Some K-7 Real World images

yakiniku · 07-22-2009, 07:45 AM

http://photohito.com/camera/brands/pentax/model/pentax-k-7

ytterbium · 07-22-2009, 10:49 AM

I havn't yet seen enough full size, real world samples from K-7, but from those i've seen something in them seems wrong and different from previous pentax cameras.

Subjectively judging, it feels like they've lost punch or large scale sharpness (micro contrast?), but still have the look of heavy post processing. It *feels* like there is a presence of faint pink/bluish tint in all of them.
And the washout reminds me of highly boosted gamma effect in post processing. Many daylight photos seem to be without deep blacks.
Have they increased dynamic range/decreased contrast?
Most of K20d images had this powerful clarity, k-7 seems to lack. It has more muted appearance.
I don't know if it is good or bad, but they certainly look different.. maybe more film or HDR like.

Do you feel the same? Maybe you're able to more clearly determine where is the difference. Is it a different approach (more like Canon, softer tones, less sharpening, less noise) from pentax or just a coincidence/my delusion?

nulla · 07-22-2009, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

I havn't yet seen enough full size, real world samples from K-7, but from those i've seen something in them seems wrong and different from previous pentax cameras.

Subjectively judging, it feels like they've lost punch or large scale sharpness (micro contrast?), but still have the look of heavy post processing. It *feels* like there is a presence of faint pink/bluish tint in all of them.
And the washout reminds me of highly boosted gamma effect in post processing. Many daylight photos seem to be without deep blacks.
Have they increased dynamic range/decreased contrast?
Most of K20d images had this powerful clarity, k-7 seems to lack. It has more muted appearance.
I don't know if it is good or bad, but they certainly look different.. maybe more film or HDR like.

Do you feel the same? Maybe you're able to more clearly determine where is the difference. Is it a different approach (more like Canon, softer tones, less sharpening, less noise) from pentax or just a coincidence/my delusion?

Are you looking at the same pics as I am?

Are you judging a camera or judging a lens/es?

I have seen more differences in the ranges stated above in your post from one Pentax lens to another, let alone a Pentax to another brands lens ... and in the above we are talking about scaled down internet images.

I think it is a great album showing a wide variety of users and lenses used in various conditions... take a look at the other camera folders same site

For me I just love my K-7

taken at a festival in overcast daylight

Neil

ratjadi · 07-22-2009, 12:51 PM

Hi Folks,

seems here are some K-7 users, so I have a question regarding focus:
I am quite happy with my K20D, except some focus issues. Sometimes, i.e. too often, the camera confirms focus but it is completley off. This is no bf/ff issue, just inconsitency of AF. The main problem seems to be that the AF Sensor (I only use center) is too big, so the camera finds contrast somewhere it is not supposed to. That the problem is more virulent the shorter the focal length seems to back this finding.

The other thing which confirms my thoughts is a comparison to Canon 50D which I got loaned from a friend along with 35 1.4 L lens. I compared to K20D with 31 Ltd. To my delight, this combo is not much better, only a little snappier and faster finding focus. But if the target is surrounded by other objects, i.e. the area I want to focus is thight, than the Canon is much more consistent albeit not perfect. And I know that on Olympus E3 you can choose between wide and narrow AF fields. So this is an issue which drives me nuts sometimes.

The other thing is tungsten light: the K20D has a problem with tungsten. I don't want to argue here, if you don't believe this, then fine. But I would appreciate info on wheter the K-7 solves this problem, from someone who has made the same observations. Because for this reason I can't use FA 50 1.4 in the studio with model lights. Luckily I don't have too many studio jobs. I also wonder how benjikan deals with this issue.

So, is the K-7 better AF wise? I am not interested in speed, but in accuracy and first and foremost in consitency and tungsten behaviour. I have most problems with 16-50, especially at about 20mm, but also with 31 Ltd. Otherwise I love these lenses so I would upgrade to K-7 just for consistent focus. Because, believe me, the K20D with 31 Ltd. gives more resolution than the Canon combo, with the same lovely bokeh, plus the K20D is much better regarding operation. Canon is just ignorant here. But that's another story ;-)

Thanks!

Last edited by ratjadi; 07-22-2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason: forgot somehting

nulla · 07-22-2009, 04:30 PM

Hope this is not hogging the thread.

I have taken a few indoor shots under tungsten.. nothing special , just to show what a difference the w/b tungsten does on a K-7

FA31 iso 800 f1.8 1/80sec no tungsten W/B

FA31 ISO 800 f1.8 1/80 sec W/B set to Tungsten

DA* 16-50 at 24mm ISO 800 1/20 sec set to W/B Tungsten

All shots hand held

Hope this is helpful

to me the difference is night and day with W/B tungsten.

As well I should add that W/B set for flash along with my external flash on the K-7 works like a charm.

Neil

shutterbob · 07-22-2009, 04:58 PM

A few more real world images for you to ponder......

No tweaking or post processing. Just downsized in Picassa to meet size standard for the forum.

