Originally posted by yipchunyu how are the performance with low iso? I think the K20D is not very good compare to K10D
You possibly would benefit from following the link in my posting
Originally posted by VHDEL From the ISO samples on your blog, to me the K20 seems a bit soft compared to the K7.
Originally posted by Class A 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.
Both series, K-7 and K20D, have a focus which is as good as I could achieve with live view. Note that the "6" you can see in the snippets correspond to 2710 LW/PH (4x600 from the ISO chart if it were one picture height exactly). So, we are very close already to the Niquist limit which is at about 6.9.
The reason why I didn't yet publish my resolution test too is that I saw that the focus isn't even perfect for the K-7. Both can do even better with this lens.
So yes, live view allows you to focus very close to the Nyquist limit. But only "95"% "to the point" (K20D: "90"%; K-7 has somewhat better resolution in magnified view).
And yes, the difference in sharpness and Moiré is a focus effect.
Originally posted by soccerjoe5 Falk > Aside from the noise/grain, how are the colors and dynamic range on ISO1600-3200? I notice that more than the noise
The dynamic pixel range is a direct mathematical function of pixel noise. What you read in (DP) reviews is measuring the shape of tone mapping in the JPG engine (what most reviewers don't get).
The true dynamic range (never measured) is the dynamic range of a
massively downscaled image. This is limited by banding and clipping the black in camera. I didn't look into this. I feel that here, the differences are larger than at the pixel level.