K-7 and the opinions of high ISO shooting.

PinarelloOnly · 10-12-2010, 05:32 PM

While waiting for the k5 to come out like the rest of us,
I did some soul searching and while I never gave the k7
a thought I started to read the pro reviews and past mag
articles from the library recently. Turns out from what I seen
and read that the k7 has put out some very good results
up against cameras like the D300s, 50D and even the 7D at
ISO 1600.

So why all the negitivity on here about the k7 in relation to
high ISO shooting? To me, it looks more and more like a bargain
at it's current price.

brofkand · 10-12-2010, 05:47 PM

In my opinion, people often like to point out negatives, as superfluous as they may be, in anything.

The K-7 definitely does have noise at high ISOs (more than many Nikon or Canon cameras), but in my experience the noise in Canon and Nikon cameras is still there, it's just smudged out. Thus, the images aren't really sharp. The K-7 does NR as well, but not to the extent that other cameras do. I like the noise structure of the K-7, very much like film in my opinion.

Any and all flaws are visible at 100%, by the way. Nobody ever looks at 35mm slides blown up to 11x14" from a few inches away.

yeatzee · 10-12-2010, 05:53 PM

The K-7's high ISO "issue" or "problem" is blown out of proportion and taken with way to much credability IMO. I don't understand the frenzy this forums members generate in regards to the k-7's "flaws." Personally, I think it is an absolutely fantastic camera as does anyone I've let use it.

My nikon buddy was just praising the K-7 because of how fantastic a camera it is... and for the price he called it "ridiculous."

really, for the price you cannot get anything better IMO

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-12-2010, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by brofkand

In my opinion, people often like to point out negatives, as superfluous as they may be, in anything.

The K-7 definitely does have noise at high ISOs (more than many Nikon or Canon cameras), but in my experience the noise in Canon and Nikon cameras is still there, it's just smudged out. Thus, the images aren't really sharp. The K-7 does NR as well, but not to the extent that other cameras do. I like the noise structure of the K-7, very much like film in my opinion.

Any and all flaws are visible at 100%, by the way. Nobody ever looks at 35mm slides blown up to 11x14" from a few inches away.

I have never complained about the k7 and high iso
Here is a 100% crop at 1600 ISO and 1/40 th with a 500mm lens.
IMO the IQ is quite good and so is the SR

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 10-12-2010 at 06:09 PM.

Kirivon · 10-12-2010, 06:12 PM

The thing about the K-7 is that, on paper, it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade. When looking simply at noise grain, the K-7 really isn't better than my K10D, and is allegedly worse than the K20D.

The thing is, though, that the K-7's grain distribution is very, very evenl and takes well to noise reduction. Furthermore, the K-7 leaves very little color cast when shooting high ISO. With the K10D I find ISO 1600 usable for abstracts, but hesitate to use ISO 800 for color portraits due to uneven gradation of the skin tones which the human eye tends to notice. The K-7, however, I won't hesitate to use up to ISO1250.

I've been without my K-7 for a couple months as I broke the focusing screen assembly and took my time sending it in (just got the invoice from C.R.I.S. today for $265). I wasn't in a huge rush to get it fixed since the K10D was handling my limited shooting needs, but going back to the K10D has definitely made me appreciate how much better the K-7 is. Nearly everything is a huge upgrade: the af is faster, the mirror blackout is nearly instantaneous in comparison, it has better DR despite DXO's test saying otherwise, the high ISO is better, the metering is better, P-TTL is better, and the white balance is worlds apart. The only thing that I feel the K10D handles better is white balance under daylight at base ISO.

I look at my K-7 shots at times and think, "I thought this camera was bad at high iso?" All shots are default LR conversions with no adjustments done in post.

50mm @ f/1.4, 1/30s ISO 1600

50mm @ f/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 1250

50mm @ f/1.4, 1/8s (handheld), ISO1250

30mm @ f1/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 1250

kittykat46 · 10-12-2010, 06:19 PM

The K-7 is competitive at High-ISO with most of the Nikons and Canons in its class if you shoot RAW.
The High-ISO performance starts lagging at ISO 3200 and above.

