[UnknownVT]

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 -

[kyteflyer]

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

[rawr]

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

[rparmar]

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.

[audiobomber]

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.

[Jonson PL]

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

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!.

1.It deserves emphasising that real photos viewed at realistic magnifications will be more appealing than these 100% crops.

True

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

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

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 ?

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

[GeneV]

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.

[bymy141]

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

[audiobomber]

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.

[Jonson PL]

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

[audiobomber]

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.

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.

[rparmar]

Is this what is called a radio trigger ?

Yes. Cheap eBay job. Does the trick -- in fact works perfectly.

[rparmar]

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.)

[rparmar]

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.

[Blue]

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.