Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2009, 07:16 AM   #46
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
Most camera makers are unlikely to optimise a default tone curve to work in these conditions since you dont shoot them much. How would this test tell you which camera would render a landscape the best? Answer it would not.

Now if you shot both in RAW at a similar exposure you could say something useful once you had equalised the two shots (contrast, saturation, sharpness etc).


QuoteOriginally posted by kmanlaker Quote
for starters I do own both --- I was playing around tonite comparing the noise levels between these two ( specifically iso 1600 and 3200 ). Parameters ---- same scene ( low light tungsten i.e. one 100 watt bulb ) both cams set on program. Please do not give me any grieve on the set-up, I am not going to shoot these test files in RAW and spend 2-3 hours tweeking the files, those days are over for me, so I shot jpg. My observations straight out of the gate ---- the D90 killed the K7, however I then started to mess with the settings on the K7. Specifically the white balance was re-set to tungsten which helped and also I dialed in +1 exp comp. The K7 was underexposing in this particular lighting. Conclusion - after messing with these settings the results seemed better for the K7 but still a little bit short of the Nikon. I know there will be those who will say that my methods are not scientific and not to be too blunt, but I really do not care. My theory is that if you set all of these tests up and try to get everything "perfect" you end up shooting in a manner that is not a real world scenario. My next trick will be to do some more unscientific tests with both of these DSLR's when I get some free time. It may be tomorrow or could be 2 months from now.

let the bullets fly ( hey some idiot had to do this first silly comparometer test and why not me )

oh --- and I am thrilled with the K7 it is not going back because I do love my DA Limited primes and coming from my K10 ( which I still have ) it is one sweet DSLR.

the sky is not falling yet but the economy is ( for those of you who take this stuff to serious please disregard this post )

kman


07-16-2009, 07:18 AM   #47
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
so, next comes D90 shadows +100%

Of course, the pics have been treated badly, but on thing turns out clearly: where Pentax produces overly blue grain, Nikon still delivers somewhat reasonable image quality. This is probably due to better sensor control or just better hardware. Considering that, the differences between K20D and K7 are pretty marginal.

To make a well thought decision on which brand to go with, most deciding would be how much post processing you need, and if or not you shoot under low light conditions. If so, then we can be sure that Nikon would be the better choice. Neverthless, I am still quite happy to have a K20D but do not see any reason to upgrade to K7 for the price it has by now... -kai

No its because Nikon applies heavy chroma noise reduction in the JPEG engine.
07-16-2009, 07:30 AM   #48
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
No its because Nikon applies heavy chroma noise reduction in the JPEG engine.
not what I experienced; can be seen with RAW as well. tried that when comparing d300 and k20d before I purched the latter.

Last edited by kasv; 07-16-2009 at 07:45 AM.
07-16-2009, 04:36 PM   #49
Senior Member
Zubati Kit's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 114
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
not what I experienced; can be seen with RAW as well. tried that when comparing d300 and k20d before I purched the latter.
contrast is a lot higher in K20D image for one at least so in thar aspect it seems that less light was recorded in the example in the shadows...
edit: also WB is different Pentax is a lot more towards the blue channel which in K20D is the worst in low light...

sure I would now need to get a friend with D90 and do another test , but just from looking from this example (night shot into a table lamp) I think my K20D would do a lot better than yours with similar circumstances...

07-16-2009, 05:28 PM   #50
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
not what I experienced; can be seen with RAW as well. tried that when comparing d300 and k20d before I purched the latter.

In which case Nikon are processing the RAW files (contrary to popular belief)
07-17-2009, 06:40 AM   #51
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 268
For the comparison done in Post #43, I think the time and lighting level for both shots from K7and D90 are a bit different. I noticed that for K7, outside the window is actually dark, whereas in the D90 shot, you can still see some light from the window.

I wonder how that would affect the internal room lighting, and subsequently affect the output of K7?

The WB treatment is slightly different for K7 and D90 too. I think K7 must be set on strong correction for incadecent light, as it is too "white", where as D90 still retain the warmish tone.
07-17-2009, 09:11 AM   #52
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
So you take a crappy picture, push it +7 ev in post and then make a determination on relative iq based on that?

