[RiceHigh]

But then from all samples on the net, I don't think the K20D has very low noise level at higher ISO speeds.

The noise at ISO 800 has already bugged me indeed. But yet I have been impressed about the high level of details and good colors retained at these ISO, which most of the APS-C models from the competitors lack. But as compared to Full Frame DSLRs, there is still a long road to run. FF DSLRs retain good details and colors but yet keep low noise levels.

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

RiceHigh

This message is hidden because RiceHigh is on your ignore list.

I guess it is silly to make the comparison.

However, the comparison was not done scientifically. Had it been, I'm sure the D3 would have blown away the K20D.

As far as the lens handicap, the comparison was noise and not IQ.

If I had been able to save his shot to compare with mine, I would have been more than happy to post them for you.

Geez guys, it was a quick shoot of an object for a quick comparison.

I'm actually now quite sorry that I wasted the bandwidth for this.

Sheesh!

[HermanLee]

I feel you, Ed.

Don't worry. Some people just like having arguments. And I'm sure that they don't mean harm. Maybe they are just trying to make this conversation alive in different way than what we expected.
When I posted my subjective comparison test of K100D and Nikon D2x in other forum, I also got some arguments :ugh:
So just move one. Life is more interesting with variety of people, isn't it?
Just like the varieties in camera.

I guess it is silly to make the comparison.

However, the comparison was not done scientifically. Had it been, I'm sure the D3 would have blown away the K20D.

As far as the lens handicap, the comparison was noise and not IQ.

If I had been able to save his shot to compare with mine, I would have been more than happy to post them for you.

Geez guys, it was a quick shoot of an object for a quick comparison.

I'm actually now quite sorry that I wasted the bandwidth for this.

Sheesh!

[joefru]

...and it's very BIG (especially with the grip attached)

Say what? The grip? We're sure this is a D3?

[Jewelltrail]

falconeye
Site Supporter


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.

__________________

Falconeye: Here is a direct quotation from the K20d Operating manual. I think a lot of K20 people are not aware of this:



“Noise reduction is set to [Strong] when shooting with a sensitivity of ISO 3200 or higher, regardless of the [18. High-ISO Noise Reduction] setting (p.80) in the [C Custom Setting] menu.”



See, for example, p.78 of K20D Operating Manual


Regards,

Ernest



"Humanity subdues inhumanity as water subdues fire."

Mencius 6A:18

[falconeye]

Falconeye: Here is a direct quotation from the K20d Operating manual. I think a lot of K20 people are not aware of this:

“Noise reduction is set to [Strong] when shooting with a sensitivity of ISO 3200 or higher, regardless of the [18. High-ISO Noise Reduction] setting (p.80) in the [C Custom Setting] menu.”

@Jewelltrail, thanks for clarifying this. I was actually aware of this. However, I have yet to see or test what this means. Also, it appears to affect >1600 or >3200 (I don't remember exactly), not >=3200. And does it affect RAW as well as the configurable NR only affects JPEG?

So, it may be that Ed's images are WITH NR whereas the "Imaging Resource" are WITHOUT NR (i.e., exported from RAW).

[Jewelltrail]

falconeye:
@Jewelltrail, thanks for clarifying this. I was actually aware of this. However, I have yet to see or test what this means. Also, it appears to affect >1600 or >3200 (I don't remember exactly), not >=3200. And does it affect RAW as well as the configurable NR only affects JPEG?

So, it may be that Ed's images are WITH NR whereas the "Imaging Resource" are WITHOUT NR (i.e., exported from RAW).

This is an interesting question, one with which I have particular interest as well. Thank you so much for the question. I had my own understanding, but I wanted to be sure so I called corporate in Golden, Colorado and spoke with one the techs, Mark.

Here is the deal. Strong noise reduction is applied, automatically, no matter the default settings, to all images taken AT ISO 3200 AND higher. However, Raws are exempt from this rule.

Regards,

Ernest



"Humanity subdues inhumanity as water subdues fire."

Mencius 6A:18.

This is an interesting question, one with which I have particular interest as well. Thank you so much for the question. I had my own understanding, but I wanted to be sure so I called corporate in Golden, Colorado and spoke with one the techs, Mark.

Here is the deal. Strong noise reduction is applied, automatically, no matter the default settings, to all ISO images taken AT 3200 AND higher. However, Raws are exempt from this rule.

Regards,

Ernest



"Humanity subdues inhumanity as water subdues fire."

Mencius 6A:18.

Well, thanks,

Since Dave the Coffee and I were both shooting in .jpg, that explains why neither of us could see much difference.

Dave was back by here today and I looked again at his D3. It looks like it has an attached grip.... but .....it's not. It is part of the camera with a shutter release button for Portrait use.

Either way, it is still

BIG

[proudtoshootpentax]

Either way, it is still

BIG

... too big for me! I don't care for the size of the D300 or D3, and I laugh at all the people I know who bought them not knowing what ISO or aperture are!!

[lol101]

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

I would be pleased too, but then I would like to know why the K20 was not touted as the all-time high ISO king he is supposed to be..?

But then again, maybe my eyes are cheating me when I look at these samples for example and fail to see them as "equivalent":

[ukbluetooth]

But then again, maybe my eyes are cheating me when I look at these samples for example and fail to see them as "equivalent":

So true - just about every Nikon blows Pentax out of the window when it comes to high ISO. The D3 is just an amazing camera - and yes - I would like one please.

Sorry guys but you get what you pay for.

[Pentaxke]

and it's very BIG (especially with the grip attached)

I would say that the grip is integrated with the body on the D3.
Sure it was not the D300?

[Edit]Ok, scrap that...[/Edit]

[falconeye]

But then again, maybe my eyes are cheating me when I look at these samples for example and fail to see them as "equivalent":

You are right, of course.

At least, however, one should apply some noise removal and resize to the D3 size (I used noise ninja but without having the proper K20D profiles). Still, the D3 is far ahead.

[Matjazz]

If the chair pattern was across entire frame than I guess one really couldn't tell the difference. However D3 is noticeably better at ISO6400. Perhaps you should do a couple more test shots.