Pentax K7 or Canon 500D?

amphysics · 07-07-2009, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji

If by "you" you really mean YOU, then sure. Not me though.

You're talking about a difference of 0.4 Megapixels. Really? That's significant to you? Either you're really ignorant or are a troll. Which one is it? I should probably stop responding, but I've got this bad habit of replying when I shouldn't. Oh well

This is an easy trap to fall into, so you get a free pass on this. I don't typically subscribe to the Canon-noise-reduction-smudges-away-details conspiracy theory, but in the case of the 500D it's really true. They've managed to keep noise to a minimum by sacrificing detail.

500D has 1080p at 20 frames per second. 20. That makes 1080p a useless resolution to use, which means its highest usable res is 720p.

And? Some of the 500D's features aren't available in the top-of-the-line 1-series cameras. Does that mean the 500D is better than the 1DsIII or 1DIII? And to say that the 500D has anti-shake because you can buy lenses to attach to it that have Image Stabilization is laughable.

Just off the top of my head, K-7 has these compared to 500D:

100% pentaprism viewfinder vs. less-than-100% pentamirror with less magnification
Full weather sealing vs. no weather sealing
Solid metal body vs. plastic body
9 cross-type AF points vs. 1
5.2 fps vs. 3.5 or so
Deeper shot buffer
Pre-shot composition adjustment using sensor shift
Digital level indicator

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but that's what I remember right off hand. I can't claim that those extra features are worth the price difference since that's a personal call, but you're really short-changing the K-7 in your analysis. And this is coming from a Canon user.

I admit K-7 is superior to 500D in terms of weather sealing, construction and viewfinder, but inferior to 500D in High ISO performance. That is really vital for me, a K10D holder.

I cannot bear the noise of K10D; it is really very very very noisy.

My requirement is not high: usable and clean ISO1600. But K-7 does not provide me this feature.

falconeye · 07-07-2009, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by amphysics

I'd rather have a 10 million pixel K-7 with the High ISO performance compared with Nikon D3 than have a 14.6 million one with bad performance. That is why I want to buy a 500D.

amphysics, I've seen your other posts now

(btw, if you combine optical and sensor shift SR, then you don't get 4EV+4EV=8EV. You get 0EV. But you wouldn't cause harm to the camera, just no SR at all).

So, you felt tempted to buy a K-7 and found out that a 500D may serve you well enough. This is fair. But never believe that the two cameras are in one league. As they simply aren't. Just like Nikon D5000 and D300 aren't in one league. Still, I would recommend you to buy a D5000 over a D300 (or even a D90).

So, I wish you the best with a 500D.

Originally posted by amphysics

usable and clean ISO1600. But K-7 does not provide me this feature.

ISO1600 from K-7 (or K20D) looks great. In some German magazines, Pentax scores best in texture retention at higher ISO.

Did you know that the british coin used in DPReview noise comparison images has a textured background? Pentax shows the texture at all ISO levels, Canon at none, Nikon at lower levels only. It is easy to replace noise by a uniform color like Canon does it. Just don't expect your details to survive ... (of course, it is hard to see a destroyed detail w/o having anything to compare with ...)

amphysics · 07-07-2009, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

ISO1600 from K-7 (or K20D) looks great. In some German magazines, Pentax scores best in texture retention at higher ISO.

Did you know that the british coin used in DPReview noise comparison images has a textured background? Pentax shows the texture at all ISO levels, Canon at none, Nikon at lower levels only. It is easy to replace noise by a uniform color like Canon does it. Just don't expect your details to survive ...

Thanks. I am sure to buy K-7. I just want to confirm whether 500D is really superior to K-7.

I dislike Canon because it is actually doing camera business, not camera technology. The cost is minimized for maximum income(Plastic body, no weather sealing, e.t.c.).

Yohan Pamudji · 07-07-2009, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by amphysics

I admit K-7 is superior to 500D in terms of weather sealing, construction and viewfinder, but inferior to 500D in High ISO performance. That is really vital for me, a K10D holder.

I cannot bear the noise of K10D; it is really very very very noisy.

My requirement is not high: usable and clean ISO1600. But K-7 does not provide me this feature.

From early tests I'd call 1600 on the K-7 quite clean. 3200 isn't where I'd want it to be, but noise at 1600 isn't an issue.

