Very, Very unscientific, but of interest

Ed in GA · 06-16-2008, 01:26 PM

The fellow who provides our Coffee service here at work has a side business as a Wedding Photographer.

When he came by today, he came by my office to show me his new acquisition, a Nikon D3.

I have a chair in my office that has a fairly busy pattern, so he took a shot at ISO6400 to show me how noise free his Nikon is at that ISO. So, naturally, to no be outdone, I had to do she same thing with my K20D. Dispayed on my monitor here at work, neither he nor I could see much, if any, difference between the two shots.

When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes.

K20D $1,299. D3 $4999.

I was pleased.

Ed

edit: Both shots were taken at f/2.8. I was using the FA31 and he was using the Tamron 28-75 @ f/2.8

HermanLee · 06-16-2008, 01:33 PM

Hahaha...isn't that a joyful moment?

Congrats, Ed.

I also just had a similar experience this weekend, comparing my K100D AF speed with my friend's Nikon D2x in a very very dim light.
The result it, they both hunt when it's too dark and they both lock focus (subjectively) at the same time when they lock.
So I'm more than happier with my K100D.
I was testing them with this setting: AF-S at ISO 800 and f/4.

Don't have a chance to test AF-C, maybe next time.

Originally posted by Ed in GA

The fellow who provides our Coffee service here at work has a side business as a Wedding Photographer.

When he came by today, he came by my office to show me his new acquisition, a Nikon D3.

I have a chair in my office that has a fairly busy pattern, so he took a shot at ISO6400 to show me how noise free his Nikon is at that ISO. So, naturally, to no be outdone, I had to do she same thing with my K20D. Dispayed on my monitor here at work, neither he nor I could see much, if any, difference between the two shots.

When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes.

K20D $1,299. D3 $4999.

I was pleased.

Ed

Big Dave · 06-16-2008, 01:37 PM

Ed,
I sure would like to see some low light test shots. I think that those would be interesting. Were both cameras using ISO 6400? I don't have a K20D, so I wouldn't know if the K20D has ISO6400. This makes me want to rush out and buy one before the rebate is over. If I steal my wifes share of the stimulus check, I should have enough.

Dave

Originally posted by Ed in GA

The fellow who provides our Coffee service here at work has a side business as a Wedding Photographer.

When he came by today, he came by my office to show me his new acquisition, a Nikon D3.

I have a chair in my office that has a fairly busy pattern, so he took a shot at ISO6400 to show me how noise free his Nikon is at that ISO. So, naturally, to no be outdone, I had to do she same thing with my K20D. Dispayed on my monitor here at work, neither he nor I could see much, if any, difference between the two shots.

When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes.

K20D $1,299. D3 $4999.

I was pleased.

Ed

Ed in GA · 06-16-2008, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Big Dave

Ed,
I sure would like to see some low light test shots. I think that those would be interesting. Were both cameras using ISO 6400? I don't have a K20D, so I wouldn't know if the K20D has ISO6400. This makes me want to rush out and buy one before the rebate is over. If I steal my wifes share of the stimulus check, I should have enough.

Dave

Both at ISO 6400

both in Aperature Priority

Mine f/2.8 1/275

His f/2.8 1/300

barbosas · 06-16-2008, 03:39 PM

pwned

Rener · 06-16-2008, 05:18 PM

I am disappointed Ed, I would love to see the result from both cameras.

Cheers,

Rene

Wheatfield · 06-16-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Ed in GA

K20D $1,299. D3 $4999.

I was pleased.

Yes but, you can take a D3, beat a K20 to death with it, and then take pictures of the corpse with the Nikon.
Whether this matters to you or not is something else, but for some users a bombproof camera is important.

Ed in GA · 06-16-2008, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Yes but, you can take a D3, beat a K20 to death with it, and then take pictures of the corpse with the Nikon.
Whether this matters to you or not is something else, but for some users a bombproof camera is important.

That's interesting. I guess I'll have to get my Coffee guy a bumper sticker that says "My Camera can beat up your Camera."

In all reality, I was very impressed with the Nikon D3 and all of its features. It is definitely a Pro grade camera. 13fps, Full Frame, Dual data cards, very fast AF. and it's very BIG (especially with the grip attached) and its menus seemed fairly easy to navigate.

But, Good old Daves intent was to show off the ISO 6400 and how little noise it had. Thinking of course that I would not want to go head to head with the K20D.

