[Zav]

K-7 Iso 2000. Not bad to my eyes:

[garyk]

Taken with K-7 with strong noise reduction set internally in camera.

This one is 3200.




This one is 1600.



This one is 800.

[audiobomber]

Tested ISO 1600 today with my K-7 and DA* 300mm. To me it seems really nice - especially after K10D.

This looks soft to me. I don't know if it was camera shake or misfocus, but this looks more like consumer level sharpness. The DA 300 should do better.

[garyk]

I shoot wildlife. And I have a k-20 and k-7 I think the 20 is much better. I have friends with canon and nikon.

And i will have to say. I am going to change. The ISO's from these cameras really make a big difference.

[Nitrok]

This looks soft to me. I don't know if it was camera shake or misfocus, but this looks more like consumer level sharpness. The DA 300 should do better.

Click to view it in original size - looks like the forum resizes bigger photos. There could also be some softness because of the shutter speed (1/320sec) and i shot this handheld.
Also i haven't applied any kind of sharpness, just resized straight from Lightroom default settings.

Here is 1:1 crop from the same image (click to view it in it's original size).

[jgredline]

Taken with K-7 with strong noise reduction set internally in camera.

This one is 3200.




This one is 1600.



This one is 800.

Gary,
I hate to break it to you, but these do not look very good to me even at these small sizes.

[jgredline]

I shoot wildlife. And I have a k-20 and k-7 I think the 20 is much better. I have friends with canon and nikon.

And i will have to say. I am going to change. The ISO's from these cameras really make a big difference.

Oh, Sorry about my last comment. I see you already knew that. Indeed the K20D is better than the K-7 my guess is a full stop. I can't speak for canon, but the D300s is pretty much the very same as the K20D but with very fast Auto focus which is what I am guessing is also what your after. good luck.

[Marc Sabatella]

I shoot wildlife. And I have a k-20 and k-7 I think the 20 is much better. I have friends with canon and nikon.

And i will have to say. I am going to change. The ISO's from these cameras really make a big difference.

Shoot them side by side, same scene, same lighting, same exposure, same RAW processing. Unless those are full frame Canons or Nikons, there's not going be much difference at all between them and the K20D, which is already one of the best APS-C cameras out there in terms of high ISO performance.

[Marc Sabatella]

Gary,
I hate to break it to you, but these do not look very good to me even at these small sizes.

Well, I'd agree they aren't very *sharp*, but that's not a camera issue - that's simply misfocus/blur. And it's true that noise is often more noticeable in shots that have little detail, like these.

[jgredline]

Shoot them side by side, same scene, same lighting, same exposure, same RAW processing. Unless those are full frame Canons or Nikons, there's not going be much difference at all between them and the K20D, which is already one of the best APS-C cameras out there in terms of high ISO performance.

Marc, I would agree that the K20D is a total kick ass APS-C cam, lagging only behind the KX and even with the D300S from my own findings, But the K-7 is not in the same league.

[Rondec]

I have been trying to figure out the K7. Particularly shooting jpeg it seems to suffer, but with RAW not so much. Here is a photo of my son shot at iso 1600 and a crop of that photo, no noise reduction. This was shot with jpeg. I think the issue that I have with jpegs is if I under expose at all, the jpegs look terrible when the exposure is brough up -- much worse than RAW.

[TriCon]

Shot this last night with the SMC 50mm 1.4, ISO 1600 and its a little out of focus unfortunately. Still great colors and almost zero noise, love this K-X in low light situations, hell I love this K-X in any situation

[JohnBee]

Shot this last night with the SMC 50mm 1.4, ISO 1600 and its a little out of focus unfortunately. Still great colors and almost zero noise, love this K-X in low light situations, hell I love this K-X in any situation

The img is too small to say, though it does look interesting.
The colors on the other hard don't look right(cool or magenta cast)
And it looks like some of the highlight are a little on the hot side.

Have you ever considered using WB caps with your lenses?

[Jewelltrail]

JohnBee: The img is too small to say, though it does look interesting.
The colors on the other hard don't look right(cool or magenta cast)
And it looks like some of the highlight are a little on the hot side.

Have you ever considered using WB caps with your lenses?

Excellent observation John and great advice. The elusive nature of perfect white balance is why I now shoot exclusively in RAW, where I can nail WB later, if need be, in PPing. The OP can consider shooting RAW to eliminate this problem as well.

[JohnBee]

Excellent observation John and great advice. The elusive nature of perfect white balance is why I now shoot exclusively in RAW, where I can nail WB later, if need be, in PPing. The OP can also consider shooting RAW to eliminate this problem as well.

I fully agree(I too shoot RAW exclusively), though I've found that auto or PP WB to be surprisingly frustrating. Which didn't really come-up until I started shooting with a laptop at my side... and boy... was I ever wrong! The fact is(in my case) that not only would my WB be far out in the field but also that the colors(explicitly reds) were nowhere near that of my original compositions.

So now... with every lens capped, I carry a color calibration card everywhere I go.
And though that may sound like a hassle(it's not really), it has completely transformed my outlook on WB and color calibration.

For what it's worth, the caps were cheap(3 - 6.00 a piece), and the true color card was something like 19.00. Which is really good considering what it used to cost( 39.00 per cap and 150+.00 for a McBeth color checker card a few years ago)

Hope this helps