My K-7 alpha test report and blog

vinzer · 06-18-2009, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji

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.

Being a programmer myself, I feel your pain.

jamesm007 · 06-18-2009, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by melander

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?

I saw no one on either forum hoping for the K20D to be better. In fact all us Pentax fans on both forums want the K-7 to be great. To say that its the folks who can't afford a new K-7 who will find any little fault, is back-wards, its the folks who can afford the K-7 who want the K-7 to be better than the K20D at all things, thats why they pay the money. To call people names, who only write things as they seem them good or bad is not called for.

BTW I feel the production K-7 will be improved not so much in high ISO noise but low ISO noise in shadows, If anything this is where the improvements were needed with the superb K20D sensor. Also high ISO noise will be much better IMO out the camera with greatly improved JPEG NR. As it is now if your printing you don't have to do anything to even a ISO3200 file from a K20D thats exposed properly. But many now share on monitors that are very un-forgiving to noise and this is where the improved NR will be a time saver, IMO. I hope

.

soccerjoe5 · 06-18-2009, 11:01 PM

Falk > Aside from the noise/grain, how are the colors and dynamic range on ISO1600-3200? I notice that more than the noise

falconeye · 06-19-2009, 01:39 AM

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.

claude21 · 06-19-2009, 06:00 AM

According to your tests, the K-7 sensor is not an improvement at all, in fact it seem's noisier than k20d which was already noisier than D90 and D300. The chroma noise is more visible. Should be interesting to compare again when production units arrives.

falconeye · 06-19-2009, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by claude21

The chroma noise is more visible.

As I said, I consider the subtle differences which remained visible in the tests to be not significant. I would have to study multiple bodies of each type and await production batches to be able to say so.

keltia666 · 06-19-2009, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by stanleyk

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.

I like to go inside aquariums, there you can't use flash (it would not be very effective anyway) because you want to be nice to fishes and you don't get much light in there and they are constantly moving...

See

and

(they ere taken both at 1600 but you get the point, even with a very fast lens, it is tricky)

Last edited by keltia666; 06-19-2009 at 08:44 AM. Reason: precisions

GLXLR · 06-19-2009, 10:48 AM

Honestly, the results are very disappointing. The time Nikon had from the D300 to the D90 sensor, there were already large improvements as the D300 was barely useable at 3200 while the D90 was an absolutely great performer. Pentax however had even MORE time from the K20D to the K-7 and from your results, there was barely any improvemnt from the K20D's sensor to the K-7 sensor. Does the K-7 even have a different sensor from the K20D? I guess from the results, that is questionable now.

claude21 · 06-19-2009, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by GLXLR

Honestly, the results are very disappointing. The time Nikon had from the D300 to the D90 sensor, there were already large improvements as the D300 was barely useable at 3200 while the D90 was an absolutely great performer. Pentax however had even MORE time from the K20D to the K-7 and from your results, there was barely any improvemnt from the K20D's sensor to the K-7 sensor. Does the K-7 even have a different sensor from the K20D? I guess from the results, that is questionable now.

I second that. I won't spend money on that thing. You can add whatever functionnality as you want, IQ is the most important.

jeffkrol · 06-19-2009, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by claude21

I second that. I won't spend money on that thing. You can add whatever functionnality as you want, IQ is the most important.

If IQ was the only important thing we'd all be using 8x10 film cameras.....

To be perfectly frank your posts are entering trolling waters....

falconeye · 06-19-2009, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by GLXLR

the D90 was an absolutely great performer

Originally posted by claude21

I second that. IQ is the most important.

Personally, I am more than satisfied with the IQ I get from the K20D and K-7.

However, if you say the IQ at ISO3200 is so much better with the D90, then you may have a point. If it is true. However, I am sceptical.

Fortunately, dpr has a page showing noise from D90 and K20D side by side (because it is JPG, the K-7 could score better here if it has an improved NR; something I didn't look at at all!). Anyway, it is here:
Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

What jumps out is the coin at ISO 100: It is known to have background texture but only K20D shows it (and D80 a bit). Esp. the D90 destroys this texture for ALL values of iso. Not something that I would call a progress...

