[Wheatfield]

Wow. That sucks. Since I still own a K10, I think I may just opt for the K20 deal at Wal mart if it's still available. So far, I've not read anything that backs up any substantial "real world" improvement over the K20.

The K7 has several very significant improvements over the K20. High ISO performance isn't one of them, and is pretty much the only unimproved parameter.
OTOH, the K20 being better WRT high ISO noise is like my dog having nicer breath than your dog. Either way, we are talking about dog breath.

[zxaar]

At higher sensitivities the picture doesn't look quite so good. JPEG noise is visibly and measurably higher than on some of the direct competitors. At default settings the K-7 retains relatively good detail up to the highest ISO settings but shows fairly large amounts of both luminance and chroma noise. Increasing the in-camera reduction will add some pretty heavy detail blurring to the mix. Some rivals, especially the Nikon D300, deliver a better balanced mix of noise reduction and detail retention. However, when shooting in RAW the K-7's RAW noise is pretty much on the same level as the competition. Therefore, for maximum image quality in low light situations your best bet is shooting RAW and applying customized noise reduction in post processing.

"However, when shooting in RAW the K-7's RAW noise is pretty much on the same level as the competition."

guess what, competition changed now and this is NOT VALID anymore.

Pentax K-7 Review: 16. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

according to dpr k7's competition is only k20d, nikon d300 and canon 50d.
Now we have better cameras.

[Big Dawg]

Can't speak for the K20D but the difference from the K10D to the K7 is like night and day. The K7 at ISO 1600-3200has about the same noise or less than the K10D at ISO 800. The Auto WB is much improved and the ability to fine tune my camera-lens combination's auto focus is a dream come true. Well worth the upgrade in my opinion. (There are so many better advantages with the K7 that comparisons are not even needed) JMO

[robgo2]

"However, when shooting in RAW the K-7's RAW noise is pretty much on the same level as the competition."

guess what, competition changed now and this is NOT VALID anymore.

Pentax K-7 Review: 16. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

according to dpr k7's competition is only k20d, nikon d300 and canon 50d.
Now we have better cameras.

In case you haven't figured it out, this is a game of leapfrog. It is to be expected that newer cameras will have some advantages over the K-7. But when the K-8 comes out, it will surpass the current competition in some aspects, don't you think? Or perhaps you think that Pentax is always playing catch-up and is never quite as good as Nikon and Canon. Some Pentaxians do feel that way, you know.

Rob

[JohnBee]

It's been long known that the K7 doesn't perform as well as the K20D at high ISO(1600+). But, if your needs don't usually carry you past ISO2200 then you have little to worry about. However... if you're the type of person who was used to reaching for ISO3200 on your K20D(as many of us are), then you had best hang on to you K20D(along with your K7) since the K7 doesn't retain the same level of detail at those levels(without compromises).

Having said all that... the K7 certainly isn't an inferior camera on all other fronts.
So the negatives really are limited to that of noise performance.
Otherwise... its a heck of an upgrade!

Happy shooting!

Unfortunately, I think my K-7 actually performs worse than the K20D. Just did a simple test with both camera in my dimly lit livingroom on a tripod and some of my daughter's toys. Both raw files (K7 using DNG, K20D using PEF), imported into iPhoto and screen captured in TIFF. Apart from K-7 giving much better white balance, the K20D wins in amount of noise present and details retained...

1. F5, 1/15 @50mm, ISO 1600 (DA*50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right
ISO1600 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

2. F8, 1/13 @50mm, ISO 3200 (DA*50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right
ISO3200 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Just want to know if this is what you people with both camera have observed.

If so, I'm a little disappointed...

[Rondec]

I have to say that I feel like the K7 and K20 are more the same than they are different. I don't regularly shoot iso 3200 on either camera and although I would in the right situation, I would have to carefully post process the result and not print too big. From what I have seen, I would probably shoot the kx to iso 3200, but not over it. It's not just noise, I can tolerate that, it is the decrease in dynamic range that almost requires conversion to black and white.

[jamesm007]

from Dpreview, read the highlighted parts.

Image Quality

No reason to complain at base ISO: the K-7 images show good detail and natural colors straight out the box. Compared to the predecessor in-camera sharpening has been reduced which results in slightly softer but also cleaner looking output. Pixel peepers can revert to shooting RAW which, in combination with some careful sharpening during the conversion process, will result in some visible extra image detail. It's advisable though to use quality lenses if you want to make the most of the camera's 14.6 megapixel nominal resolution.

