[arpaagent]

You should read this recent post by a professional photographer that frequents these forums. I think you are overreacting a little bit to the shortcoming of the K-7. It is a fine camera and can produce amazing images, it is only through "jonesing" (relative comparisons) with newer cameras that make you think it's not good. BUT IT IS GOOD. I'd be willing to say that having a K-7 will make you a better photographer than having a K-5. It will teach you about the importance of exposure since you don't have as much room for adjustments after the shutter closes. Just my thoughts.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/143213-why-am-i-so-an...ls-i-have.html

[JeffJS]

Edit: Where did JeffJS's post come from? When I posted, yeatzee's post was there, but JeffJS's post was not!

Internet Twilight Zone?

[yeatzee]

You could be right - I am not sure. Really, I don't care all that much. I don't need a scientific 1 to 1 double-blind test to tell me that the K-x has better dynamic range and less noise than the K-7.

Edit: Where did JeffJS's post come from? When I posted, yeatzee's post was there, but JeffJS's post was not!

hahaha same here, when I posted mine his was not there, than I clicked refresh and he was before me

[audiobomber]

A RAW file should (in theory) be a tabula rasa. It's up to the RAW convertor to make of it what it will, subject to it's own algorithms and the preferences of the guy driving the computer doing the conversion. A RAW processor may take into account the camera settings for NR and WB, and even lens corrections etc, and some software like DCU may let you choose that for your RAW processing, but a RAW processor normally doesn't pay attention to camera settings for such things. It makes up it's own mind.

I agree that the raw file has no inherent image qualities until conversion. But it has to apply some algorithms for you to view the photo. You can't see a "raw" file, it's just ones and zeros.

The question is, does the raw image display the camera settings used for Image Tone, NR, Highlight Correction, etc? Certainly DCU4 does, and if you just print without altering the parameters, the print will incorporate the exact camera settings.

I'm saying that a straight conversion in LR seems to apply hardly any NR by default to Kx images it processes, whereas the NR applied to JPG's in-camera can be quite prominent. Therefore Lightroom appears to pay little attention to the in-camera NR settings that apply to SOOC K-x JPGs.

I'd like to see proof if you don't mind. Shoot two raw photos at ISO 12800, one with NR off and one with NR set to High. Do a straight jpeg conversion of each. I believe the camera settings for NR will appear in the converted jpegs.

The following pix illustrate this, at the ISO extreme of 12800 where the in-camera NR JPG settings should all be pretty strong, since above ISO 6400 in-camera NR within the K-x is hard-wired in and isn't optional anymore

The "hard-wired" high ISO noise reduction in the K-x is only defeatable via firmware modification. Sensor-level NR is present in the K-x raw files, therefore is also present in the LR conversion. What you're showing here is certainly not what we've been talking about. AFAICT, you're showing a photo with noise reduction added by LR vs no noise reduction in the OOC jpeg.

Sorry to crossover for this diversion of his thread

I don't see this as a diversion at all. The OP is ignoring the camera's NR setting because he's using raw and doesn't think it matters. I believe it does matter, because an unprocessed raw conversion will reproduce the camera settings. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it if you could do the test I outlined above to show this definitively.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 05-09-2011 at 08:30 AM.

[jstevewhite]

I'd like to see proof if you don't mind. Shoot two raw photos at ISO 12800, one with NR off and one with NR set to High. Do a straight jpeg conversion of each. I believe the camera settings for NR will appear in the converted jpegs.

These are 100% crops, slightly underexposed. I just pointed the camera at the wall and turned up shutter and aperture until ISO said 12800, and snapped the first pic; then turned high-iso NR to "high" and snapped another.

I've not used the native software provided by Pentax, but rawr is quite right about lightroom ( sorry they're different crops; I'm doing this in a hotel room a thousand miles from my dual monitor setup ):





The NR *DOES* appear in the jpg preview file, but is not applied to straight output JPGs; this includes picture modes like 'bright' or 'landscape'. The only in-camera setting that I'm certain is applied is "white balance", and that's an option "as shot".

[audiobomber]

I've not used the native software provided by Pentax, but rawr is quite right about lightroom ( sorry they're different crops; I'm doing this in a hotel room a thousand miles from my dual monitor setup ):

The NR *DOES* appear in the jpg preview file, but is not applied to straight output JPGs; this includes picture modes like 'bright' or 'landscape'. The only in-camera setting that I'm certain is applied is "white balance", and that's an option "as shot".