As I wrote in my blog: details rules over noise. And I am glad that K-7 accepts this heritage.

Don't get me wrong ... the D90 may have a better sensor than K-7. I won't defend Pentax because it is Pentax. It is just that I need more than the simple claim that this be fact.

Pentaxor · 06-19-2009, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Personally, I am more than satisfied with the IQ I get from the K20D and K-7.

However, if you say the IQ at ISO3200 is so much better with the D90, then you may have a point. If it is true. However, I am sceptical.

Fortunately, dpr has a page showing noise from D90 and K20D side by side (because it is JPG, the K-7 could score better here if it has an improved NR; something I didn't look at at all!). Anyway, it is here:
Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

What jumps out is the coin at ISO 100: It is known to have background texture but only K20D shows it (and D80 a bit). Esp. the D90 destroys this texture for ALL values of iso. Not something that I would call a progress...

As I wrote in my blog: details rules over noise. And I am glad that K-7 accepts this heritage.

Don't get me wrong ... the D90 may have a better sensor than K-7. I won't defend Pentax because it is Pentax. It is just that I need more than the simple claim that this be fact.

tnx frank. D90 does look to have less noise, but the details are lost. I do share your ideals. I prefer details w/ noise rather than less noise but flat and no detail.

actually, what some people here failed to see and undertand, is that Pentax is trying to live by that ideal and preference on detail output. that is it's unique feature. now it depends on some people if they would dig that or not.

falconeye · 06-19-2009, 01:27 PM

claude21 could be right and D90 does have a better sensor. I am really curious to know.

But from samples I can find in public, it looks we are comparing noise reduction algorithms, not sensors. And if Nikon puts them into their raw files, dxo will run into the same trap. Is there any serious source studying the underlying qualities of both sensors, like full well capacities etc.?

Here is another comparison, from imaging-resource. Left is the K20D, right the D90, both 100%, both ISO 1600.

Besides that the D90 has somewhat fewer pixels (K20D would gain in downsizing), it is very visible that the D90 sacrificed detail for smoothness. I can see many hairs which are plain missing in the Nikon shot ... Altogether, the K20D shot looks snappier and I assume when printed, it would look better (somebody should actually do the printing test

)

zoltan1983snapper · 06-19-2009, 01:50 PM

This is one of the main reasons I like pentax: detail over smoothness.

claude21 · 06-19-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Personally, I am more than satisfied with the IQ I get from the K20D and K-7.

However, if you say the IQ at ISO3200 is so much better with the D90, then you may have a point. If it is true. However, I am sceptical.

Fortunately, dpr has a page showing noise from D90 and K20D side by side (because it is JPG, the K-7 could score better here if it has an improved NR; something I didn't look at at all!). Anyway, it is here:
Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

What jumps out is the coin at ISO 100: It is known to have background texture but only K20D shows it (and D80 a bit). Esp. the D90 destroys this texture for ALL values of iso. Not something that I would call a progress...

As I wrote in my blog: details rules over noise. And I am glad that K-7 accepts this heritage.

Don't get me wrong ... the D90 may have a better sensor than K-7. I won't defend Pentax because it is Pentax. It is just that I need more than the simple claim that this be fact.

That's because the dumbs at DPR set D90 to NR = High (how could it be a fair comparaison with K20d btw ?) which effectively remove details. But with NR= off it's better (page 21 show differences between NR reduction)

High iso is not my main complain about K-7 though, in fact it's more the low iso noise and overall sharpness/micro constrast that annoy me, I've the same feeling about the canon 50D for ex. I believe there is too much pixels, if only they could have made a 10 mp sensor instead...

