Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-24-2010, 09:32 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
Interesting results - should always give weight to whatever results one gets oneself with whatever processing is normally used. However because of all the possible variables - although they are the most valid results for the tester - may not necessarily be for everyone generally - as the conditions and processing may not be the same for anyone else.

Having made that caveat - even test results from established sources can be viewed in this similar way - eg: although test charts may seem more objective - the results may not actually reflect the types of photo an user may take and process.

Anyway after all the excuses/caveats - here are the standardized test samples from Imaging-Resource.com - 100% crops from their respective JPG samples (K20D Test Images, K-x Test Images)
- these were JPG images straight out of the respective cameras - NO other processing (eliminating all other variables) - other than cropping and saving to JPG - (EXIF data ought to be still attached - to show their source - caveat: PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)

Face ISO6400 -



Necklace ISO 6400 -



Face ISO3200 -


Necklace ISO3200 -


08-24-2010, 09:33 PM   #32
Pentaxian
kyteflyer's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,330
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Before you accept Noise Ninja (NN) as the answer to all ISO issues, pay close attention to what Alexfoto posted. I own and regularly use NN, and it is an excellent product. But Alex is right about how the books, with large blocks of solid colors, are the best possible candidates for noise reduction. When you use it on more complex subjects--with hair, foliage, fabric texture--NN starts turning them to smudged or waxy replicas of the original. It is much better than the NR in CS3, but far from the spectacular performance seen on the books in Robin's test.
Understood. I still think it would be useful for some of the stuff I play with, so I'll go ahead and get that anyway
08-25-2010, 03:23 AM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,751
I agree with UnknownVT.

No need for amateur testing when IR has done it so well and under much more controlled circumstances. And other sites and other competent testers (dpreview, DXO etc etc etc etc).

/thread
08-25-2010, 04:44 AM   #34
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
No need for amateur testing when IR has done it so well and under much more controlled circumstances. And other sites and other competent testers (dpreview, DXO etc etc etc etc).
I am not unaware of other tests, but sometimes it is good to try things out for oneself, in order to experience the results and not just read them. I realise that by publishing here I am doing nothing more than giving you yet another review to read, but heck, it was a worthwhile process for me at least!

Besides, this way I get to use my own camera, which may or may not be the same as the reviewers, especially in the cases of sites using pre-production units. I was using firmware 1.01, for example, which first-line reviews could not have had access to.

Furthermore, I always prefer to read a review from someone I know, trust and (in this case) have knowledge of as a photographer. On many sites the reviewer is an enigma to me. So, this thread may be of more use to those who know and trust me and the other forum members who have provided comments and criticisms.

08-25-2010, 04:53 AM   #35
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
Anyway after all the excuses/caveats - here are the standardized test samples from Imaging-Resource.com - 100% crops from their respective JPG samples

- these were JPG images straight out of the respective cameras - NO other processing (eliminating all other variables) - other than cropping and saving to JPG
I don't have time to look at the metadata, but AFAIK the Comparator uses the factory defaults for these tests. For the K20D that means NR OFF. For the K-x, it means NR MEDIUM, starting at ISO 800. So the photos you posted are not directly comparable.

Last edited by audiobomber; 08-25-2010 at 05:48 AM.
08-25-2010, 05:06 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
Thanks for your work. The Samsung sensor sure does form well, wouldn't mind getting it in a future camera. (Don't have K20 or K7 myself).

The Kx have generally impressed me with its higher Iso, will be interesting to see what Pentax brings to the table next time



QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
1.4. Even ISO 100 is not noise free. In future cameras I would rather see a cleaner ISO 100 through 400 than extending ISO further into the stratosphere. But I suspect that I am in the minority here. In fact, I am in the marketing category for the 645D in all ways except personal finance!.


QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
1.It deserves emphasising that real photos viewed at realistic magnifications will be more appealing than these 100% crops.
True


QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I'll bet you don't regularly shoot at 1, 2 or 4 seconds, either. I suggested flash only because its brief duration acts as a fast shutter speed to minimize camera shake or mirror slap issues. It also gives you more aperture options which might eliminate any focus issues.
Good point


QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Before you accept Noise Ninja (NN) as the answer to all ISO issues, pay close attention to what Alexfoto posted. I own and regularly use NN, and it is an excellent product. But Alex is right about how the books, with large blocks of solid colors, are the best possible candidates for noise reduction. When you use it on more complex subjects--with hair, foliage, fabric texture--NN starts turning them to smudged or waxy replicas of the original. It is much better than the NR in CS3, but far from the spectacular performance seen on the books in Robin's test.
Important to remember. NR does poorly on texture detail


QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Taking Gene's good advice I set up the K-x with trigger as shown in the next photo, determining focus manually as best I could. I used the FA43 again, but this time at f/11. I should note that the K-x viewfinder is noticeably less useful for MF than the K20D I am so used to. It's harder to see detail and it seems that the hexagon indicator has greater latitude. I could get it to light with an image that was way out of focus.

K-x with flash trigger


(Shot with the FA 77mm Limited.)
Is this what is called a radio trigger ?


QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
The fact that the entry-level K-x achieves the feat of matching the previous top-of-the-line body, plus gives two more stops if one needs them... well, it is quite remarkable.
Yup

Last edited by Jonson PL; 08-25-2010 at 05:52 AM.
08-25-2010, 05:34 AM   #37
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by kyteflyer Quote
Understood. I still think it would be useful for some of the stuff I play with, so I'll go ahead and get that anyway
I use it and like it. It just doesn't solve every problem.
08-25-2010, 05:39 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
Interesting results - should always give weight to whatever results one gets oneself with whatever processing is normally used. However because of all the possible variables - although they are the most valid results for the tester - may not necessarily be for everyone generally - as the conditions and processing may not be the same for anyone else.
I agree with that.