I think the main problem is the unimpressive JPEG output straight from the camera at High-ISO.
Lets face it, a lot of people will form their first and possibly only impression of the camera from JPEG output. I hope Pentax has fixed this on its newer model.

paperbag846 · 10-12-2010, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by kittykat46

I think the main problem is the unimpressive JPEG output straight from the camera at High-ISO.
Lets face it, a lot of people will form their first and possibly only impression of the camera from JPEG output. I hope Pentax has fixed this on its newer model.

I think this is exactly it. They tend to meter a little dark (good for raw, not so good for JPEG) and apply conservative noise reduction. The K7 is really a RAW camera with an OK jpeg engine built into it. If you don't shoot raw with the K7 you really aren't going to see the best that it's sensor has to offer... I have the exact same experience with the K20D.

I think one of the issues is that these cameras retain so much shadow detail that works wonders in post... but you never see it if the image is immediately compressed.

LeeRunge · 10-12-2010, 08:56 PM

The k7 can work up to 3200 in RAW with good pp techniques. It involves more work than the Canon's and Nikons for the same result. The 7d I have head to head pretty much takes a JPEG at 3200/6400 that is usable without any pp vs having to use topaz denoise/lightroom to work out the noise on the k7. At 1600 or below I wouldn't worry about it.

The worst situation I had was a Tahitian fire dance that the K7 just couldn't keep up with the lighting.

I expect the K5 to be at least as good as the 7d for noise and if they can pull off a large improvement in AF that would be a plus. I really like the pentax control scheme. If the K5 comes in at 1200 dollars or less it will be a winner even if the AF is not as fast as the competition. Not everyone needs a sports camera and the K5 looks a lot faster than the K7 which would capture fast shots just without as many keepers as a faster AF camera.

JohnBee · 10-12-2010, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by PinarelloOnly

While waiting for the k5 to come out like the rest of us,
I did some soul searching and while I never gave the k7
a thought I started to read the pro reviews and past mag
articles from the library recently. Turns out from what I seen
and read that the k7 has put out some very good results
up against cameras like the D300s, 50D and even the 7D at
ISO 1600.

So why all the negitivity on here about the k7 in relation to
high ISO shooting? To me, it looks more and more like a bargain
at it's current price.

If you limit yourself to ISO1600 then I see no reason to consider the K-7 to be anything but an above average camera.
However, if high ISO shooting is your game then I would consider the K-x or the K-r and ultimately the K-5 systems.

PS. my experiences show that the K-7 holds-up nicely up until ISO2000 after which the level of effort increases as sensitivities move-up. However, that's not to say that the camera isn't usable past that level either.

paperbag846 · 10-12-2010, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by LeeRunge

It involves more work than the Canon's and Nikons for the same result.

In my opinion, this "result" is such aggressive NR that the image looks a little like a computer generated drawing. I suppose that is the only option we have these days with high ISO... but I prefer a camera that will retain fine details, and allow me to decide which details I would like to obliterate into watercolour-dom

.

LeeRunge · 10-12-2010, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

In my opinion, this "result" is such aggressive NR that the image looks a little like a computer generated drawing. I suppose that is the only option we have these days with high ISO... but I prefer a camera that will retain fine details, and allow me to decide which details I would like to obliterate into watercolour-dom

.

Not true on the "smudge" The 7d I own retains a ton of detail at 6400 it's in another league vs K7 at that iso. If you set noise reduction to "strong" you will get some smudge but I typically leave it disable or on low and it takes great shots at high ISO. The K7 has a lot of chroma noise as well and more detail loss that what I'm getting out of my cameras.

You can ring out good results with K7 but not past 3200 imo. K7 is a really good camera and it cost half what my 7d did as well. Also the "soft" images from 7d are rectified by adjusting the in camera sharpening. When that is made the 18mp comes alive and its a pretty noticeable difference in detail. Most review sites just give you strait ooc camera results and never shoot the potential. For example K7 got smashed on ISO when you can actually get pretty good shots if you take the time to pp well. Same for 7d getting the "soft" image reputation. Every camera needs some getting used to to get the most out of it.