06-18-2009, 10:36 PM	#92
jamesm007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit MI, USA Posts: 508	Originally posted by melander 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? I saw no one on either forum hoping for the K20D to be better. In fact all us Pentax fans on both forums want the K-7 to be great. To say that its the folks who can't afford a new K-7 who will find any little fault, is back-wards, its the folks who can afford the K-7 who want the K-7 to be better than the K20D at all things, thats why they pay the money. To call people names, who only write things as they seem them good or bad is not called for. BTW I feel the production K-7 will be improved not so much in high ISO noise but low ISO noise in shadows, If anything this is where the improvements were needed with the superb K20D sensor. Also high ISO noise will be much better IMO out the camera with greatly improved JPEG NR. As it is now if your printing you don't have to do anything to even a ISO3200 file from a K20D thats exposed properly. But many now share on monitors that are very un-forgiving to noise and this is where the improved NR will be a time saver, IMO. I hope . Last edited by jamesm007; 06-18-2009 at 10:43 PM.

06-19-2009, 01:27 PM	#103
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	claude21 could be right and D90 does have a better sensor. I am really curious to know. But from samples I can find in public, it looks we are comparing noise reduction algorithms, not sensors. And if Nikon puts them into their raw files, dxo will run into the same trap. Is there any serious source studying the underlying qualities of both sensors, like full well capacities etc.? Here is another comparison, from imaging-resource. Left is the K20D, right the D90, both 100%, both ISO 1600. Besides that the D90 has somewhat fewer pixels (K20D would gain in downsizing), it is very visible that the D90 sacrificed detail for smoothness. I can see many hairs which are plain missing in the Nikon shot ... Altogether, the K20D shot looks snappier and I assume when printed, it would look better (somebody should actually do the printing test ) Last edited by falconeye; 06-15-2011 at 05:29 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sony Alpha 900	dylansalt	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	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

06-18-2009, 08:18 PM	#91
vinzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philippines Posts: 1,399	Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji 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. Being a programmer myself, I feel your pain.

06-18-2009, 11:01 PM	#93
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Falk > Aside from the noise/grain, how are the colors and dynamic range on ISO1600-3200? I notice that more than the noise

06-19-2009, 01:39 AM	#94
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	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.

06-19-2009, 06:00 AM	#95
claude21 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 55	According to your tests, the K-7 sensor is not an improvement at all, in fact it seem's noisier than k20d which was already noisier than D90 and D300. The chroma noise is more visible. Should be interesting to compare again when production units arrives.

06-19-2009, 06:35 AM	#96
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	Originally posted by claude21 The chroma noise is more visible. As I said, I consider the subtle differences which remained visible in the tests to be not significant. I would have to study multiple bodies of each type and await production batches to be able to say so.

06-19-2009, 08:44 AM	#97
keltia666 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: France Photos: Gallery Posts: 36	Originally posted by stanleyk 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. I like to go inside aquariums, there you can't use flash (it would not be very effective anyway) because you want to be nice to fishes and you don't get much light in there and they are constantly moving... See and (they ere taken both at 1600 but you get the point, even with a very fast lens, it is tricky) Last edited by keltia666; 06-19-2009 at 08:44 AM. Reason: precisions

06-19-2009, 10:48 AM	#98
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Honestly, the results are very disappointing. The time Nikon had from the D300 to the D90 sensor, there were already large improvements as the D300 was barely useable at 3200 while the D90 was an absolutely great performer. Pentax however had even MORE time from the K20D to the K-7 and from your results, there was barely any improvemnt from the K20D's sensor to the K-7 sensor. Does the K-7 even have a different sensor from the K20D? I guess from the results, that is questionable now.

06-19-2009, 11:15 AM	#99
claude21 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 55	Originally posted by GLXLR Honestly, the results are very disappointing. The time Nikon had from the D300 to the D90 sensor, there were already large improvements as the D300 was barely useable at 3200 while the D90 was an absolutely great performer. Pentax however had even MORE time from the K20D to the K-7 and from your results, there was barely any improvemnt from the K20D's sensor to the K-7 sensor. Does the K-7 even have a different sensor from the K20D? I guess from the results, that is questionable now. I second that. I won't spend money on that thing. You can add whatever functionnality as you want, IQ is the most important.