Again regarding noise on the 500D, don't just look at amount of noise. Compare detail as well:
Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 26. Compared to (Higher ISO): Digital Photography Review

At 1600 and up you start losing detail in the 500D shots. And here:
Olympus E-P1 Digital Camera - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource!

At 3200 it's alarming how much detail gets blurred out by the T1i (another name for 500D) compared to other cameras. In fact I'd rate it as having the most smudging at ISO 3200 compared to its detail at ISO 100 among all the cameras compared there. That is, it starts out really sharp at ISO 100 but loses all that detail at ISO 3200, whereas others either start out soft and stay soft, or start out sharp and lose only a little detail.

But there's no accounting for taste. If all you care about is amount of noise then the 500D will do fine. Just know that with the 500D you're making a significant sacrifice in detail to achieve that level of noiselessness. At this point I would guess that you can achieve at least the same level of noiselessness and smudging with K-7 at ISO 1600 if you crank up the noise reduction.

Having said that, I agree that the K-7 isn't as clean as I had hoped with all the talk of a completely redesigned sensor and all.

amphysics · 07-07-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji

From early tests I'd call 1600 on the K-7 quite clean. 3200 isn't where I'd want it to be, but noise at 1600 isn't an issue.

Again regarding noise on the 500D, don't just look at amount of noise. Compare detail as well:
Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 26. Compared to (Higher ISO): Digital Photography Review

At 1600 and up you start losing detail in the 500D shots. And here:
Olympus E-P1 Digital Camera - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource!

At 3200 it's alarming how much detail gets blurred out by the T1i (another name for 500D) compared to other cameras. In fact I'd rate it as having the most smudging at ISO 3200 compared to its detail at ISO 100 among all the cameras compared there. That is, it starts out really sharp at ISO 100 but loses all that detail at ISO 3200, whereas others either start out soft and stay soft, or start out sharp and lose only a little detail.

But there's no accounting for taste. If all you care about is amount of noise then the 500D will do fine. Just know that with the 500D you're making a significant sacrifice in detail to achieve that level of noiselessness. At this point I would guess that you can achieve at least the same level of noiselessness and smudging with K-7 at ISO 1600 if you crank up the noise reduction.

Having said that, I agree that the K-7 isn't as clean as I had hoped with all the talk of a completely redesigned sensor and all.

In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect.

My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax.

mickey · 07-07-2009, 07:37 PM

Welcome back RH.

wolfier · 07-07-2009, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by amphysics

In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect.

My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax.

K10D noise cannot be compared with other Pentax DSLR.

It's noisier than the *ist DS, noisier than the K20D, noisier than the K200D, noisier than the K-m.

K-7 has a really minor improvement over the K20D with regard to high ISO noise and details, and the K20D is quite clean compared to the K10D.

So, read more reviews and try one out, I don't hesitate to set my K-7's auto ISO to 1600. Which on my K10D was set to ISO 640.

If you're unhappy, there's always the option of using RAW, Topaz, or GREYCStoration.

jeffkrol · 07-07-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by amphysics

In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect.

My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax.

iso 1600 test chart:
Digital Cameras, Pentax K-7 Digital Camera Test Image

HTGamingPC · 07-07-2009, 08:49 PM

I'm currently shooting a 450d as my first real camera and have grown very unhappy with the handling.

I was actually about to buy a D90, since that camera feels perfect in my hands, but then I found out about the K-7. Now I'm just waiting to try it out before deciding.

If your main concern is noise, the 450d has even less than the 500d. After a year, though, it really does feel like a toy to me. I'm still very happy with the image quality, but I feel like I miss too many shots because of the quirky and laggy controls.

While threads like this have me a bit concerned that I might actually be stepping into a noisier system with the K-7, I feel like it would be worth it to get good automatic white balance and the ability to pick my autofocus points quickly. Not to mention the utterly awesome concept of the green button.

What does really worry me is whether or not the AF on the K-7 will be significantly slower than a D90 or what I have now. I guess I'll find out when I try the K7.

Any thoughts?

KungPOW · 07-07-2009, 10:47 PM

Example of how bad the K10D is at ISO 1600:

100% crop:

I considered maybe a shot of a bunch of books...

FA 50 1.4 wide open, handheld, ISO 1600

KungPOW · 07-07-2009, 11:00 PM

More low light with a K10D:

K10D, f/2 @ 50 mm, 1/13, ISO 1600

Hand held at 1/13?!!? Thats just insane!

