Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-18-2009, 10:42 AM   #76
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 184
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I personally think the baseball/ipod shot at ISO 1600 is very good - every bit as good as my supposedly 'superior at high iso' D90 would do in that tough lighting situation.

I'd shoot the K-7 at ISO 1600 with confidence based on that shot.


.
I'd go to 1600 with confidence too. Unfortunately I shoot at 3200 a lot (more than 1600 even), and 3200 isn't so hot in the samples I've seen so far.

06-18-2009, 11:39 AM   #77
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
All people who got fw 1.0 post here or in Germany. So, why even look at dpr?
06-18-2009, 11:46 AM   #78
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vilcabamba, Loja
Posts: 216
Justification

QuoteOriginally posted by melander Quote
I see alot of, "only as good as K20D" around at dpreview. Do I got a faulty K20D because the K-7 images just owns my k20d, its sits in the corner crying right now when I showed the pictures to it.

Shitty camera or just general DPR scumbags?
Everyone has to justify their decisions in their own minds regardless of what the evidence shows. When people can't afford new stuff which is obviously better than what they have, they have to slander it, and everyone who disagrees with them. As a salesperson, this is one of the most difficult parts of my job. Making the buyer feel good about their previous decision, but still getting them to understand why it's time to move forward.

Let's just look at it logically. The K*0D sensor was Samsung's first APS-C sensor. This new sensor is the next generation. It's going to be no better? Two commercial companies are going to invest massively in R&D and developing a new product and its output is going to be no better?

Once the firmware is finalized and production sensors are released, it is going to be appreciably better than the K20D. But, then the justifications as above will still be prevalent, and competitors will be posting purposefully bad samples to help maintain their competitive position.
06-18-2009, 05:12 PM   #79
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Italy -> Canada -> Belgium -> Switzerland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 233
Question question question question:

so with the 1.0 firmware is it possible to do AF during movie capturing?

Any news on that?

06-18-2009, 06:08 PM   #80
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by soalle Quote
Question question question question:

so with the 1.0 firmware is it possible to do AF during movie capturing?

Any news on that?
Didn't I say it yet? No AF during movie recording with v1.00. Only before start of movie. And CAF didn't look (significantly) improved either. It is definitely still not using the most clever algorithm you could think off
06-18-2009, 06:19 PM   #81
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,452
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Didn't I say it yet? No AF during movie recording with v1.00. Only before start of movie. And CAF didn't look (significantly) improved either. It is definitely still not using the most clever algorithm you could think off
Man, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? Bo to bed
06-18-2009, 06:20 PM   #82
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
Original Poster
Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D

New blog entry:
Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D



ISO 1600
Upper row: 1/500s, lower row: 1/1000s
Left side: K-7, right side: K20D
100% crops

For the complete description of the test, and all other ISO values, please visit the full blog as linked above.


In one sentence:
At least for raw file pixel noise in black&white subjects, the K-7 and K20D sensors are equivalent.

Now, before a crowd of thinkers jump upon me ... I know that this is from a preproduction camera (albeit with final firmware). Nevertheless, the differences will be small enough to come to this conclusion. And IMHO, to match noise and detail from a K20D is a good thing.
06-18-2009, 06:33 PM   #83
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,947
I guess it looks pretty good to me. Understand however that I don't shoot at high ISO to try to hand hold nightscape photos in the dark. I never really understood that. Just use a tripod! High ISO is to get fast enough shutter speed to take photos in darkish (but still illuminated) areas. I think the tungsten photos are perfect for looking at that.

06-18-2009, 06:44 PM   #84
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 57
Thank you very much for taking the time doing comparison tests
I have a K10 but no K20, although I do have a K7 ordered.

From the ISO samples on your blog, to me the K20 seems a bit soft compared to the K7.
Lets hope the final production model improves the ISO a little.

Cheers
06-18-2009, 07:04 PM   #85
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,225
Thanks for the effort that you put into your comparison. Looks to me like the K-7 (in pre-production form) has more pronounced noise than does the K20d but with a bit more detail. What I believe is a common trade-off. Useful info; thanks again.

Jer
06-18-2009, 07:05 PM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
Yohan-

Two questions.

What do you shoot at 3200? I never go above 400. I'm not being sarcastic, I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. I'm curious.

Where are you in Mississippi? I was born there; Cleveland. My grandmother still lives in Jackson. I was just over there last week visiting.

Thanks!
06-18-2009, 07:23 PM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 171
how are the performance with low iso? I think the K20D is not very good compare to K10D
06-18-2009, 07:56 PM   #88
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 184
QuoteOriginally posted by stanleyk Quote
Yohan-

Two questions.

What do you shoot at 3200? I never go above 400. I'm not being sarcastic, I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers. I'm curious.

Where are you in Mississippi? I was born there; Cleveland. My grandmother still lives in Jackson. I was just over there last week visiting.

Thanks!
Being a working stiff (programmer), I hardly ever get to shoot for myself while light is good. So typical indoor light + high enough shutter speed to prevent motion blur = ISO 3200. I don't shoot a ton of weddings, but I think all but one of them I shot at least some if not majority at ISO 3200. Also night time events like Taste of Mississippi. Used to shoot some sports, and those gyms and fields are lit like dungeons, but I don't do much of that anymore. So there's all sorts of stuff I shoot or have shot where ISO 3200 is required and even a clean ISO 6400 would be very welcome. And that's with fast glass (f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, among others). I always try to shoot at as low an ISO as possible to avoid noise, but it's always better to get a noisier sharp shot than a less noisy but blurry shot so unfortunately higher ISOs come into play a lot for me.

I'm Clinton, just outside Jackson as you probably know. Small world!
06-18-2009, 07:59 PM   #89
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Comparative noise study K-7 vs. K20D
Thanks a lot.

The K-7 shots show slightly more moiré. Better focus and/or (hopefully) not a stronger AA filter?

Can't wait to see your resolution tests.
I noticed you did a JCPentax on me w.r.t. my "Is LiveView useable for critical focusing" question, but I'm happy to wait for the respective blog entry.

QuoteOriginally posted by stanleyk Quote
What do you shoot at 3200? ... I just never understand why people need these high ISO numbers.
Badly lit scenes where movement may occur. Say a bar with Jazz musicians. Long shutter speeds only give you blur. You can open up the aperture but then the DOF becomes so thin at some point that hardly anything is in focus and most of the time not the part you want.
06-18-2009, 08:15 PM   #90
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,576
Put me down as one who regularly shoots at high-ISO's.

It gives you are a very welcome shooting flexibility - in terms of shooting environments but also practical lens usage - and generally increases your options a lot.

I also hate using flash.
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!
autofocus, blog, camera, dslr, forum, hope, link, photography, post, stuff, test report, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony Alpha 900 dylansalt Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 18 10-27-2010 11:01 AM
Any field test report for the kr? opiedog Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 09-15-2010 11:47 AM
rawtherapee v3.0 alpha 1 is out deejjjaaaa Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 14 01-07-2010 09:41 PM
sigma 35-135mm alpha IV pdxbmw Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 12-29-2009 01:47 PM
Sony Alpha dSLR-A200 deejjjaaaa Pentax News and Rumors 52 01-09-2008 03:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:45 PM. | 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