Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-01-2010, 07:41 AM   #16
Forum Member
Edmund's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 57
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
On this picture which photo is from which camera? (one of them is the K-7, of course)
Same one-click NR done on the 3 original photos, resized to same size.
The upper left seems to be the best quality. OK, so tell us which cameras took which pictures.

07-01-2010, 12:43 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by shang Quote
One thing I don't understand is that if d300 and k-7 get equally well high ISO RAW images, then why K-7 gets worse JPEGs?
Because better/worse is subjective. As I've said before. Some people prefer heavy NR that reduces noise but also smears away detail, others prefer lighter touch with NR that preserves detail but leaves noise around. Pentax generally does the latter, which many prefer, but those who don't will cal the results "worse".
07-01-2010, 02:24 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: long island
Posts: 135
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Because better/worse is subjective. As I've said before. Some people prefer heavy NR that reduces noise but also smears away detail, others prefer lighter touch with NR that preserves detail but leaves noise around. Pentax generally does the latter, which many prefer, but those who don't will cal the results "worse".

thanks a lot, Marc!

generally speaking, k-x has better high ISO results(let's suppose we define "good" as less noise). so if pentax replaces the k-7 RAW-->JPEG algorithm by the one used in K-x, then the k-7 would get better results, is this true?
07-01-2010, 03:00 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
QuoteOriginally posted by shang Quote
thanks a lot, Marc!

generally speaking, k-x has better high ISO results(let's suppose we define "good" as less noise). so if pentax replaces the k-7 RAW-->JPEG algorithm by the one used in K-x, then the k-7 would get better results, is this true?
I don't think so, it depends on the sensor too. K-x has a newer, slightly improved sensor.

07-01-2010, 03:09 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by shang Quote
generally speaking, k-x has better high ISO results(let's suppose we define "good" as less noise). so if pentax replaces the k-7 RAW-->JPEG algorithm by the one used in K-x, then the k-7 would get better results, is this true?
It's probably true that if this were technically possible (the algorithm used on the K-x might only work for that sensor), then same people who like that type of NR processing will like it better on the K-7. It's also probably true that the people who prefer the type of NR the K-7 does will think using the K-x algorithm would be worse. As I said tried to say clearly in my previous post, preference in NR is *subjective*. That means two different people might look at the same two images and one might prefer image A and the other might prefer mage B. That's why it's often impossible to talk in general terms about "better" and "worse".i
07-01-2010, 06:03 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,220
The kx is really nice, but I have to say that the jpeg engine doesn't deal well with red colors at high iso. Turns it into a smeary mess. However, seems like you can do a better job with RAW at fixing that. Just saying that RAW can make a difference even with the kx sensor.
07-01-2010, 06:33 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The kx is really nice, but I have to say that the jpeg engine doesn't deal well with red colors at high iso. Turns it into a smeary mess. However, seems like you can do a better job with RAW at fixing that. Just saying that RAW can make a difference even with the kx sensor.
That's a weakness common to the K-7 and my earlier K100D as well. Even in RAW to a certain extent, the interpretation of strongly saturated Reds seems to be behind the competition, especially at high ISO.
Shoot at a scene with someone wearing Bright Scarlet clothing, or a Bright Red flower, and you'll notice the loss of detail.
In the actual case that I had, the red cloth had fine micro-detail patterns and texture, but the sensor simply failed to capture much of that, even with a DA Limited lens.

Anyway, the K-7's RAW output is really very good in general, just some weak points here and there.
07-01-2010, 06:56 PM   #23
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
On this picture which photo is from which camera? (one of them is the K-7, of course)
Same one-click NR done on the 3 original photos, resized to same size.
I don't know but I want the camera on the bottom if it's the same ISO as the two above it. I'd guess the top right is the K-7.
(what does "one-click NR" mean?)