Having had a look at the following K-x K-7 tests, I wonder if the K-7 sensor is less capable (except for speed) than the K20D sensor.

Here are a few K-x versus K-7 examples (all without NR):
K-x 3200 ISO:

K-7 3200 ISO:


K-x 6400 ISO:

K-7 6400 ISO:


See also the entire article: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/362/935/015_s.jpg
The site also gives you links to the full size images, if you are interested.

You can see that K-x images are more clean and contain much better detail than the K-7.
It also holds more dynamic range.

These K20D versus K-x images are not consistant with that!
Does anybody know of a image to image comparison between the K20D and the K-7?
After my K10D I skipped the K20D, the K-7 is a fine camera. AF has much been approved.
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions here, but from an IQ point of view one might even want to downgrade to a K20D??


- Bert

08-25-2010, 05:47 AM   #39
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I agree with UnknownVT.

No need for amateur testing when IR has done it so well and under much more controlled circumstances. And other sites and other competent testers (dpreview, DXO etc etc etc etc).
/thread
I strongly disagree. I need to know how my camera works in my hands, with my lenses in the conditions I use it in. For low light, high ISO use, that would mean; hand held, SR on, weakest NR, low shutter speed, Tungsten WB and Auto-Focus mode.

So far I've only tested my K20D vs K-x casually, which is unusual because I like testing. From informal use; the K-x focusses faster in low light and appears to have about a 2/3 stop high ISO advantage. OTOH it cannot compensate for BF on my FA 35mm, which limits it to the 40mm @ 2.8, and doesn't have the K20's TAv setting, which is by a wide margin my preferred shooting mode in dim light.

Last edited by audiobomber; 08-25-2010 at 10:15 AM.
08-25-2010, 05:59 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by bymy141 Quote
Does anybody know of a image to image comparison between the K20D and the K-7?
After my K10D I skipped the K20D, the K-7 is a fine camera. AF has much been approved.
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions here, but from an IQ point of view one might even want to downgrade to a K20D??
The K20 showed what an excellent sensor Samsung came out with.
The K7 does good Iso 1600 IMO, but behaves a bit different than the K20. Having said that, I've seen some really good real life work from it, also with higher Iso.

Falk had some good comparisons between Kx and K7
08-25-2010, 06:38 AM   #41
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by bymy141 Quote
Having had a look at the following K-x K-7 tests, I wonder if the K-7 sensor is less capable (except for speed) than the K20D sensor.
From my reading of various test sites, there appears to be about a 1/3 stop advantage in favour of the K20D. Not a big deal and not enough to overcome the K-7's improved features.

QuoteOriginally posted by bymy141 Quote
See also the entire article: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/362/935/015_s.jpg
The site also gives you links to the full size images, if you are interested.

You can see that K-x images are more clean and contain much better detail than the K-7.
It also holds more dynamic range.

These K20D versus K-x images are not consistant with that!
The link doesn't work but I've viewed these photos at full size before. I saw heavier NR in the K-x photos and more noise but more detail in the K-7 photos, which means that some of the K-x noise advantage in this photo set is artificial. Regarding the K-x's DR advantage, I've yet to see any significance vs my K20 in everyday shooting, but I believe the K20 falls between the K-x and K-7 in DR tests.
08-25-2010, 07:49 AM   #42
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
Is this what is called a radio trigger ?
Yes. Cheap eBay job. Does the trick -- in fact works perfectly.
08-25-2010, 07:55 AM   #43
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I've yet to see any significance vs my K20 in everyday shooting, but I believe the K20 falls between the K-x and K-7 in DR tests.
I agree: The ergonomic and functional difference between the cameras is far more important than the small differences in noise handling. Yes, the K-x has two more stops of ISO, but one could always underexpose the K20D two stops to achieve the same result.

One big advantage is that the K-x is nice and small. I will do a bit of a review in a new thread soon. (Since apparently people do still care about the K-x, even with new bodies rumoured.)
08-25-2010, 07:57 AM   #44
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Original Poster
Oh yeah, forgot to mention: I have a K-x kit for sale -- a good deal for anyone in Europe.

I'm keeping my second K-x though.
08-25-2010, 08:10 AM   #45
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I don't have time to look at the metadata, but AFAIK the Comparator uses the factory defaults for these tests. For the K20D that means NR OFF. For the K-x, it means NR MEDIUM, starting at ISO 800. So the photos you posted are not directly comparable.
I was going to bring this up. NR needs to realistically be off on both and on at similar levels on both to compare both ways to get a realistic comparison.
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, k-x, k20d, ninja, noise, photography, sensitivity, settings, shot, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting test - k7 versus k10. ISO800 Dubious Drewski Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 09-02-2009 09:10 PM
k20d High ISO test shots 200-6400 PentaxPoke Pentax DSLR Discussion 44 04-27-2009 08:02 PM
k10d vs k20d ISO 1600 test PentaxPoke Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 05-11-2008 02:36 PM
K20D vs A700 high ISO test (not 56K friendly) codiac2600 Pentax News and Rumors 19 04-21-2008 09:36 AM
Unscientific test of firmware versus autofocus Rick Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 05-13-2007 11:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:40 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