Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-29-2009, 02:27 PM   #1
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
New K-7 Comparometer images

I have seen some references to this in recent threads, but nothing has risen above the "noise level" yet.

Imaging resources has posted new images for the K-7 in the "comparometer."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM


Take a look at the "New Indoor" images vs. any other camera. Look at ISO 3200 for example. The K-7 blows away the K20d, and even is pretty close to FF cameras like the D700! For example, take a look at the Chardonnay bottle sitting on the table. On the K-7 it is sharp. On the 50D, the blotchy chroma noise and smoothing makes it hard to read. The label is also sharper with the K-7 than the D90. To me, the difference is in smoothing and chroma noise, and not focus.

Maybe the breathless posts about K-7 noise can start to diminish now?


Last edited by PentaxPoke; 07-29-2009 at 02:43 PM.
07-29-2009, 02:56 PM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,751
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Maybe the breathless posts about K-7 noise can start to diminish now?
We'll see. I still have some breath saved up on the K7 noise issue. Those shots in particular are the sort of studio high intensity lighting that don't really tell us much about high ISO noise and low-light handling.

Run your eye over some of the comparative camera shots outdoors at night over at neocamera.com to see big real-life high ISO differences between some of the cameras you mention and the K7, esp in shadows, darker areas etc.

Eg:

Nikon D90 Review | NeoCamera.com
Pentax K-7 Sample Images | NeoCamera.com
etc

So yeah, the jury is still out for me on the issue.
07-29-2009, 03:07 PM   #3
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
the sites that you list do not have any 1:1 comparisons. There is no way to compare the two cameras when the subjects and lighting conditions are not the same.

Even in the "studio lighting conditions" you mention, the k20d images are clearly worse than the K-7. In other words, even in perfect lighting, the k20d is worse.
07-29-2009, 03:58 PM   #4
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,727
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
the sites that you list do not have any 1:1 comparisons. There is no way to compare the two cameras when the subjects and lighting conditions are not the same.

Even in the "studio lighting conditions" you mention, the k20d images are clearly worse than the K-7. In other words, even in perfect lighting, the k20d is worse.
Thanks much for posting the link. Are these RAW images converted with no modification to JPEGs for website exposition or were they recorded in JPEG using the default settings of the camera? I'm lazy, so after making the comparisons you suggested, I only gave the website a perfunctory look and didn't uncover this info.

Thanks again,

Jer

07-29-2009, 04:08 PM   #5
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
Thanks much for posting the link. Are these RAW images converted with no modification to JPEGs for website exposition or were they recorded in JPEG using the default settings of the camera? I'm lazy, so after making the comparisons you suggested, I only gave the website a perfunctory look and didn't uncover this info.

Thanks again,

Jer
According to the EXIF, it says NR was "OFF" on the K-7.
07-29-2009, 04:19 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
the sites that you list do not have any 1:1 comparisons. There is no way to compare the two cameras when the subjects and lighting conditions are not the same.

Even in the "studio lighting conditions" you mention, the k20d images are clearly worse than the K-7. In other words, even in perfect lighting, the k20d is worse.
Poke, do you have a K20D as well as a K-7? honestly, don't try some self-comparisons at home, it will truly break your heart.

Pentax (really Samsung) definitely compromised the stills on the K-7 sensor for video. its just a fact. once the big reviews come out, the empirical testing will bear this out.
07-29-2009, 04:24 PM   #7
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Poke, do you have a K20D as well as a K-7? honestly, don't try some self-comparisons at home, it will truly break your heart.

Pentax (really Samsung) definitely compromised the stills on the K-7 sensor for video. its just a fact. once the big reviews come out, the empirical testing will bear this out.
Yes, I do own both, and I posted some detailed comparisons here on this forum showing that the K-7 is significantly better than the k20d in chroma noise. Heart not at all broken.

Also, I consider Imaging Resources a pretty good site for empirical testing. Their consistency is better than most I have seen. The only "big review" I haven't seen yet is dpr. Well, we can all predict what dpr is going to say..:blah blah disappointing jpeg blah blah. They are quite consistent and predictable. If a camera doesn't oversharpen at low ISO, oversmooth at high ISO, and oversaturate at all ISO, they are not impressed.
07-29-2009, 04:43 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Neosho, Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 115
First off a disclaimer:

I can tell you everything I know about Digital photography over a long lunch.

That being said this is a QUESTION, not a CHALLENGE.

