You know, the "noisiness" of K-7 has been talked about a lot here.

It is a bit hard for me to understand why people want less noise than what K-7 has. In fact, I kind of like how "noisy" it is. To me it is more film like. I have always thought that pictures should look like pictures. They don't have to be crystal clear all the time, if not ever, for me anyway.

I don't know too much about optics and science behind sensor engineering. But I am not such a huge fan of K-x sensor. Pictures by k-x do not seem to have as much depth, in terms of 3D rendition, so to speak. K-7 on the other hand, appears to offer more "depth."

This is part the reason why I choose stay with Pentax. Other brands may have less noise, but the pictures by them . . . . . I just cannot work up a good feeling about it. I feel like I am looking at a girl with an enormous amount of make up, so to speak.

Am I the only one who feels that way? Am I way off base?

---

Last edited by Nubi; 06-25-2010 at 10:43 AM.

[Wheatfield]

I'll always take less noise, more MP, etc, but I can't really bring myself to complain too much about the noise of the K7 in print, though it can be a bit irritating at 200%.

[KxBlaze]

At least with me you are. I want pictures to look like I'm looking at the actual scene.

Now having said that, there are times where I like a picture to look like not real life (grainy, dull colors, extra spark, over saturated etc...) and that's where Photoshop comes in.

My camera should take very crystal clear pictures and my photoshop can add the effect afterward.

Just my opinion.

[philbaum]

I don't know that there is a wrong or right here, just preferences.

Its amazing to me how much i can crop the images from my K20, if they were sharp to begin with. But in my live theatre work, its necessary to be able to shoot at 3200 iso minimum, preferably a bit more. With LR3 and Topaz 4, I can now do that. So i think the kind of shooting one does has an effect on the kind of camera one needs. The demand for higher ISO isn't going away though, people always want to push the limits in low light areas. Plus it helps lighten the equipment - no need to carry F2.8 telescopic lenses when F4 and higher ISO will do the job.

But hey, if one is happy with the camera they have, nothing wrong with that - enjoy. there are certain classic cameras with the just right design, features and handling, and the k7 is one of those.

I'm very impressed by how deep analysis Nubi does with a photograph's characteristics. I can't really see them that thoroughly. And I look at pictures of another kind for a living! In photographs I just tend to prefer the crystal clear noiseless quality if it's "natural" and not done with extreme filtering.

[snostorm]

My only minor disagreement with the OP is that a very clean image is much easier to PP to extract the finest detail in my bird and bug shots. All the tools and actions just work that much better, so PP is faster and easier. This is, of course irrelevant if you prefer to use images right out of the camera for whatever reason, but my view is that I can, more often than not, make them better with a little PP since I'm not in full agreement with some of the in-camera processing algorithms that the Pentax engineers have developed and chosen.

That being said, with TD4 and Focus Magic, I'm very happy and confident in shooting my K-7 in jpeg mode at ISO 1600-3200, with 4000 and 6400 available in a pinch, all at much better quality (even pixel-peeping) than I would have thought possible just a few short months ago. Most PP now is pretty brainless for me where I had developed some pretty sophisticated processes to deal with the noise/detail balance over the years. With some of the amazing NR software available at this time, noise is so much less an issue that it is really not much of a concern for me. I assume this will only get better as time passes. . . but even if the next Pentax flagship doesn't raise the bar in this respect, I'll continue to be very happy with my K-7's IQ. I can either accept the noise since it's so fine-grained -- or eliminate it without wiping much in the way of fine detail -- the best of both worlds. . .

Here's an ISO 1600 shot from a few days ago, minutes before the tornado warning sirens started blowing -- so it was dark. . . 1/500, f5.6 K-7, FA*300/4.5 -- really just a snapshot before I ran for cover



Scott

[zxaar]

I don't know too much about optics and science behind sensor engineering. But I am not such a huge fan of K-x sensor. Pictures by k-x do not seem to have as much depth, in terms of 3D rendition, so to speak. K-7 on the other hand, appears to offer more "depth."

pure myth i would say.

A picture is only a set of pixels and rendering and look can be controlled and adjusted.

There is slight advantage of k7 over kx in terms of resolution at base isos that someone is unlikely to pick on small to medium size prints or on web size images (< 1000 pixels).

[Shashinki]

The K-7 makes the least noise of any DSLR i know. You can hardly even hear it when you take a picture!

pure myth i would say.

