So I bought the K7...thought at first it was great, then I used it in the field...

audiobomber · 05-07-2011, 03:06 PM

As I understand it, a raw convertor should display NR when the camera settings tell it to, just like it should add the level of saturation, sharpness etc that you dialed into the camera. When you convert to jpeg, it tries to apply your settings. Raw is not highly specified like jpeg, so different softwares display and convert the same raw data differently. Once converted, all softwares display the same photo, because they all have to follow the same rigid jpeg rules.

Originally posted by rawr

Interesting. Maybe DCU does this, but from what I can see of the RAW conversion of Lightroom 3, LR doesn't. Default K-x RAW output on LR is always (for me) nice and finely grained with little evidence of NR at all all the way up to 12800. Hence I do my RAW conversions by default in LR.

You're saying that a straight conversion in ACR with NR off creates the same jpeg as you get with NR set to High. Could you post a couple of test photos? What about changing Saturation in the camera? Does LR read the camera setting in default jpeg conversion?

I happened to read something interesting today in the GH2 review on DPR.

Here we look at the RAW files processed through Adobe Camera Raw (in this case a pre-release version of ACR 6.4). Images are brightness matched and processed with all noise reduction options set to zero. Note that Adobe does a degree of noise reduction even when the user-controlled NR is turned off.

Not so raw after all.

crossover37 · 05-07-2011, 03:22 PM

Ok so what would you guys do?

Kx with my current lenses (FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8) along with the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and the Pentax 43mm f1.9

or

buy the K5, but not keep the Sigma and not buy the 43mm f1.9, just keep my FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8

audiobomber · 05-07-2011, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the Samsung sensor used in the K7 (or the previous sensor used in the K20) didn't deliver the high ISO performance that was desired.

Maybe not what was desired, but if you look at DXOMark results, they were competitive when released. The K20D compares well the the Canon 40D and Nikon D300. The K-7 had comparable noise to the Canon 50D, the Nikon D300S moved a little ahead of both.

ggeorge11 · 05-07-2011, 03:33 PM

I am jaded because I now have a K5 and a Kx, I was going to get a K7 until I got a company bonus. I thought I could go with the K7 after reading several post about noise, and workarounds both with 3rd party software and lighting. My wife is the one who put her foot down and told me to get the K5. (she figured I would try to get it later anyway.) Smart lady. I do not have a ton of shots with it, but I can tell already that using it a few times with my Sigma 28-70 and my Tamron 70-200, and 90mm macro, I have made the right choice.

I find it almost impossible to believe that you would not love the K5, given those lenses!

**crewl1** · 05-07-2011, 03:35 PM

I'd go with the k-5 / current lens option.
Once you are comfy with it you can sell the k-x unless you think you need a backup.
With the income you make from your work you can get lenses you want in time.

JeffJS · 05-07-2011, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

Ok so what would you guys do?

Kx with my current lenses (FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8) along with the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and the Pentax 43mm f1.9

or

buy the K5, but not keep the Sigma and not buy the 43mm f1.9

Maybe I've missed something along the way but why would you dump the Sigma if you got the K5?

crossover37 · 05-07-2011, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

Maybe I've missed something along the way but why would you dump the Sigma if you got the K5?

I bought the K7 last week and I have the Kx but I will sell the K7. I only can get the K5 or keep the Sigma which I already bought and the 43mm f1.9. I'll have enough money left to buy the 43mm f1.9. I want to spend no more than $1350 so it's either the Sigma and 43mm f1.9 or the K5

JeffJS · 05-07-2011, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

I bought the K7 last week and I have the Kx but I will sell the K7. I only can get the K5 or keep the Sigma which I already bought and the 43mm f1.9. I'll have enough money left to buy the 43mm f1.9. I want to spend no more than $1350 so it's either the Sigma and 43mm f1.9 or the K5

Are you figuring any money you would get back out of the K7 in your equation? Second, Is the Sigma just going to Sit (It's useless if it does)? Third, how attached are you to the FA50 (if you're hell bent on the FA43)?

crossover37 · 05-07-2011, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

Are you figuring any money you would get back out of the K7 in your equation? Second, Is the Sigma just going to Sit (It's useless if it does)? Third, how attached are you to the FA50 (if you're hell bent on the FA43)?