I looked at the photos (New Indoor) on the comparison. It seems the picture is cleaner from the K-7 than the K20D.

But why is the title Digital Photography Pocket Guide more readable on the K20D? The way I am seeing it the word Digital is unreadable on the K-7 yet quite readable on the K20D the "model" is holding in her hand?

Were the same lenses used on both cameras?


Last edited by Riktar; 07-29-2009 at 04:51 PM. Reason: added description of photo viewed.
07-29-2009, 04:50 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,727
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Poke, do you have a K20D as well as a K-7? honestly, don't try some self-comparisons at home, it will truly break your heart.

Pentax (really Samsung) definitely compromised the stills on the K-7 sensor for video. its just a fact. once the big reviews come out, the empirical testing will bear this out.
May we see the results of your in-home comparisons?

Thanks,

Jer
07-29-2009, 05:28 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Raybo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 871
Look at the watch and the book and THAN tell me everything is equal about the images.

Something does not look right to me.
07-29-2009, 06:08 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Yes, I do own both, and I posted some detailed comparisons here on this forum showing that the K-7 is significantly better than the k20d in chroma noise. Heart not at all broken.
agreed, the chroma noise is better on the K-7, but the luminance noise is significantly worse. there is luminance noise in the mid-shadows at ISO 200.

QuoteQuote:
Also, I consider Imaging Resources a pretty good site for empirical testing. Their consistency is better than most I have seen. The only "big review" I haven't seen yet is dpr. Well, we can all predict what dpr is going to say..:blah blah disappointing jpeg blah blah. They are quite consistent and predictable. If a camera doesn't oversharpen at low ISO, oversmooth at high ISO, and oversaturate at all ISO, they are not impressed.
sure, but what will sting much worse is DPR's and others' conclusion on final RAW testing.
07-29-2009, 06:12 PM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by Riktar Quote
But why is the title Digital Photography Pocket Guide more readable on the K20D? The way I am seeing it the word Digital is unreadable on the K-7 yet quite readable on the K20D the "model" is holding in her hand?

Were the same lenses used on both cameras?

Yes, yes. Look at her watch too. On the 3200 ISO image you can actually tell the time on the K20D shot but not so much on the K-7 shot.
07-29-2009, 07:02 PM   #13
Senior Member
Mister Guy's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 244
QuoteOriginally posted by Mindflux Quote
Yes, yes. Look at her watch too. On the 3200 ISO image you can actually tell the time on the K20D shot but not so much on the K-7 shot.
Looks to me to be different processing settings. Compare the lips, the settings are definitely treating reds differently, which is having a negative effect on the book itself.
07-29-2009, 07:29 PM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by Mister Guy Quote
Looks to me to be different processing settings. Compare the lips, the settings are definitely treating reds differently, which is having a negative effect on the book itself.
Are you sure this just isn't the WB performance between both cameras?
07-29-2009, 07:46 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
Different parts of the photo give different results for the K-7 vs. K20D, which is why I think the test is not that tightly controlled.
First of EXIF says the K-7 has 0 E/V, the K20D has +0.7 E/V. Advantage to K-7 for more accurate metering.
The mannequin's watch and the book she is holding have more detail on the K20D. - Advantage K20D
The beads she is wearing and the lapel on the jacket have more detail and less noise (both luminance and chromatic noise) on the K-7 - Advantage K-7.

I think there are subtle difference in DOF and focus point between the two. Possibly a different lens or different copy of the same type of lens.

I end up with the same conclusion on the K-7 and K20D.
They both have very, very similar picture quality. A bit of advantage here for the K20D, a bit of advantage there for the K-7.
I just don't bother with the questions any more. As far as real-world photography goes, the two are equally excellent in picture quality.

The K-7 just wins hands down in many other usage performance aspects.
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, chroma, dslr, images, k-7, look, noise, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-7 iso 3200 images: No NR, yet the faces look plastic. (11 images) pcarfan Pentax DSLR Discussion 43 08-31-2010 08:13 AM
K-x Comparometer Eruditass Pentax News and Rumors 64 12-01-2009 04:15 PM
A variety of images with FA* 200/4 Macro (no bugs) - VLF competition images Marc Langille Post Your Photos! 28 08-22-2008 07:28 PM
High ISO concert images with Tam 28-300 (Images) jsundin Post Your Photos! 2 07-05-2007 08:19 AM
A few K10D tourist images of Italy (9 images, about 200kb each) volosong Post Your Photos! 2 04-24-2007 04:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 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