A picture is only a set of pixels and rendering and look can be controlled and adjusted.

There is slight advantage of k7 over kx in terms of resolution at base isos that someone is unlikely to pick on small to medium size prints or on web size images (< 1000 pixels).

True. Size and mediums are important. But at the same time, Brain may process info differently when presented on monitors vs. equivalent sized prints. I agree that smaller the print, more difficult to tell the difference. But, when you get up to A3 size, it is fairly easy to tell apart, given that you stand at least 4~6 feet away.

Or, it could be pure hallucinations. I stay up hours at a time . . . . .

[kalison]

50mm 1.7 Pentax-M (this was a sears branded one)

ISO 3200... with a spot light and stage lights in the background. Annoyingly hard shot. Its not perfect... and you can see some noise. I think there is plenty of detail left in there... and thats without noise ninja, noise-whatever... I don't use those things.

Overall I am very pleased with my K-7.

[Ahab]

My only minor disagreement with the OP is that a very clean image is much easier to PP to extract the finest detail in my bird and bug shots. All the tools and actions just work that much better, so PP is faster and easier. This is, of course irrelevant if you prefer to use images right out of the camera for whatever reason, but my view is that I can, more often than not, make them better with a little PP since I'm not in full agreement with some of the in-camera processing algorithms that the Pentax engineers have developed and chosen.

That being said, with TD4 and Focus Magic, I'm very happy and confident in shooting my K-7 in jpeg mode at ISO 1600-3200, with 4000 and 6400 available in a pinch, all at much better quality (even pixel-peeping) than I would have thought possible just a few short months ago. Most PP now is pretty brainless for me where I had developed some pretty sophisticated processes to deal with the noise/detail balance over the years. With some of the amazing NR software available at this time, noise is so much less an issue that it is really not much of a concern for me. I assume this will only get better as time passes. . . but even if the next Pentax flagship doesn't raise the bar in this respect, I'll continue to be very happy with my K-7's IQ. I can either accept the noise since it's so fine-grained -- or eliminate it without wiping much in the way of fine detail -- the best of both worlds. . .

Here's an ISO 1600 shot from a few days ago, minutes before the tornado warning sirens started blowing -- so it was dark. . . 1/500, f5.6 K-7, FA*300/4.5 -- really just a snapshot before I ran for cover
Scott

That is a Wow! My complements. I'm placing my order for a K7 right now!

[JohnBee]

It is a bit hard for me to understand why people want less noise than what K-7 has. In fact, I kind of like how "noisy" it is. To me it is more film like. I have always thought that pictures should look like pictures. They don't have to be crystal clear all the time, if not ever, for me anyway.

I think this has as much to do with peoples needs than anything else.
I'm still shooting the K20D as my main camera, but I now have a better high ISO camera.
And though I really like the K-7(is nice), my shooting styles didn't work well with it as I've grown quite used to shooting in the ISO4000-6400 range, and the K7 couldn't maintain the same level as the K20D.

The Kx on the other hand can do very good ISO6400.
And the flat effect you mentioned seems limited to JPG output.

Having said that, I've tasted the D700 ISO6400 and I will admit... the ability to shoot cleaner ISO6400/12800 images is really something worth experiencing and the possibilities really open up with indoor or low light shooting etc.

I do think that it takes a bit of "planning" to make the noise work you. Perhaps a specific purpose in mind in terms of how it is incorporated into your overall plan.

Not that I am an expert, but sort of like this.

[Ex Finn.]

I can live with the film(grainy) look at higher iso shots out of the K-7. Never did anything beyond ISO 400 in film anyway, this camera is extremely responsive with controls at your fingertips. Just love it

Cheers, Mike.
D700 $ 2700.00 or about.
K-7 $ 763.00 now 863.00.
If I only had the cash.

I'm very impressed by how deep analysis Nubi does with a photograph's characteristics. I can't really see them that thoroughly. And I look at pictures of another kind for a living! In photographs I just tend to prefer the crystal clear noiseless quality if it's "natural" and not done with extreme filtering.

But, what you do for a living requires that you be not distracted by artifacts. So, I think that by nature you long for pictures that do not tend to "interfere."

This by the way is a completely baseless speculation on my part.

Thanks for your compliment, but I do wonder at times (if not often) if what I think I see is complete crap.