Go Pentax SR!

jstevewhite · 07-07-2009, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by amphysics

In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect.

My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax.

Hey, just shoot RAW and use something like NIK D-fine. Computer based NR is superior, IMO, to camera-based NR, as I can choose what I want to de-noise.

Actually, though, when I'm shooting for monochrome prints, I *like* the K20D's noise at 1600/3200. Keeps detail and looks like grain. I only NR when I'm printing color.

Pentaxor · 07-07-2009, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by KungPOW

More low light with a K10D:

K10D, f/2 @ 50 mm, 1/13, ISO 1600

Hand held at 1/13?!!? Thats just insane!

Go Pentax SR!

that's noisy for me. I'll get the K-7 for more noises.

imtheguy · 07-07-2009, 11:34 PM

WHY???????

Why are you guys bothering to respond? You know better!

He didn't come looking for facts, just an arguement.

Next thread please.

Pentaxor · 07-07-2009, 11:50 PM

amphysics, your claim of owning a K10D 2 years ago, (2007) brought me to a conclusion that within those years, you haven't really able to solve the noises or know how to use the K10D's full potential at all. don't get me wrong, but it sounds like you don't really have much experience yet with dSLRs. you are simply influenced by things written on paper rather than testing them out yourself. I'm extremely confident that you haven't really have any clues whatsoever.

anyway, I'll give you some things to think about. why do you think that the new 500D is sold at such a low price? there hasn't been a Canon Rebel series which broke the 1,000 dollar plateau. the Rebel series is the budget series of Canon and has one of the ugliest IQ, colors and contrast. if you would do some further research, why do you think that the Rebel 500D is also cheaper to it's older brother Canon 40D which came out 2 years ago? that should give you a clue. eventhough that I was a Nikon D80 shooter, I do admit that the Canon 40D was a monster during it's time. but the Rebels, they belong in the garbage bin.

07-07-2009, 06:47 PM	#16
amphysics New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji If by "you" you really mean YOU, then sure. Not me though. You're talking about a difference of 0.4 Megapixels. Really? That's significant to you? Either you're really ignorant or are a troll. Which one is it? I should probably stop responding, but I've got this bad habit of replying when I shouldn't. Oh well This is an easy trap to fall into, so you get a free pass on this. I don't typically subscribe to the Canon-noise-reduction-smudges-away-details conspiracy theory, but in the case of the 500D it's really true. They've managed to keep noise to a minimum by sacrificing detail. 500D has 1080p at 20 frames per second. 20. That makes 1080p a useless resolution to use, which means its highest usable res is 720p. And? Some of the 500D's features aren't available in the top-of-the-line 1-series cameras. Does that mean the 500D is better than the 1DsIII or 1DIII? And to say that the 500D has anti-shake because you can buy lenses to attach to it that have Image Stabilization is laughable. Just off the top of my head, K-7 has these compared to 500D: 100% pentaprism viewfinder vs. less-than-100% pentamirror with less magnification Full weather sealing vs. no weather sealing Solid metal body vs. plastic body 9 cross-type AF points vs. 1 5.2 fps vs. 3.5 or so Deeper shot buffer Pre-shot composition adjustment using sensor shift Digital level indicator I'm sure I'm missing a few, but that's what I remember right off hand. I can't claim that those extra features are worth the price difference since that's a personal call, but you're really short-changing the K-7 in your analysis. And this is coming from a Canon user. I admit K-7 is superior to 500D in terms of weather sealing, construction and viewfinder, but inferior to 500D in High ISO performance. That is really vital for me, a K10D holder. I cannot bear the noise of K10D; it is really very very very noisy. My requirement is not high: usable and clean ISO1600. But K-7 does not provide me this feature.