06-19-2009, 11:53 AM	#100
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by claude21 I second that. I won't spend money on that thing. You can add whatever functionnality as you want, IQ is the most important. If IQ was the only important thing we'd all be using 8x10 film cameras..... To be perfectly frank your posts are entering trolling waters....

06-19-2009, 12:20 PM	#101
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871 Original Poster	Originally posted by GLXLR the D90 was an absolutely great performer Originally posted by claude21 I second that. IQ is the most important. Personally, I am more than satisfied with the IQ I get from the K20D and K-7. However, if you say the IQ at ISO3200 is so much better with the D90, then you may have a point. If it is true. However, I am sceptical. Fortunately, dpr has a page showing noise from D90 and K20D side by side (because it is JPG, the K-7 could score better here if it has an improved NR; something I didn't look at at all!). Anyway, it is here: Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review What jumps out is the coin at ISO 100: It is known to have background texture but only K20D shows it (and D80 a bit). Esp. the D90 destroys this texture for ALL values of iso. Not something that I would call a progress... As I wrote in my blog: details rules over noise. And I am glad that K-7 accepts this heritage. Don't get me wrong ... the D90 may have a better sensor than K-7. I won't defend Pentax because it is Pentax. It is just that I need more than the simple claim that this be fact.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2009, 01:08 PM	#102
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by falconeye Personally, I am more than satisfied with the IQ I get from the K20D and K-7. However, if you say the IQ at ISO3200 is so much better with the D90, then you may have a point. If it is true. However, I am sceptical. Fortunately, dpr has a page showing noise from D90 and K20D side by side (because it is JPG, the K-7 could score better here if it has an improved NR; something I didn't look at at all!). Anyway, it is here: Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review What jumps out is the coin at ISO 100: It is known to have background texture but only K20D shows it (and D80 a bit). Esp. the D90 destroys this texture for ALL values of iso. Not something that I would call a progress... As I wrote in my blog: details rules over noise. And I am glad that K-7 accepts this heritage. Don't get me wrong ... the D90 may have a better sensor than K-7. I won't defend Pentax because it is Pentax. It is just that I need more than the simple claim that this be fact. tnx frank. D90 does look to have less noise, but the details are lost. I do share your ideals. I prefer details w/ noise rather than less noise but flat and no detail. actually, what some people here failed to see and undertand, is that Pentax is trying to live by that ideal and preference on detail output. that is it's unique feature. now it depends on some people if they would dig that or not.

06-19-2009, 01:50 PM	#104
zoltan1983snapper Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 240	This is one of the main reasons I like pentax: detail over smoothness.

06-19-2009, 02:03 PM	#105
claude21 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 55	Originally posted by falconeye Personally, I am more than satisfied with the IQ I get from the K20D and K-7. However, if you say the IQ at ISO3200 is so much better with the D90, then you may have a point. If it is true. However, I am sceptical. Fortunately, dpr has a page showing noise from D90 and K20D side by side (because it is JPG, the K-7 could score better here if it has an improved NR; something I didn't look at at all!). Anyway, it is here: Nikon D90 Review: 20. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review What jumps out is the coin at ISO 100: It is known to have background texture but only K20D shows it (and D80 a bit). Esp. the D90 destroys this texture for ALL values of iso. Not something that I would call a progress... As I wrote in my blog: details rules over noise. And I am glad that K-7 accepts this heritage. Don't get me wrong ... the D90 may have a better sensor than K-7. I won't defend Pentax because it is Pentax. It is just that I need more than the simple claim that this be fact. That's because the dumbs at DPR set D90 to NR = High (how could it be a fair comparaison with K20d btw ?) which effectively remove details. But with NR= off it's better (page 21 show differences between NR reduction) High iso is not my main complain about K-7 though, in fact it's more the low iso noise and overall sharpness/micro constrast that annoy me, I've the same feeling about the canon 50D for ex. I believe there is too much pixels, if only they could have made a 10 mp sensor instead...