[creampuff]

First off, dismissing valid references as regurgitation does nothing for the credibility of your intentions in this discussion. Secondly the tone you set in your comment completely undermines all possibilities of keeping this a beneficial conversation. If I wanted to argue, I would have posted a thread on dpreview and invited someone like Rice High to play along (think about it).

Well you stated you've done tests of your own to prove your assertion. So far you've posted no comparative images of your own between the two cameras (K-7 and K20D) with metadata intact. I don't profess to be an authority nor make claims as you have without evidence in hand. I'm just calling you out to provide the proof to back up your assertion. What's so difficult about that? No need to even quote dpreview. We all can read dpreview's results on our own, as to whether they are entirely conclusive is not always so clear cut.

Having said that, I don't have any K7 samples from our tests off hand.
Though I may be able to dig something up I honestly don't know if we even kept them and it's been nearly a year since we conducted our tests let alone referenced anything from them since.

For what it's worth, here are two ISO4000 samples from our worst K20D. I say worst because one camera has more noise and banding than the other and this these were taken with that particular unit. So I for what it's worth, think we could get a little better in terms of detail or final IQ.

http://www.bertin.ca/tmp/IMGP2518_SM.jpg

http://www.bertin.ca/tmp/IMGP3339_MED.jpg

FTR. both images were taken in very low light and PP for print(naturally).

Posting the two images above proves nothing. There's no basis to make any meaningful comparison with the K-7, given that the images are also stripped of any relevant exif information.

[Pentaxor]

I am a bit suspicious of the dpreview shots because they seem to have either positioned cameras at different distances or they mixed up their test shots. The K-7 and K20D crops should cover the same area, but they don't.



But then, how can the K20D have an advantage of one stop as you claimed? Given that performance is similar at 1600 (without splitting hairs), the K20D cannot be one stop better at 3200 (which would mean it's still as good as it was at 1600). And 3200 is the top ISO available by default on both cameras. Extended range is disabled by default for a reason.



In this case, calling an alleged superiority of the K20D in the 3200-4000 ISO range as a "one stop advantage" is misleading. A one stop advantage without any additional qualifications would imply that a camera is as good at 200 as another at 100, and so on. It's particularly important to be clear in this case, because most people rarely shoot at 3200 and above, which makes this alleged advantage irrelevant for most, even if it were true.

K-7 shots @ ISO3200 are actually pretty good and very nice in real world use. although I still have to test or shoot something around ISO4000 yet.

here is a widely used photo, shot at ISO 3200 completely w/o NR.


oh and btw, that's the K55/1.8 power right there.

[JohnBee]

Those are terrific images for ISO4000... It would be nice to see contrasting images from K7...

Thanks Javaslinger,
These are good examples of why I have taken a liking to the K20D at high ISO.

I am a bit suspicious of the dpreview shots because they seem to have either positioned cameras at different distances or they mixed up their test shots. The K-7 and K20D crops should cover the same area, but they don't.

I noticed this also, it seems to happen with reviews with long time lapses between them.

But then, how can the K20D have an advantage of one stop as you claimed? Given that performance is similar at 1600 (without splitting hairs), the K20D cannot be one stop better at 3200 (which would mean it's still as good as it was at 1600). And 3200 is the top ISO available by default on both cameras. Extended range is disabled by default for a reason.

The one stop advantage is not an an exact measurement(they rarely are). Though the differences in chroma noise(or destructive red patterns) shown between the two camera's is evident in the samples.
As for the ISO1600 discrepancy, I think what stands-out here is that noise is rarely an issue until it manifests itself as an issue. And though the K7 and K20D are both excellent at ISO1600, the issue of noise hasn't actually come-up yet.

In this case, calling an alleged superiority of the K20D in the 3200-4000 ISO range as a "one stop advantage" is misleading. A one stop advantage without any additional qualifications would imply that a camera is as good at 200 as another at 100, and so on. It's particularly important to be clear in this case, because most people rarely shoot at 3200 and above, which makes this alleged advantage irrelevant for most, even if it were true.

