[pingflood]

The whole thing about the 50D sensor is ridiculous IMO. I own one (so naturally I think it's good or I wouldn't have spent a grand on it), and it provides great performance. The problem is that people expected the _per pixel_ noise to improve over the 40D which has a lot fewer pixels covering the same area. Well, as could reasonably be expected, that did not happen and people who sit and view 100% crops bitched about it.

Meanwhile, the people actually OUT SHOOTING PICTURES (I know, what madness is this!) like Art Morris rave about the 50D's performance and how the extra pixel density has really been a benefit in many situations.

[GerryL]

Hmmm..same 'ol..same 'ol..hehe
I guess we need threads like these to challenge our maturity and non-biased observations and analysis.
...luke..don't go to the dark side...

[jogiba]

And the K2000/K-m has a pentamirror.

The K200D has a pentamirror.

That doesn't make them less of a camera, just means the manufacturer wanted to save some money.

edit: purely image quality wise the 500D can put up a hell of a fight. The build and controls leave something to be desired, but there's nothing at all wrong with the files coming out of it.

If you want the 500D then get the 500D, do you people get your cookies playing this silly game ?

[Jonson PL]

If you want the 500D then get the 500D, do you people get your cookies playing this silly game ?

Pingflood was not the OP starting the thread

Oh, not saying the K-7 is bad at all. I'm sure it is more than sufficient for the vast majority of shooting. And as you point out, the D300 is well regarded as performing nicely in continuous AF mode.

Don't suppose there's any way to get a copy of that test? Did they publish it online? I do speak a bit of German so could stumble through it.

Here was one link, where we discussed it :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/25521-magazine-review-...good-info.html

The 40D and 50D have the same af system in general, their afc is shutter priority ( af syncro or servo or something ), ie doesn't wait for focus. Also note that one needs to test similar speed lenses, ie NOT the 50-135 as it is slow to af vs the 70-200 usm but lets say give both a sigma 70-200 hsm lens and then try it, the K7 will surprise you! I didn't do bench mark tests but did compare in real world, the K7 is on par imho ie will get similar results, it has caught up to the point that a user will not immediately notice a difference between the 2. The D300's af I do consider better than either with the 70-200vr f.28 from what I have seen. Do note that the environment I have used them in is very uncontrolled and just apparent af speeds time to lock etc.

Case in point, during carnival here when I first was using the 50-135 AFC was near useless on the k20d and I was getting to many oof shots, switching to the 70mm and 40mm the faster af helped alot, to the point I was holding my own with out needing to switch to the d300. Another photog with a 40d and 5d next to me was suddenly surprised by the pentax, his lenses were not the canon usm but sigma and tamrons that did not af as fast. The lenses af speed plays alot into it and too many tests do not level the playing field, Pentax does need faster af IN THE LENSES but even then with the 50-135 on the K7 it can track to a level it won't be embarrassed by a 40/50d or d90. Hence again, on par.

Thanks for the info

The whole thing about the 50D sensor is ridiculous IMO. I own one (so naturally I think it's good or I wouldn't have spent a grand on it), and it provides great performance. The problem is that people expected the _per pixel_ noise to improve over the 40D which has a lot fewer pixels covering the same area. Well, as could reasonably be expected, that did not happen and people who sit and view 100% crops bitched about it.

Meanwhile, the people actually OUT SHOOTING PICTURES (I know, what madness is this!) like Art Morris rave about the 50D's performance and how the extra pixel density has really been a benefit in many situations.

Love the work from Art Morris, and treasure his opinions on matters.

Basically, your restating the good point that KungPOW also had in post 31 of this thread :
"Pixel fixated trols like the OP forget that real world photos look alot different then 100% crops of bookshelves…"

Good shots on your blog as well.

As you can see from addition to my former post, I’ve added more info on the Eos 50D, to the questions from the user zeus.

Hmm, I suppose it is a variation on the "razor" strategy (or for those not old enough to remember non-disposable razors, the printer cartridge). I can believe that the a900 is a loss leader, and am sure that at $1700 they are making a profit on the Zeiss glass. But unless they have a much bigger profit margin than Canikon on the lenses I don't see how it is sustainable.

I've read that the dSLR division at Sony is bleeding money and they can't do that forever. If the other divisions were doing well they could support it but the rest of the company isn't exactly beating the world (*cough* Playstation *cough*).

