Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-09-2011, 04:34 PM   #91
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
MILC? Milk Income Loss Contract is what google says, but I'm guessing it's not what you're talking about.
MILC = Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. I don't like this acronym as much as EVIL, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera, but MILC seems to be taking over.

05-09-2011, 05:29 PM   #92
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Funny I have a K20D, honestly I can go to 1600 without much noise or detail disappearing. Honestly not sure why everyone thinks the noise is so bad on these, I compared them with D300 and found the noise to be better on the K7 and K20D(A bit better then K7) by a small margin.

I think you are comparing it to much to the K-X(Much newer sensor), I can almost guarantee photos at lower ISO will look better on the K7 though...

When you compare the K7 with what was around at the time its great, Pretty sure you just need to learn the camera batter, try lowering the ISO and take advantage of Image stabilization. Seriously I can go down to 15-20 shutter speed and get clear non blurred photos.
05-09-2011, 07:12 PM   #93
Pentaxian
Designosophy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northeast Philadelphia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,094
With the K-x, RAW at ISO 200, if I wasn't pushing the exposure, I couldn't bring out noise with sharpening in ACR if I tried. With the K-7, relatively minor sharpening at ISO 100 brings out noise.

I'm not saying the K-7 is bad. I love my K-7. But there be noise, friends. ISO 1600 isn't bad as long as you expose properly. I find even ISO 3200 usable if exposed properly. Here's an example. The large size is scaled down about 30% — I almost never post full size on Flickr. If I had spent a bit more time on it, I could have cleaned up this image a lot more.

All sizes | Sitters on the Grass | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
05-09-2011, 08:33 PM   #94
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Designosophy Quote
With the K-x, RAW at ISO 200, if I wasn't pushing the exposure, I couldn't bring out noise with sharpening in ACR if I tried. With the K-7, relatively minor sharpening at ISO 100 brings out noise.

I'm not saying the K-7 is bad. I love my K-7. But there be noise, friends. ISO 1600 isn't bad as long as you expose properly. I find even ISO 3200 usable if exposed properly. Here's an example. The large size is scaled down about 30% — I almost never post full size on Flickr. If I had spent a bit more time on it, I could have cleaned up this image a lot more.

All sizes | Sitters on the Grass | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I'll tell you where I like the noise... I love shooting ISO 3200 with my K20D and converting it with Nik Silver Efex. Amazing retro-b&w film look.

05-09-2011, 10:53 PM   #95
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south africa, johannesburg
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 228
There are a lot of limited experience users writing into this thread.

Some facts: KX images are better than K7 images for dynamic range and noise signature.

Fact: camera settings and the amount of available light will create the illusion of better dynamic range and relatively good iso at 1600 on the K7. The purpose of high iso is to take pix in low light conditions, not normal light conditions and when this is done, the KX is always better than the K7 for noise signature.

Fact: at normal screen viewing, a K7 image at 400 iso looks as good as a KX image at 400 iso, so if you restrict yourself to low iso settings, the K7 is a great camera.

Fact: the K7 has better features than the KX - what do you want out of your pix? Better noise signature and better dynamic range or crappy IQ taken with a camera with loads of features that mean squat for the quality of image you get out of the camera?

More facts: a good noise reduction program will turn a horribly noisy K7 image into an acceptable medium sized print. Case in point - I tested DxO inbuilt noise reduction on a sample K7 raw image taken at 3200 (almost the worst case scenario for the K7) and it cleaned up beautifully without much of the plastic smearing of details effect.

Conclusion: without a doubt, the KX does better images than the K7 at all settings. The K7 has more bells and whistles - how much do those matter when you are looking at a very grainy, rough edged image at 1600 iso?

But if you have a K7, all is not lost - try the free trial of DxO and see how brilliant it is at sorting out the noise on yur K7 images - as a bonus, it will sharpen your images as well provided you use a lens that they have built into their lens modules.
05-10-2011, 12:53 AM   #96
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
Fact(unless he's changed his mind).........the OP has ordered a K5 from B&H, an I'm looking forward to reading what he's got to say when he gets it.
05-10-2011, 04:40 AM   #97
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by jlaubza Quote
The K7 has more bells and whistles
FACT: The K-7 features are not all bells and whistles. Personally I do not want to use a camera without:

1. Individual AF adjust for lenses. This is essential or shots will be out of focus... much more damaging to an image than a tad more noise. My K-x needs completely different focus adjustments for all my common lenses, and each one requires a trip to a debug menu... impractical.

2. A clear Pentaprism viewfinder so that manual focusing is no longer a crap shoot. Also helps with composing.

3. Two control wheels for much better ergonomics. I don't use the camera as a point'n'shoot and so need direct and instant access to parameters.

4. Solid build (weather-sealing a bonus) so I am confident the camera won't glitch on a job. The K-x is simply not built to the same tolerances.

The above reasons are why I prefer my K20D to my K-x, which I will sell just as soon as I can afford to upgrade it to a better body. The K-7 has even further benefits I would love to have -- quiet shutter, improved AF. Compared to all of these a bit more noise in high ISO (a situation I find myself in frequently shooting events, BTW).