The reason I myself state this as a one stop advantage, is for none other than shooting one stop higher with the K20D than with the K-7. And though I wouldn't hesitate to admit such a statement is dubious "at best", I have no problems quantifying the K20D advantage over that of the K7's in practice and theory.

Anyone looking to shoot natural lighting would gladly use ISO3200 if it were available. Which is in part one of the reasons I feel so positive toward K20D's ISO3200 performance.

Well you stated you've done tests of your own to prove your assertion. So far you've posted no comparative images of your own between the two cameras (K-7 and K20D) with metadata intact. I don't profess to be an authority nor make claims as you have without evidence in hand. I'm just calling you out to provide the proof to back up your assertion. What's so difficult about that? No need to even quote dpreview. We all can read dpreview's results on our own, as to whether they are entirely conclusive is not always so clear cut.

If you want to look at this in fair context, then you'd admit the evidence rather than seek to circumvent it.
Cynicism of this type only leads to senseless arguments.

The simple facts are that I've made a claim and took the initiative by providing sources to explain or substantiate it. dpreview is an unbiased and verifiable source that serves to explain the discrepancy between the two units. And your ongoing determination to dismiss it is both obvious and outstanding.

The other examples are of my own experiences which I use to demonstrate my findings.
And though were looking at hearsay at this stage, you should know that I(or anyone else for that matter), would have absolutely nothing to gain by either lying or manipulating facts on such matters, which makes no sense whatsoever.

And of course, you are completely free to take or leave the information for what it is.
Though I think it would have been far more beneficial if you employed gentlemen like conduct rather than cynicism under the terms of this discussion.

K-7 shots @ ISO3200 are actually pretty good and very nice in real world use. although I still have to test or shoot something around ISO4000 yet.

here is a widely used photo, shot at ISO 3200 completely w/o NR.

oh and btw, that's the K55/1.8 power right there.

I think that is(hands down) an amazing ISO3200 shot with the K7!
Even though it is sized down and B&W, I can really see the detail in the image(which seems to be very impressive).

I'd also like to say that I'm not compelled to counter your image with a K20D sample as I really don't want to turn this into a competition of sorts. So I will leave it at that and say that your image is well deserving of the respect it receives just the way it is.

PS. for all who care, I have been working on an ongoing project under the Pentax DSLR forum titled:
"Another K20D ISO4000 image" which is part of a video tutorial I've been putting together covering the very methods I used to process the ISO4000 images posted here. It is a project that I put together to help others benefit from shooting at higher sensitivities without giving in to noise limitations.

It's a work in progress so please ignore the unrealistic timeline.

[JohnBee]

BTW, it looks like the forum now resizes image, which can lead to distorted IQ due to pixel compression.

This would depend on your whether your browser size is sufficient to display the image in full or not.
Their usually is a "view full size icon" with this script, though it doesn't seem to be working in this case.

I guess that would be something to ask Adam about.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 01-25-2010 at 03:56 AM.

[Pentaxor]

I think that is(hands down) an amazing ISO3200 shot with the K7!
Even though it is sized down and B&W, I can really see the detail in the image(which seems to be very impressive).

I'd also like to say that I'm not compelled to counter your image with a K20D sample as I really don't want to turn this into a competition of sorts. So I will leave it at that and say that your image is well deserving of the respect it receives just the way it is.

PS. for all who care, I have been working on an ongoing project under the Pentax DSLR forum titled:
"Another K20D ISO4000 image" which is part of a video tutorial I've been putting together covering the very methods I used to process the ISO4000 images posted here. It is a project that I put together to help others benefit from shooting at higher sensitivities without giving in to noise limitations.

It's a work in progress so please ignore the unrealistic timeline.

Thanks JB. honestly, the original purpose of the photo presented was made to illustrate on how to work with or work around noises at higher sensitivities. this was made during the k-x and K-7 debate, which I dont deny the High ISO capability of the former. but I find the k-x too limiting for my use. HIGH ISO capability alone does not fill my needs.

