[PentaxPoke]

OK, please indulge me with one more illustration: As we know, so much of the noise differences between cameras has to do with the NR algorithm. On the following pictures, I took the RAW files from the previous test, and opened them in Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.

Here is a 100% crop of the ISO 100 shot:


Here is a 100% crop of the ISO 3200 with no NR:


Here is a 100% crop of the ISO 3200 with K-7 in camera NR on HIGH:


And here is a 100% crop of the ISO 3200 shot with Adobe Photoshop Elements (the cheap one) luminance and chroma noise reduction:


Interesting huh? I actually see more detail in the APS NR than the K-7 High NR, even though the APS NR shot is a lot less noisy.

---

Last edited by PentaxPoke; 07-12-2009 at 09:27 PM.

[nostatic]

One thing you have to keep in mind is that different programs "develop" raw files differently. I saw some incredible examples of this with Sony a900 files. Someone used 6 different programs to do the raw-jpg conversion and you would be amazed at the differences.

I have Raw Developer, which is a highly regarded program, but use Aperture 99% of the time because the workflow is easier. I only bought RD because Aperture doesn't support the DLux4 raw files. I'll have to fire it up and look at some of the K7/K20d shots and compare with Aperture. I'm especially interested in the 77ltd shots because to my eye I prefer the ones coming out of the K20d (with no pp).

[nostatic]

77ltd, K7, RD
-

77ltd K20d, RD


77ltd K7 Aperture


77ltd K20d Aperture

[nostatic]

Looks like Aperture is throwing away a lot more data. Plus there are no K7 profiles - I just downloaded the new version of Raw Developer and they updated the app a week ago to include the K7 among other cameras (they are quick about that).

K7 77 RD


K20 77 RD


K7 77 Aperture


K20 77 Aperture

[kittykat46]

The K20D shots look better. (Refering to the shot with the flower on top of the bookshelf)
But we're not quite comparing the same thing.

Exif says the K20D photo is shot at ISO 1000 , K7 photo is shot at ISO 1600. That's 2/3 stops lower ISO for the K20D. Did I read it correctly ?

[jstevewhite]

OK, please indulge me with one more illustration: As we know, so much of the noise differences between cameras has to do with the NR algorithm. On the following pictures, I took the RAW files from the previous test, and opened them in Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.

Here is a 100% crop of the ISO 100 shot:

<snip images>

Interesting huh? I actually see more detail in the APS NR than the K-7 High NR, even though the APS NR shot is a lot less noisy.

You've illustrated clearly why I shoot raw with as little NR as possible, and why I only care about noise performance in RAW files. The NR algorithms I can use on my computer are far superior (due to considerably more horsepower) to what can be built in to a camera. In addition, I can easily selectively reduce noise, so when I have one of those shots where the noise disappears in the complexity of the scene, but the wall behind is stupid noisy, I can de-noise the wall and leave the rest of the detail. Try doin' THAT in camera.

[nostatic]

The K20D shots look better. (Refering to the shot with the flower on top of the bookshelf)
But we're not quite comparing the same thing.

Exif says the K20D photo is shot at ISO 1000 , K7 photo is shot at ISO 1600. That's 2/3 stops lower ISO for the K20D. Did I read it correctly ?

Yup, it was auto ISO and for whatever reason kicked down to iso 1000 for the K20d shot.

Looking at the photos coming out of Aperture, I hate the K7/77 combination - it just doesn't work. But of the above photos of the oragami flower, I think the K7 shot developed in RD looks the best of any of them.

Just goes to show the myriad choices that get made, some of them without knowing the details.

[Jonson PL]

Looking great, thanks a lot for taking the time

[LeDave]

On the 77ltd RD picture, the word Classics on the picture frame is more clear on K-7 than the K20D