[adamaitken]

I've been using my K10D (for sale now I have a K5) along side my K7 for more than a year now.
I have mixed feelings about the combination, it is hard to proof, but I like the low ISO colors, results of the K10D better than the K7.
It has probably to do with the so much praised K7 AWB as well, which in sun light does worse in some situations than the K10D for me.

The K7 noise results continue to surprise me.
Sometimes noise is terrible in low noise pictures, sometimes it is almost absent in high noise pictures....

Here are a few K7 high ISO results that I like:
@ ISO 2000


and:
@ISO 1600


or:
@ ISO 6400 + Topaz


- Bert

Bert, love the lion. I agree with you that K10 low ISO colours and tone is superior to K-7. I used a K10 before I bought my K-7 in June 2009. I won't use K-7 for jpgs, but develop the RAW files myself.

[Marcus]

High ISO on K7 can be quite surprising. I wish I had photos to show but I don't.

K7 shot in RAW at high ISO (3200, 4000, 5000, 6400) can be quite satisfactory, at least for me. How I process RAW in camera:

- I shoot in RAW
- Set exposure compensation to +0.7 or +1
- Set mode to save highlights
- NR Set to Off
- Shoot
- Convert RAW in camera
- Bring exposure back down to normal
- Set Custom Image to Reversal Film (YEAH! )
- Process
- Upload to RAW or noise reduction program
- Reduce Luminance Noise
- Process
- Done!

I don't shoot high ISO often, but K7 does a good job, I definitely think. It's fun. Try it! See if you like it! I do!

At normal viewing sizes, it's great! Prints well too.

[bymy141]

Bert, love the lion. I agree with you that K10 low ISO colours and tone is superior to K-7. I used a K10 before I bought my K-7 in June 2009. I won't use K-7 for jpgs, but develop the RAW files myself.

Yes, I stopped shooting JPEG with my K10D the 2nd month I had it.
Still I like the K10D results in full daylight better.
Hopefully the K-5 I recently bought will deliver a K10D Sony touch to a K-7 camera...

The lion picture by the way was taken in Kafue NP, SW Zambia with a DA*60-250mm, just using the light of the search light.

- Bert

[Tommot1965]

I posted this in another thread that has gone way off Topic that the OP posted...so Ill post here and see what you guys reckon..take the time to review the link that Ive provided and tell me your thoughts on the K5 versus K7 Noise handling in the samples provided.

"I've been looking at the difference between the K7 and the K5 relative to noise and ISO setting....the more I see of professional reviewers and controlled tests...Im now convinced that he K5 is only 1 to 1.5 stops better than the K7 in controlling the levels of noise in Raw

anything over 6400 on the K7 and 12800 on the K5 im really not interested in due to unacceptable noise in both for my tastes
Eg

ISO 100 in a K7 is the equal to ISO 200 on a K5..or perhaps a tad better etc etc ....Dr is better as is IQ...but not so much as I would have thought ...please check out this site and let me know what you think.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page


other than the better AF...Im not so sure now I want to sell my K7 just for the little improvements that the K5 has over it...I really want the new sigma 70-200 OS lens..so I might pass on the K5 and spend the loot on a sharper lens ?

until my local shop has one for me to Test with my own lenses Im gonna hold off...so Ive withdrawn my K7 from the marketplace"

[ivoire]

I posted this in another thread that has gone way off Topic that the OP posted...so Ill post here and see what you guys reckon..take the time to review the link that Ive provided and tell me your thoughts on the K5 versus K7 Noise handling in the samples provided.

"I've been looking at the difference between the K7 and the K5 relative to noise and ISO setting....the more I see of professional reviewers and controlled tests...Im now convinced that he K5 is only 1 to 1.5 stops better than the K7 in controlling the levels of noise in Raw

anything over 6400 on the K7 and 12800 on the K5 im really not interested in due to unacceptable noise in both for my tastes
Eg

ISO 100 in a K7 is the equal to ISO 200 on a K5..or perhaps a tad better etc etc ....Dr is better as is IQ...but not so much as I would have thought ...please check out this site and let me know what you think.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page


other than the better AF...Im not so sure now I want to sell my K7 just for the little improvements that the K5 has over it...I really want the new sigma 70-200 OS lens..so I might pass on the K5 and spend the loot on a sharper lens ?

until my local shop has one for me to Test with my own lenses Im gonna hold off...so Ive withdrawn my K7 from the marketplace"

I'm still holding my K7 based on the image comparisons. Since i usually don't shoot above 800iso, only shoot raw and enjoy post processing, I just don't see the need for a K5. I am still considering it for the faster frame rate, improved AF and the higher dynamic range as those are a definite plus. If the price fell to $1200, I think I'd open my wallet. Instead, like you, I'm pondering a lens (BIGMA) purchase

[adamaitken]

I posted this in another thread that has gone way off Topic that the OP posted...so Ill post here and see what you guys reckon..take the time to review the link that Ive provided and tell me your thoughts on the K5 versus K7 Noise handling in the samples provided.

"I've been looking at the difference between the K7 and the K5 relative to noise and ISO setting....the more I see of professional reviewers and controlled tests...Im now convinced that he K5 is only 1 to 1.5 stops better than the K7 in controlling the levels of noise in Raw

anything over 6400 on the K7 and 12800 on the K5 im really not interested in due to unacceptable noise in both for my tastes
Eg

ISO 100 in a K7 is the equal to ISO 200 on a K5..or perhaps a tad better etc etc ....Dr is better as is IQ...but not so much as I would have thought ...please check out this site and let me know what you think.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page


other than the better AF...Im not so sure now I want to sell my K7 just for the little improvements that the K5 has over it...I really want the new sigma 70-200 OS lens..so I might pass on the K5 and spend the loot on a sharper lens ?

until my local shop has one for me to Test with my own lenses Im gonna hold off...so Ive withdrawn my K7 from the marketplace"

I compared the K-7 RAW files at 1600 ISO with equivalent K-5 and the differences in NOISE are apparent - if you go to 100 % crop. So, the higher ISO capabilities K-5 would be great for stock photographer and very picky shooters who see the noise - as they are looking for it all the time. If you are only putting photos on the web or printing your snap shots, a a lot of point-and-shoot cameras are fine.