I find the K-7 IQ very similar to the GX20 (K20) but due to the HDR quality of the sensor and the enhanced image processor, you have to tweak it a little more to adjust it to taste. Like you say, using it at the Pentax "default" setting is not to most of our taste. The images are slightly overexposed and "soft". You be the judge as to whether my in-camera jpeg settings suit you.

nulla · 07-22-2009, 06:36 PM

What are your in camera settings for the K-7 mate

Neil

yakiniku · 07-24-2009, 11:56 PM

Some ISO 3200 & 6400 images:

Class A · 07-27-2009, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by ratjadi

So, is the K-7 better AF wise? I am not interested in speed, but in accuracy and first and foremost in consitency and tungsten behaviour.

The K-7 is the first Pentax DSLR to have a special colour temperature sensor to compensate for the Tungsten AF problem. So yes, previous models definitely have a problem and, yes the K-7 addresses this part.

I only know that the K-7's AF speed is better for low light but I'm assuming the size of the focus points has been kept. Actual owners should be able to verify.

You should be able to use your FA50/1.4 in the studio by using the focus adjustment feature (temporarily for studio work).

ratjadi · 08-02-2009, 01:54 PM

Class_A, thanks for the reply. What would have interested me is wheter or not the alleged WB-sensor for focussing really works.

And, I tried everything with AF compensation with the 50 1.4, but the problem is inconsistency that cannot be corrected with one setting. Sometimes it is front, sometimes is back under tungsten.

**Ash** · 08-02-2009, 02:57 PM

yakiniku, that is a very decent high ISO capture.
Noise is obviously there, but reasonably acceptable.

flyer · 08-02-2009, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by ratjadi

What would have interested me is wheter or not the alleged WB-sensor for focussing really works.

It does work really well.

Eruditass · 08-02-2009, 09:13 PM

how bad is the tungston wb-sensor focusing on older models (even the K2000?)

07-22-2009, 07:45 AM	#1
yakiniku Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 74	Some K-7 Real World images http://photohito.com/camera/brands/pentax/model/pentax-k-7

07-22-2009, 10:49 AM	#2
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	I havn't yet seen enough full size, real world samples from K-7, but from those i've seen something in them seems wrong and different from previous pentax cameras. Subjectively judging, it feels like they've lost punch or large scale sharpness (micro contrast?), but still have the look of heavy post processing. It feels like there is a presence of faint pink/bluish tint in all of them. And the washout reminds me of highly boosted gamma effect in post processing. Many daylight photos seem to be without deep blacks. Have they increased dynamic range/decreased contrast? Most of K20d images had this powerful clarity, k-7 seems to lack. It has more muted appearance. I don't know if it is good or bad, but they certainly look different.. maybe more film or HDR like. Do you feel the same? Maybe you're able to more clearly determine where is the difference. Is it a different approach (more like Canon, softer tones, less sharpening, less noise) from pentax or just a coincidence/my delusion? Last edited by ytterbium; 07-22-2009 at 10:55 AM.

07-22-2009, 11:56 AM	#3
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Originally posted by ytterbium I havn't yet seen enough full size, real world samples from K-7, but from those i've seen something in them seems wrong and different from previous pentax cameras. Subjectively judging, it feels like they've lost punch or large scale sharpness (micro contrast?), but still have the look of heavy post processing. It feels like there is a presence of faint pink/bluish tint in all of them. And the washout reminds me of highly boosted gamma effect in post processing. Many daylight photos seem to be without deep blacks. Have they increased dynamic range/decreased contrast? Most of K20d images had this powerful clarity, k-7 seems to lack. It has more muted appearance. I don't know if it is good or bad, but they certainly look different.. maybe more film or HDR like. Do you feel the same? Maybe you're able to more clearly determine where is the difference. Is it a different approach (more like Canon, softer tones, less sharpening, less noise) from pentax or just a coincidence/my delusion? Are you looking at the same pics as I am? Are you judging a camera or judging a lens/es? I have seen more differences in the ranges stated above in your post from one Pentax lens to another, let alone a Pentax to another brands lens ... and in the above we are talking about scaled down internet images. I think it is a great album showing a wide variety of users and lenses used in various conditions... take a look at the other camera folders same site For me I just love my K-7 taken at a festival in overcast daylight Neil Last edited by nulla; 07-22-2009 at 12:29 PM.