Well I spent $675 on the K7 with a battery grip and I spent $660 on the Sigma. I will sell the K7 in order to buy the 43mm f1.9. I'm going to sell the K7 either way since the $630 I spent on it is included in the $1350 I can spend. I was thinking of selling my FA 50mm f1.4 if I buy the 43mm f1.9.

If I buy the K5, I will sell the K7 and the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 but will still have my FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8

rawr · 05-07-2011, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

As I understand it, a raw convertor should display NR when the camera settings tell it to, just like it should add the level of saturation, sharpness etc that you dialed into the camera.

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what a RAW convertor should do.
"The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative in film photography: it contains untouched, "raw" pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor."
Tutorials - The RAW File Format

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.

Originally posted by audiobomber

You're saying that a straight conversion in ACR with NR off creates the same jpeg as you get with NR set to High. Could you post a couple of test photos?

No, that's the exact opposite of what I am saying.

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.

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:
Pic 1: The overall scene:

K-x, FA 50 at 1.4, 1/30s and 12800 ISO - LR3.2 conversion.

Pic 2: Detail - DNG LR3.2 @ 100%:

Pic 3: Detail - JPG straight out of camera @ 100%:

It's clear that the SOOC JPG is smudging up stuff in the shadows etc, whereas the LR pic has clearer, more defined grain and less luminance smearing etc.

Both do a fairly good job, though, it has to be said, at this extreme of ISO.

Sorry to crossover for this diversion of his thread

JeffJS · 05-07-2011, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

Well I spent $675 on the K7 with a battery grip and I spent $660 on the Sigma. I will sell the K7 in order to buy the 43mm f1.9. I'm going to sell the K7 either way since the $630 I spent on it is included in the $1350 I can spend. I was thinking of selling my FA 50mm f1.4 if I buy the 43mm f1.9.

If I buy the K5, I will sell the K7 and the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 but will still have my FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8

You can probably get most of your cash out of the K7 and keep the grip or if it is a Pentax grip and you don't want it, part the pair out for more money. If you don't mind going manual focus, you can get a lot of your range back with something like a Pentax A 135 f2.8. You haven't mentioned selling the Kx so I'm assuming you want to keep it but right now, you can probably still get a nice chunk of change back out of it. All in all, tough choice. It all boils down to which is most important to you. Good luck with the decision.

**rparmar** · 05-07-2011, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

Rparmar - cool, that's good to know. That image is awesome! I love how the 43mm f1.9 renders photos.

Thank you. It is the best lens I have used. The FA77 is my favourite lens, because of the focal length. But the FA43 has even more of that "Leica look" -- for lack of other vocabulary to describe it.

crossover37 · 05-07-2011, 08:58 PM

Thanks everyone for the help. After comparing images between the Kx and K7 again I realized the K7 dynamic range is pretty bad. I took the same shots with the same lens with the Kx and K7 and the shadows and highlights would always blow out a lot more in the K7 images. I also tried the Sigma 50-150mm and realized I couldn't keep it steady enough on the Kx.

What did I decide on ultimately? I decided to buy the K5. I just bought it from BH Photo.

I will keep my current lenses and sell the Sigma 50 - 150mm and the K7 and I will save up to buy the 43mm f1.9 later on. My current lenses aren't that bad and I can focus on getting better as a photographer.

peasant · 05-07-2011, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

I decided to buy the K5

Hooray,now you'll see why us K5 owners are so enthusiastic.

jstevewhite · 05-07-2011, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

What did I decided ultimately? I decided to buy the K5. I just bought it with BH Photo.

Welcome to the club! Enjoy!

05-07-2011, 03:22 PM	#47
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	Ok so what would you guys do? Kx with my current lenses (FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8) along with the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and the Pentax 43mm f1.9 or buy the K5, but not keep the Sigma and not buy the 43mm f1.9, just keep my FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8 Last edited by crossover37; 05-07-2011 at 03:39 PM.

