[pingflood]

It's not entirely about how many megapixels a camera's sensor deals with, rather the pixel density and the quality of the sensor itself. The Pentax K7 outshines the Canon by a long shot in this field.

How, exactly, does it "outshine" it by a "long shot"? Sure you can make the case against Canon's build, ergonomics etc, but even the Rebel line now has excellent sensors and image processing. Yes, the K-7 has slightly lower density (4MP/cm2 vs 4.5 I think) but not enough to make a significant difference on that basis alone.

People who drop statements like these make me wonder if they've truly evaluated the output from both, or if they're just touting the party line.

[Luke_]

Im sorry, but these are two completely different cameras!

If you are comparing the K7 to a canon, then at least compare it to one of the same built quality and performance, e.g. 50D.

But as others have said the 500D is a toy compared to the K7, both in build and features.

Its like buying two cars and comparing them just on price.

I can get a new bmw for 50grand, or a second hand Ferrari.

Lets start by comparing them, because I mean they are the same price, so why not?

[dylansalt]

How, exactly, does it "outshine" it by a "long shot"? Sure you can make the case against Canon's build, ergonomics etc, but even the Rebel line now has excellent sensors and image processing. Yes, the K-7 has slightly lower density (4MP/cm2 vs 4.5 I think) but not enough to make a significant difference on that basis alone.

People who drop statements like these make me wonder if they've truly evaluated the output from both, or if they're just touting the party line.

I can totally agree with the above statement.

Take a "toy" Rebel and put a really good piece of L or even some good value prime glass on it like and you can achieve superlative output equal to anything a Pentax can do.

BUT in terms of build quality, ergonomics etc of the K7 there simply is no comparison

I was going to buy the Canon 40D but bought the K10D just because it felt better, tougher and was faster to operate (for me) than the 40D - therefore once again I must say that the K7 is even better built and the Canon Rebel line comes nowhere close to the K7 and the 50D only outdoes the K7 in it's autofocus capability for highspeed movement and af-c, imho

Dylan

[ytterbium]

Forgive me if i have misunderstood you, because i could not clearly understand your thouht, but you said it: "..second hand..". I don't wan't to get on a negative tone in this productive discussion, but it states what you think deep down and are denying.

I always try not to be subjective and canon sure has its advantages, why otherwise so many people would spend their hard earned money on it.
BUT.. not so long ago i was seriously considering switching to Canon, but before that i reasearched it very seriously.. even more than before i bought my Pentax (which was my first DSLR, and since now i have some experience i knew what to look for).

And what i found out, was that even if better in many aspects, the system was not affordable - at least at the quality level i was used to with Pentax. As well as many things not availible at all. You can read many good points in here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/66001-even-if-no-r...ax-system.html
(note: i haven't participated in that discussion)
Durable (sealed) build quality, stabilized top quality compact limited lenses like 70/2.4 at $300 used, cheap SD card support, extensive functionality and proven real life image quality. Those were the things i could not give up for arguably few stop cleaner iso performance, theoretically instant and hopefully correct AF and serious loss of money (counting from zero - not the loss switching systems).

BTW, is it true that the cheap (non L's) stabilized canon lenses are scarifying image quality because not being specifically designed to have moving elements (just taking ordinary design and add stabilisation mechanism to existing lens group)? Anyway it shouldn't be worse than blurry un-stabilised image.

P.S. I think my post got a bit unproductive and too much aggressive (brand wise). Try not to continue me and do more qualitative evaluation.

---

Last edited by ytterbium; 07-26-2009 at 12:29 PM.

[cousinsane]

Canon does have some affordable and high quality offers in their lens lineup. For example the EF 85/1.8 USM for less than $300 used. That's almost a stop faster than the DA70/2.4.

[pingflood]

Canon does have some affordable and high quality offers in their lens lineup. For example the EF 85/1.8 USM for less than $300 used. That's almost a stop faster than the DA70/2.4.

Yeah, but a bit apples/oranges -- the 85 is a FF lens and a good bit bigger. So it's a tradeoff. (I gotta say the 85 is fantastic though, I sold my 35/2 and 50/1.4 but kept that one... )

[ytterbium]

Dont make me reconsider . But actually the 70/2.8 was just one of many examples.
Actually to remotely match the convenience and functionality k200d gives, i had to buy 40d, which combined with 85 couldn't fit in my bag, wich now can house k200d+kit(+hood), 70/2.4, 4AA's, TV cable, optic cleaning fabric, CPL and some tiny accessories (SD's, VF cap etc).
On the other hand, thing that no one reviews - canon has MUCH better resell value.
I had to put ridiculously low prices on my stuff , still the interest was next to none..

I can barely sell M28/2.8 for 50$ which comes 100$ shipped from ebay. 70/2.8 ltd - No one even asked about it. Before i saw that i will not be able to switch, i could sell only Nikon SB-24 flash gun and 70-300 sigma (90$). You can buy/sell anything canon within a 2 weeks or so for a reasonable price.

Darn.. i'm again turning this nice discussion into C vs P argue. My apologies.

Now back to cameras, image sensors and quality.
I think with K-7 pentax has kept all Pentax system's qualities and fixed most of its downsides, so we might hope to see some improvements in rest of its system. This would make Pentax system very respectable and advantageous option.

K-7 makes for a very tough competitor, but lacks adequate reputation. This will change as more k-7's reach their owners and the more use it gets. It should change the bad AF image of pentax and combined with that further promote its image quality. Which even if arguably lower than 500d, still on a level with its direct competitors.

I think from this point forward, if everything else keeps developing the same way, the features that will be more important will be band unique options, where Pentax has very strong points.

