K20D vs D700?

Marc Sabatella · 05-07-2009, 02:24 PM

You've been given some very good guesses, but without seeing the pictures themselves, it's impossible to know for sure.

My own guess is that the most important difference was the fact that the D700 probably had active d-lighting turned on - had you turned on D-Range on the K20D, it might have been a more equal comparison, as both cameras would then have been "faking" extended dyamic range in similar ways. If they *were* both shot with (or both without) this artifical dynamic range extension, then I'd expect the difference in LCD to have made the biggest difference when viewing on the LCD. If you viewed the images on a computer monitor, then I'd expect the in pixel size between the cameras made the difference - but those differences would pale in comparison to the other differences I mentioned.

Rener · 05-07-2009, 02:31 PM

[QUOTE=HermanLee;586430]Well fyi, I'm not trying to bash K20D by comparing it to D700.
What I want to know is exactly what feature on D700 that makes the obvious difference that I saw. Is it because of the DR / pixel size / software / other "X" factor that I'm not aware of.
I know for sure that it is ridiculous to expect my $700 camera to perform at the same level of $2700 camera.

Hi Hermanlee,

See Imaging Resource for some comparison, I think the K20 doesn't look too shabby against a camera almost 3x its price. It maybe noisier but it retains details which I personally prefer, that is just me, but some prefer less noise. The noise, I think can be dealt with noise ninja, whereas details are lost if they are not captured in the camera's processing engine.

cheer,

Rene

HermanLee · 05-07-2009, 02:52 PM

I think we can eliminate the LCD as one of the cause, why?

Because at the same time I tested the Canon 5DM2 which also has 920,000px LCD and believe it or not, I like my K20D better even though I only compared them on LCD.

The picture on 5DM2 is not as bright as on D700 even though they have similar LCD.

I think Marc is right about the DR.
I forgot to turn on my D-Range on my K20D. The D700 might have the D-lighting turned on.

kenyee · 05-07-2009, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by HermanLee

I forgot to turn on my D-Range on my K20D. The D700 might have the D-lighting turned on.

Be careful about turning that on. Try it on photos you don't really care about before leaving it on.
It boosts shadow noise and the K20D unfortunately has quite a bit of it in the shadows (a bit more than my old K10)-:

You can undo the Nikon on in post w/ RAW, but AFAIK, you can't undo the K20D one even shooting RAW...

pingflood · 05-07-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by HermanLee

OMG, what is that creature?

For sure it will scare any Nikonian around

...now back to business. Seriously, do you still use this camera? Any sample from photo taken with it? I always thought that this kind of camera is only for collection.

That looks like a Calumet C-1. Lots of people still use large format cameras (I have one as can be seen in my sig). They're not just for collectors, they're actually still the supreme rulers when it come to ultimate resolution. Plus, they're fun.

KungPOW · 05-07-2009, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

That looks like a Calumet C-1. Lots of people still use large format cameras (I have one as can be seen in my sig). They're not just for collectors, they're actually still the supreme rulers when it come to ultimate resolution. Plus, they're fun.

Do people complain about their autofocus?

Duplo · 05-07-2009, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by OPTMEKX&

See Imaging Resource for some comparison, I think the K20 doesn't look too shabby against a camera almost 3x its price. It maybe noisier but it retains details which I personally prefer, that is just me, but some prefer less noise. The noise, I think can be dealt with noise ninja, whereas details are lost if they are not captured in the camera's processing engine.

Well personally I would not recommend using Imaging ressource for any comparison.
It is out of camera JPGs, jduging from the exifs, thus you are comparing jpg engines more than RAW.
their focus and exposure accuracy has been very far from impressive on the samples I have seen regardless of brand.

Best way to test is to spend a lot of time with each body and use the RAW processor that handles the individual RAW files the best, at least that gives a more accurate picture of the actual performance.

Rener · 05-07-2009, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Duplo

Well personally I would not recommend using Imaging ressource for any comparison.
It is out of camera JPGs, jduging from the exifs, thus you are comparing jpg engines more than RAW.
their focus and exposure accuracy has been very far from impressive on the samples I have seen regardless of brand.

Best way to test is to spend a lot of time with each body and use the RAW processor that handles the individual RAW files the best, at least that gives a more accurate picture of the actual performance.