05-07-2011, 08:58 PM	#58
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	Thanks everyone for the help. After comparing images between the Kx and K7 again I realized the K7 dynamic range is pretty bad. I took the same shots with the same lens with the Kx and K7 and the shadows and highlights would always blow out a lot more in the K7 images. I also tried the Sigma 50-150mm and realized I couldn't keep it steady enough on the Kx. What did I decide on ultimately? I decided to buy the K5. I just bought it from BH Photo. I will keep my current lenses and sell the Sigma 50 - 150mm and the K7 and I will save up to buy the 43mm f1.9 later on. My current lenses aren't that bad and I can focus on getting better as a photographer. Last edited by crossover37; 05-07-2011 at 11:30 PM.

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

05-07-2011, 03:06 PM	#46
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	As I understand it, a raw convertor should display NR when the camera settings tell it to, just like it should add the level of saturation, sharpness etc that you dialed into the camera. When you convert to jpeg, it tries to apply your settings. Raw is not highly specified like jpeg, so different softwares display and convert the same raw data differently. Once converted, all softwares display the same photo, because they all have to follow the same rigid jpeg rules. Originally posted by rawr Interesting. Maybe DCU does this, but from what I can see of the RAW conversion of Lightroom 3, LR doesn't. Default K-x RAW output on LR is always (for me) nice and finely grained with little evidence of NR at all all the way up to 12800. Hence I do my RAW conversions by default in LR. You're saying that a straight conversion in ACR with NR off creates the same jpeg as you get with NR set to High. Could you post a couple of test photos? What about changing Saturation in the camera? Does LR read the camera setting in default jpeg conversion? I happened to read something interesting today in the GH2 review on DPR. Here we look at the RAW files processed through Adobe Camera Raw (in this case a pre-release version of ACR 6.4). Images are brightness matched and processed with all noise reduction options set to zero. Note that Adobe does a degree of noise reduction even when the user-controlled NR is turned off. Not so raw after all.

05-07-2011, 03:28 PM	#48
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Wheatfield I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the Samsung sensor used in the K7 (or the previous sensor used in the K20) didn't deliver the high ISO performance that was desired. Maybe not what was desired, but if you look at DXOMark results, they were competitive when released. The K20D compares well the the Canon 40D and Nikon D300. The K-7 had comparable noise to the Canon 50D, the Nikon D300S moved a little ahead of both.

05-07-2011, 03:33 PM	#49
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	I am jaded because I now have a K5 and a Kx, I was going to get a K7 until I got a company bonus. I thought I could go with the K7 after reading several post about noise, and workarounds both with 3rd party software and lighting. My wife is the one who put her foot down and told me to get the K5. (she figured I would try to get it later anyway.) Smart lady. I do not have a ton of shots with it, but I can tell already that using it a few times with my Sigma 28-70 and my Tamron 70-200, and 90mm macro, I have made the right choice. I find it almost impossible to believe that you would not love the K5, given those lenses!

05-07-2011, 03:35 PM	#50
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	I'd go with the k-5 / current lens option. Once you are comfy with it you can sell the k-x unless you think you need a backup. With the income you make from your work you can get lenses you want in time.

05-07-2011, 03:38 PM	#51
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by crossover37 Ok so what would you guys do? Kx with my current lenses (FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8) along with the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and the Pentax 43mm f1.9 or buy the K5, but not keep the Sigma and not buy the 43mm f1.9 Maybe I've missed something along the way but why would you dump the Sigma if you got the K5?