I also made it a point that shooting at HIGH ISO with the K-7 works well if done right. it doesn't have the luxury of indiscriminate High ISO shooting of the k-x (although sometimes, there are k-x HIGH ISO shots that shows ugly noise if the shooter doesn't know what he's doing) but atleast when using a K-7, use your knowledge and other skills as well. it's not called a semi-pro dslr for nothing if you dont work your way or just expect to shoot it like a P&S cam.

I'm sure I'll be able to reproduce the same quality of HIGH ISO image be it the K7 or K20D. both cameras are great and I don't deny that. the K20D has been instrumental to me in giving Pentax a try. I would had gotten it if the K-7 didn't came along last year. but I find the components and capabilities that are missing in the K20D are just simply too hard to ignore. and for the record, I would still prefer the K20D over the k-x.

anyway, I believe your HIGH ISO tutorial would be very helpful in teaching others and opening up other possibilities of what you can do. you don't have to spend $500 just to get a decent shot above ISO1600, unless you are shopping for a secondary body.

[JohnBee]

Thanks JB. honestly, the original purpose of the photo presented was made to illustrate on how to work with or work around noises at higher sensitivities. this was made during the k-x and K-7 debate, which I dont deny the High ISO capability of the former. but I find the k-x too limiting for my use. HIGH ISO capability alone does not fill my needs.

I think you described best what truly counts here.
That is to say that it's in the final product that we ultimately find what most beneficial for each and every one of us.

Unfortunately, we succumbed to the Kx after trying one in a local shop.
To be honest, I refuse to shoot with it
But my wife really likes the size and doesn't seem to mind the lack of surface controls it has in contrast to the higher end models.

On the issue of advanced noise management, I am extremely happy to find so much interest in the project on the forums.
What began as a simple walkthrough has transformed in an opportunity to help other photo enthusiasts(how cool is that).

For what it's worth, I've always maintained that the K20 had an ace up its sleeve at ISO3200.
My wife and I both shoot our K20's in natural lighting in confidence and without concern with full size prints along the way.

Here is a shot taken off my desk(just now).
at ISO3200 with aprox. 5 mins. of post processing using my method.
As you can see, it is not only extremely sharp but completely void of noise and artifacts as well.

And a crop

I'm looking forward to helping others achieve the same results with their own images also

[davef]

The K 7 has better auto white balance, better metering, better P-TTL flash exposure control, better frame rate, more responsive auto focus than the K20. The K20 is much better at ISO 1600 and 3200 and as you've noted, is more substantial than the K 7. There is a big price delta here as well but both cameras take great pictures and it would be hard to go wrong with either. Dave

[Pentaxor]

very nice images JB. I just hope that some of us give the HIGH ISO inferiority or falsely perceived HIGH ISO problem a rest. just do the math correctly, and you'd get some awesome shots at those ISO levels.

I dunno when camera manufacturers would stop extending the ISOs further. probably suggesting taking pictures at night and showing that it has been taken in daylight. I don't think it would stop at ISO 200,000 but probably around ISO 800,000 or expanded ISO 1,000,000 (1,600,000 is just overkill, IMO).

what does intrigue me is how the IQ would look like in those super HIGH ISO levels, maybe comparable to something at ISO 100 or lower and better at ISO 50 (still dreaming of something of ISO 6, lol).

anyway, I think it would also be good to have an option of retaining film grain type of noise for those nostalgic type of shots. I know that this can be done by software but I don't know by how much and how good the best softwares are in reproducing such nostalgic effect.

[JohnBee]

anyway, I think it would also be good to have an option of retaining film grain type of noise for those nostalgic type of shots. I know that this can be done by software but I don't know by how much and how good the best softwares are in reproducing such nostalgic effect.

I've experimented with a software called "Nik Soft" which offered a pretty cool set of B&W and Color effects and some pretty impressive film grain simulations.
Though my experience with film is limited, my wife on the other hand claimed it was "good enough" which lead me to say it must be good as she's relentless about film being the only true medium of photography.
In case you might want to look into that, they offer a pretty decent trial period and have good training video's to help use the software as quickly as possible.

PS. I did not find their noise removal and sharpening plugin to be very the most effective to use. At least not under high ISO development.

