Difference between cameras?

Praestigium · 07-26-2010, 06:34 PM

Hey guys, question.

I've often been told that the Lens is what really influences the colours of a picture as well as how sharp it is. If that is the case, then what is the difference between say the K-x and the K-7? or the K20D even?

How much more 'umph' if you will can one achieve by taking the same picture, with the same lens, using a more expensive camera?

Thanks!

SpecialK · 07-26-2010, 09:02 PM

19 or so threads already going on K-x vs K-7, K-7 vs K20D etc :-) You should go to Amazon or pentaxusa.com and read the specs for the basics about features...

The cost of the camera is deceptive. They all are about 90% the same, imagewise. It is the bells and whistles that make them different, and more capable for the other 10%.

KxBlaze · 07-26-2010, 09:07 PM - **1 Like**

That difference is kind of hard to explain without doing a side by side comparison. Some can tell the difference between 12MP and 14MP while others cannot. I have a Kx and my friend has a K7 and while I have not taken the same picture with both cameras to compare, I have seen pictures from both and I can barely (if at all) tell a difference between IQ when using the kit camera on both cameras.

But yes I think a lens has the most affect on IQ. You can see a huge difference from a Limited to a $50 lens.

Praestigium · 07-26-2010, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

19 or so threads already going on K-x vs K-7, K-7 vs K20D etc :-) You should go to Amazon or pentaxusa.com and read the specs for the basics about features...

The cost of the camera is deceptive. They all are about 90% the same, imagewise. It is the bells and whistles that make them different, and more capable for the other 10%.

I tried

All I would see would be things such as slightly more megapixels between cameras, different ISO levels, being able to AF faster etc etc

But I guess my real question is, how much influence does the body have over the sharpness and colours of a picture?

hcc · 07-26-2010, 09:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Praestigium

I tried

All I would see would be things such as slightly more megapixels between cameras, different ISO levels, being able to AF faster etc etc

But I guess my real question is, how much influence does the body have over the sharpness and colours of a picture?

KxBlaze already answered. The lens has the most amazing impact on IQ and his comment is "spot on". +1

If you shoot RAW, there will be negligible differences between most recent cameras. If you shoot JPEG, the in-camera PP may generate some minor differences. The most advanced camera will have the most PP options, giving you a better range of options to improve your photos.

Praestigium · 07-26-2010, 09:33 PM

Woops, I must have been typing my answer when you Posted KxBlaze, apologies, I only just read it now.

I made it a habit to shoot RAW thankfully, thanks for the answers guys!

twitch · 07-26-2010, 09:51 PM

The differences that "matter" is that the higher end bodies have better controls which makes using the camera faster/easier (eg 2 e-dials, dedicated switch for focus mode etc), weather resistance, and probably build better/tougher and more likely to survive the punishment of "pro" work like grinding out a couple of thousand shutter actuations covering a wedding every weekend.

Wilson_Kx · 07-27-2010, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Praestigium

Hey guys, question.

I've often been told that the Lens is what really influences the colours of a picture as well as how sharp it is. If that is the case, then what is the difference between say the K-x and the K-7? or the K20D even?

How much more 'umph' if you will can one achieve by taking the same picture, with the same lens, using a more expensive camera?

Thanks!

i think that even a basic dslr like the kx will deliver stunning result even when used with a kit lens. the 'umph' can be obtained by composition, lighting and shooting an interesting subject. however the higher price of the semi pro and pro models is for people who want easier access to the settings rather than digging thru menus like on the k-x.

DaveHolmes · 07-27-2010, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by hcc

If you shoot RAW, there will be negligible differences between most recent cameras. If you shoot JPEG, the in-camera PP may generate some minor differences.

With the sheer capacity of todays memory cards is there any reason to shoot in JPEG at all if your camera shoots in RAW?

or rephrased

Are there any benefits to shooting in JPEG over RAW?

Cheers

Pablom · 07-27-2010, 08:12 AM

viewfinder.

though all APS-C viewfinders suck, some suck less than others

SpecialK · 07-27-2010, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by DaveHolmes

With the sheer capacity of todays memory cards is there any reason to shoot in JPEG at all if your camera shoots in RAW?

or rephrased

Are there any benefits to shooting in JPEG over RAW?

Cheers

If you only need small images to email, jpgs are useful.
Many people complain about the "fussing" and time needed to convert RAW, but they don't understand the procedure, so that is a normal response. It can be a quite simple and quick process with enormous benefits.