Got it, thanks for the demo. (DCU4 does work differently).

This is very strange to me. You're saying the display shows the in-camera settings, but it doesn't apply them to the jpeg. How then do you see what changes you've made to the file? Shouldn't the display mirror the jpeg?

[jstevewhite]

Got it, thanks for the demo. (DCU4 does work differently).

No problem - after you said that I realized I hadn't actually done a side by side to prove it to myself - I'd just assumed.

I can understand why the manufacturer's software would do so. I think third party programs that support multiple cameras and manufacturers should probably avoid trying to re-interpret what Pentax means by "bright" vs what Nikon might mean by "bright".

[audiobomber]

Wasn't it the K-x that did that?

By the way, whats with the removal of chroma noise in the k-x photos but not in the K-7's?

edit: the above answered it

According to DXOMark, the K20D, K-7, K-x, K-r and K-5 all use sensor-level noise reduction at sensitivities higher than ISO 1600. This is visible in the graphs, where it indicates "smoothed".

[crossover37]

Is there any scenario in which you keep both the K-x and the K-7?

I upgraded from the K-x to the K-7, and I love the K-7. I feel that the contrast and color that I generally get out of RAW images is superior to what I got out of the K-x. However, I definitely see the increased noise in the K-7, particularly in shadows (when ISO is over 400) and in high ISO, over 1600. I sometimes wish I had just kept the K-x for use in low-light situations where high ISO is needed. Plus, there is the benefit of having a backup or secondary camera. You could put one lens on the K-x and the other on the K-7 and switch back and forth quickly.

Edit: Here is the thread about K-7 vs K-x noise that I started when I had both cameras:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/135393-k-7-k-x-low...omparison.html

Yes, I can keep both. I would really like to keep the K7 so that I can keep the Sigma 50-150mm. When shooting portraits during sunset time I have to bump up the ISO to 1600 sometimes to make up for the decreased light, I'd have to slow my shutter speed and have enough depth of field (f5.6-f8) for group shots (this wouldn't matter for individual shots since I can just open up my aperture). I could switch to my Kx during the time it gets darker. It would be nice to have two cameras though.

[audiobomber]

Yes, I can keep both. I would really like to keep the K7 so that I can keep the Sigma 50-150mm. When shooting portraits during sunset time I have to bump up the ISO to 1600 sometimes to make up for the decreased light, I'd have to slow my shutter speed and have enough depth of field (f5.6-f8) for group shots (this wouldn't matter for individual shots since I can just open up my aperture). I could switch to my Kx during the time it gets darker. It would be nice to have two cameras though.

I wouldn't swap my K20D and K-x for a K-5. Sure, a K-5 is worth more money, but I love having two DSLR's. I would never go back to one.

[jstevewhite]

I wouldn't swap my K20D and K-x for a K-5. Sure, a K-5 is worth more money, but I love having two DSLR's. I would never go back to one.

Oooh, having used a K-5, I'd have to say I would. Before I used it, I would have agreed, though.

[audiobomber]

Oooh, having used a K-5, I'd have to say I would. Before I used it, I would have agreed, though.

I had a K-5 here for a week, but it wasn't to be my only camera. I intended to keep the K20D and K-5, sell the K-x. The K-5 worked fine in daylight, misfocussed severely under tungsten light. I sent it back and decided to stick with what I have for now. I will trade in the K-x for the Pentax APS-C MILC if it has the K-5 sensor.

[jstevewhite]

I had a K-5 here for a week, but it wasn't to be my only camera. I intended to keep the K20D and K-5, sell the K-x. The K-5 worked fine in daylight, misfocussed severely under tungsten light. I sent it back and decided to stick with what I have for now. I will trade in the K-x for the Pentax APS-C MILC if it has the K-5 sensor.

MILC? Milk Income Loss Contract is what google says, but I'm guessing it's not what you're talking about.

[Winder]

MILC? Milk Income Loss Contract is what google says, but I'm guessing it's not what you're talking about.

I believe he is referring to the rumored APS-C mirror-less Pentax.

[jstevewhite]

I believe he is referring to the rumored APS-C mirror-less Pentax.

Oh, thanks. I must not be privy to those rumors. Like a range-finder-ish machine? An APS-C version of the current micro 4/3? Where can I read these rumors?