At higher sensitivities the picture doesn't look quite so good. JPEG noise is visibly and measurably higher than on some of the direct competitors. At default settings the K-7 retains relatively good detail up to the highest ISO settings but shows fairly large amounts of both luminance and chroma noise. Increasing the in-camera reduction will add some pretty heavy detail blurring to the mix. Some rivals, especially the Nikon D300, deliver a better balanced mix of noise reduction and detail retention. However, when shooting in RAW the K-7's RAW noise is pretty much on the same level as the competition. Therefore, for maximum image quality in low light situations your best bet is shooting RAW and applying customized noise reduction in post processing.


All in all, apart from a slightly different tone curve, weaker default sharpening and slightly higher (!) RAW noise the K-7 output is very similar to the K20D. Purely from an image quality point of view there is therefore no urgent need to upgrade for current K20D users.

also try to look for JohnBee's tutorial on NR pp and look at the sample images done at ISO3200 and ISO 6400. really darn clean images with great detail. and it's not that complicated or difficult that you might think.


and Yes, my RAW images beat the hell out of my in-camera jpegs ay any given day.

I know well JohnBees tutorial. I have my own system using Noise Ninja profiles that I emailed to him it uses highly tweaked and very well done profiles for Noise Ninja and GordonBGoods corner tint program. I don't like spending too much time at PP, and Johns way is better if you have one pic that you really want to max out. But for printing (which I do) I find my system quick and easy, and gives very good results. The base of both these systems is really GordonBGoods K20D program...thanks Gordon .

I am not sure what you are trying to tell me with the other quotes as DPR has stated the K20D is cleaner at high ISO versus the K-7...?


"Raw Noise graphs

The graphs below confirm what we can see in the sample crops. The four cameras compared here produce similar amounts of noise at all ISO settings. The EOS 50D measures the largest amount of chroma noise and the K20D is producing the lowest RAW noise levels pretty much across the range. "

At iso3200 the difference is a good bit in the K20D favor; graphs and pics. Its just the way it is, what can you do?

[zxaar]

In case you haven't figured it out, this is a game of leapfrog. It is to be expected that newer cameras will have some advantages over the K-7. But when the K-8 comes out, it will surpass the current competition in some aspects, don't you think? Or perhaps you think that Pentax is always playing catch-up and is never quite as good as Nikon and Canon. Some Pentaxians do feel that way, you know.

Rob

i already know that. And i guess 90% of guys here understand this.

I think you did not understand what i was saying.

My point was that when dpr said k7 was on par with competition they posted this considering few cams as competition. At that point when it was said it was correct. Now adding to it the fact that there is 'game of leapfrog' as you put it. The statement is not valid anymore since newer cameras outdo older cams.

So what was my point. My point is that every time we discuss k7 someone chimes in and put forward - in raw k7 is same as others. (even if quoted from dpr).
which is wrong.

Or perhaps you think that Pentax is always playing catch-up and is never quite as good as Nikon and Canon. Some Pentaxians do feel that way, you know.

Rob

i do not think they are playing catch up, they already have put a leader in kx.
Even if they put kx sensor in k7 body today they will be miles ahead of others.

And further, most of us have a lot invested in lenses so usually buying camera is not much to do with if competition is better or not. It usually boils down to is it good enough for what i want or not.

[Pentaxor]

I am not sure what you are trying to tell me with the other quotes as DPR has stated the K20D is cleaner at high ISO versus the K-7...?

the highlighted parts are further info on the difference between the K-7 and the K20D and why such difference. I did this because someone made reference to dpreview's findings which I obliged reading at as well. as far as RAW images goes, dpreview states that both systems are closely identical with each other. however, independent personal RAW images show that the K-7 has a lil more coarse grain but has more detail compared to the K20D. from independent tests, it is more like apparent that both systems have slight pros and cons that it's difficult to separate which images are better than the other. there seems to be a slight but obvious compromise between the two systems. but not that big enough to be given attention, IMO. fwiw, the difference between two systems is not much on the IQ of the photos but rather other capabilities that one camera has over the other.

[robgo2]

I have to say that I feel like the K7 and K20 are more the same than they are different. I don't regularly shoot iso 3200 on either camera and although I would in the right situation, I would have to carefully post process the result and not print too big. From what I have seen, I would probably shoot the kx to iso 3200, but not over it. It's not just noise, I can tolerate that, it is the decrease in dynamic range that almost requires conversion to black and white.