07-07-2009, 06:47 PM	#17
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by amphysics I'd rather have a 10 million pixel K-7 with the High ISO performance compared with Nikon D3 than have a 14.6 million one with bad performance. That is why I want to buy a 500D. amphysics, I've seen your other posts now (btw, if you combine optical and sensor shift SR, then you don't get 4EV+4EV=8EV. You get 0EV. But you wouldn't cause harm to the camera, just no SR at all). So, you felt tempted to buy a K-7 and found out that a 500D may serve you well enough. This is fair. But never believe that the two cameras are in one league. As they simply aren't. Just like Nikon D5000 and D300 aren't in one league. Still, I would recommend you to buy a D5000 over a D300 (or even a D90). So, I wish you the best with a 500D. Originally posted by amphysics usable and clean ISO1600. But K-7 does not provide me this feature. ISO1600 from K-7 (or K20D) looks great. In some German magazines, Pentax scores best in texture retention at higher ISO. Did you know that the british coin used in DPReview noise comparison images has a textured background? Pentax shows the texture at all ISO levels, Canon at none, Nikon at lower levels only. It is easy to replace noise by a uniform color like Canon does it. Just don't expect your details to survive ... (of course, it is hard to see a destroyed detail w/o having anything to compare with ...) Last edited by falconeye; 07-07-2009 at 07:01 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Pentax Kx - Canon EOS 500D dilemma	DavoMrMac	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	12	02-02-2010 01:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 55-300mm, Sigma 105mm Macro, Canon 500D Filter	zinj	Sold Items	2	07-28-2009 09:08 AM
Canon EOS 500D reveiw Pentax KM \ 2000 is better :)	Adrian Owerko	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	05-25-2009 02:17 PM

07-07-2009, 07:01 PM	#18
amphysics New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Originally posted by falconeye ISO1600 from K-7 (or K20D) looks great. In some German magazines, Pentax scores best in texture retention at higher ISO. Did you know that the british coin used in DPReview noise comparison images has a textured background? Pentax shows the texture at all ISO levels, Canon at none, Nikon at lower levels only. It is easy to replace noise by a uniform color like Canon does it. Just don't expect your details to survive ... Thanks. I am sure to buy K-7. I just want to confirm whether 500D is really superior to K-7. I dislike Canon because it is actually doing camera business, not camera technology. The cost is minimized for maximum income(Plastic body, no weather sealing, e.t.c.).

07-07-2009, 07:11 PM	#19
Yohan Pamudji Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Mississippi Posts: 184	Originally posted by amphysics I admit K-7 is superior to 500D in terms of weather sealing, construction and viewfinder, but inferior to 500D in High ISO performance. That is really vital for me, a K10D holder. I cannot bear the noise of K10D; it is really very very very noisy. My requirement is not high: usable and clean ISO1600. But K-7 does not provide me this feature. From early tests I'd call 1600 on the K-7 quite clean. 3200 isn't where I'd want it to be, but noise at 1600 isn't an issue. Again regarding noise on the 500D, don't just look at amount of noise. Compare detail as well: Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 26. Compared to (Higher ISO): Digital Photography Review At 1600 and up you start losing detail in the 500D shots. And here: Olympus E-P1 Digital Camera - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource! At 3200 it's alarming how much detail gets blurred out by the T1i (another name for 500D) compared to other cameras. In fact I'd rate it as having the most smudging at ISO 3200 compared to its detail at ISO 100 among all the cameras compared there. That is, it starts out really sharp at ISO 100 but loses all that detail at ISO 3200, whereas others either start out soft and stay soft, or start out sharp and lose only a little detail. But there's no accounting for taste. If all you care about is amount of noise then the 500D will do fine. Just know that with the 500D you're making a significant sacrifice in detail to achieve that level of noiselessness. At this point I would guess that you can achieve at least the same level of noiselessness and smudging with K-7 at ISO 1600 if you crank up the noise reduction. Having said that, I agree that the K-7 isn't as clean as I had hoped with all the talk of a completely redesigned sensor and all.

07-07-2009, 07:16 PM	#20
amphysics New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Originally posted by Yohan Pamudji From early tests I'd call 1600 on the K-7 quite clean. 3200 isn't where I'd want it to be, but noise at 1600 isn't an issue. Again regarding noise on the 500D, don't just look at amount of noise. Compare detail as well: Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 26. Compared to (Higher ISO): Digital Photography Review At 1600 and up you start losing detail in the 500D shots. And here: Olympus E-P1 Digital Camera - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource! At 3200 it's alarming how much detail gets blurred out by the T1i (another name for 500D) compared to other cameras. In fact I'd rate it as having the most smudging at ISO 3200 compared to its detail at ISO 100 among all the cameras compared there. That is, it starts out really sharp at ISO 100 but loses all that detail at ISO 3200, whereas others either start out soft and stay soft, or start out sharp and lose only a little detail. But there's no accounting for taste. If all you care about is amount of noise then the 500D will do fine. Just know that with the 500D you're making a significant sacrifice in detail to achieve that level of noiselessness. At this point I would guess that you can achieve at least the same level of noiselessness and smudging with K-7 at ISO 1600 if you crank up the noise reduction. Having said that, I agree that the K-7 isn't as clean as I had hoped with all the talk of a completely redesigned sensor and all. In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect. My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax.