I can post examples between both and you can see the detail difference in the 7d vs the K7 sensor. It has a 4mp advantage in resolution so one would expect better detail. The K5 is addressing the ISO issues of the K7 head on and that was one of two negatives I had with the camera. The other being AF which is tough to evaluate without having a review camera.

Yassarian · 10-12-2010, 10:26 PM

In general a lot of people are too obsessed about pixel peeping. Sure K7 has noise at 1600 but for my modest needs I find it perfectly acceptable with a little pp...

Here's a window shopping photo taken in beijing...

IMGP2105 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

LeeRunge · 10-12-2010, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Yassarian

In general a lot of people are too obsessed about pixel peeping. Sure K7 has noise at 1600 but for my modest needs I find it perfectly acceptable with a little pp...

Here's a window shopping photo taken in beijing...

IMGP2105 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This is very true. Most prints I make are 8x10 or less and you can't tell what camera they came from nor would anyone even care to wonder for the most part. Same with internet posting. A p/s other than dof would produce the same results most of the time.

JohnBee · 10-12-2010, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by LeeRunge

This is very true. Most prints I make are 8x10 or less and you can't tell what camera they came from nor would anyone even care to wonder for the most part. Same with internet posting. A p/s other than dof would produce the same results most of the time.

Heck most P&S end-up looking sharper online, than DSLR's in most cases.

kittykat46 · 10-12-2010, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Heck most P&S end-up looking sharper online, than DSLR's in most cases.

Hihihi...most P&S don't allow the user to change the sharpening...and , yes, they are oversharpened.

Sharpening is actually just an optical trick, There is NO additional data in the photograph.
Sharpening works because our eyes and brain perceive detail by looking at outlines. When the contrast at either side of an outline boundary is increased, the eyes "see" the boundaries more clearly. This additional processing is typically just a few pixels thick.
Extend that to the entire photograph, and you "see" more detail.

10-12-2010, 05:32 PM	#1
PinarelloOnly Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Shoreline CT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 86	K-7 and the opinions of high ISO shooting. While waiting for the k5 to come out like the rest of us, I did some soul searching and while I never gave the k7 a thought I started to read the pro reviews and past mag articles from the library recently. Turns out from what I seen and read that the k7 has put out some very good results up against cameras like the D300s, 50D and even the 7D at ISO 1600. So why all the negitivity on here about the k7 in relation to high ISO shooting? To me, it looks more and more like a bargain at it's current price.

10-12-2010, 08:56 PM	#8
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	The k7 can work up to 3200 in RAW with good pp techniques. It involves more work than the Canon's and Nikons for the same result. The 7d I have head to head pretty much takes a JPEG at 3200/6400 that is usable without any pp vs having to use topaz denoise/lightroom to work out the noise on the k7. At 1600 or below I wouldn't worry about it. The worst situation I had was a Tahitian fire dance that the K7 just couldn't keep up with the lighting. I expect the K5 to be at least as good as the 7d for noise and if they can pull off a large improvement in AF that would be a plus. I really like the pentax control scheme. If the K5 comes in at 1200 dollars or less it will be a winner even if the AF is not as fast as the competition. Not everyone needs a sports camera and the K5 looks a lot faster than the K7 which would capture fast shots just without as many keepers as a faster AF camera. Last edited by LeeRunge; 10-12-2010 at 09:16 PM.

10-12-2010, 09:59 PM	#11
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	Originally posted by paperbag846 In my opinion, this "result" is such aggressive NR that the image looks a little like a computer generated drawing. I suppose that is the only option we have these days with high ISO... but I prefer a camera that will retain fine details, and allow me to decide which details I would like to obliterate into watercolour-dom . Not true on the "smudge" The 7d I own retains a ton of detail at 6400 it's in another league vs K7 at that iso. If you set noise reduction to "strong" you will get some smudge but I typically leave it disable or on low and it takes great shots at high ISO. The K7 has a lot of chroma noise as well and more detail loss that what I'm getting out of my cameras. You can ring out good results with K7 but not past 3200 imo. K7 is a really good camera and it cost half what my 7d did as well. Also the "soft" images from 7d are rectified by adjusting the in camera sharpening. When that is made the 18mp comes alive and its a pretty noticeable difference in detail. Most review sites just give you strait ooc camera results and never shoot the potential. For example K7 got smashed on ISO when you can actually get pretty good shots if you take the time to pp well. Same for 7d getting the "soft" image reputation. Every camera needs some getting used to to get the most out of it. I can post examples between both and you can see the detail difference in the 7d vs the K7 sensor. It has a 4mp advantage in resolution so one would expect better detail. The K5 is addressing the ISO issues of the K7 head on and that was one of two negatives I had with the camera. The other being AF which is tough to evaluate without having a review camera. Last edited by LeeRunge; 10-12-2010 at 10:05 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM
Need advice for high ISO shooting w/K20D	klh	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	12-13-2009 04:14 PM
K20 high iso opinions!!	COULDBE2	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	07-03-2009 04:39 AM
How to reduce high ISO noise while shooting	PentaxPoke	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	05-17-2008 07:17 AM
Night photography with K10D - High ISO short exposure VS Low ISO long exposure	pw-pix	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	02-03-2008 01:37 AM

