Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-11-2010, 02:53 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Question about image quality of the k-7

I was looking at popphoto.com and in their review of the k-7 the "con" was the image quality for the money. Granted the article is dated and the price is much lower but if you go to page two of the article it says the pentax k-7 is "very high" on image quality.

- Page 2 | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

I then went and looked at the T1i, just to see what it said for what I thought would be a lower quality camera in the IQ department. To my surprise it said IQ was "Extremely High."

- Page 2 | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips


I was hoping for comments on why the k-7 might be less than the canon on this, especially on a lower quality camera overall (the canon being the overall lower quality one). In the final analysis, IQ seems like it would be almost be the most important thing a camera has to offer, but I'm still learning. FWIW, they didn't have the same chart for the k-x.

05-11-2010, 03:06 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
you need to be careful because many photo magazines set image quality tests on the default JPEG and every manufacturer has a different opinion of "quality"

Many magazines think excessively oversharpened high contrast = quality (IMO)
05-11-2010, 06:12 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
you need to be careful because many photo magazines set image quality tests on the default JPEG and every manufacturer has a different opinion of "quality"

Many magazines think excessively oversharpened high contrast = quality (IMO)
Who can I trust? Just my own eyes?
05-11-2010, 06:37 PM   #4
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belleville, IL
Posts: 22
QuoteOriginally posted by justtakingpics Quote
Who can I trust? Just my own eyes?

Nah, probably can't trust your own eyes. I'd say an anonymous blogger's review, or some random forum people are much better sources than your own senses.

So here's my random thought. The K-7's iq is much more film-like than any of the Canon or Nikon digitals that I've seen. Somewhat softer, less "poppy" but more accurate colors, and just a general old-school feel to them.

You either like it or you don't. So let's let some more strangers decide for you.

05-11-2010, 06:52 PM   #5
Pentaxian
wildman's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,310
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
you need to be careful because many photo magazines set image quality tests on the default JPEG and every manufacturer has a different opinion of "quality"

Many magazines think excessively oversharpened high contrast = quality (IMO)
Don't forget over-saturated as well.

I get so tired of hearing a photo being criticized because it has no "pop" - does it ever occur to anyone that was what the natural light was and the photographer took the picture because of this?
05-11-2010, 06:53 PM   #6
Ole
Administrator
Ole's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,783
You could check out the many K-7 images in the gallery and the member albums on this site.

I have a few macro shots posted here:

Cactus Flower Copyright 2010 Ole Oest

and then Mr. Green here:

PentaxForums.com - Ole's Album: Cayman - Picture

I have no complaints at all regarding the K-7 image quality.
05-11-2010, 07:22 PM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
Honestly, there's not going to be that big of a difference in base "image quality" of any dSLR made in the past 5 years if you shoot in raw. Obviously more megapixels will give you the ability to resolve more detail, but this detail is largely irrelevant for web-sized material.

However, a lot of reviews lump high ISO quality into "image quality." This might be why they docked the K-7.
05-11-2010, 07:43 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jedcaum Quote
Nah, probably can't trust your own eyes. I'd say an anonymous blogger's review, or some random forum people are much better sources than your own senses.

So here's my random thought. The K-7's iq is much more film-like than any of the Canon or Nikon digitals that I've seen. Somewhat softer, less "poppy" but more accurate colors, and just a general old-school feel to them.

You either like it or you don't. So let's let some more strangers decide for you.
The problem is that I don't have a K-7 and I don't have pristine professional K-7 images to view or the knowledge to judge them if I had them. So, I'll just trust you.

05-11-2010, 08:13 PM   #9
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
The K7 packs 14mp into a pretty small space. At lower ISOs, it's image quality is excellent, at higher ISOs, it's a little flakey.
Note that this is based on the opinion of a user that has never used a kit lens, and has a habit of putting the best possible glass in front of his sensor.
05-12-2010, 05:30 AM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 288
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
Honestly, there's not going to be that big of a difference in base "image quality" of any dSLR made in the past 5 years if you shoot in raw. Obviously more megapixels will give you the ability to resolve more detail, but this detail is largely irrelevant for web-sized material.

However, a lot of reviews lump high ISO quality into "image quality." This might be why they docked the K-7.
I know this happened a lot on the reviews of the k-x I saw (not on that site). Everyone I saw here too speaks about the great IQ at high ISO, which it has and I like (I only own the k-x.) I never thought about that in this context, however. Good to know. Thanks.
05-12-2010, 06:00 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fredericton New Brunswick Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 332
QuoteOriginally posted by Ole Quote
You could check out the many K-7 images in the gallery and the member albums on this site.

I have a few macro shots posted here:

Cactus Flower Copyright 2010 Ole Oest

and then Mr. Green here:

PentaxForums.com - Ole's Album: Cayman - Picture

I have no complaints at all regarding the K-7 image quality.
Nice photos! I especially liked the reds in the macros. Now I have a question. How do I avoid the smeary, garish awful reds that all my dSLRs deliver? I am using great equipment (K20 plus 35mm Ltd and DFA 100 mm Macros), and the reds are horrible. Should I underexpose in RAW and manipulate the blue or red channels or something?
05-13-2010, 05:12 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 384
Check red channel histogram

Of the top of my head as long as you haven't blown out the histogram in the red channel you should be able to adjust to your hearts content if you shoot raw.

I am saying this without trying it but logic would indicate what I have said makes sense.

I agree with you though that reds do seem odd at times.
05-13-2010, 06:49 AM   #13
Site Supporter
Ahab's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oracle, Az
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 739
QuoteOriginally posted by Ole Quote
You could check out the many K-7 images in the gallery and the member albums on this site.

I have a few macro shots posted here:

Cactus Flower Copyright 2010 Ole Oest

and then Mr. Green here:

PentaxForums.com - Ole's Album: Cayman - Picture

I have no complaints at all regarding the K-7 image quality.
Now that's POP!
05-13-2010, 09:42 AM   #14
Forum Member
Bobe416's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 57
I think howieb101 has nailed the issue with reds. I am a K10 user and find it is very easy to blow out the reds - even when the gray histogram implies your exposure is correct. You need to check the RGB histograms
05-13-2010, 10:13 AM   #15
Veteran Member
RBellavance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Montréal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by Bobe416 Quote
I think howieb101 has nailed the issue with reds. I am a K10 user and find it is very easy to blow out the reds - even when the gray histogram implies your exposure is correct. You need to check the RGB histograms
But keep in mind the histograms are based on the JPG, and this influenced by the white-balance. So even if you shoot RAW, it is a good idea to properly setup WB in-camera if you can.
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!
camera, canon, dslr, image, image quality, iq, k-7, page, photography, popphoto.com, quality, question about image
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image quality question and be nice pakuchn Pentax DSLR Discussion 52 01-25-2010 11:56 AM
How can I get good image quality from a K-x?? Manfred Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 38 12-20-2009 08:18 PM
K10d image quality question/issue vagabond79 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 11-12-2009 12:29 PM
Basic question regarding image circle and edge quality tigershoot Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 01-27-2009 02:56 PM
Question about printing and image quality. triplej96 Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-18-2007 09:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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