Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2009, 05:48 PM   #16
Site Supporter
AlexM's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Covina, CA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 162
Ya know, even with the firmware being at .35, an image that I saw from that Flickr set was VERY good, even at ISO 800....

Case in point:



This is not the full sized image, but when you view the full sized one, I could not see evidence of much noise even at ISO 800...

Full sized image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3592113867_52273afe35_o.jpg

So if this is from firmware version 0.35, what must v1.0 be like?

Alex

06-10-2009, 07:42 AM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 55
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Doing a head-to-head comparison of images from K-7 vs. K20D, same subject, same lens, same RAW conversion, is high up on my list. Probably to be done this week end.

Partly because of threads like this. I'll also run higher iso tests later this month when the updated firmware gets available.

From what I've seen so far, I think that banding is a non issue with K-7. I'll research this more as well, when doing my iso tests.
the K-7 seem's a very capable camera on paper, nice specs etc, still I found that low iso performance is not as good as K10D. But, it may be due to early hardware like Roland has said and I believe he's right. Until we have access to production units, I recognize it's too early to conclude.
06-10-2009, 08:38 AM   #18
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by claude21 Quote
the K-7 seem's a very capable camera on paper, nice specs etc, still I found that low iso performance is not as good as K10D. But, it may be due to early hardware like Roland has said and I believe he's right. Until we have access to production units, I recognize it's too early to conclude.
Is it so difficult to accept the fact that the K-7's image quality is much improved over the K10D? Believe what you want to believe but having owned the K10D, K20D and used the K-7 briefly, there is no doubt in my mind the K-7's image quality is excellent and dare I say surpasses the K10D.
06-10-2009, 08:59 AM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 55
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Is it so difficult to accept the fact that the K-7's image quality is much improved over the K10D? Believe what you want to believe but having owned the K10D, K20D and used the K-7 briefly, there is no doubt in my mind the K-7's image quality is excellent and dare I say surpasses the K10D.
I don't agree, at iso 100-200 k10d ccd sensor is better than (beta) K-7 at the same iso. That was discussed already for the K20D, samsung cmos sensor is noisier at low iso.

06-10-2009, 02:46 PM   #20
Site Supporter
mrt10x's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Woodland Park CO
Posts: 97
QuoteOriginally posted by claude21 Quote
I don't agree, at iso 100-200 k10d ccd sensor is better than (beta) K-7 at the same iso. That was discussed already for the K20D, samsung cmos sensor is noisier at low iso.
This is why the k10d has a higher DXO mark than the K20d
06-10-2009, 02:54 PM   #21
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I am cool with manageable noise, but I hate BANDING!!!
06-10-2009, 09:31 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 469
I took the large version of the picture mentioned by the OP, and the big versions of the zoo pictures also referenced in the thread, and did horrible things to them in Photoshop.

The pic form this thread has more noise than the k10 pic if you push the dark areas, but the k10 pic also has better lighting and less problem areas.

After molesting the picture, I get no banding artifacts, even in the problem areas.

As for the zoo pictures, I can't find anything horribly wrong with them even when beating up on it in photoshop. At least nothing that is any more limiting that what you get out of a k10d.

The only thing I am finding is that there is more noise in browns in the pictures relative to the rest of the scene than with the k10d, and slightly more chroma noise overall. However, it is quite controllable noise with decent noise reduction software.

I'd be shocked if it didn't improve a good chunk before it hits the street. If I were going to be concerned about anything, it would be about the dynamic range of the pictures as the samples I am seeing that have nice inky black areas are clipping them in spots, which has potential to limit you in post production.
06-25-2009, 09:16 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by claude21 Quote
The Pentax image is official one found on pentax site. State of the art star lens show a pretty lack of sharpness and contrast on K-7, ...
I agree. I would not have put up this image to advertise the camera.

OK, it is a portrait and you are not supposed to see all the imperfections of a woman's skin but in order to impress people you want really sharp lashes for example.

I trust the K-7 will not be found lacking in sharpness when it hits the stores but I'm slightly puzzled why so many shots are soft and why so few people take issue with it.

06-25-2009, 09:22 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 136
I'm not impressed with the 55mm headshot for the K7 - it looks good but prosumer color and a bit soft, but really , it's firmware .35 and there are ton's of pics of outstanding quality on past cameras...so bleh.

That headshot looks a bit like she's too close for min. focus by a tad...I may be overanalyzing it though, it is softish
06-26-2009, 03:11 AM   #25
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
I would most certainly wait till the final production model hits the street before jumping to any conclusions.
06-26-2009, 03:17 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 111
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
I would most certainly wait till the final production model hits the street before jumping to any conclusions.

Thank you! Common sense would suggest we all do this.
06-26-2009, 03:26 AM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Psynema Quote
I'm not impressed with the 55mm headshot for the K7 - it looks good but prosumer color and a bit soft, but really , it's firmware .35 and there are ton's of pics of outstanding quality on past cameras...so bleh.

That headshot looks a bit like she's too close for min. focus by a tad...I may be overanalyzing it though, it is softish
The headshot with da55mm looks like misfocused. For example those eyelashes - no way they can be that soft when properly in focus unless some softener etc. was used in purpose.
06-26-2009, 03:41 AM   #28
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
You have all seen my K-7 detailed resolution analysis, haven't you?

Falk Lumo: Comparative resolution study K-7 vs. K20D

Basically, it found that resolution is at least on par with K20D.
06-26-2009, 03:54 AM   #29
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
I would most certainly wait till the final production model hits the street before jumping to any conclusions.
06-26-2009, 06:36 AM   #30
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
I would most certainly wait till the final production model hits the street before jumping to any conclusions.
How many more times are you going to repeat?

I have carefully examined with Pentax what can already be said and what would better await full production models. Consequently, there is some material which I did publish and there is some material (already prepared for my blog) which I didn't publish.

BTW, since when do you await final production models hitting the street before saying anything about forthcoming models?
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, image, iso, k-7, k-7 image quality, k10d, lens, nikon, pentax, photography, sharpness
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are you satisfied with the K-x image quality? rjm Pentax DSLR Discussion 37 01-21-2010 06:27 AM
How can I get good image quality from a K-x?? Manfred Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 38 12-20-2009 08:18 PM
K or M Series - Which has the best image quality 8540tomg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 10-05-2009 07:53 AM
DA 16-45mm image quality sveinmb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 09-18-2008 03:58 PM
Some concern about image quality. Bart Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 07-23-2007 05:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 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