**wedge** · 07-27-2010, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by DaveHolmes

With the sheer capacity of todays memory cards is there any reason to shoot in JPEG at all if your camera shoots in RAW?

or rephrased

Are there any benefits to shooting in JPEG over RAW?

Cheers

Some of the "scene" modes use JPEG. Also, continuous shooting may be faster when using JPEG? According to the manual for my K2000:

Continuous shooting (Hi):
When JPEG quality is set to 10M, up to 5 frames are taken continuously at approximately 3.5 fps. The shooting interval will increase as the camera buffer memory fills up.

Continuous shooting (Lo):
When JPEG quality is set to 10M, pictures are taken continuously at approximately 1.1 fps until the SD Memory Card is full.

NOTE: When the File Format is RAW, up to 4 frames for (Continuous shooting (Hi))
or up to 7 frames for (Continuous shooting (Lo)) can be taken continuously.

I'm not entirely sure how to read this...

Marc Sabatella · 07-27-2010, 12:25 PM

Lens is the most significant factor in sharpness, assumign the pixel counts are close to similar. That is, the difference between 12MP and 14MP is practically insignificant - the lens determines sharpness (assuming you aren't limited by your own technique). But if you're comparing a 6MP camera to a 14MP one, then the pixel count might matter a bit more depending on how large you are printing.

Color is not primarily determined by the lens. It's not really even primarily determiend by the camera - at least, not in the sense of one camera having hugely different colors from another. It's largely just a matter of the White Balance setting. You can get get pretty mcuh any color you want by setting WB appropriately, or perhaps tweaking things in PP. Differences between lenses or cameras are pretty insignificant here, ubless you happen to already be such an expert that you're among the tiny percentage of the population whod be able to spot the incredibly subtle differences that might actually depend on the equipment as opposed to the settings.

The camera mostly matters in determining how easy it is to take the picture in the first place and the amount of control over the process you have - not so much the quality of the picture. Except in very low light, where differences in high ISO performance can be more noticeable (but still, only to a point).

hcc · 07-27-2010, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by wedge

Some of the "scene" modes use JPEG. Also, continuous shooting may be faster when using JPEG? According to the manual for my K2000:

Continuous shooting (Hi):
When JPEG quality is set to 10M, up to 5 frames are taken continuously at approximately 3.5 fps. The shooting interval will increase as the camera buffer memory fills up.

Continuous shooting (Lo):
When JPEG quality is set to 10M, pictures are taken continuously at approximately 1.1 fps until the SD Memory Card is full.

NOTE: When the File Format is RAW, up to 4 frames for (Continuous shooting (Hi))
or up to 7 frames for (Continuous shooting (Lo)) can be taken continuously.

I'm not entirely sure how to read this...

Wedge,
There are several solid threads on continuous shooting in this forum that you should read. RAW is not recommended for long continuous shooting sequence, especially with the K-x.

Simply, it all depends how many shots do you intend to take during a sequence of continous shooting, the speed of your SD card, the amount of in-camera PP, and what camera buffer size you have. As soon as the buffer size is full and saturated, the camera will slow down sharply. For example, the K-x has a smaller buffer size than the K-7 and it fills up very quickly.

With my K-7, I shoot JPEG 6Mp to be able to shoot some relatively long Hi continuous shooting sequences, and I switch off all in-camera PP incl. lens correction, high-ISO correction ....

**wedge** · 07-27-2010, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by hcc

Wedge,
There are several solid threads on continuous shooting in this forum that you should read. RAW is not recommended for long continuous shooting sequence, especially with the K-x.

Simply, it all depends how many shots do you intend to take during a sequence of continous shooting, the speed of your SD card, the amount of in-camera PP, and what camera buffer size you have. As soon as the buffer size is full and saturated, the camera will slow down sharply. For example, the K-x has a smaller buffer size than the K-7 and it fills up very quickly.

With my K-7, I shoot JPEG 6Mp to be able to shoot some relatively long Hi continuous shooting sequences, and I switch off all in-camera PP incl. lens correction, high-ISO correction ....

Oh, I almost never use the continuous shooting functions...I was just theorizing on the valid need for JPEG, even on a camera that can shoot in RAW. I've done it maybe 3 or 4 times with "meh" results. I made a nice "flipbook" of my then-3-year-old swinging a golf club with better form than I'll ever have, and another of some kids on a slip-n-slide.

07-26-2010, 06:34 PM	#1
Praestigium Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 139	Difference between cameras? Hey guys, question. I've often been told that the Lens is what really influences the colours of a picture as well as how sharp it is. If that is the case, then what is the difference between say the K-x and the K-7? or the K20D even? How much more 'umph' if you will can one achieve by taking the same picture, with the same lens, using a more expensive camera? Thanks!