[Pentaxor]

I've experimented with a software called "Nik Soft" which offered a pretty cool set of B&W and Color effects and some pretty impressive film grain simulations.
Though my experience with film is limited, my wife on the other hand claimed it was "good enough" which lead me to say it must be good as she's relentless about film being the only true medium of photography.
In case you might want to look into that, they offer a pretty decent trial period and have good training video's to help use the software as quickly as possible.

PS. I did not find their noise removal and sharpening plugin to be very the most effective to use. At least not under high ISO development.

thanks for that info JB. I might take a look at it. as for noise removal, I find Noiseware Pro quite efficient in eliminating noise without losing detail. I only used it for salvaging photos. as for focusing enhancement, I find Focus Magic to be efficient as well, unless you could suggest to me a much better software.

[JohnBee]

thanks for that info JB. I might take a look at it. as for noise removal, I find Noiseware Pro quite efficient in eliminating noise without losing detail. I only used it for salvaging photos. as for focusing enhancement, I find Focus Magic to be efficient as well, unless you could suggest to me a much better software.

I too use focus magic.
I can't say I've had stellar success trying to recovery all of my OOF images. But... it's been helpful in more than one occasion, and I think that's worth something.

On the issue of NR, I've held on and used what most would call the two leading software's over the years, however in these past few months I've found a new product called Topaz Denoise, and it's taken NR to an entire new level.
I could write pages about this software alone(and I do spend a considerable amount of time covering it in my tutorial), but... the best advice I could give, would be to go check it out and see for yourself(be sure to watch the movies also ). I think you'll be genuinely impressed.

Whatever the case, Noise Ninja and other wavelet technology noise management software(like Noiseware) are in deep trouble I think.

[Pentaxor]

I too use focus magic.
I can't say I've had stellar success trying to recovery all of my OOF images. But... it's been helpful in more than one occasion, and I think that's worth something.

On the issue of NR, I've held on and used what most would call the two leading software's over the years, however in these past few months I've found a new product called Topaz Denoise, and it's taken NR to an entire new level.
I could write pages about this software alone(and I do spend a considerable amount of time covering it in my tutorial), but... the best advice I could give, would be to go check it out and see for yourself(be sure to watch the movies also ). I think you'll be genuinely impressed.

Whatever the case, Noise Ninja and other wavelet technology noise management software(like Noiseware) are in deep trouble I think.

Wow, that sounds impressive JB. I think Topaz has also a great HDR effect software, basing from others assessment of the product. although Im not yet sure as to how good it is compared to the Photomatix Pro, as I haven't tried both yet. I'm going to take a look at the Topaz Denoise a bit later. and thanks for the new info. really appreciate it.

[aleonx3]

For me, K-7 is better.

I like the smaller size of the camera for traveling and more usage out of it. Although I like the k10D which is similar in size to the K20D, but a smaller size with give more room for lens in the camera bag. For those who has bigger hands, they can always add the battery grip. However, I find the battery grip gets too much attention if you are traveling.

The few additional things I like about the K-7 is the improved FPS and the metering features. I hope Pentax will improve some of the deficiencies as some of you identified via firmware upgrade until the next major release is available. That way, people will be able to commit with the purchase without being afraid of getting stuck with the deficiencies.

[alexfoto]

In italy the difference on price between these two model is only 200 euro.
So better the k7.

K20 Feels a bit more comfortable for me not only it's size/grip but it's layout ... plus i can get one with a grip...

Same problem about size and grip but i think for those who can afford it, you could overcame this issue with a bit of time.

Note:
Why the heck about small camera!
The Nikon D300/D700/D3.. are really a big cameras (too big) but the pentax k20d-k10d is perfect. Magic greap. Approved.

[davidvcd]

Essentially I had to choose between keeping my K10, getting the K20 for 600$, the K7 for 1000$. I decided to keep the K10, sold the K20 (new for 75 in profit), bought the 31mm ltd and borrow the Kx from my dad when I need it while waiting for the sensor to be dropped in the K7 hopefully before the summer or for next xmas.