10-12-2010, 05:47 PM	#2
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	In my opinion, people often like to point out negatives, as superfluous as they may be, in anything. The K-7 definitely does have noise at high ISOs (more than many Nikon or Canon cameras), but in my experience the noise in Canon and Nikon cameras is still there, it's just smudged out. Thus, the images aren't really sharp. The K-7 does NR as well, but not to the extent that other cameras do. I like the noise structure of the K-7, very much like film in my opinion. Any and all flaws are visible at 100%, by the way. Nobody ever looks at 35mm slides blown up to 11x14" from a few inches away.

10-12-2010, 05:53 PM	#3
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	The K-7's high ISO "issue" or "problem" is blown out of proportion and taken with way to much credability IMO. I don't understand the frenzy this forums members generate in regards to the k-7's "flaws." Personally, I think it is an absolutely fantastic camera as does anyone I've let use it. My nikon buddy was just praising the K-7 because of how fantastic a camera it is... and for the price he called it "ridiculous." really, for the price you cannot get anything better IMO

10-12-2010, 06:03 PM	#4
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by brofkand In my opinion, people often like to point out negatives, as superfluous as they may be, in anything. The K-7 definitely does have noise at high ISOs (more than many Nikon or Canon cameras), but in my experience the noise in Canon and Nikon cameras is still there, it's just smudged out. Thus, the images aren't really sharp. The K-7 does NR as well, but not to the extent that other cameras do. I like the noise structure of the K-7, very much like film in my opinion. Any and all flaws are visible at 100%, by the way. Nobody ever looks at 35mm slides blown up to 11x14" from a few inches away. I have never complained about the k7 and high iso Here is a 100% crop at 1600 ISO and 1/40 th with a 500mm lens. IMO the IQ is quite good and so is the SR Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 10-12-2010 at 06:09 PM.

10-12-2010, 06:12 PM	#5
Kirivon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 173	The thing about the K-7 is that, on paper, it doesn't seem like much of an upgrade. When looking simply at noise grain, the K-7 really isn't better than my K10D, and is allegedly worse than the K20D. The thing is, though, that the K-7's grain distribution is very, very evenl and takes well to noise reduction. Furthermore, the K-7 leaves very little color cast when shooting high ISO. With the K10D I find ISO 1600 usable for abstracts, but hesitate to use ISO 800 for color portraits due to uneven gradation of the skin tones which the human eye tends to notice. The K-7, however, I won't hesitate to use up to ISO1250. I've been without my K-7 for a couple months as I broke the focusing screen assembly and took my time sending it in (just got the invoice from C.R.I.S. today for $265). I wasn't in a huge rush to get it fixed since the K10D was handling my limited shooting needs, but going back to the K10D has definitely made me appreciate how much better the K-7 is. Nearly everything is a huge upgrade: the af is faster, the mirror blackout is nearly instantaneous in comparison, it has better DR despite DXO's test saying otherwise, the high ISO is better, the metering is better, P-TTL is better, and the white balance is worlds apart. The only thing that I feel the K10D handles better is white balance under daylight at base ISO. I look at my K-7 shots at times and think, "I thought this camera was bad at high iso?" All shots are default LR conversions with no adjustments done in post. 50mm @ f/1.4, 1/30s ISO 1600 50mm @ f/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 1250 50mm @ f/1.4, 1/8s (handheld), ISO1250 30mm @ f1/1.4, 1/60s, ISO 1250

10-12-2010, 06:19 PM	#6
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	The K-7 is competitive at High-ISO with most of the Nikons and Canons in its class if you shoot RAW. The High-ISO performance starts lagging at ISO 3200 and above. I think the main problem is the unimpressive JPEG output straight from the camera at High-ISO. Lets face it, a lot of people will form their first and possibly only impression of the camera from JPEG output. I hope Pentax has fixed this on its newer model.