07-26-2010, 09:29 PM - 1 Like	#5
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Originally posted by Praestigium I tried All I would see would be things such as slightly more megapixels between cameras, different ISO levels, being able to AF faster etc etc But I guess my real question is, how much influence does the body have over the sharpness and colours of a picture? KxBlaze already answered. The lens has the most amazing impact on IQ and his comment is "spot on". +1 If you shoot RAW, there will be negligible differences between most recent cameras. If you shoot JPEG, the in-camera PP may generate some minor differences. The most advanced camera will have the most PP options, giving you a better range of options to improve your photos. Last edited by hcc; 07-26-2010 at 09:31 PM. Reason: Typos

07-27-2010, 06:41 PM	#14
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Originally posted by wedge Some of the "scene" modes use JPEG. Also, continuous shooting may be faster when using JPEG? According to the manual for my K2000: Continuous shooting (Hi): When JPEG quality is set to 10M, up to 5 frames are taken continuously at approximately 3.5 fps. The shooting interval will increase as the camera buffer memory fills up. Continuous shooting (Lo): When JPEG quality is set to 10M, pictures are taken continuously at approximately 1.1 fps until the SD Memory Card is full. NOTE: When the File Format is RAW, up to 4 frames for (Continuous shooting (Hi)) or up to 7 frames for (Continuous shooting (Lo)) can be taken continuously. I'm not entirely sure how to read this... Wedge, There are several solid threads on continuous shooting in this forum that you should read. RAW is not recommended for long continuous shooting sequence, especially with the K-x. Simply, it all depends how many shots do you intend to take during a sequence of continous shooting, the speed of your SD card, the amount of in-camera PP, and what camera buffer size you have. As soon as the buffer size is full and saturated, the camera will slow down sharply. For example, the K-x has a smaller buffer size than the K-7 and it fills up very quickly. With my K-7, I shoot JPEG 6Mp to be able to shoot some relatively long Hi continuous shooting sequences, and I switch off all in-camera PP incl. lens correction, high-ISO correction .... Last edited by hcc; 07-27-2010 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Typos

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA vs. F? What's the difference?	PentaxForums-User	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	12-23-2009 08:37 AM
DA 18-55 vs. DA 18-55 II What is the Difference?	Tbear	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	06-11-2009 04:16 AM
K and A difference	JCSullivan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	03-04-2008 01:02 AM
And the Difference is ?	Jesus	Photographic Technique	15	09-26-2007 02:13 PM

07-26-2010, 09:02 PM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	19 or so threads already going on K-x vs K-7, K-7 vs K20D etc :-) You should go to Amazon or pentaxusa.com and read the specs for the basics about features... The cost of the camera is deceptive. They all are about 90% the same, imagewise. It is the bells and whistles that make them different, and more capable for the other 10%.

07-26-2010, 09:07 PM - 1 Like	#3
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	That difference is kind of hard to explain without doing a side by side comparison. Some can tell the difference between 12MP and 14MP while others cannot. I have a Kx and my friend has a K7 and while I have not taken the same picture with both cameras to compare, I have seen pictures from both and I can barely (if at all) tell a difference between IQ when using the kit camera on both cameras. But yes I think a lens has the most affect on IQ. You can see a huge difference from a Limited to a $50 lens.

07-26-2010, 09:09 PM	#4
Praestigium Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 139 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK 19 or so threads already going on K-x vs K-7, K-7 vs K20D etc :-) You should go to Amazon or pentaxusa.com and read the specs for the basics about features... The cost of the camera is deceptive. They all are about 90% the same, imagewise. It is the bells and whistles that make them different, and more capable for the other 10%. I tried All I would see would be things such as slightly more megapixels between cameras, different ISO levels, being able to AF faster etc etc But I guess my real question is, how much influence does the body have over the sharpness and colours of a picture?

07-26-2010, 09:33 PM	#6
Praestigium Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 139 Original Poster	Woops, I must have been typing my answer when you Posted KxBlaze, apologies, I only just read it now. I made it a habit to shoot RAW thankfully, thanks for the answers guys!

07-26-2010, 09:51 PM	#7
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	The differences that "matter" is that the higher end bodies have better controls which makes using the camera faster/easier (eg 2 e-dials, dedicated switch for focus mode etc), weather resistance, and probably build better/tougher and more likely to survive the punishment of "pro" work like grinding out a couple of thousand shutter actuations covering a wedding every weekend.

