Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-19-2009, 09:21 PM   #16
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
oops, posted the wrong K20 image

QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
The exposure and ISO, metering mode of the two images are different.
Why did you not make the parameters similar?
The two images have been downsized to jpeg. It will be a challenge for anyone to assess IQ difference of a 800 pixel image.
My mistake, I grabbed the wrong K20 image; as soon as I dig it up I'll repost,
Brian

02-19-2009, 09:23 PM   #17
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
oops, wrong K20 image posted

QuoteOriginally posted by julianactive Quote
Were they shot on different days too?
My mistake, see other response,
Brian
02-19-2009, 09:33 PM   #18
Veteran Member
pentaxmz's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Well, the K100D picture looks better! It has richer and more saturated colors and more accurate white balance! What happened?
When the lens is not part of the equation (presuming that same lens was used and same exposure, lighting, etc.), each camera will still present a different result.

Because of the differences in the firmware (controlling everything from AWB to sharpness), the different sensors.... each camera will have its own default biases.

With a little post processing and some pixel peeping, then you will see the differences. This thread is a pretty good example why one should take many comparison tests with a grain of salt. Nearly any camera can be made to look better than another. Not that there is anything wrong with either camera, in this case.

OP, if you are trying to make a choice, compare features. The real big difference is in the number of pixels on the K20D, and you will only notice this when you do a 100% crop.
02-19-2009, 09:34 PM   #19
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
thanks for the swell response

QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
It honestly cannot understand why you'd think otherwise? There is no 'better' sensor for APS-C than the 6mp sony senor, some give a larger image but there is no improvement in "iq" ... i just don't get what you were expecting.
I didn't know this or I wouldn't have done the comparison; and, contrary to what you may think that I should have known, or your apparent assumption that everybody does know, I did not know what to expect.

I'm put in mind of the old story about the guy who takes a tumble, and while lying there bleeding on the street some wise guy walks up and says "did you fall?" The obvious response was, "naw, I just thought I'd lie here on the sidewalk to give a******s like you a chance to ask stupid questions."

Don't know why that came to mind because it doesn't apply in this case because your comments were so much more reasonable, considered and well intentioned,
Brian

02-19-2009, 09:39 PM   #20
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
variables variables...

QuoteOriginally posted by Michaelina2 Quote
On my monitor, they look exactly the same.

Given that the two camera bodies differ mechanically and they process information differently, how can you be sure you are controlling for the same variables in exactly the same way?

Cheers...
Can't. I think camera brand processing algorithms are like the recipe for Coke and guarded just as jealously. The comparison was further confounded by posting the wrong images with different (uncontrolled) settings. I will press on and try again and see what I can see, and share,
Brian
02-19-2009, 09:58 PM   #21
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxmz Quote

OP, if you are trying to make a choice, compare features. The real big difference is in the number of pixels on the K20D, and you will only notice this when you do a 100% crop.
Gotta second this statement. The K100D (and the new/old *istDL) have really nice IQ, and the K20D only starts to move past it at higher ISO's or larger prints (in my experience). It's the feature set of the K20D that really sets it apart. The dual wheels, AF performance (especially AF-C), live view (marginally useful, but there), AF adjustment, multi-exposure mode, 21fps mode, etc, etc.

Personally, I think the IQ of the K20D is a little better, but even if it just equalled the 6mp CCD IQ, I'd be very happy due to the better features and handling. I fear the OP is missing the forest for the trees.
02-19-2009, 11:12 PM   #22
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
the $700 forest...

QuoteOriginally posted by rfortson Quote
Personally, I think the IQ of the K20D is a little better, but even if it just equalled the 6mp CCD IQ, I'd be very happy due to the better features and handling. I fear the OP is missing the forest for the trees.
I conceded in my original post that I like all those features, but expected a concomitant upgrade in IQ to match the improved feature set, and I don't see it at any size print I normally make. If the trees are IQ then, yeah, I'm missing the forest but that forest is $700 and I think (now) that the money would be better spent on lenses,
Brian
02-19-2009, 11:31 PM   #23
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
OK, so the best comparison would be....

QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxmz Quote
OP, if you are trying to make a choice, compare features. The real big difference is in the number of pixels on the K20D, and you will only notice this when you do a 100% crop.
This is where I start getting confused (according to my wife a most common occurrence), but I'm assuming the following to get a fair comparison:
Both images shot in RAW at the same speed/aperture/ISO
both images with sharpening turned off
both images into PS3 at "full size" @240dpi
the K20 "full" image is 4672x3104 pixels
reduce the K20 to 65% to get an image that is very close to the "full" K100 image of 3008x2000 pixels.
then, then I take a 100% crop out of each of them of the same size (say 4x4")
Will that work, or am I still missing something,
Brian

02-19-2009, 11:36 PM   #24
Damn Brit
Guest




Perhaps you should really give it a workout before your disappointment spoils it for you.
Technobabble tests and boring photos are all well and good ... except that they aren't in my opinion. I don't read those kind of reviews. I want to see picture quality, clarity and colour. Go out and take some cityscapes or landscapes, scenes with a lot of detail and then start your comparisons.
Maybe you missed something when you were researching the K20. You seemed reasonably happy with your K100, perhaps you should have waited for the K3x whatever it's going to be called.
I've held off on buying a K20 but I have one coming on Monday. I know what to expect from it and I haven't read one single review about it. I have looked at the pictures taken with the K20 on this site with the same lenses I have on my K10 and I have read members comments about their own experience with the K20.
I happen to like what the K10 can do but I'm going to appreciate the little extra that the K20 will give me.
Give it more time and like I said, "push it".
02-19-2009, 11:41 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I guess I'd be asking, what exactly is IQ? Aside from the increase resolution, what might one *expect* to see improve? I'm not sure any changes that one could see in color or contrast would necessarily be improvements. It's basically going to come down to resolution and noise. And you won't see differences in resolution unless you pixel peep or print large enough for that to be an issue. So if you want to see a difference at screen sizes or "home" print sizes, I think you need to be looking at high ISO noise if you want to see a difference. Not that I'm sure you will see much there, either.

Of course, one advantage of more resolution is for cropping. I notice a pretty signifcant different going from 6MP to 10MP in my freedom to crop; 14MP would obviously give you even more.
02-19-2009, 11:53 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
Both images shot in RAW at the same speed/aperture/ISO
both images with sharpening turned off
both images into PS3 at "full size" @240dpi
the K20 "full" image is 4672x3104 pixels
reduce the K20 to 65% to get an image that is very close to the "full" K100 image of 3008x2000 pixels.
then, then I take a 100% crop out of each of them of the same size (say 4x4")
Will that work, or am I still missing something,
That will "work", if by "work" you mean you wish to guarantee that you don't see see any resolution advantage to the K20D. If you want to see the resolution advantage, you won't get there by throwing away more than half the pixels. Instead, maybe take a 100% crop from the unresized K20D image, then crop out the same same area from the K100D (yes, of course it will be smaller) and see which has more detail viewed full size.
02-19-2009, 11:58 PM   #27
Site Supporter
vagrant10's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: portland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,327
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I guess I'd be asking, what exactly is IQ? Aside from the increase resolution, what might one *expect* to see improve? I'm not sure any changes that one could see in color or contrast would necessarily be improvements. It's basically going to come down to resolution and noise. And you won't see differences in resolution unless you pixel peep or print large enough for that to be an issue. So if you want to see a difference at screen sizes or "home" print sizes, I think you need to be looking at high ISO noise if you want to see a difference. Not that I'm sure you will see much there, either.