I had a nice smile and he was impressed with the ISO6400 performance of the K20D.

**barondla** · 06-16-2008, 07:17 PM

yes wheatfield, but I can take a Nikon F and beat the brains out of your bombproof camera and take shots of its corpse. Wanna try? Could probably take a Graflex speed graphic and whoop them all.

thanks
barondla

No camera that needs a battery to function is bomb proof. Or a charger.

WMBP · 06-16-2008, 07:31 PM

Ed,

You don't say anything about the light in your office when the shots were taken, or the exposures. It's been my experience that noise is not a simple inevitable and consistent result of a given iso, but rather, it's a result of some combination of iso and settings and available light that I've never been quite able to turn into a calculation. What I do know is, if the light is good - in other words, if I don't absolutely HAVE to use iso 1600, say - I get a better end result than if the light is bad to start with and I have no choice but to shoot at a high ISO and push the exposure up in post-processing.

Here's a quick link to a gallery of test shots I just took with my K20D:

high iso tests with K20D

My messy desk at this particular moment (6-16-2008 7:03PM) is a pretty good high iso test, I think. My desk is right next to a big west-facing window. Sun is going down here in Dallas and the light is waning, so this should would be impossible at iso 400 (say). I took three shots: at iso 3200, 6400 and 1600 respectively. The gallery shows the shots without processing, with processing, and also a screenshot.

What would be most useful would be to export these photos at the basic size needed for, say, 4"x6" prints and then compare the prints. However, I will note the following:

- iso 3200 and 6400 ARE indeed noisy. I am not saying that this is surprising. But from some of the stuff I've read about the K20D, I've gotten the impression that some people think it produces nearly noise-free images even at 3200.

- the iso 3200 and 6400 images ARE usable - if you're pressed.

- I think iso 1600 is better, even when the exposure is pushed up a bit in post-processing (in Bibble Pro).

- I do think the output from the K20D at iso 1600 is better than the output from the K10D at the same iso. Sorry I didn't have the K10D handy or I would have taken a quick shot at 1600 with it, too.

Anyway, while I think the K20D's high-iso performance is very good, I very much doubt that at, say, 3200, it can really compete with the Nikon D3. It's not even a fair fight, pitting the K20D against a full frame sensor. I'm happy with the K20D and seldom dream about the D3 since I can't afford one. And perhaps it's fair to note that the D3 might not be FIVE times better (in other words, as much better as the difference in price).

Will

creampuff · 06-16-2008, 08:21 PM

A Pentax prime lens versus a Tamron zoom. What is there to compare?
Of course the Nikon D3 is gonna be handicapped.

Jewelltrail · 06-16-2008, 08:30 PM

Ed in Ga:

Hey, I love my K20, but have to tell you what you are saying is silly. There is no way the K20 competes, even remotely at ISO 6400. with the D3. I have seen side by side comparisons of the 2 cameras. The ISO performance of the D3 at 6400 is remarkable--perhaps even better than the K20 is at ISO 800. Anyone can compare these two cameras, side by side, here:

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

Just select the two cameras in question from the drop-down menu, then pick comparable ISO shots. This is a great site for this and other research related to camera performance. Draw your own conclusions.

Regards,

Ernest

"Humanity subdues inhumanity as water subdues fire."

Mencius 6A:18.

axl · 06-17-2008, 12:21 AM

would be nice if we could see the images....

bnishanth · 06-17-2008, 12:27 AM

You will never be able to see the D3 pics, unless he tries again..

Quote:

When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes.

Cheers
Nish

falconeye · 06-17-2008, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

The ISO performance of the D3 at 6400 is remarkable--perhaps even better than the K20 is at ISO 800. Anyone can compare these two cameras, side by side, here:

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

Thanks for the link. You are right. I would, however, put the point of equal performance nearer to ISO 1600 for the K20D. Because the K20D image would have to be slightly downsized to match the D3 size. Judging form the image sizes, those seem to have been shot in RAW format.

Ed may actually have shot in JPEG and NR strong. Maybe, this would result in more comparable results.