Hi Thomas,

I agree w/ you 100% on RAW comparison but isn't when just taking quick shots in the store the setup most likely is in JPEG?. I personally shoot JPEGs most of the time and to be honest w/ you, I love to do RAWs but many including myself, don't have the luxury to spend time in processing and on top of that, many are not software savy myself included again.

cheers,

Rene

Duplo · 05-07-2009, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by OPTMEKX&

Hi Thomas,

I agree w/ you 100% on RAW comparison but isn't when just taking quick shots in the store the setup most likely is in JPEG?. I personally shoot JPEGs most of the time and to be honest w/ you, I love to do RAWs but many including myself, don't have the luxury to spend time in processing and on top of that, many are not software savy myself included again.

cheers,

Rene

Point well taken Rene

I did not comment on the OPs comparison, merely pointed out that imaging ressource would not be a good reference of actual performance and i saw little point in pointing the OP to a set op samples that will tell him no more about actual performance than his own test.

My own recommendation when people want to compare cameras is to rent or get their hands on a loaner, along with lenses in the range you would be likely to use for at least a couple of days and try it out at your intented applications.
Only way to make sure you know what you are about to buy.

well the RAW vs. jpg is a preference thing I guess, I often have clients to satisfy and I would not want to deliver any jpg based output, there is so much more to gain and once you have your workflow patted down it is not really that time consuming.

If you do deliver large bodies of work regularly software like LR or Aperture are optimised for handling it and keeping it simple.

cloudswimmer · 05-07-2009, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

That looks like a Calumet C-1. Lots of people still use large format cameras (I have one as can be seen in my sig). They're not just for collectors, they're actually still the supreme rulers when it come to ultimate resolution. Plus, they're fun.

Yeah that would be my C-1.I have two actually, and shoot em on a big Ries A-100 2 tripod.I send the negs out these days to West Coast imaging for drum scanning, and the resolution just kills any dslr I've ever used.Of course my Pentax dslr's kill the C-1's for convenience

Here's a 100% crop from a bushel of sunflowers on Ilford Fp4+ souped in PMK

Blue · 05-07-2009, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by KungPOW

Do people complain about their autofocus?

Yes.

It is very slow. K20d is definitely faster in the AF.

stevebrot · 05-07-2009, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by cloudswimmer

Yeah that would be my C-1.I have two actually, and shoot em on a big Ries A-100 2 tripod.I send the negs out these days to West Coast imaging for drum scanning, and the resolution just kills any dslr I've ever used.Of course my Pentax dslr's kill the C-1's for convenience

Here's a 100% crop from a bushel of sunflowers on Ilford Fp4+ souped in PMK

That is the 100% crop? What were the original dimensions of the scanned image? 4x5 sheet film? That may be a crop, but the picture simply blows me away...

I am a fan of film, but have only limited experience viewing scanned LF format. The tonality and richness of that photo are simply amazing!

Steve

cloudswimmer · 05-08-2009, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

That is the 100% crop? What were the original dimensions of the scanned image? 4x5 sheet film? That may be a crop, but the picture simply blows me away...

I am a fan of film, but have only limited experience viewing scanned LF format. The tonality and richness of that photo are simply amazing!

Steve

Hi Steve, its 8x10 sheet film not 4x5.Here is the original.Scanned on my Epson 4990 at 2400 ppi the file is close to a gigabyte in size, of course down sampled to 360 ppi its much more manageable

WMBP · 05-08-2009, 09:09 AM

Cloudswimmer: beautiful photo.

Will

cloudswimmer · 05-08-2009, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

That is the 100% crop? What were the original dimensions of the scanned image? 4x5 sheet film? That may be a crop, but the picture simply blows me away...

I am a fan of film, but have only limited experience viewing scanned LF format. The tonality and richness of that photo are simply amazing!

