[cbaytan]

Ok folks, I've made a quick comparison between the two, all pics are SR off, Av mode and 400 ISO because I didn't want to SR differences would interfere with the IQ, all taken with the same lens (FA 35-80), f/5.6 within 10 minutes. I'll list the RAW links below, you can pull them and then conclude here. Let me tell you though RAW files IQ's are no different from the jpg samples below.

Please let me know if there is a broken link.

K200D peppers


K-7 peppers


K200D lill' flowers


K-7 lill' flowers


K200D house


K-7 house


K-200D purple sumbul


K-7 purple sumbul


K-200D lill' white flowers



K-7 lill' white flowers


Ok here are the RAW links

K200D peppers
K-7 peppers

K200D lill flowers
K-7 lill flowers


K200D housel
K-7 purple house

K200D purple sumbul
K-7 purple sumbul

K200D white flowers
K-7 white flowers


My conclusion about these pictures is simple and clear, non-PP'ed K200D images are clearly superior to K-7. When I use SR K-7 images gets worse, I start suspecting at least on my K-7's 3 dimensional SR causes blurry images. You can also easily see CCD sensors superiority over CMOS's on hue and saturation.

---

Last edited by cbaytan; 04-04-2011 at 05:34 AM.

[Adam]

The hard thing about comparisons like these is that it's practically impossible to control all the variables. In this case, your K200 was shooting daylight WB and the K-7 flourescent WB (via auto). If you change both to daylight in your raw processor, the photos will look pretty much identical.

If the difference was actually this landmark, nodoby would be buying K-7's, would they?

So I guess the bigger question is why was the K-7's WB off?

[VaSA]

WB settings seem to be different, plus you have to define your understanding of "superior".

[gp1806]

Even with the WB issue, this shows, if nothing else, that the K200D is no slouch!

[arm_jstp]

May be the K200D is better at picking the right WB in Auto WB mode?

[twitch]

To my eyes the K-7 images are clearly superior and would be a much better starting point for PP. The K200D ones have blown highlights or too much contrast causing blocked up shadows.

Oh well, I guess I'm a CMOS guy

[cbaytan]

About RAW files, lazy to type, I've pulled from here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

"If you are saving raw files the camera creates a header file which contains all of the camera settings, including (depending on the camera) sharpening level, contrast and saturation settings, colour temperature / white balance, and so on. The image is not changed by these settings, they are simply tagged onto the raw image data."

So, in this case RAW files speak for themselves, you can always open RAW files in any way you want to, even also open them without applying any color temperature change, ignoring metadata.

If someone finds CMOS K-7 images better, I can understand that, not because my graphic card (ATI 3450) and monitor (Asus VH226H) are not badly calibrated, but our visual cortices made by different factories by our parents, and they can't be calibrated.

On the camera side, please don't forget we compare different generation of cameras here , and 10MP Samsung CCD sensor with 15MP Sony CMOS sensor. So my point is regarding IQ wise there must be something not right here.

---

Last edited by cbaytan; 04-04-2011 at 12:12 AM.

[cbaytan]

So I guess the bigger question is why was the K-7's WB off?

Adam I didn't understand your question, how a WB can be off? and also working with RAWs why WB settings is important for you? Shouldn't we just open RAW file and adjust WB if needed. For testing ignoring WB is the best.

BTW I mostly use jpg.'s only for identifying the files, like thumbnails.

Real creepy question is when I see K200 RAW files are about 16MB when K-7's are about 14MB, I guess that shows K-7 compresses RAW files, I hope it is using a not a lossy compression method like Nikon does. Anyone knows?

[Adam]

For testing ignoring WB is the best.

But that's the only difference between the two! The K-7 just picked a different white balance than the K200.

IMO, the daylight WB is better in this case, which is why it's strange that the K-7 went with flourescent. Then again, I see others arguing that the K-7's images are better from a PP perspective - but the WB shoudln't really matter at all when shooting RAW.

In any case, if you want to do a proper comparison, you could lock in identical settings for both cameras, then shoot JPEG and see if there are any differences. Another way to go about it (perhaps more practical) would be to shoot raw with both, develop the files with adjustments you see fit, and see which come out most appealing (this goes back to the "better for pp" argument).

I guess that shows K-7 compresses RAW files

Both cameras should have a a bit depth of 12, but I've never had a K200, so I'm not sure. Lossless compression is always good, though, if that's what they do. I'm pretty sure the K-5 does it after fw 1.01, but I could be wrong.

[JohnBee]

My conclusion about these pictures is simple and clear, non-PP'ed K200D images are clearly superior to K-7. When I use SR K-7 images gets worse, I start suspecting at least on my K-7's 3 dimensional SR causes blurry images. You can also easily see CCD sensors superiority over CMOS's on hue and saturation.

I think your findings are right in line with the DxoMark sensor ranking data. A quick glance confirmed that the K200D and K-7 are neck in neck on all specs aside from DR, at which point the K200D shows a slight advantage over the K-7.

TBH, I don't think any of the images posted expose the differences(if at all possible) given that were talking minute dynamic range difference, and so I'm guessing your images are showing the in-camera settings/processing between both units rather than that of substantial image attributes.

Not dissing either unit btw. I'm just pointing-out what I've found with respect to both units.

IMO, given the recent advancements in sensor technology, I'm thinking the only way to experience or warrant some of the advantages in sensor performances(ie. K-5 etc) is to shoot in RAW to take advantage of them. Granted... some JPG systems can/will make better use of added dynamic range with highlight etc. but, for the most part, it would seem as though camera's don't typically tap into such reserves without some form advanced processing method(extended DR, HDR, etc etc.) - Which is rather sad when you think about it, as this leaves the JPG shooters at a sort of hybridized point and shoot level in contrast to the RAW shooters.

Either way, I give you an "A" for effort, for taking the initiative and doing the tests. I've had a K-5 for almost 1 month now and I can't seem to get off my ass to do anything other than the odd snap here and there . So kudos to you for that!

Take care and keep-up the good work!

[TOUGEFC]

I dowloaded the raw of the "peppers"
And opened them both in lightroom and applied the exact same WB to each and did a resize for upload and nothing more, here are the results-

K200D-


K-7-

[JohnBee]

Nice,

By the looks of things, it seems as though the major difference bewteeen the two would be the black point and perhaps a little fill light(hard to say without looking). Though very slight.

[cbaytan]

- Which is rather sad when you think about it, as this leaves the JPG shooters at a sort of hybridized point and shoot level in contrast to the RAW shooters.

Take care and keep-up the good work!

Thanks much for the nice comments John.
About jpg shooters: like buying a 1.5 grand camera and being stuck with the certain brands FWs jpeg algorithms is not funny, not at all, on the other hand PPing is been always quite bit a time/money consuming job but what if you don't have time for learning and applying PP? Kind of ironic.

[cbaytan]

I dowloaded the raw of the "peppers"
And opened them both in lightroom and applied the exact same WB to each and did a resize for upload and nothing more, here are the results-

And, and... don't be afraid, just say it.

[Rondec]

I downloaded the files and looked at them in photoshop elements and I can't really see much difference at all when the white balanced is fixed. I owned a K10 for a long time and I liked the colors of it, although it seemed as though the photos tended to be colder in appearance than with either the K20 or K7.