I suppose everyone needs a hobby...
07-17-2009, 09:30 AM   #53
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
To me, whenever comparing ISO performance, the potential use model decides whether an image is good enough or not. Means, the bigger I want it lateron printed or whatever, the cleaner it has to be. And unfortunately for us Pentax owners, Nikon has quite an advantage here. I took the liberty to modify the picures referenced in I believe item 17 of the thread and "enhanced" them once by applying excess development of 7.27 EV on them, another time by brightening up shadows by 100%; both in Photoshop CS4. Look at the results:

First K7 3200 original shot
then D90 3200 original
K7 +7EV
D90 +7EV
K7 shadows +100%
D90 shadows +100% (this one is to come innext post as there is a limit of 5 ...
So you think that pushing a photo to look as crappy as possible is the way to test a sensor? I don't get what you are doing here.

The D90 is the better camera because it looks less sh*tty when pushed to the extreme?

So, what happens if you actually try to take the best image you can with both cameras? Does that leave anything to talk about?

07-17-2009, 09:51 AM   #54
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote

So, what happens if you actually try to take the best image you can with both cameras? Does that leave anything to talk about?
Let me show you some shots of this very nice brick wall...

Oh wait, check out my focus and color charts!!!
07-17-2009, 10:30 AM   #55
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
QuoteOriginally posted by wll Quote
and it has less noise.



wll
I disagree. It has been shown here and several other places that the K-7 has better chroma noise than the k20d. I'm not sure where the myth started that the K-7 noise is worse than the k20d. The two are close, with the k-7 having better chroma noise performance.

I think it just shows how optimized the k20d is, that it is difficult to improve much on the noise. Remember, the k20d and the K-7 have relatively high-resolution sensors (14.6Mp) for APS-C. I love having that resolution because I can "crop" to zoom in many shots. There is a bit of a price to pay however, for that excellent resolution.
07-17-2009, 10:33 AM   #56
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
. I'm not sure where the myth started that the K-7 noise is worse than the k20d.
DPR perhaps?
07-17-2009, 10:39 AM   #57
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
DPR perhaps?
Good point static. DPR: where people will argue for endless pages about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, and then eventually the discussion will devolve into how Pentax should develop a FF.
07-17-2009, 02:56 PM   #58
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by kmanlaker Quote
IMGP0035 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
this is k7 at ISO 3200

IMGP0036 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
this is K7 at ISO 1600

DSC_0429 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
this is D90 at ISO 3200

DSC_0430 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
this is D90 at ISO 1600

I hope I got all of the info correct
and I think I had noise reduction turned on the k7 maybe someone can verify this

here are links --- upon further review I think the k7 got trounced
i would like to hear from the forum members any comments ---except those regarding compostion and subject matter LOL

kman
Thanks..Pictures don't lie. In these images and I DO mean in THESE images, the output especially at 3200 the Nikon is the clear winner. At 1600 iso, it is too close to call.
07-17-2009, 03:15 PM   #59
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
Thanks..Pictures don't lie. In these images and I DO mean in THESE images, the output especially at 3200 the Nikon is the clear winner. At 1600 iso, it is too close to call.
I tend to shoot auto iso (to reiterate - I'm lazy) with the range from 100-1600. I have never had a problem with any of my iso 1600 images, and I end up shooting a lot of them as I'm usually in low/crappy light. For a laugh I set it to 3200 last night (on the K20d) and shot a few images. There was a pretty significant degradation going from 1600 to 3200.

One saving graces is that the SR and a fast FA ltd makes it so that I don't really need to go to 3200. So you need to factor VR lens cost into the Nikon side of the equation (acknowledging that SR gets you some advantage, but won't stop motion blur of subjects).
07-17-2009, 07:12 PM   #60
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 292
making mountain out of a mole hill, the only difference I see is the WB, and even then that can be corrected.

cheers,

Rene
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, d90, dslr, files, k7, photography, settings, test, tests, tungsten
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New D90 user from K10D allegory Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 21 11-08-2010 05:41 AM
Some thoughts on the D90... alexeyga Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 07-08-2010 06:56 AM
Do I need Pentax K-x, if I have Nikon D90? Jaleel Pentax DSLR Discussion 31 12-26-2009 07:04 AM
How does the K-x compare with the D90? switters Pentax DSLR Discussion 34 12-22-2009 05:12 PM
k-7+FA50/1.4 vs. D90+AF50/1.4D fulcrumx29 Pentax DSLR Discussion 34 08-11-2009 04:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top