05-07-2011, 03:41 PM	#52
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	Originally posted by JeffJS Maybe I've missed something along the way but why would you dump the Sigma if you got the K5? I bought the K7 last week and I have the Kx but I will sell the K7. I only can get the K5 or keep the Sigma which I already bought and the 43mm f1.9. I'll have enough money left to buy the 43mm f1.9. I want to spend no more than $1350 so it's either the Sigma and 43mm f1.9 or the K5

05-07-2011, 03:56 PM	#53
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by crossover37 I bought the K7 last week and I have the Kx but I will sell the K7. I only can get the K5 or keep the Sigma which I already bought and the 43mm f1.9. I'll have enough money left to buy the 43mm f1.9. I want to spend no more than $1350 so it's either the Sigma and 43mm f1.9 or the K5 Are you figuring any money you would get back out of the K7 in your equation? Second, Is the Sigma just going to Sit (It's useless if it does)? Third, how attached are you to the FA50 (if you're hell bent on the FA43)?

05-07-2011, 03:58 PM	#54
crossover37 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 214 Original Poster	Originally posted by JeffJS Are you figuring any money you would get back out of the K7 in your equation? Second, Is the Sigma just going to Sit (It's useless if it does)? Third, how attached are you to the FA50 (if you're hell bent on the FA43)? Well I spent $675 on the K7 with a battery grip and I spent $660 on the Sigma. I will sell the K7 in order to buy the 43mm f1.9. I'm going to sell the K7 either way since the $630 I spent on it is included in the $1350 I can spend. I was thinking of selling my FA 50mm f1.4 if I buy the 43mm f1.9. If I buy the K5, I will sell the K7 and the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 but will still have my FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8

05-07-2011, 05:03 PM	#55
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by audiobomber As I understand it, a raw convertor should display NR when the camera settings tell it to, just like it should add the level of saturation, sharpness etc that you dialed into the camera. No, that's pretty much the opposite of what a RAW convertor should do. "The RAW file format is digital photography's equivalent of a negative in film photography: it contains untouched, "raw" pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor." Tutorials - The RAW File Format 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. Originally posted by audiobomber You're saying that a straight conversion in ACR with NR off creates the same jpeg as you get with NR set to High. Could you post a couple of test photos? No, that's the exact opposite of what I am saying. 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. 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: Pic 1: The overall scene: K-x, FA 50 at 1.4, 1/30s and 12800 ISO - LR3.2 conversion. Pic 2: Detail - DNG LR3.2 @ 100%: Pic 3: Detail - JPG straight out of camera @ 100%: It's clear that the SOOC JPG is smudging up stuff in the shadows etc, whereas the LR pic has clearer, more defined grain and less luminance smearing etc. Both do a fairly good job, though, it has to be said, at this extreme of ISO. Sorry to crossover for this diversion of his thread

05-07-2011, 05:30 PM	#56
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by crossover37 Well I spent $675 on the K7 with a battery grip and I spent $660 on the Sigma. I will sell the K7 in order to buy the 43mm f1.9. I'm going to sell the K7 either way since the $630 I spent on it is included in the $1350 I can spend. I was thinking of selling my FA 50mm f1.4 if I buy the 43mm f1.9. If I buy the K5, I will sell the K7 and the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 but will still have my FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28 - 75mm f2.8 You can probably get most of your cash out of the K7 and keep the grip or if it is a Pentax grip and you don't want it, part the pair out for more money. If you don't mind going manual focus, you can get a lot of your range back with something like a Pentax A 135 f2.8. You haven't mentioned selling the Kx so I'm assuming you want to keep it but right now, you can probably still get a nice chunk of change back out of it. All in all, tough choice. It all boils down to which is most important to you. Good luck with the decision.

05-07-2011, 06:42 PM	#57
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by crossover37 Rparmar - cool, that's good to know. That image is awesome! I love how the 43mm f1.9 renders photos. Thank you. It is the best lens I have used. The FA77 is my favourite lens, because of the focal length. But the FA43 has even more of that "Leica look" -- for lack of other vocabulary to describe it.

05-07-2011, 09:21 PM	#59
peasant Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: adelaide Photos: Albums Posts: 89	Originally posted by crossover37 I decided to buy the K5 Hooray,now you'll see why us K5 owners are so enthusiastic.

05-07-2011, 10:33 PM	#60
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by crossover37 What did I decided ultimately? I decided to buy the K5. I just bought it with BH Photo. Welcome to the club! Enjoy!