Regarding those 500D samples, i must agree that overall they look much cleaner but that's about it.

---

Last edited by ytterbium; 07-26-2009 at 01:48 PM.

[Haakan]

IMHO, image quality has ceased to be a differentiator among the different brands. All latest APS-C cameras perform more or less the same in that respect. I spent hours and days downloading and pixel peeping RAW images of D90, 50D and K20D from Imaging Resource, at all different ISO levels, and they are almost undistinguishable.

So then it is really other priorities that decides. For me it was the best weather sealing of any semi-pro body, inbuilt IS, and how it felt in my hands that made me decide on Pentax K10D (with 40D and D80 being the other cameras I evaluated). I have later also come to value the possibility to find good priced, high quality K-mount lenses on e-bay, all image stabilised . Others may have other priorities and come to other decisions. That is fair, it does not get me upset, and I am not a member of any Canikon forum trying to have them see the light and abandom their brand (I never understood why RH kept posting here)

Where the comparison with 500D fails is that it is not really about image quality, but the fact is that they are not on the same level when it comes to build quality. It is like comparing a low price laptop with a ruggedised laptop and finding them equal just because they have the same processor/computing power.

Best regards,
Haakan

[Yohan Pamudji]

Where the comparison with 500D fails is that it is not really about image quality, but the fact is that they are not on the same level when it comes to build quality. It is like comparing a low price laptop with a ruggedised laptop and finding them equal just because they have the same processor/computing power.

Good analogy. As capable an image capture device the 500D is, it really feels cheap (to be fair, it is cheap!) and lacks the functional niceties of more refined cameras like the K-7.

[pingflood]

Good analogy. As capable an image capture device the 500D is, it really feels cheap (to be fair, it is cheap!) and lacks the functional niceties of more refined cameras like the K-7.

That I think everyone can agree on. And incidentally, that's how people see it compared to the 50D. Great IQ, can produce just as nice an image, but all the surrounding stuff is not quite up to snuff. I was just initially correcting the guy who said that a K-7 would be a serious improvement IQ wise over it.

[simico]

It's not just high-ISO noise either -- basically all of the comparison shots I've seen, even at relatively low ISO (200 or 400) seem to show much more obvious noise in the K7 picture than in those from its apparent competitors (e.g., Canon 50D or Nikon D90), and I can't detect any obvious lack of resolution or sharpness in the Canon/Nikon pictures. The difference is not subtle.

AFAIK NR kicks in above ISO800 in Pentax (while Canon/Nikon always applies NR above base ISO), so in the 200-800 range there's no NR, hence you can see more noise. If you don't like Pentax's noise handling philosophy (leaving there more noise and more details, giving you the freedom to balance between noise and details) then don't buy Pentax cameras, it's that simple.

Btw, noise is overrated (for amateur, hobby use). In web size (downsized to 1-2 MP) or printed at 10x13, you can't really see it. I printed out one of my not so good ISO1600 pictures in A4 size and noise wasn't annoying on the pic (bad composition was annoying though ).

[snogglethorpe]

AFAIK NR kicks in above ISO800 in Pentax (while Canon/Nikon always applies NR above base ISO), so in the 200-800 range there's no NR, hence you can see more noise.

So, if it's due to a simple lack of NR (as opposed to deficiencies in the sensor), then can one generally achieve similar results (to the C/N "look") by using NR in post-processing?

[I'm not very familiar with image processing software. I've always thought that cleaning up noise would have a noticeable impact on edges etc, but the C/N results seem impressively clean and sharp.]

If you don't like Pentax's noise handling philosophy (leaving there more noise and more details, giving you the freedom to balance between noise and details)

Well I like Pentax, have Pentax film cameras, lenses, etc. If I can, I'd generally kinda like to stay with them.

I don't think there's anything really wrong with such a philosophy, but since I'm not very familiar with all the tricks of digital photography, I'm trying to get a grip on all the various tradeoffs, and to understand their practical impact.

Maybe I should have picked a less trollish thread to ask these questions on...

As someone else said (in this thread? forget...), it was simpler in a way when one could choose the film separately from the camera!

[pingflood]

Shhh, don't tell anyone, but you can actually change the noise reduction settings in Canon cameras too.

[nostatic]

Shhh, don't tell anyone, but you can actually change the noise reduction settings in Canon cameras too.

Quiet, you! I still haven't gotten my cookies!!!

[Haakan]

So, if it's due to a simple lack of NR (as opposed to deficiencies in the sensor), then can one generally achieve similar results (to the C/N "look") by using NR in post-processing?

You can turn on and off different strengths of noise reduction as you more or less please. Problem when comparing JPEG images from review sites are that they are usually produced with the default settings of the camera, and Pentax has a philosophy of keeping as much texture as possible, while allowing noise to show (BTW I also think that is the best way to go). I think texture is a better word than detail since most NR schemes will not smudge high contrast transitions (they are easy to distinguish from noise) so e.g. black text on white paper can look quite sharp after NR. It is really how well structures of nearby colour levels, i.e. texture, is captured where the Pentax default settings show differences to other brands default settings. But as pingflood said, those settings can be changed to different taste. Still I think there is a difference in noise philosophy in the JPEG/NR engine between Pentax and other brands, and the Pentax philosophy personally fits me well.

But looking at RAW (and many prefer to shoot high ISO at RAW, since advanced NR takes processing power, as well as you can allow more time for the actual process to do its job than can be done in the camera), there is hardly no difference. As I said, I did spend some time and did comparisons on the RAW files, and I was surprised how little they differed between K20D, D90, and 50D, especially after all the heated discussions on different fora.

I presented some results in this post. I hope they are useful.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/673340-post86.html


Best regards,
Haakan