07-27-2010, 05:21 AM	#8
Wilson_Kx Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: SYDNEY Posts: 106	Originally posted by Praestigium Hey guys, question. I've often been told that the Lens is what really influences the colours of a picture as well as how sharp it is. If that is the case, then what is the difference between say the K-x and the K-7? or the K20D even? How much more 'umph' if you will can one achieve by taking the same picture, with the same lens, using a more expensive camera? Thanks! i think that even a basic dslr like the kx will deliver stunning result even when used with a kit lens. the 'umph' can be obtained by composition, lighting and shooting an interesting subject. however the higher price of the semi pro and pro models is for people who want easier access to the settings rather than digging thru menus like on the k-x.

07-27-2010, 08:08 AM	#9
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Originally posted by hcc If you shoot RAW, there will be negligible differences between most recent cameras. If you shoot JPEG, the in-camera PP may generate some minor differences. With the sheer capacity of todays memory cards is there any reason to shoot in JPEG at all if your camera shoots in RAW? or rephrased Are there any benefits to shooting in JPEG over RAW? Cheers

07-27-2010, 08:12 AM	#10
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	viewfinder. though all APS-C viewfinders suck, some suck less than others

07-27-2010, 08:29 AM	#11
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by DaveHolmes With the sheer capacity of todays memory cards is there any reason to shoot in JPEG at all if your camera shoots in RAW? or rephrased Are there any benefits to shooting in JPEG over RAW? Cheers If you only need small images to email, jpgs are useful. Many people complain about the "fussing" and time needed to convert RAW, but they don't understand the procedure, so that is a normal response. It can be a quite simple and quick process with enormous benefits.

07-27-2010, 08:31 AM	#12
wedge Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montco, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154	Originally posted by DaveHolmes With the sheer capacity of todays memory cards is there any reason to shoot in JPEG at all if your camera shoots in RAW? or rephrased Are there any benefits to shooting in JPEG over RAW? Cheers Some of the "scene" modes use JPEG. Also, continuous shooting may be faster when using JPEG? According to the manual for my K2000: Continuous shooting (Hi): When JPEG quality is set to 10M, up to 5 frames are taken continuously at approximately 3.5 fps. The shooting interval will increase as the camera buffer memory fills up. Continuous shooting (Lo): When JPEG quality is set to 10M, pictures are taken continuously at approximately 1.1 fps until the SD Memory Card is full. NOTE: When the File Format is RAW, up to 4 frames for (Continuous shooting (Hi)) or up to 7 frames for (Continuous shooting (Lo)) can be taken continuously. I'm not entirely sure how to read this...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-27-2010, 12:25 PM	#13
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Lens is the most significant factor in sharpness, assumign the pixel counts are close to similar. That is, the difference between 12MP and 14MP is practically insignificant - the lens determines sharpness (assuming you aren't limited by your own technique). But if you're comparing a 6MP camera to a 14MP one, then the pixel count might matter a bit more depending on how large you are printing. Color is not primarily determined by the lens. It's not really even primarily determiend by the camera - at least, not in the sense of one camera having hugely different colors from another. It's largely just a matter of the White Balance setting. You can get get pretty mcuh any color you want by setting WB appropriately, or perhaps tweaking things in PP. Differences between lenses or cameras are pretty insignificant here, ubless you happen to already be such an expert that you're among the tiny percentage of the population whod be able to spot the incredibly subtle differences that might actually depend on the equipment as opposed to the settings. The camera mostly matters in determining how easy it is to take the picture in the first place and the amount of control over the process you have - not so much the quality of the picture. Except in very low light, where differences in high ISO performance can be more noticeable (but still, only to a point).

07-27-2010, 07:42 PM	#15
wedge Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montco, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154	Originally posted by hcc Wedge, There are several solid threads on continuous shooting in this forum that you should read. RAW is not recommended for long continuous shooting sequence, especially with the K-x. Simply, it all depends how many shots do you intend to take during a sequence of continous shooting, the speed of your SD card, the amount of in-camera PP, and what camera buffer size you have. As soon as the buffer size is full and saturated, the camera will slow down sharply. For example, the K-x has a smaller buffer size than the K-7 and it fills up very quickly. With my K-7, I shoot JPEG 6Mp to be able to shoot some relatively long Hi continuous shooting sequences, and I switch off all in-camera PP incl. lens correction, high-ISO correction .... Oh, I almost never use the continuous shooting functions...I was just theorizing on the valid need for JPEG, even on a camera that can shoot in RAW. I've done it maybe 3 or 4 times with "meh" results. I made a nice "flipbook" of my then-3-year-old swinging a golf club with better form than I'll ever have, and another of some kids on a slip-n-slide.