Steve

Steve I stand corrected, I was tired last night posting.That was indeed not a 100% crop.Here is the true 100% crop.These are done on the consumer Epson 4990 scanner.The tango drum scans from WCI are always much better sharpness and DR wise, but they ain't cheap.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
D700 winning me over...	JohnBee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	25	04-20-2010 08:54 AM
Going up against a D700!!	Torphoto	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	12-29-2009 10:59 AM
a900 vs d700 vs 5d2 and then K20D?	vitalsax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	12-19-2008 12:36 PM
Pentax K20D vs Nikon D700 at The Online Photographer	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	19	12-13-2008 06:39 AM
Nikon D700 vs. K20D	Michaelina2	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	12-01-2008 02:30 PM

05-07-2009, 02:24 PM	#16
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	You've been given some very good guesses, but without seeing the pictures themselves, it's impossible to know for sure. My own guess is that the most important difference was the fact that the D700 probably had active d-lighting turned on - had you turned on D-Range on the K20D, it might have been a more equal comparison, as both cameras would then have been "faking" extended dyamic range in similar ways. If they were both shot with (or both without) this artifical dynamic range extension, then I'd expect the difference in LCD to have made the biggest difference when viewing on the LCD. If you viewed the images on a computer monitor, then I'd expect the in pixel size between the cameras made the difference - but those differences would pale in comparison to the other differences I mentioned.

05-07-2009, 02:31 PM	#17
Rener Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 292	[QUOTE=HermanLee;586430]Well fyi, I'm not trying to bash K20D by comparing it to D700. What I want to know is exactly what feature on D700 that makes the obvious difference that I saw. Is it because of the DR / pixel size / software / other "X" factor that I'm not aware of. I know for sure that it is ridiculous to expect my $700 camera to perform at the same level of $2700 camera. Hi Hermanlee, See Imaging Resource for some comparison, I think the K20 doesn't look too shabby against a camera almost 3x its price. It maybe noisier but it retains details which I personally prefer, that is just me, but some prefer less noise. The noise, I think can be dealt with noise ninja, whereas details are lost if they are not captured in the camera's processing engine. cheer, Rene

05-07-2009, 02:52 PM	#18
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729 Original Poster	I think we can eliminate the LCD as one of the cause, why? Because at the same time I tested the Canon 5DM2 which also has 920,000px LCD and believe it or not, I like my K20D better even though I only compared them on LCD. The picture on 5DM2 is not as bright as on D700 even though they have similar LCD. I think Marc is right about the DR. I forgot to turn on my D-Range on my K20D. The D700 might have the D-lighting turned on.

05-07-2009, 04:36 PM	#19
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by HermanLee I forgot to turn on my D-Range on my K20D. The D700 might have the D-lighting turned on. Be careful about turning that on. Try it on photos you don't really care about before leaving it on. It boosts shadow noise and the K20D unfortunately has quite a bit of it in the shadows (a bit more than my old K10)-: You can undo the Nikon on in post w/ RAW, but AFAIK, you can't undo the K20D one even shooting RAW...

05-07-2009, 05:49 PM	#20
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by HermanLee OMG, what is that creature? For sure it will scare any Nikonian around ...now back to business. Seriously, do you still use this camera? Any sample from photo taken with it? I always thought that this kind of camera is only for collection. That looks like a Calumet C-1. Lots of people still use large format cameras (I have one as can be seen in my sig). They're not just for collectors, they're actually still the supreme rulers when it come to ultimate resolution. Plus, they're fun.

05-07-2009, 05:53 PM	#21
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Originally posted by pingflood That looks like a Calumet C-1. Lots of people still use large format cameras (I have one as can be seen in my sig). They're not just for collectors, they're actually still the supreme rulers when it come to ultimate resolution. Plus, they're fun. Do people complain about their autofocus?

05-07-2009, 06:58 PM	#22
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by OPTMEKX& See Imaging Resource for some comparison, I think the K20 doesn't look too shabby against a camera almost 3x its price. It maybe noisier but it retains details which I personally prefer, that is just me, but some prefer less noise. The noise, I think can be dealt with noise ninja, whereas details are lost if they are not captured in the camera's processing engine. Well personally I would not recommend using Imaging ressource for any comparison. It is out of camera JPGs, jduging from the exifs, thus you are comparing jpg engines more than RAW. their focus and exposure accuracy has been very far from impressive on the samples I have seen regardless of brand. Best way to test is to spend a lot of time with each body and use the RAW processor that handles the individual RAW files the best, at least that gives a more accurate picture of the actual performance.

