[FHPhotographer]

I'm running some comparisons between my K100D and my new K20.

First, I really like the ergonomics of the K20: great VF, two-dial setup, larger back screen, etc. I feels good, it shoots good, great resolution for cropping, etc, but here's the issue... I'm not seeing an IQ difference to justify the $700

Two examples: both images in RAW, first the K100 without any other editing, then the K20, both with mirror lock up, tripod, IS off with a the Tamron 90 DI @ f/4; or is it the other way around?

Same basic outcome on 8x10" prints with a 43mm mounted ; however, I start seeing some very subtle differences up close in 10x15" prints, but from a normal viewing distance, no objective differences. Am I doing something wrong, missing something, or is this a reasonable outcome?
Comments?


Brian

[Alfisti]

You got EXACTLY what i'd expect, there is no IQ difference until you start printing big or cropping big chunks of the image.

It ain't a surprise chief.

[manumon77]

i for sure liked the first pic... shows more contrast, i guess... if the settings are the same then it should be that of the k20d....

[RiceHigh]

Well, the K100D picture looks better! It has richer and more saturated colors and more accurate white balance! What happened?

[jbinpg]

Get yourself a post-processing image program that will show you each image at 1:1 ratio. Take a look at how little if any noise/pixellation there is in the K20 compared to the K100. You can blow up the K20 to monstrous size compared to the smaller sensored camera.

[Alfisti]

Well, the K100D picture looks better! It has richer and more saturated colors and more accurate white balance! What happened?

With AWB the camera can change it's mind every time you half press the shutter button. It can change wildly from image to image using the same camera seconds apart.

Frankly i prefer the second image as it's easier to correct cool images, the overly warm look is hard to get neutral.

[FHPhotographer]

Get yourself a post-processing image program that will show you each image at 1:1 ratio. Take a look at how little if any noise/pixellation there is in the K20 compared to the K100. You can blow up the K20 to monstrous size compared to the smaller sensored camera.

I'm working with CS3, that should do it; but what do you mean by a 1:1 ratio? If you mean both images at 100% as they come out of the camera, the K20 is larger of course, but the detail isn't any better; if you mean scale the K100 up to the K20 size, or course it will start coming apart. But it seems at anything up to A3 size prints, the K100 can run just fine with the big dog.

Now, if I wanted to print a 24x36" I can see how all that resolution comes in handy. Again, if I'm missing something in the comparison, give me some direction and I'll try another series of shots,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

Well, the K100D picture looks better! It has richer and more saturated colors and more accurate white balance! What happened?

Beats me. Both cameras were set to neutral mode, all settings pegged in the middle, AWB and 200 ISO. Nothing was changed, just opened in Bridge and imported into PS without amendment. Unless there's something I'm missing, that's just the difference in the K100 (top picture) vs the K20... but what do I know,
Brian

[creampuff]

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.

[jsherman999]

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.

Yeah, at 800 pixels it's tough to see any differences in controlled images like this.

My K100DS was capable of great images, even at high ISO. However, I can crop my
K20D images down to 50% and not even be able to tell it's a crop sometimes -
couldn't do that with the K100DS.

But the K100DS is no slouch.

[Alfisti]

I'm working with CS3, that should do it; but what do you mean by a 1:1 ratio? If you mean both images at 100% as they come out of the camera, the K20 is larger of course, but the detail isn't any better; if you mean scale the K100 up to the K20 size, or course it will start coming apart. But it seems at anything up to A3 size prints, the K100 can run just fine with the big dog.

Now, if I wanted to print a 24x36" I can see how all that resolution comes in handy. Again, if I'm missing something in the comparison, give me some direction and I'll try another series of shots,
Brian

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.

[manumon77]

the exif shows different exposure timing, metering and ISO... so cant really compare per se..

Changing ISO for a comparison shot doesn't seem right.

Were they shot on different days too?

[Michaelina2]

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...