter how good the noise reduction software is (I own Noiseware (my fave), Denoise, and Nik Dfine) you still lose some detail with corrections. To me it is worth it to own the K5 and not have to correct for noise up to about ISO 3200 but I am paying an extra $600 for the privilege. Since you Just upgraded you will soon learn you got a LOT more than just high ISO capability for your money. The true value of it all will still be personal opinion though. Enjoy your new camera.

02-13-2011, 09:16 PM	#12
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	Originally posted by Workingdog I currently own both a K10D and a K7. Neither sensor is outstanding in the area of high iso noise. The K5 however has been touted as outstanding in this area. Other than high iso noise the K7 and K5 seem to be pretty equal for my type of photography. So, for about 80 bucks US I can purchase one of the best noise reduction software packages out there vs pony up roughly 20x that much for a K5. I don't mind the extra workflow. This seems like a no brainer to me, or am I wrong? Input from experienced Topaz (later versions)+K7 users and maybe some examples would be appreciated. I think it's a little unfair to compare software to an actual camera. If the only thing you are concerned with is noise at high ISO then save the $ and get Topaz DeNoise. As others have said the K5 will give you much much more than just better high ISO capabilities so if you want an all around better camera then get the K5. I suggest asking yourself if you will actually benefit from all that the K5 will give you over the K7 or again, are you only worried about less noise at high ISO?