I think people are now expecting grain-free imagery from their cameras. Personally, I look for aesthetic qualities where grain or noise doesn't really matter too much. If I were doing commercial work I would worry, and then I would pay for a K-5.

Dynamic range is better with K-5, but more apparent when you take shots with a lot of DR - a wedding photo where the groom's in black and the bride's in white. Then you NEED as much DR as you can get. I would get a K-5 if I were shooting weddings, or I was heavily into landscapes in high contrast environments (lke Nevada deserts for example).

Of course if you have a post-processing software you can compensate for lost shadows and blown highlights with the k-7, but you won't need as much processing with K-5 thus saving you time to other things.

Adam Aitken

[adamaitken]

High ISO on K7 can be quite surprising. I wish I had photos to show but I don't.

K7 shot in RAW at high ISO (3200, 4000, 5000, 6400) can be quite satisfactory, at least for me. How I process RAW in camera:

- I shoot in RAW
- Set exposure compensation to +0.7 or +1
- Set mode to save highlights
- NR Set to Off
- Shoot
- Convert RAW in camera
- Bring exposure back down to normal
- Set Custom Image to Reversal Film (YEAH! )
- Process
- Upload to RAW or noise reduction program
- Reduce Luminance Noise
- Process
- Done!

I don't shoot high ISO often, but K7 does a good job, I definitely think. It's fun. Try it! See if you like it! I do!

At normal viewing sizes, it's great! Prints well too.

Marcus

Are you sure you can "set mode to save highlights" with RAW? I thought that only applied to jpg. Correct me if I am wrong.

Adam Aitken

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

forum error -> duplicate post

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Are you sure you can "set mode to save highlights" with RAW? I thought that only applied to jpg. Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, both extended DR settings can be used with RAW. If you have a K7, why not see for yourself instead of asking to be corrected?

[Tommot1965]

I compared the K-7 RAW files at 1600 ISO with equivalent K-5 and the differences in NOISE are apparent - if you go to 100 % crop. So, the higher ISO capabilities K-5 would be great for stock photographer and very picky shooters who see the noise - as they are looking for it all the time. If you are only putting photos on the web or printing your snap shots, a a lot of point-and-shoot cameras are fine.

I think people are now expecting grain-free imagery from their cameras. Personally, I look for aesthetic qualities where grain or noise doesn't really matter too much. If I were doing commercial work I would worry, and then I would pay for a K-5.

Dynamic range is better with K-5, but more apparent when you take shots with a lot of DR - a wedding photo where the groom's in black and the bride's in white. Then you NEED as much DR as you can get. I would get a K-5 if I were shooting weddings, or I was heavily into landscapes in high contrast environments (lke Nevada deserts for example).

Of course if you have a post-processing software you can compensate for lost shadows and blown highlights with the k-7, but you won't need as much processing with K-5 thus saving you time to other things.

Adam Aitken

Adam
I agree with you 100% mate...I too can see that the K5 is better in both DR and ISO Noise .......but I feel...that many on this forum have touted it as a Low light super body..which I don't feel that it is..I personally reckon its 1 -1.5 stops better than the K7 which is great and very useful

Im just glad I've held my breath..and taken the time to review images taken with both in a controlled environment before I took a huge loss on a almost brand new K7....which by the way is being looked at with renewed respect by me...as while I wanted the K5..the K7 was being looked at sideways with contempt

For me..the better AF and DR would be my reason to switch, plus the better ISO.but right now that aint worth $1000 to me.LOL

[alffastar]

I have shot nikon d300, d90 canon 40d, 5d. I am really into low light shooting without flash. I decided to go the pentax route - really like the ergonomics and WR plus the pencakes ) I have to decide which body to take, K-7 feels perfetc in my hand!!! But the noise in 1600 and above troubles me although I do not mind shooting in RAW and post process. K-5 is too expensive for me and K-r is another very good option. I will have to decide ... Problem is I only read on the internet and cannot judge by using k-7 myself how noisy the pictures are...
Sp do I get the k-7 with this perfect feel and WR or K-r with better high iso (may be k-5 but I will have to stretch my budget very much)

[Tommot1965]

check this link out and judge for yourself if a K7 will do ya ...to be honest with you.. that's the best way, as user opinions are coloured by what they own!..

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

[alffastar]

Thanks, I have already checked the comparometer. It is still difficult and it is not like using the camera your self in the situations that would matter to me and then check the results. I agree though that the comparometer is the best online resource for that!

[Rondec]

Just thought I would post a couple of photos shot at iso 1600 without noise reduction on the K7. If you hit the exposure right on, iso 1600 doesn't look too bad and cleans up nicely. On the other hand, if you under expose at iso 1600, there is really no room to bring the photo up. First photo is of my son at a restaurant, second, a 100 percent crop of the first. Both shot at f2.8 with the DA 40.





Hope that helps.

[alffastar]

Thanks, Rondec! Your example and comments are really helpful! I compared the K7 against the k-x in comparometer and I definitely decided that 1600 and beyound is not good enough for me purposes on the k-7! But your example makes me hesitate again What is for sure though that the high iso on the k-7, whether good enough or not, is visibly worse than k-x/k-r. So, it's up to me now to decide which way to go