Saying these features are all "bells and whistles" is simply misleading.
05-10-2011, 04:45 AM   #98
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Trade offer

In case anyone has different priorities...

FOR TRADE
One K-x, body only, lightly used and well cared for. Complete with all original packaging and accessories. Black colour. I will throw in a set of Eneloops and a smallish SD card, so you can get started right away. Debug file on SD card for lens adjust. Excellent low light capture; this camera is unsurpassed as an entry-level camera.

Will accept in return your K-7 body in similar condition.

I am in the EU and prefer that you are too, in order to avoid duty etc.

Serious responses only, by PM.

05-10-2011, 04:48 AM   #99
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by jlaubza Quote
There are a lot of limited experience users writing into this thread.
And one know-it-all?

Fact. Not everyone has the same priorities, or values the same things, which means the rest of your facts are just an opinion on a message board. Here's a poll showing that 2/3 of posters here would rather own a K-7 over a K-x:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/77279-if-you-had-p...et-k7-k-x.html

Last edited by audiobomber; 05-10-2011 at 05:14 AM.
05-10-2011, 07:27 AM   #100
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 218
That is an interesting thread, That was started October 2009, I wound up buying a Kx Late in November 2009. Being new to the DSLR world, I thought it was a good starting point. There is no doubt, it is a great camera. After about 1 years though, I was wanting more control over what I took. The Kx will only go so far. Again that is OK. I toiled over getting a K5 or a K7 for the past 4 months, I got very lucky, and got an unannounced company bonus. I was able to get the K5. If the bonus would not have happened, I would have gotten the K7, and been OK with it. There is so much information out there on the K7, people with 1000+++ posts of pictures and information. They have that camera figured out. Those are the folks I learn from. I an sure I will be happy with my K5, and I fully expect to keep using the Kx.

For some folks it is really not going matter what camera they get. some of us have only so much talent and so much skill. I may be one of them. But I am lucky enough to be at a point in my life that I can take my cameras to work, and use them just about anytime I want to . So I am hoping that I can grow with the K5 and get better.
05-10-2011, 07:32 AM   #101
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
Since we're on a roll with FACTS here are a few more...

FACT - It's been said many times before by many people... there isn't a great deal of difference in the output among DSLRs now a days.

FACT - Pentax has an Achilles’ heel when it comes to AF speed and AF tracking. This is the #1 reason why I won't upgrade to a K-5. You can say what you want about dynamic range and high ISO, but Pentax needs to drastically improves its AF. Until then, even the K-5 is an incomplete upgrade - a crippled camera handicapped by poor AF.
05-10-2011, 08:29 AM   #102
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 218
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
FACT - Pentax has an Achilles’ heel when it comes to AF speed and AF tracking. This is the #1 reason why I won't upgrade to a K-5. You can say what you want about dynamic range and high ISO, but Pentax needs to drastically improves its AF. Until then, even the K-5 is an incomplete upgrade - a crippled camera handicapped by poor AF.
That could be when compared to other brands, but I do know this, the K5 is much quicker than my Kx, when it comes to AF. I was using the K5 the other day at a local vineyard, using the Tamron 70-200, I was picking birds off in mid flight, and they looked sharp as heck. I also was playing with the K5 last night in my living room, using my Sigma 530 Super flash unit. It did not hunt and peck at all. Now I was using my Sigma 28-70 lens, and that lens is 77mm up front. That may help, I enjoy both camera, and the Kx is going to continue to get heavy use. The K5 may have an issue, I see the tungsten debate, Most of the wineries I shoot for, you need to use the tungsten WB to get the right colors. Only time will tell. issues maybe, but crippled?
05-10-2011, 08:33 AM   #103
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote
FACT - Pentax has an Achilles’ heel when it comes to AF speed and AF tracking. This is the #1 reason why I won't upgrade to a K-5.
I don't understand. The AF speed and accuracy was one of the most praised upgrades to the K-5. It is universally considered to be the best Pentax camera in this regard.
05-10-2011, 08:37 AM   #104
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by JHD Quote

FACT - Pentax has an Achilles’ heel when it comes to AF speed and AF tracking. This is the #1 reason why I won't upgrade to a K-5. You can say what you want about dynamic range and high ISO, but Pentax needs to drastically improves its AF. Until then, even the K-5 is an incomplete upgrade - a crippled camera handicapped by poor AF.
Spoken like somebody who has never tried one.

05-10-2011, 08:45 AM   #105
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I don't understand. The AF speed and accuracy was one of the most praised upgrades to the K-5. It is universally considered to be the best Pentax camera in this regard.
Can't speak for Canon but the best by Pentax is still lagging way behind Nikon. AF tracking isn't even close.
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, f2.8, iso, k5, k7, kx, lens, lenses, photography, portraits, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought experiment with depth of field...want to help? arpaagent Photographic Technique 9 09-18-2009 07:08 AM
a thought benjikan General Talk 3 07-01-2009 12:23 AM
Just a worrying thought Torphoto Photographic Technique 10 06-03-2009 02:46 AM
Wow! I thought I had bought a good camera system racinsince55 General Talk 11 06-13-2008 04:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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