07-07-2009, 07:37 PM	#21
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Welcome back RH.

07-07-2009, 08:38 PM	#22
wolfier Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 123	Originally posted by amphysics In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect. My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax. K10D noise cannot be compared with other Pentax DSLR. It's noisier than the *ist DS, noisier than the K20D, noisier than the K200D, noisier than the K-m. K-7 has a really minor improvement over the K20D with regard to high ISO noise and details, and the K20D is quite clean compared to the K10D. So, read more reviews and try one out, I don't hesitate to set my K-7's auto ISO to 1600. Which on my K10D was set to ISO 640. If you're unhappy, there's always the option of using RAW, Topaz, or GREYCStoration.

07-07-2009, 08:46 PM	#23
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by amphysics In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect. My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax. iso 1600 test chart: Digital Cameras, Pentax K-7 Digital Camera Test Image

07-07-2009, 08:49 PM	#24
HTGamingPC New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1	I'm currently shooting a 450d as my first real camera and have grown very unhappy with the handling. I was actually about to buy a D90, since that camera feels perfect in my hands, but then I found out about the K-7. Now I'm just waiting to try it out before deciding. If your main concern is noise, the 450d has even less than the 500d. After a year, though, it really does feel like a toy to me. I'm still very happy with the image quality, but I feel like I miss too many shots because of the quirky and laggy controls. While threads like this have me a bit concerned that I might actually be stepping into a noisier system with the K-7, I feel like it would be worth it to get good automatic white balance and the ability to pick my autofocus points quickly. Not to mention the utterly awesome concept of the green button. What does really worry me is whether or not the AF on the K-7 will be significantly slower than a D90 or what I have now. I guess I'll find out when I try the K7. Any thoughts?

07-07-2009, 10:47 PM	#25
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Example of how bad the K10D is at ISO 1600: 100% crop: I considered maybe a shot of a bunch of books... FA 50 1.4 wide open, handheld, ISO 1600

07-07-2009, 11:00 PM	#26
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	More low light with a K10D: K10D, f/2 @ 50 mm, 1/13, ISO 1600 Hand held at 1/13?!!? Thats just insane! Go Pentax SR!

07-07-2009, 11:13 PM	#27
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by amphysics In my experience with K10D, ISO1600 is most frequently used in the evening. If 1600 is usable, then K-7 will be perfect. My K10D has slow focus, but its focus is very very accurate. I like Pentax. Hey, just shoot RAW and use something like NIK D-fine. Computer based NR is superior, IMO, to camera-based NR, as I can choose what I want to de-noise. Actually, though, when I'm shooting for monochrome prints, I like the K20D's noise at 1600/3200. Keeps detail and looks like grain. I only NR when I'm printing color.

07-07-2009, 11:19 PM	#28
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by KungPOW More low light with a K10D: K10D, f/2 @ 50 mm, 1/13, ISO 1600 Hand held at 1/13?!!? Thats just insane! Go Pentax SR! that's noisy for me. I'll get the K-7 for more noises.

07-07-2009, 11:34 PM	#29
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	WHY??????? Why are you guys bothering to respond? You know better! He didn't come looking for facts, just an arguement. Next thread please.

07-07-2009, 11:50 PM	#30
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	amphysics, your claim of owning a K10D 2 years ago, (2007) brought me to a conclusion that within those years, you haven't really able to solve the noises or know how to use the K10D's full potential at all. don't get me wrong, but it sounds like you don't really have much experience yet with dSLRs. you are simply influenced by things written on paper rather than testing them out yourself. I'm extremely confident that you haven't really have any clues whatsoever. anyway, I'll give you some things to think about. why do you think that the new 500D is sold at such a low price? there hasn't been a Canon Rebel series which broke the 1,000 dollar plateau. the Rebel series is the budget series of Canon and has one of the ugliest IQ, colors and contrast. if you would do some further research, why do you think that the Rebel 500D is also cheaper to it's older brother Canon 40D which came out 2 years ago? that should give you a clue. eventhough that I was a Nikon D80 shooter, I do admit that the Canon 40D was a monster during it's time. but the Rebels, they belong in the garbage bin.