06-16-2008, 01:26 PM	#1
Ed in GA Guest	Very, Very unscientific, but of interest The fellow who provides our Coffee service here at work has a side business as a Wedding Photographer. When he came by today, he came by my office to show me his new acquisition, a Nikon D3. I have a chair in my office that has a fairly busy pattern, so he took a shot at ISO6400 to show me how noise free his Nikon is at that ISO. So, naturally, to no be outdone, I had to do she same thing with my K20D. Dispayed on my monitor here at work, neither he nor I could see much, if any, difference between the two shots. When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes. K20D $1,299. D3 $4999. I was pleased. Ed edit: Both shots were taken at f/2.8. I was using the FA31 and he was using the Tamron 28-75 @ f/2.8

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Unscientific K-7 ISO testing	pcarfan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	66	01-14-2010 11:43 AM
Unscientific Kx ISO testing	Mr.Turnip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	01-13-2010 02:31 PM
my unscientific lazy man's ltd lens test	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	12-30-2008 07:35 PM
Unscientific test of firmware versus autofocus	Rick	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	05-13-2007 11:41 PM
The big unscientific RAW Converter Comparison	HogRider	Photographic Technique	0	02-21-2007 11:27 AM

06-16-2008, 01:33 PM	#2
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	Hahaha...isn't that a joyful moment? Congrats, Ed. I also just had a similar experience this weekend, comparing my K100D AF speed with my friend's Nikon D2x in a very very dim light. The result it, they both hunt when it's too dark and they both lock focus (subjectively) at the same time when they lock. So I'm more than happier with my K100D. I was testing them with this setting: AF-S at ISO 800 and f/4. Don't have a chance to test AF-C, maybe next time. Originally posted by Ed in GA The fellow who provides our Coffee service here at work has a side business as a Wedding Photographer. When he came by today, he came by my office to show me his new acquisition, a Nikon D3. I have a chair in my office that has a fairly busy pattern, so he took a shot at ISO6400 to show me how noise free his Nikon is at that ISO. So, naturally, to no be outdone, I had to do she same thing with my K20D. Dispayed on my monitor here at work, neither he nor I could see much, if any, difference between the two shots. When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes. K20D $1,299. D3 $4999. I was pleased. Ed

06-16-2008, 01:37 PM	#3
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	Ed, I sure would like to see some low light test shots. I think that those would be interesting. Were both cameras using ISO 6400? I don't have a K20D, so I wouldn't know if the K20D has ISO6400. This makes me want to rush out and buy one before the rebate is over. If I steal my wifes share of the stimulus check, I should have enough. Dave Originally posted by Ed in GA The fellow who provides our Coffee service here at work has a side business as a Wedding Photographer. When he came by today, he came by my office to show me his new acquisition, a Nikon D3. I have a chair in my office that has a fairly busy pattern, so he took a shot at ISO6400 to show me how noise free his Nikon is at that ISO. So, naturally, to no be outdone, I had to do she same thing with my K20D. Dispayed on my monitor here at work, neither he nor I could see much, if any, difference between the two shots. When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes. K20D $1,299. D3 $4999. I was pleased. Ed

06-16-2008, 01:42 PM	#4
Ed in GA Guest	Originally posted by Big Dave Ed, I sure would like to see some low light test shots. I think that those would be interesting. Were both cameras using ISO 6400? I don't have a K20D, so I wouldn't know if the K20D has ISO6400. This makes me want to rush out and buy one before the rebate is over. If I steal my wifes share of the stimulus check, I should have enough. Dave Both at ISO 6400 both in Aperature Priority Mine f/2.8 1/275 His f/2.8 1/300

06-16-2008, 03:39 PM	#5
barbosas Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lisbon Photos: Gallery Posts: 683	pwned

06-16-2008, 05:18 PM	#6
Rener Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 292	I am disappointed Ed, I would love to see the result from both cameras. Cheers, Rene

06-16-2008, 05:35 PM	#7
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Ed in GA K20D $1,299. D3 $4999. I was pleased. Yes but, you can take a D3, beat a K20 to death with it, and then take pictures of the corpse with the Nikon. Whether this matters to you or not is something else, but for some users a bombproof camera is important.

06-16-2008, 05:57 PM	#8
Ed in GA Guest	Originally posted by Wheatfield Yes but, you can take a D3, beat a K20 to death with it, and then take pictures of the corpse with the Nikon. Whether this matters to you or not is something else, but for some users a bombproof camera is important. That's interesting. I guess I'll have to get my Coffee guy a bumper sticker that says "My Camera can beat up your Camera." In all reality, I was very impressed with the Nikon D3 and all of its features. It is definitely a Pro grade camera. 13fps, Full Frame, Dual data cards, very fast AF. and it's very BIG (especially with the grip attached) and its menus seemed fairly easy to navigate. But, Good old Daves intent was to show off the ISO 6400 and how little noise it had. Thinking of course that I would not want to go head to head with the K20D. I had a nice smile and he was impressed with the ISO6400 performance of the K20D.