10-12-2010, 07:06 PM	#7
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by kittykat46 I think the main problem is the unimpressive JPEG output straight from the camera at High-ISO. Lets face it, a lot of people will form their first and possibly only impression of the camera from JPEG output. I hope Pentax has fixed this on its newer model. I think this is exactly it. They tend to meter a little dark (good for raw, not so good for JPEG) and apply conservative noise reduction. The K7 is really a RAW camera with an OK jpeg engine built into it. If you don't shoot raw with the K7 you really aren't going to see the best that it's sensor has to offer... I have the exact same experience with the K20D. I think one of the issues is that these cameras retain so much shadow detail that works wonders in post... but you never see it if the image is immediately compressed.

10-12-2010, 09:21 PM	#9
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by PinarelloOnly While waiting for the k5 to come out like the rest of us, I did some soul searching and while I never gave the k7 a thought I started to read the pro reviews and past mag articles from the library recently. Turns out from what I seen and read that the k7 has put out some very good results up against cameras like the D300s, 50D and even the 7D at ISO 1600. So why all the negitivity on here about the k7 in relation to high ISO shooting? To me, it looks more and more like a bargain at it's current price. If you limit yourself to ISO1600 then I see no reason to consider the K-7 to be anything but an above average camera. However, if high ISO shooting is your game then I would consider the K-x or the K-r and ultimately the K-5 systems. PS. my experiences show that the K-7 holds-up nicely up until ISO2000 after which the level of effort increases as sensitivities move-up. However, that's not to say that the camera isn't usable past that level either.

10-12-2010, 09:33 PM	#10
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by LeeRunge It involves more work than the Canon's and Nikons for the same result. In my opinion, this "result" is such aggressive NR that the image looks a little like a computer generated drawing. I suppose that is the only option we have these days with high ISO... but I prefer a camera that will retain fine details, and allow me to decide which details I would like to obliterate into watercolour-dom .

10-12-2010, 10:26 PM	#12
Yassarian Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 72	In general a lot of people are too obsessed about pixel peeping. Sure K7 has noise at 1600 but for my modest needs I find it perfectly acceptable with a little pp... Here's a window shopping photo taken in beijing... IMGP2105 \| Flickr - Photo Sharing!

10-12-2010, 10:32 PM	#13
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	Originally posted by Yassarian In general a lot of people are too obsessed about pixel peeping. Sure K7 has noise at 1600 but for my modest needs I find it perfectly acceptable with a little pp... Here's a window shopping photo taken in beijing... IMGP2105 \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! This is very true. Most prints I make are 8x10 or less and you can't tell what camera they came from nor would anyone even care to wonder for the most part. Same with internet posting. A p/s other than dof would produce the same results most of the time.

10-12-2010, 10:38 PM	#14
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by LeeRunge This is very true. Most prints I make are 8x10 or less and you can't tell what camera they came from nor would anyone even care to wonder for the most part. Same with internet posting. A p/s other than dof would produce the same results most of the time. Heck most P&S end-up looking sharper online, than DSLR's in most cases.

10-12-2010, 10:54 PM	#15
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by JohnBee Heck most P&S end-up looking sharper online, than DSLR's in most cases. Hihihi...most P&S don't allow the user to change the sharpening...and , yes, they are oversharpened. Sharpening is actually just an optical trick, There is NO additional data in the photograph. Sharpening works because our eyes and brain perceive detail by looking at outlines. When the contrast at either side of an outline boundary is increased, the eyes "see" the boundaries more clearly. This additional processing is typically just a few pixels thick. Extend that to the entire photograph, and you "see" more detail.