Of course, one advantage of more resolution is for cropping. I notice a pretty signifcant different going from 6MP to 10MP in my freedom to crop; 14MP would obviously give you even more.
Well said. I was never unhappy with the images I got from my k110d as it was a very capable camera with a good sensor. But I got the k10 anyway since I liked having more control with 2 wheels and a more customizable layout, particularly with easier ISO access and TAV mode. I also liked the weather sealing and brighter viewfinder. I knew I was sacrificing a bit of high ISO quality in the k10d, but in balance I think it was the right move. Now that I have the k20d, I'm very happy that I can shoot at higher ISO's again without as much worry, and I gain added control with the lens calibration feature.

Really, you shouldn't expect too much in picture quality differences between the two cameras... but the important thing is you should be able to have your camera ready more efficiently with the k20d to grab a shot when the opportunity arises. And if the opportunity arises at a time when you've got the wrong lens, you'll have a greater chance to get a large printable image after cropping...

There are, of course, other advancements to the k20 over the k100, but to me anyway, that's how I see it. Hope your buyer's remorse doesn't get in the way of learning to use the k20 to it's fullest potential...
02-20-2009, 12:16 AM   #28
Pentaxian
wildman's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,313
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
I conceded in my original post that I like all those features, but expected a concomitant upgrade in IQ to match the improved feature set, and I don't see it at any size print I normally make. If the trees are IQ then, yeah, I'm missing the forest but that forest is $700 and I think (now) that the money would be better spent on lenses,
Brian
Brian,
I had exactly the same reaction when I first compared the K20D to my old DL - where's the beef?

Bare in mind the engine that controls the settings in K20, such as sharpening, contrast, saturation etc is much gentler than in your old camera. For instance if you set both to "normal" sharpening you will find that your old camera's sharpening is much more aggressive than on the K20D.

My guess is that if you assume the the two camera's setting don't mean the same thing and just try and set the K20D to what you consider the optimal setting without any reference to what they may have meant in the old camera you will be able to easily exceed the performance of the old camera.

All taken with the K20D...
Full frame and crop and just an example

Last edited by wildman; 02-23-2009 at 05:02 AM.
02-20-2009, 12:55 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 245
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
This is where I start getting confused (according to my wife a most common occurrence), but I'm assuming the following to get a fair comparison:
Both images shot in RAW at the same speed/aperture/ISO
both images with sharpening turned off
both images into PS3 at "full size" @240dpi
the K20 "full" image is 4672x3104 pixels
reduce the K20 to 65% to get an image that is very close to the "full" K100 image of 3008x2000 pixels.
then, then I take a 100% crop out of each of them of the same size (say 4x4")
Will that work, or am I still missing something,
Brian
Well, if a K20D can deliver cropped images with the same contrast, noise, and resolution as a K100DS images, what does that tell us about the performane of the smaller photosites in the K20D sensor compared to the larger photosites in the K100DS? I say the K20D is a pretty impressive camera.
02-20-2009, 07:47 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
I guess you must be newish to camera forums because it is a discussion that is beaten to death, do we chase more MP at the risk of ruining image quality?

Pixel for pixel i'd be stunned if the Sony 6mp sensor is not in front of anything else out there today from 10 to 15 MP on APS-C.

The one advantage of a larger MP count is you get a larger image to help with cropping or to help with printing large images, otherwise it is highly likely that IQ will actually be worse.

QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
I didn't know this or I wouldn't have done the comparison; and, contrary to what you may think that I should have known, or your apparent assumption that everybody does know, I did not know what to expect.
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, k20, outcome, photography, prints
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landscape Mixed Bag Jimbo Post Your Photos! 17 11-02-2010 01:28 PM
Mixed bag Jimbo Post Your Photos! 8 04-27-2009 12:52 PM
Mixed Bag Jimbo Post Your Photos! 8 03-15-2009 05:53 PM
Mixed bag Jimbo Post Your Photos! 15 02-02-2009 04:37 PM
Mixed Bag Chako Post Your Photos! 3 08-02-2007 05:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 AM. | 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