I seem to recall a post from GordonBGood on dpr stating that the K20D applies NR to RAW files beginning at ISO 1600, whereas the K-7 does not do so until ISO 3200. Can someone confirm this?

Rob

[JohnBee]

I seem to recall a post from GordonBGood on dpr stating that the K20D applies NR to RAW files beginning at ISO 1600, whereas the K-7 does not do so until ISO 3200. Can someone confirm this?

Rob

I have tried to tackle this myself a few months back and was never able to substantiate the claim technically. Though what I did find was that at ISO2200 and above, the K20D would retain more detail than the K7 in RAW.

Which wasn't actually so much as "more detail in IQ" as it was less detail loss due to noise degradation. So it's its a bit of a play with words really.

Having said that, due to the nature of the noise patters generated by the K7 at higher ISO's. I was never able to retain as much detail with the K7 as I did the K20D at higher ISO's(using my own NR methods). Therefore... my conclusion was that the K7 did not match the K20D at higher ISO's(2200 - 3200). Though at lower ISO's, it did seemed to produce more detail. However... I often got the impression that the K7 employed a more aggressive curve than the K20D and that the K20D could aways be adjusted accordingly(see grain).

So... for me, it was really hard to reach a solid conclusion.
Though the high ISO noise/detail seemed like an open and shut case.

PS. the main issue with the K7 was in the nature of the noise patters at higher ISO(blotching and banding). Though banding could be worked around, the blotching turned out to be a real show stopper. .

[robgo2]

PS. the main issue with the K7 was in the nature of the noise patters at higher ISO(blotching and banding). Though banding could be worked around, the blotching turned out to be a real show stopper. .

I have seen examples of pattern noise in the K20D even at lower ISOs but certainly less than in the K10D. The K-7 is relatively free of this, and I find its noise at ISO 1600 to be fairly innocuous.

I don't know why I let myself get involved in these discussions of high ISO noise, as it is only one aspect of a camera's performance, and, at least for me, not a very important one.

Rob

[JohnBee]

I have seen examples of pattern noise in the K20D even at lower ISOs but certainly less than in the K10D. The K-7 is relatively free of this, and I find its noise at ISO 1600 to be fairly innocuous.

I think it is just as much the nature of noise in digital photography that is to blame for such exchanges than the issue in itself. Which is why I'd say(without discounting other peoples experiences), that noise patterns fall under such a broad spectrum of conditions that it can prove near impossible to ground entirely. However... if we approach the issue objectively, then I don't think there is any shame in confronting a camera's weaknesses in one particular area. Though I think one of the main controversial contributors with the K7 is that it would end-up against a product of of the same family. Specifically.... that of K20D owners.

I also think the K7 makes an excellent K200D as well as a K10D and K20D upgrade across the board. But as you mentioned... for a select few, it's sometimes impossible to accept compromises on specific features such as a usable ISO3200 etc etc.

[philbaum]

I don't consider the K7 to be an upgrade over my K20 since its provides no ISO performance improvement. The Kx is the only thing that would tempt me.

Recently, i've found that my K20 3200 iso performance can be adequately and quickly improved via the LR 3 Beta 2 Noise Reduction software. I've found that Lightrooms new NR performance has surpassed what i could get out of Topaz Denoise V3.

In the kind of playhouse event photography i've been doing lately, 3200 ISO is the minimum standard for any future camera i will buy. For those that have the K7 and do high ISO pictures frequently, i highly recommend LR's new software, Beta 2 version, final issue expected in June.

[Pentaxor]

I don't consider the K7 to be an upgrade over my K20 since its provides no ISO performance improvement. The Kx is the only thing that would tempt me.

Recently, i've found that my K20 3200 iso performance can be adequately and quickly improved via the LR 3 Beta 2 Noise Reduction software. I've found that Lightrooms new NR performance has surpassed what i could get out of Topaz Denoise V3.

In the kind of playhouse event photography i've been doing lately, 3200 ISO is the minimum standard for any future camera i will buy. For those that have the K7 and do high ISO pictures frequently, i highly recommend LR's new software, Beta 2 version, final issue expected in June.

I concur, the LR3 is really a big revelation. and it is way much better than what the Pentax dslr's camera NR feature could ever achieve in achieving both clean and detailed images, including the k-x. warning: this is not for in-camera jpeg enthusiasts or non-pp individuals.