[pentaxian233]

I sold my K10d and thought I upgraded to a better K7 but I'm very disheartened by the pictures I've been getting with the K7. There not as sharp and don't have the same great color I came to love with the k10d. Here are two examples. Both pics were shot using the same exact lens, (focus point right eye,) flash, camera settings, subject and basically the same lighting conditions. The k10d picture is much more sharper and colorful, all around a better shot.

k10d



K7

[Adam]

You might need to tweak your custom image settings, and also keep in mind that you have to scale the K-7 photo in order to be able to compare the final product from the two cameras.

With that said, while the IQ of the K-7 shouldn't ever seem worse, its main advantage over the K10 is not image quality, but rather overall performance and user interface.

[pentaxian233]

Which custom image settings should I change? Thanks...

[treebeard]

I would strongly recommend using a static subject as opposed to one moving around. I don't know what lens, shutter speed, ISO setting, etc...you were using?

[HSV]

Probably you should also need to do focus calibration. For some funny reason, I never had to do any focus testing and calibration with my 2 K20d's...now I need to put -4 on one of my K-5's, the other one seems to be almost perfect (haven't done enough testing on the 2nd body to warrant it's perfect with every lens).

Thanks god that the -4 can be used with almost every lens I got, except the DA15, which happens to a perfect 0.

Also, for more objective tests...compare the RAW instead of jpegs, that way you bypass the custom image, WB, NR, etc.

[pentaxian233]

The lens was a Pentax F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 shot at iso 100 AV-3.5 TV-1/50 (k10d) TV-1/80 (K7) focal length-35mm

[rockmaster1964]

Did you shoot jpeg or raw? If you shot jpeg you probably need to adjust the camera settings for jpegs.

[jimr-pdx]

Many folks comment on the transition from CCD to CMOS sensors - at lower ISO settings the CCD has a quality that CMOS does not. I am less sensitive to it myself and love the flexibility of higher ISO settings, but perhaps you are a CCD-imager. As to sharpness, we have plenty of variables to address: shutter speed, child in motion, and micro-AF adjustments to consider.

Cute child in any case!

[pentaxian233]

Both camera were is jpeg.

[rawr]

There are some arguments that suggest that moving from lower megapixels to higher megapixels (in a camera of the same sensor size) can reveal issues of technique (mainly related to motion blur) that may not be as visible in a lower MP camera. The higher the MP, the more visible even the slightest shake may be.

[HSV]

There are some arguments that suggest that moving from lower megapixels to higher megapixels (in a camera of the same sensor size) can reveal issues of technique (mainly related to motion blur) that may not be as visible in a lower MP camera. The higher the MP, the more visible even the slightest shake may be.

Does a high MP also exaggerate other issues such as focus errors and lens "imperfections"?

I'm asking this because Ken Rockwell states that FF can a make a crappy lens to be in a level equal or above a relatively good crop lens (at least, this is what I understood from one of his articles).

[rawr]

Does a high MP also exaggerate other issues such as focus errors and lens "imperfections"?

Nikon would agree with that, as the D800 Technical Guide makes clear:

"While its high pixel count of 36 megapixels gives the D800/D800E resolution unrivalled by previous digital SLR cameras, a side effect is that bokeh and blur are made that much more obvious. Realizing the full potential of a camera with over 30 million pixels involves a thorough appreciation of bokeh and blur, careful selection of settings and of tools (such as lenses and tripods), and working with the best possible subjects."

While the K-7 is not a 36MP D800, the concepts are still valid, especially with high density sensors.

Ken Rockwell states that FF can a make a crappy lens to be in a level equal or above a relatively good crop lens

I don't want to respond to any Ren Kockwell articles, but in general: I doubt it.

Read this for a better discussion of the issue he mentions:
Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

[calsan]

The main difference I notice in favor of my K10d is that it produces warmer looking images in it's default settings - the K7 can be tweaked to match this, however.
I did initally think that the K10d was sharper, but as said above, this was just the effect of viewing at 100% on screen, with 100% not being the same thing between cameras.
The K10d has less noise (none at ISO 100) at low ISOs, but the K7 quickly takes the lead from ISO 400 or so. The K10d's ISO1600 noise can look quite nice in some situations as it's sort of grainy. The noise from the K7 is more ugly, but non the less, it has about a two stop advantage in my opinion.
The K7 image mode I prefer is 'natural' - this retains quite a noticeable amount more shadow and highlight detail than 'bright'.

[Macario]

Looking at the shutterspeed you used with the K-7, it might be a case of shutterblur. It is known to happen with K-7's at around 1/80-1/100.

I also have a K-7, and I can tell that it produces very sharp pics

[calsan]

Now I'm home, here's an example.
K10d is the much yellower image - images shot one after another, no change of light. Both Auto white balance. Ignore aperture etc, that's not what I'm trying to show.
Anyway, I reckon you may be experiencing some teething problems, but it's definitely a better camera. I'm even happy to skip the K5 for my purposes.
I also only use my K10d only if I'm feeling like I shouldn't neglect it.

It's always difficult to take close up photos of kids in low light. I'd say that's harder than bird in flight shots, myself. P&S cameras are easier for that type of subject. Without knowing your settings, I would resort to at least ISO800 if kids are around.