05-07-2009, 07:34 PM	#23
Rener Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 292	Originally posted by Duplo Well personally I would not recommend using Imaging ressource for any comparison. It is out of camera JPGs, jduging from the exifs, thus you are comparing jpg engines more than RAW. their focus and exposure accuracy has been very far from impressive on the samples I have seen regardless of brand. Best way to test is to spend a lot of time with each body and use the RAW processor that handles the individual RAW files the best, at least that gives a more accurate picture of the actual performance. Hi Thomas, I agree w/ you 100% on RAW comparison but isn't when just taking quick shots in the store the setup most likely is in JPEG?. I personally shoot JPEGs most of the time and to be honest w/ you, I love to do RAWs but many including myself, don't have the luxury to spend time in processing and on top of that, many are not software savy myself included again. cheers, Rene

05-07-2009, 08:30 PM	#24
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by OPTMEKX& Hi Thomas, I agree w/ you 100% on RAW comparison but isn't when just taking quick shots in the store the setup most likely is in JPEG?. I personally shoot JPEGs most of the time and to be honest w/ you, I love to do RAWs but many including myself, don't have the luxury to spend time in processing and on top of that, many are not software savy myself included again. cheers, Rene Point well taken Rene I did not comment on the OPs comparison, merely pointed out that imaging ressource would not be a good reference of actual performance and i saw little point in pointing the OP to a set op samples that will tell him no more about actual performance than his own test. My own recommendation when people want to compare cameras is to rent or get their hands on a loaner, along with lenses in the range you would be likely to use for at least a couple of days and try it out at your intented applications. Only way to make sure you know what you are about to buy. well the RAW vs. jpg is a preference thing I guess, I often have clients to satisfy and I would not want to deliver any jpg based output, there is so much more to gain and once you have your workflow patted down it is not really that time consuming. If you do deliver large bodies of work regularly software like LR or Aperture are optimised for handling it and keeping it simple.

05-07-2009, 08:56 PM	#25
cloudswimmer Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: So.Cal. Photos: Gallery Posts: 89	Originally posted by pingflood That looks like a Calumet C-1. Lots of people still use large format cameras (I have one as can be seen in my sig). They're not just for collectors, they're actually still the supreme rulers when it come to ultimate resolution. Plus, they're fun. Yeah that would be my C-1.I have two actually, and shoot em on a big Ries A-100 2 tripod.I send the negs out these days to West Coast imaging for drum scanning, and the resolution just kills any dslr I've ever used.Of course my Pentax dslr's kill the C-1's for convenience Here's a 100% crop from a bushel of sunflowers on Ilford Fp4+ souped in PMK

05-07-2009, 09:28 PM	#26
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by KungPOW Do people complain about their autofocus? Yes. It is very slow. K20d is definitely faster in the AF.

05-07-2009, 10:27 PM	#27
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by cloudswimmer Yeah that would be my C-1.I have two actually, and shoot em on a big Ries A-100 2 tripod.I send the negs out these days to West Coast imaging for drum scanning, and the resolution just kills any dslr I've ever used.Of course my Pentax dslr's kill the C-1's for convenience Here's a 100% crop from a bushel of sunflowers on Ilford Fp4+ souped in PMK That is the 100% crop? What were the original dimensions of the scanned image? 4x5 sheet film? That may be a crop, but the picture simply blows me away... I am a fan of film, but have only limited experience viewing scanned LF format. The tonality and richness of that photo are simply amazing! Steve

05-08-2009, 08:57 AM	#28
cloudswimmer Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: So.Cal. Photos: Gallery Posts: 89	Originally posted by stevebrot That is the 100% crop? What were the original dimensions of the scanned image? 4x5 sheet film? That may be a crop, but the picture simply blows me away... I am a fan of film, but have only limited experience viewing scanned LF format. The tonality and richness of that photo are simply amazing! Steve Hi Steve, its 8x10 sheet film not 4x5.Here is the original.Scanned on my Epson 4990 at 2400 ppi the file is close to a gigabyte in size, of course down sampled to 360 ppi its much more manageable

05-08-2009, 09:09 AM	#29
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Cloudswimmer: beautiful photo. Will

05-08-2009, 09:48 AM	#30
cloudswimmer Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: So.Cal. Photos: Gallery Posts: 89	Originally posted by stevebrot That is the 100% crop? What were the original dimensions of the scanned image? 4x5 sheet film? That may be a crop, but the picture simply blows me away... I am a fan of film, but have only limited experience viewing scanned LF format. The tonality and richness of that photo are simply amazing! Steve Steve I stand corrected, I was tired last night posting.That was indeed not a 100% crop.Here is the true 100% crop.These are done on the consumer Epson 4990 scanner.The tango drum scans from WCI are always much better sharpness and DR wise, but they ain't cheap.