07-22-2009, 12:51 PM	#4
ratjadi Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vienna / Austria Posts: 27	K-7 real image quality considering AF Hi Folks, seems here are some K-7 users, so I have a question regarding focus: I am quite happy with my K20D, except some focus issues. Sometimes, i.e. too often, the camera confirms focus but it is completley off. This is no bf/ff issue, just inconsitency of AF. The main problem seems to be that the AF Sensor (I only use center) is too big, so the camera finds contrast somewhere it is not supposed to. That the problem is more virulent the shorter the focal length seems to back this finding. The other thing which confirms my thoughts is a comparison to Canon 50D which I got loaned from a friend along with 35 1.4 L lens. I compared to K20D with 31 Ltd. To my delight, this combo is not much better, only a little snappier and faster finding focus. But if the target is surrounded by other objects, i.e. the area I want to focus is thight, than the Canon is much more consistent albeit not perfect. And I know that on Olympus E3 you can choose between wide and narrow AF fields. So this is an issue which drives me nuts sometimes. The other thing is tungsten light: the K20D has a problem with tungsten. I don't want to argue here, if you don't believe this, then fine. But I would appreciate info on wheter the K-7 solves this problem, from someone who has made the same observations. Because for this reason I can't use FA 50 1.4 in the studio with model lights. Luckily I don't have too many studio jobs. I also wonder how benjikan deals with this issue. So, is the K-7 better AF wise? I am not interested in speed, but in accuracy and first and foremost in consitency and tungsten behaviour. I have most problems with 16-50, especially at about 20mm, but also with 31 Ltd. Otherwise I love these lenses so I would upgrade to K-7 just for consistent focus. Because, believe me, the K20D with 31 Ltd. gives more resolution than the Canon combo, with the same lovely bokeh, plus the K20D is much better regarding operation. Canon is just ignorant here. But that's another story ;-) Thanks! Last edited by ratjadi; 07-22-2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason: forgot somehting

07-22-2009, 04:58 PM	#6
shutterbob Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 69	Real World K-7 Images in my back yard...... A few more real world images for you to ponder...... No tweaking or post processing. Just downsized in Picassa to meet size standard for the forum. I find the K-7 IQ very similar to the GX20 (K20) but due to the HDR quality of the sensor and the enhanced image processor, you have to tweak it a little more to adjust it to taste. Like you say, using it at the Pentax "default" setting is not to most of our taste. The images are slightly overexposed and "soft". You be the judge as to whether my in-camera jpeg settings suit you. Attached Images

07-22-2009, 04:30 PM	#5
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	Hope this is not hogging the thread. I have taken a few indoor shots under tungsten.. nothing special , just to show what a difference the w/b tungsten does on a K-7 FA31 iso 800 f1.8 1/80sec no tungsten W/B FA31 ISO 800 f1.8 1/80 sec W/B set to Tungsten DA* 16-50 at 24mm ISO 800 1/20 sec set to W/B Tungsten All shots hand held Hope this is helpful to me the difference is night and day with W/B tungsten. As well I should add that W/B set for flash along with my external flash on the K-7 works like a charm. Neil

07-22-2009, 06:36 PM	#7
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	What are your in camera settings for the K-7 mate Neil

07-24-2009, 11:56 PM	#8
yakiniku Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 74 Original Poster	Some ISO 3200 & 6400 images: From: http://ascii.jp/elem/000/000/438/438247/index-4.html The settings of the photos: ------------------------------------- ISO6400 \| ISO6400 NR: medium \| NR: medium AutoWB \| AutoWB D-Range: medium \| D-Range: low ------------------------------------- ISO6400 \| ISO6400 NR: medium \| NR: medium AutoWB \| AutoWB D-Range: low \| D-Range: low ------------------------------------- ISO3200 \| ISO3200 NR: medium \| NR: medium AutoWB \| AutoWB Shoot under mixed LED light with AWB. ------------------------------------- ISO3200 \| ISO3200 NR: medium \| NR: medium AutoWB \| AutoWB ------------------------------------- ISO3200 \| ISO3200 NR: medium \| NR: medium AutoWB \| AutoWB

07-27-2009, 09:02 PM	#9
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ratjadi So, is the K-7 better AF wise? I am not interested in speed, but in accuracy and first and foremost in consitency and tungsten behaviour. The K-7 is the first Pentax DSLR to have a special colour temperature sensor to compensate for the Tungsten AF problem. So yes, previous models definitely have a problem and, yes the K-7 addresses this part. I only know that the K-7's AF speed is better for low light but I'm assuming the size of the focus points has been kept. Actual owners should be able to verify. You should be able to use your FA50/1.4 in the studio by using the focus adjustment feature (temporarily for studio work).

08-02-2009, 01:54 PM	#10
ratjadi Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vienna / Austria Posts: 27	Class_A, thanks for the reply. What would have interested me is wheter or not the alleged WB-sensor for focussing really works. And, I tried everything with AF compensation with the 50 1.4, but the problem is inconsistency that cannot be corrected with one setting. Sometimes it is front, sometimes is back under tungsten.

08-02-2009, 02:57 PM	#11
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	yakiniku, that is a very decent high ISO capture. Noise is obviously there, but reasonably acceptable.

08-02-2009, 03:13 PM	#12
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by ratjadi What would have interested me is wheter or not the alleged WB-sensor for focussing really works. It does work really well.

08-02-2009, 09:13 PM	#13
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	how bad is the tungston wb-sensor focusing on older models (even the K2000?)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The real world difference f/1.4 -vs- f/2	Oscar1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-06-2010 10:33 PM
K-7 actually generating real world buzz	NaClH2O	Photographic Technique	5	05-23-2009 12:05 PM
Snowflakes in the real world	MightyMike	Post Your Photos!	6	12-23-2008 06:40 AM
CA in the DA*16-50 vs Tamron 28-75 in real world	123K10D	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	02-23-2008 02:44 PM
Real world use.	Rob.K	Pentax DSLR Discussion	29	02-12-2007 01:26 PM