[justtakingpics]

I was reading a review of the K-7 on dpreview and it essentially said the K-7 was bad at high ISO. What does that mean? When would you notice? ISO 800? Just looking for thoughts here so I can learn. Thank you.

edit: after looking at this site:

I thought the k20d looked better. Is everything still the same at high iso for the k-7. I guess I've answered my initial question but still wanted thoughts on it. The k-x is supposed to be better.

http://informationondigitalcamera.blogspot.com/2009/07/pentax-k-7-vs-pentax-...canon-eos.html


edit: then I saw this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...t-here-38.html

now I'm more confused because these look good.

---

Last edited by justtakingpics; 05-18-2010 at 05:51 PM.

[SpecialK]

"Bad" is subjective, so...it depends.

But the K-x is supposed to be "good" at higher ISO.

Not only is it subjective, it is relative.

[omega leader]

If it is bad, now I've made fantastic images with my K10D at ISO 800 and printed them at 20" wide. And the K10D is what, atrocious? Repugnant?

I'm of the opinion that unfortunately far too many people are placing far too much weight in the ability of cameras to shoot in very unfavorable conditions. The K7 is a great camera.

[yeatzee]

If it is bad, now I've made fantastic images with my K10D at ISO 800 and printed them at 20" wide. And the K10D is what, atrocious? Repugnant?

I'm of the opinion that unfortunately far too many people are placing far too much weight in the ability of cameras to shoot in very unfavorable conditions. The K7 is a great camera.

+1
.

[casil403]

I start seeing noise above ISO 800 on mine. I can get rid of it easily in Nik DFine though. I haven't gone much above that as yet.
I hear the Kx is way better at less noise with higher ISO levels than the K7. For me the K7 wins hands down by how it felt in my hands (I tried the K20 and Kx and I have a K200D) though which is why I got it.

[JMI]

Bad is relitive. Bad compared to a D700, well most camera's are. Bad compared to other aps-c cameras, well jpegs out of the camera, not as good, raw, much closer.

Personally there a few things I prefer about the K7 to other camera's at high iso. Noise is NOT the only factor in high iso performance.

[jedcaum]

Personally there a few things I prefer about the K7 to other camera's at high iso. Noise is NOT the only factor in high iso performance.

I'm curious, as this is my sentiment as well. For me, the K-7 gives an entirely more filmlike quality to the images it poduces, especially at high iso. I find the noise very granular like film when it does crop up. I'm interested in what you prefer about it.

[hcc]

I was reading a review of the K-7 on dpreview and it essentially said the K-7 was bad at high ISO. What does that mean? When would you notice? ISO 800? Just looking for thoughts here so I can learn. Thank you.

I agree with earlier posts that it is all very relative.

A detailed scrutiny at all test results shows a general consensus that is:
- the K-7 RAW files are as good as any other dSLRs incl. the K-x at high ISO,
- the K-7 JPEG files at ISO 6400 appear not as "good" as K-x JPEG files at same ISO,
- the K-7 outperforms most dSLRs incl. the K-x at lower ISO.

One issue is the notion of 'high ISO'. We should be talking about low-light performances. I would stress therefore that the discussion is meaningless because any 'conclusion' depends very much upon the lens: a good glass is more important than the camera body. We should compare apples and apples

With my K-7 and Voigtlander Notkon 58m f1.4, I can take great photographs in low-light, that most Canikons and the K-x with their respective kit lens could not shoot. If I was using this example, I would conclude that my K-7 outperforms the Canikons and the K-x in low-light ... Off course we know that this conclusion is silly, pointless.

In summary, the K-7 is a great camera. Just look at the users' reviews:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-digital-slr-camera-reviews/61302-pentax-k-7-a.html

It has an excellent AF for low-light conditions

If you are interested into low-light shooting, consider to buy a fast prime lens with large aperture. Pentax has some of the best fast primes in the market, all brands together. There are also some excellent 3rd party fast primes lenses (Voigtlander, Carl Zeiss).

Hope that the comments will help...

[Adam]

I suppose that it means that compared to other bodies in the same price range, the photos taken with high ISO have worse quality. Whether or not that's true is up for debate

[zxaar]

I agree with earlier posts that it is all very relative.

A detailed scrutiny at all test results shows a general consensus that is:
- the K-7 RAW files are as good as any other dSLRs incl. the K-x at high ISO,
- the K-7 JPEG files at ISO 6400 appear not as "good" as K-x JPEG files at same ISO,
- the K-7 outperforms most dSLRs incl. the K-x at lower ISO.

One issue is the notion of 'high ISO'. We should be talking about low-light performances. I would stress therefore that the discussion is meaningless because any 'conclusion' depends very much upon the lens: a good glass is more important than the camera body. We should compare apples and apples

With my K-7 and Voigtlander Notkon 58m f1.4, I can take great photographs in low-light, that most Canikons and the K-x with their respective kit lens could not shoot. If I was using this example, I would conclude that my K-7 outperforms the Canikons and the K-x in low-light ... Off course we know that this conclusion is silly, pointless.

It is absurd too. The above case would be true only if canikon or kx users could not afford fast primes.


Imagine F1.2 strapped to kx or D3S in full frame.

[Canada_Rockies]

I suppose that it means that compared to other bodies in the same price range, the photos taken with high ISO have worse quality. Whether or not that's true is up for debate

I would rather retain the detail and take the noise out myself in post processing. The less noise at high ISO, the less the detail in the images I have looked at. My K10 is supposedly terrible at anything over ISO 400, but the detail is still there to be massaged out later. So, to restate Adam's comment, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

[WerTicus]

bad is: worse than its predecessor the k20d.

[JohnBee]

I was reading a review of the K-7 on dpreview and it essentially said the K-7 was bad at high ISO. What does that mean? When would you notice? ISO 800? Just looking for thoughts here so I can learn. Thank you.

Many ratings of this nature are made in reference to the K7's predecessor.
Which I suppose was warranted since most camera updates result in performance increases, however in this case, the K7 took a step backward in ISO performance in contrast to the K20D.

Having said that(based on what I've seen), I'd say the K7 does very well up to ISO1600 at which point it begins to loose ground to the K20D in terms of noise. And so unless you're the type of person who is truly attached to ISO3200 on your K20D, then I doubt doubt such things would ever affect the usefulness of the K7 as a semi-pro body.

[wlachan]

After checking the dpreview samples, I'd say it's good up to 800, same as my K-m. The K-x is good up to 1600. For comparison, my 40D is good up to 800, and only bearable at 1600. My K-m is unbearable at 1600. These are subjective of course, and to my own standard only.

[Recercare]

My K10d is:

Outstanding at ISO 100
Excellent up to ISO 280
Very good up to ISO 400.
Perfectly usable up to ISO 800
Acceptable (just) at ISO 1600 if exposure is spot on and image converted to b/w.

I have sold A4-sized prints at ISO 1250....

Considering that the K7 is supposed to be at least 1 stop better at higher ISO you should be able to use ISO 1600 without problems and ISO 3200 if exposure is spot on. However, you have to shoot RAW.

Kind regards
.lars