How is the Playstation doing, BTW ?

---

Last edited by Jonson PL; 07-25-2009 at 03:38 PM.

[pingflood]

If you want the 500D then get the 500D, do you people get your cookies playing this silly game ?

err, check my sig: I have a 50d and a 1Ds II. The 500D wouldn't really get me anything other than movie mode, which does nothing for me. (Though I can appreciate that some people think it adds value, just like on the K-7.)

You have to understand that there can actually be valid debate on pros/cons of the various systems; if every thread just consisted of "Pentax is the best in every way" type replies there really wouldn't be much value to be had...

[nostatic]

You have to understand that there can actually be valid debate on pros/cons of the various systems; if every thread just consisted of "Pentax is the best in every way" type replies there really wouldn't be much value to be had...

Shhh!!!

I don't want to scare off whoever is bringing cookies.

[pingflood]

Shhh!!!

I don't want to scare off whoever is bringing cookies.

Good point.

PENTAX SUX CANIKON ROX WOOOO

How about that? Better?

[pentaxmz]

Good point.

PENTAX SUX CANIKON ROX WOOOO

How about that? Better?

Looking at your equipment list, one might think you are being serious.

At least I am 'smart' enough to list only my Pentax related equipment.

[snogglethorpe]

Obviously the original message here was something of a troll or a joke (almost all the points were downright silly), but the noise thing is confusing and troubling for a DSLR noob.

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.

Maybe C/N achieve this via clever processing (noise reduction followed by sharpening?!), but it's very hard to say -- the apparent lack of any standards for what NR/processing reviewers use makes it hard to tell what exactly the practical consequences are.

For instance, many places seem to use "default settings" which I guess is understandable, but really not so useful if one wants to know whether the camera can achieve a certain result.

If this is all simply due to different settings, and one could flip a setting on a Pentax camera to achieve similar results, then great, settings are easy to change. Perhaps the issue is that Pentax's in-camera processing is simply subpar, and equivalent results could be achieved using postprocessing; if so, that's annoying (software is a whole 'nother can of worms), but at least doable. However, if the problem is that the Pentax sensors are simply so noisy that the noise overwhelms any reasonable NR, that seems like a serious problem.

[Note that the noise seems quite obvious even at low ISOs; is it true that the K-7 NR settings only apply at high ISOs?]

The problem is that it's just insanely hard to get a feel for the problem. There seem to be few obvious objective measures, and forum threads by users inevitably seem to devolve into flame wars among partisans...

[benjikan]

He kind of did what I did when I switched from Canon to Pentax. The only difference was that I actually lived with both brands for a while.

None the less, he did make a decision and I guess that is always a good thing...

[grishazzz]

My 2 cents:

Recently I've tested high ISO noise on my K-m. I have to admit, it's not what I'd like to see, but sometimes it's quite acceptable with a proper exposure settings, fast prime and SR-OFF.

Pentax K2000(K-m)
1.
Noise@ISO1600
FA50\1.4
NR-OFF, SR-OFF, Sv-mode, Jpeg 6mp -- straight from camera (no pp!!!)
to view the picture, click here!!!

2.
Noise@ISO1600
FA50\1.4
NR-ON!!!, SR-OFF, Sv-mode, Jpeg 6mp -- straight from camera (no pp!!!)
to view the picture click here

[benjikan]

That looks so bad that I will exchange the word bad for good ;-) Your 1600 iso image off of your K10D is excellent.

[petercrane]

1, Canon 500D has 15 million pixels, more than 14.6 million for K7.

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.

[ytterbium]

I'd say that those images are much darker than mine, so the noise is more evident, but quick shots with my k200d (wich theoretically uses the same CCD) produced much better results (at least it seems to me)
(check out the lcd, you can see the low contrast pixels not being smeared out -NR off):
Nr off, SR off, 30/1.4@F~4.5, handheld:
Inbox Foto (foto.inbox.lv)
Inbox Foto (foto.inbox.lv)
(click on image for original size - 10 mpix, out of camera, bright mode, AWB, Av, +EV to center histogram).
Note: Some smearing/OOF may be produced because of the lens quality and shallow DOF, not the noise.

[grishazzz]

That looks so bad that I will exchange the word bad for good ;-) Your 1600 iso image off of your K10D is excellent.

really? does it look so bad?