[cooldude14es]

What an excellent comparison! Finally someone got it right! Honestly, I hate when so called review sites make test shots of semi-pro cameras with all kinds of different lenses (even cheapest kit lenses) and then make final verdict about camera quality. Respect to Spanish guys who managed to use the same lens model with all cameras.

Very revealing samples, after all K-7 is not that bad And I wouldn't use any of those cameras above ISO1600. K10D limit is ISO800.

Im glad you all enjoyed the review.

At the spanish Pentax Forum we all were discussing about different brands since some of our collegues jumped to Nikon D300 before having a K-7 on their hands. Some others just were afraid that K-7 could be below expectations (include me here), and were asking for a comparison between brands. Our kind moderator took the time to join his K20D, a K10D, a new K-7 and he contacted D300 and 50D users to take part of the test, so those owners were helping during the testing just to make sure that all settings were the same on all cameras. As you mentioned, thanks to Pentax/Sigma Spain he was able to use the same lens on all cameras.

All tests were done using the cable switch to avoid vibrations as much as possible and the focus point was Vader´s chest.

[Edvinas]

For any sane purpose, these will all look more or less identical as prints. There's no significant difference between any of these cameras, honestly.

Canon has radically different colours. Pentax and Nikon colours are about the same.

[Big G]

Very good comparisons here.

First and foremost, i'd like to say that all of these cameras are very, very good indeed and it's clear (as someone has already said) that prints of these will look identical. The full size pics (not the crops) look very similar to my eye, perhaps very slightly different on colours on the 50D. It was also hard to tell which of the crops at the low ISOs was "better" than another. If I had to pick one, i'd say the D300 seemed sharper than all regarding the crops?

At higher ISOs up to 1600, they all look the same (again, slightly paler colour on the 50D here) except for the K-7 (the K20D is also softer but not as noisy as the K-7). As already discussed and documented, the high ISO on the K-7 just does not cut it. Once we're up to 3200, it looks like Pentax just doesn't cut it at all. That all said, I don't care for ISO 3200 and up on any camera because I wouldn't use it. If I needed that sort of sensitivity to take photographs, i'd have bought a D700.

The big important factors here to the general public (in my opinion) are "what do you get for your money" and "what are you requirements as a photographer".

For me, the fact I can get a K20 body for £500 as opposed to the D300 at £1000 (and it takes awesome photographs up to ISO 1600), it just does not warrant double the money for a tiny increase in IQ and upwards of ISO 3200 performance. If I needed 6 fps and very fast/accurate autofocus, then it's a no brainer; the D300 would be my choice. How anyone can justify £1200 for a K-7 body is beyond me - I want to believe it's a good camera, but the price just isn't worth it to me as a Pentax owner - it's more expensive than the D300 and the IQ isn't up to K20D standards, let alone D300 standards. From what I've read in reviews, the K-7 autofocus speed isn't exactly competitive either (considering the K-7 is more expensive than a D300).

I don't wish to sound like i'm bashing the K-7, I'm just so disappointed as a Pentaxian that there is no upgrade path beyond my K20D. If i'm spending £1200, I want the image quality to be at least as good as my existing camera, not taking a step back. If I move into doing sports photography, I know what camera I need.

I'll keep the K20D for my landscapes and canvas prints though .

For info, here is another thread on resolutions of these cameras (minus the K-7)Canon EOS 50D Review: 30. Compared to (Resolution): Digital Photography Review

[nephoto]

Thank you for that. It does show the comparative quality of the K-7 better than any comparison I have seen. Still glad I bought the K-7.

[VaughnA]

I liked the looked of the the results for all the cameras. I was pretty pleased how well the K10 stood up in comparison. We always want the latest and greatest but based on these results, for the type of shooting I do, I think I can wait another generation before I upgrade.

Tom G

I'm with you there. I can't see myself needing anything more than the K10D until the photographer catches up with the camera. Unless you need faster AF and really high ISO's I see no reason to upgrade except that I'm a guy.

[Peter Zack]

Very good comparisons. It's a good lesson too. The Pentax metering will underexpose slightly and at 100-400, that's not much of an issue. You can adjust without much or any noise in PP and save the highlights. Then when you want to shoot 800 and up dial in 1/2 Ev to keep it clean.

This really does show how good the K10D does at 100-200. It's still the best DSLR Pentax has made for shooting macros. 10Mp is more than big enough and the sensor is sharper than all the others for fine detail. I'll never sell mine.

[Big G]

I'm impressed with the K10D's sharpness, right up there with the D300, probably something to do with it being a Sony sensor? Could be a similar design to the D300.

[Peter Zack]

The D300 and the New D300s are using CMOS 12Mp sensors. The K10D is a Sony CCD 10Mp sensor.

[Big G]

Indeed!

There is a lot on the web about the D300 and "Sony sensor" too.

[Clem Nichols]

I looked at the comparison images last night, and after reading all the comments this morning decided I must have been sleepy and come to the wrong conclusion, so I checked them again this morning. Maybe it's my monitor or my eyes or my brain, but to me, the K10 images through ISO 1600 show more detail and less noise than those of the other cameras tested. Check out the small surface irregularity in Darth's right eye in the medial highlight and also the closeup of the watch rim. They appear to be sharper in the K10 images. Also look at the noise in the blue background to Darth's left. The K10 is showing less noise at ISO 1600 than the D300 shows at ISO 200. As stated previously, maybe it's my monitor, my eyes, or my brain, but it certainly isn't due to being sleepy, because the images look the same this morning as they did last night. I realize that with the K10D's 10 mp sensor the image is slightly smaller than with the other cameras and noise would therefore be less prominent, but what I'm seeing leads me to think that there has to be some fault with the procedure used in this comparison.

CN

[Big G]

Re the K10D sharpness, it is praised highly on dpreview for the level of detail it resolves.

Pentax K20D Review: 28. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review

[nickthetasmaniac]

very interesting, looks to me like the K-7 is equal or better to the 50D and D300 up to ISO1600, then deteriates rapidly.

the lack of sharpness in the 50D at low ISO is surprising, and the sharpness of the K10D is equally surprising; up to 400ISO i'd say the K10D has the best looking images!

[pingflood]

As I said, something's not right, because the 50D does not for some weird reason become softer at lower ISOs. I am guessing there was some camera shake involved somehow.

[mgoblue]

Agreed - K10 does a terrific job and more than holds its own even when matched in size to K7 output - goes to show what most of us already know about more megapixels.

Regarding sharpness, I wonder if the lenses are the main issue? Sure they are the same model, but it's not the same lens. The D300 is sharper on the color wheel beside Vader's head, but it is also less sharp on the clock face and flares in the uncropped print. That seems to suggest minor lens inconsistencies (which always exist and are unavoidable) and perhaps some focus differences, not differences in the resolving power of the sensors.

However, since the testers accounted for vibration, the 50D sample does have an all round unexplained sharpness issue at low ISOs, that is not lens based since the same stop was used at all ISOs (except 100) and it gets sharper as it goes up.

I've never seen worth commenting on these tests, but this one is so well done it intrigues me! I can't see a test being much better than this one -- there just seem to be too many variables. It's like being back in the film days.

[kittykat46]

Am I seeing things (?) - the ISO 200 and ISO 400 shots of Darth Vader from the highly praised D300 and 50D look awful to me....

My (admittedly unscientific) assessment of the majority of photographs taken by most average users is that, most of the time, people want the very best possible picture quality from photographs taken in good lighting i.e. low ISOs.

With that criterion, the all the Pentax bodies hold up very well against any of the Canikons....including the ageing K10D.