Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-30-2010, 05:36 AM   #61
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
High iso sucks!,
Cannot agree more than that. It's true that K-x is better at high ISO than K-7. And maybe the K20D is also better than K-7. But once you go past 1600 on any of these 3 cameras, IQ starts to be seriously compromised anyway.

I've used these three camera (K20D, K-x, K-7). My K20D had the stripped pattern at low temperatures, sent it to Pentax for repair, they returned me a photocopy of the manual with the operating temperatures highlighted. I understood that they wouldn't want to acknowledge this known problem (there is a thread about it on this forum). At high ISO the K20D is applying NR (starting from 1600) and had this blue tinge.

When I got the K-7 I was immediately struck by the high ISO noise being less controlled than my K20D. But I didn't get the stripped pattern (and BTW this time the Pentax excuse wouldn't work as the camera is specified to operate as low as -10C) and NR was applied at much higher ISO.

The other things to consider when shooting in low-light is the speed and precision of autofocus. That's where my K-7 was superior to my K20D. It's also superior to my K-x because I can easily use the TAv mode on the K-7 to optimize the ISO to be as low as possible (and on the K-7 there are 3 options for auto ISO). SR seems to be better at low shutter speed on the K-7 than the K-x. So in the end, I often get better pictures with the K-7 than the K-x despite the K-x high ISO capabilities.

Now if the K-5 can blend the K-x high ISO performance with the K-7 handling and improve the autofocus, it could be the almost perfect APS-C camera.

08-30-2010, 06:23 AM   #62
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
Cannot agree more than that. It's true that K-x is better at high ISO than K-7. And maybe the K20D is also better than K-7. But once you go past 1600 on any of these 3 cameras, IQ starts to be seriously compromised anyway.

I've used these three camera (K20D, K-x, K-7). My K20D had the stripped pattern at low temperatures, sent it to Pentax for repair, they returned me a photocopy of the manual with the operating temperatures highlighted. I understood that they wouldn't want to acknowledge this known problem (there is a thread about it on this forum). At high ISO the K20D is applying NR (starting from 1600) and had this blue tinge.

When I got the K-7 I was immediately struck by the high ISO noise being less controlled than my K20D. But I didn't get the stripped pattern (and BTW this time the Pentax excuse wouldn't work as the camera is specified to operate as low as -10C) and NR was applied at much higher ISO.

The other things to consider when shooting in low-light is the speed and precision of autofocus. That's where my K-7 was superior to my K20D. It's also superior to my K-x because I can easily use the TAv mode on the K-7 to optimize the ISO to be as low as possible (and on the K-7 there are 3 options for auto ISO). SR seems to be better at low shutter speed on the K-7 than the K-x. So in the end, I often get better pictures with the K-7 than the K-x despite the K-x high ISO capabilities.

Now if the K-5 can blend the K-x high ISO performance with the K-7 handling and improve the autofocus, it could be the almost perfect APS-C camera.
You do make an excellent point, even good high iso performance doesn't necessarily mean good for low light work.
08-30-2010, 09:21 AM   #63
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
iso's above 1600 in any camera will look like absolute horror compared to these iso.
So can we conclude you've never seen a D700 file?
I actually remember when the very same argument used to be presented with an ISO800 limit
08-30-2010, 09:43 AM   #64
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
So can we conclude you've never seen a D700 file?
I actually remember when the very same argument used to be presented with an ISO800 limit
John,

I was actually thinking of putting in brackets (FF like D700 to be excempted...actually thought of the same camera of all the FF's out there as exceptions), but didn't, as I assumed it was obvious that we were talking of APS-C sensors only here, and also didn't want to go on a tangent and get into an APS-C vs FF debate as well....it's already quite off-topic.

Yeah! so there is another explanation other than me not having seen a D700 image


Last edited by pcarfan; 08-30-2010 at 09:49 AM.
09-06-2010, 09:42 PM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 421
Original Poster
i read on another forum that with my same two lenses, 16-50 and 50-135
that i would see a vast improvement in image quality and responsiveness with the K7
can any one add to this

Dave
T&T
09-07-2010, 02:37 AM   #66
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Var, South of France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by dafiryde Quote
i read on another forum that with my same two lenses, 16-50 and 50-135, that i would see a vast improvement in image quality and responsiveness with the K7
Image quality will be essentially the same... High iso shots could be a little noisier, but I have way less stripes with my K7 than I had with my K20 (without even talking about the border magenta cast of the k20), so in the end my K7 is better in low light than was my K20.

Responsiveness is indeed better. Faster AF, better AF-C (but still not on par with canikon), better low-light AF, faster (and working!) AF assist lamp (flash strobing was really slow!).

But if you love the control layout of the K20 (as I did), you may find the K7 a little step backward...
09-07-2010, 03:21 AM   #67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 119
QuoteOriginally posted by dlacouture Quote

But if you love the control layout of the K20 (as I did), you may find the K7 a little step backward...
Yes, I find the K-7 a BIG step backwards from the K20. That's why I want a K30, and why I won't buy a K-5.
09-07-2010, 04:48 AM   #68
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,690
QuoteOriginally posted by dlacouture Quote
Image quality will be essentially the same... High iso shots could be a little noisier, but I have way less stripes with my K7 than I had with my K20 (without even talking about the border magenta cast of the k20), so in the end my K7 is better in low light than was my K20.
It's been my observation that some K20D's are more prone to banding. I don't seem to have the problem. I assume that DXOMark and DPR tested K20's that didn't have this problem either, because both agreed the K20D has lower noise than the K-7. Lumo Labs and GordonBGoode also concluded the K-20D had slightly lower noise. I'm not disputing that your K20D had worse noise performance than your K-7. I think they're close enough that a weak K20 sensor could tip the balance.

09-07-2010, 02:09 PM   #69
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
It's been my observation that some K20D's are more prone to banding. I don't seem to have the problem.
I would agree.

Banding and magenta cast, both seem "always there" to some degree, but they are either masked or so minimal that are indistinguishable in nominal conditions. My own tests have shown that the K20D can exhibit banding as early as ISO800 if the conditions are right. However, for the most part, it usually isn't visible until around ISO2000.

The K-7 on the other hand seems to have corrections made in processing to subdue these issues. The banding and magenta tinge are both still present in the file, but the K-7 does a better job at controlling this at higher ISO's.

The good news is(however), that we now have very effective tools to manage or control such things in post processing.
09-07-2010, 06:04 PM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Albums
Posts: 230
I love my K7,
though it doesnt handle High ISO well than my previous Kx
a little NR will do the trick.
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, k20d, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In Canada: Summer Rebates for K20d or K20d plus lens Pentaxtic Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 07-17-2009 11:34 AM
Magic Lantern Guides: Pentax K20D and MasterWorks: Jumpstart Guide for the K20D. Reportage Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 02-12-2009 10:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 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