06-16-2008, 07:17 PM	#9
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	yes wheatfield, but I can take a Nikon F and beat the brains out of your bombproof camera and take shots of its corpse. Wanna try? Could probably take a Graflex speed graphic and whoop them all. thanks barondla No camera that needs a battery to function is bomb proof. Or a charger.

06-16-2008, 07:31 PM	#10
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Ed, You don't say anything about the light in your office when the shots were taken, or the exposures. It's been my experience that noise is not a simple inevitable and consistent result of a given iso, but rather, it's a result of some combination of iso and settings and available light that I've never been quite able to turn into a calculation. What I do know is, if the light is good - in other words, if I don't absolutely HAVE to use iso 1600, say - I get a better end result than if the light is bad to start with and I have no choice but to shoot at a high ISO and push the exposure up in post-processing. Here's a quick link to a gallery of test shots I just took with my K20D: high iso tests with K20D My messy desk at this particular moment (6-16-2008 7:03PM) is a pretty good high iso test, I think. My desk is right next to a big west-facing window. Sun is going down here in Dallas and the light is waning, so this should would be impossible at iso 400 (say). I took three shots: at iso 3200, 6400 and 1600 respectively. The gallery shows the shots without processing, with processing, and also a screenshot. What would be most useful would be to export these photos at the basic size needed for, say, 4"x6" prints and then compare the prints. However, I will note the following: - iso 3200 and 6400 ARE indeed noisy. I am not saying that this is surprising. But from some of the stuff I've read about the K20D, I've gotten the impression that some people think it produces nearly noise-free images even at 3200. - the iso 3200 and 6400 images ARE usable - if you're pressed. - I think iso 1600 is better, even when the exposure is pushed up a bit in post-processing (in Bibble Pro). - I do think the output from the K20D at iso 1600 is better than the output from the K10D at the same iso. Sorry I didn't have the K10D handy or I would have taken a quick shot at 1600 with it, too. Anyway, while I think the K20D's high-iso performance is very good, I very much doubt that at, say, 3200, it can really compete with the Nikon D3. It's not even a fair fight, pitting the K20D against a full frame sensor. I'm happy with the K20D and seldom dream about the D3 since I can't afford one. And perhaps it's fair to note that the D3 might not be FIVE times better (in other words, as much better as the difference in price). Will

06-16-2008, 08:21 PM	#11
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	A Pentax prime lens versus a Tamron zoom. What is there to compare? Of course the Nikon D3 is gonna be handicapped.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-16-2008, 08:30 PM	#12
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Ed in Ga: Hey, I love my K20, but have to tell you what you are saying is silly. There is no way the K20 competes, even remotely at ISO 6400. with the D3. I have seen side by side comparisons of the 2 cameras. The ISO performance of the D3 at 6400 is remarkable--perhaps even better than the K20 is at ISO 800. Anyone can compare these two cameras, side by side, here: Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Just select the two cameras in question from the drop-down menu, then pick comparable ISO shots. This is a great site for this and other research related to camera performance. Draw your own conclusions. Regards, Ernest "Humanity subdues inhumanity as water subdues fire." Mencius 6A:18.

06-17-2008, 12:21 AM	#13
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	would be nice if we could see the images....

06-17-2008, 12:27 AM	#14
bnishanth Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 223	You will never be able to see the D3 pics, unless he tries again.. Quote: When I started to save his shot, he asked me not to. So, I honored his wishes. Cheers Nish

06-17-2008, 04:31 AM	#15
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Jewelltrail The ISO performance of the D3 at 6400 is remarkable--perhaps even better than the K20 is at ISO 800. Anyone can compare these two cameras, side by side, here: Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Thanks for the link. You are right. I would, however, put the point of equal performance nearer to ISO 1600 for the K20D. Because the K20D image would have to be slightly downsized to match the D3 size. Judging form the image sizes, those seem to have been shot in RAW format. Ed may actually have shot in JPEG and NR strong. Maybe, this would result in more comparable results.