07-02-2010, 01:37 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by Edmund Quote
The upper left seems to be the best quality. OK, so tell us which cameras took which pictures.
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
I don't know but I want the camera on the bottom if it's the same ISO as the two above it. I'd guess the top right is the K-7.
(what does "one-click NR" mean?)
Top left is K-m, top right is K-7, bottom is K-x. ISO1600 studio test RAW images from DPreview. "One-click NR" is just that, with one mouse-click I enabled the built-in Noise Ninja (using the same default strength and smooth setting for all three images).
Did similar comparisons with Canon 7D and Nikon D300 raw files. My conclusion: even with just a lazy default NR the differences aren't really that much even at 100% pixel peeping, with a quick 1-2 minute NR tweaking differences can become really small. So I, personally, wouldn't worry that much about noise anymore. As always, YMMV
07-02-2010, 02:21 AM   #25
Senior Member
kari's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 149
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
Top left is K-m, top right is K-7, bottom is K-x. ISO1600 studio test RAW images from DPreview. "One-click NR" is just that, with one mouse-click I enabled the built-in Noise Ninja (using the same default strength and smooth setting for all three images).
Did similar comparisons with Canon 7D and Nikon D300 raw files. My conclusion: even with just a lazy default NR the differences aren't really that much even at 100% pixel peeping, with a quick 1-2 minute NR tweaking differences can become really small. So I, personally, wouldn't worry that much about noise anymore. As always, YMMV

Wow, K-m looks best to me!
07-02-2010, 07:29 AM   #26
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
...My conclusion: even with just a lazy default NR the differences aren't really that much even at 100% pixel peeping, with a quick 1-2 minute NR tweaking differences can become really small. So I, personally, wouldn't worry that much about noise anymore. As always, YMMV
Szia Simico, I can't necessarily agree completely. I looked at the photos and selected the one that had the most distasteful noise signature, and chose the K-7 correctly. After spending years of time fighting noise, often without success, there's something to be said about starting with the best input one can start with. If the replacement to the K-7 doesn't have a noise signature like the K-x, I think I may have to get the K-x as my next purchase, which I've been delaying for over a year.
07-02-2010, 11:35 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by kari Quote
Wow, K-m looks best to me!
Me too, although that doesn't really surprise me - I had pixel peeped similar samples (the still life from imaging resource, and the bottles in particular) before and come to the same conclusion. I looked at the K200D instead of the K-m, but they have the same basic sensor.

Not to say I think either of these cameras outperform the the K-x at high ISO *in general*, and there could simply be a focus difference here, but this particular K-m image retains detail best to my eye, with the other two roughly similar in that regard. The K-x image definitely shows less noise for the same (lack of) detail than the K-7 image does. The K-x also shows less noise than the K-m, but appears to pay for it with less detail. Which kind of surprises me, because supposedly the in-camera RAW NR on the K-x doesn't kick in until ISO 3200, whereas it's already present on the K-m at ISO 1600. That's why I suspect a slight difference in focus point (or lens used here may be explaining some of the difference. But it could also have to do with the specific textures involved here being ones the 10MP sensor deals with better; skin textures seem to be a particular strength of the K-x sensor in this respect.

Anyhow, I do think the basic point of the comparison is made - the differences are small enough that it takes a 100% view to see differences, and even then people might disagree on which "wins" (although I suspect few would pick the K-7). However, the same comparison performed at ISO 3200 or 6400 may show a clearer advantage to the K-x.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-02-2010 at 11:40 AM.
07-04-2010, 11:38 AM   #28
Veteran Member
soccerjoe5's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Urkeldaedalus Quote
Hi Diego, nice to see you back on the board. What JPEG settings do you usually use?
Hey buddy, it's been a while huh? Hmm.. it's set to "Bright", the High-ISO NR to Low. I guess I didn't tweak it that much!

I shoot with it on Auto-ISO up to ISO2200 regularly. As long as I expose properly, I'm not bothered with the noise.
07-04-2010, 12:27 PM   #29
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
I use the K-7 on several occasions up to iso3200 (even iso5000 is usable but iso6400 is just for emergency's) and with Noise Ninja cleaning them up afer the RAW developed in PSE. Works very good to me.

Raw at iso2500


Even jpeg direct from the K-7 in black and white at iso3200 are great:
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, dslr, iso, iso performance, k-7, performance, photography, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boosting High ISO Performance Jewelltrail Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 10-10-2010 10:26 PM
K-7 HIGH ISO NR In RAW Christopher M.W.T Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 06-06-2010 05:19 PM
K20D High ISO Performance joelovotti Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 03-17-2009 06:47 PM
K200D low light/high iso performance indytax Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 02-07-2009 07:49 PM
K20D raw files at high ISO Martynas Pentax News and Rumors 21 02-01-2008 05:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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