k7 vs A850. That was fast!!!!

ogl · 08-28-2009, 02:24 AM

For architecture and textures - FF will be better. But it's hard to get razor sharp picture from 24 MP FF like 10 MP APS-C can.

rawr · 08-28-2009, 08:42 AM

DXO Labs had some interesting things to say about how NR works in the A850:

DxOMark review for the Sony Alpha 850

and here's the full image quality technical report for the A850:

Alpha 850

Unfortunately DXO Labs have tested all three of the new Sony's, but have yet to do the K7.

Pentaxor · 08-28-2009, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by mistergee

Same Imaging Resource "Comparometer" page as the original post.

Select the cameras and choose pictures from dropdown list.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

thanks, btw I can't seem to find where you've got that cropped image comparison at image-resource.

snostorm · 08-28-2009, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by mistergee

Yet other comparison pictures tell a different story.
Sony on the left, K-7 on right.

I think you would be better served by comparing the centers of the frame instead of near the edges where lens resolution falls off. I think that this would give you a better idea of what each body/sensor can do at its best.

just my .02

Scott

jacksonpritt · 08-28-2009, 10:12 AM

Pentax K-7 on the Left <=> Sony A850 on the Right

ISO 6400

They both look pretty bad, but if I had to pick I'd probably go with the K-7.

jacksonpritt · 08-28-2009, 10:17 AM

jacksonpritt Pentax K-7 on the Left <=> Sony A850 on the Right

ISO 800

The Shot from the K-7 is sharper and the A850 is looking kind of soft, but there's more noticeable noise in the dark areas in the K-7 shot.

wlachan · 08-28-2009, 10:24 AM

Did they shoot posters or actual 3D objects? If the latter, the tests were not fair because both were done at f8 while FF has shallower DOF. Also, lens quality varies. Any tests are actually testing camera+lens, not just the camera.

gfmucci · 08-28-2009, 10:38 AM

I've found the Imaging Resources photo comparisons to be too variable and inconsistent to provide meaningful results. I don't own either camera, so I have nothing to gain by that statement.

shaolin95 · 08-28-2009, 10:44 AM

I agree about the variables but I am still very happy that the K20D looks so good compared to many of the others! LOL
The agony of waiting for the delivery....

unkabin · 08-28-2009, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by jacksonpritt

Pentax K-7 on the Left <=> Sony A850 on the Right

ISO 6400

They both look pretty bad, but if I had to pick I'd probably go with the K-7.

I'll take those strings (yarn? thread?) from the Sony over the K7. But the Sony does come off pretty bad in the OP's image. I'm in the camp that ends up feeling that these kinds of comparisons aren't all that useful (especially with different or, worse, unknown lenses). As soon as someone throws up an image that shows one camera's superiority, someone else throws up equally compelling evidence to the contrary. This is why I don't consider IQ-above-all as my buying philosophy. But I have to admit that I'm always drawn to these threads. It's sort of like watching a tennis match. Maybe reality TV. I don't like to admit that I watch them.

kittykat46 · 08-28-2009, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by snostorm

I think you would be better served by comparing the centers of the frame instead of near the edges where lens resolution falls off. I think that this would give you a better idea of what each body/sensor can do at its best.

just my .02

Scott

Off at the edges, the resolution , good or bad, is simply dependent on the quality of the lens, even individual variation between lenses of the same type.
Comparing the centres of the frame is a better match in terms of looking at the sensor capability.

The Sony's chroma (colour) noise at ISO6400 definitely looks worse - there are blotches of red noise on the black bottle cap. Then again, we already know the K-7 has very good chroma noise control from previous testing. Good to see the K-7 can hold itself up against a Full Frame camera costing (?) quite a bit more even for a "budget" FF.

pentaxmz · 08-28-2009, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes

The image speaks for itself.

I'd never buy a Sony digicam always found them to be overpriced and underperforming, yet people buy them because "It's a sony!"

I remember when I use to work in electrical retail I this burly mean looking guy come in wanting a Sony sound system, I asked him "Why not something better?" he goes "What's better than Sony?" I go "Oh well Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, etc" He looked at my confused and puzzled.

OMG! Please stop with this comparometer stuff!

The comparison images prove very little, if anything at all.

I swear, some of you people go at this with a disturbing religious zeal, looking for anything that will prove that your Camera is better than another.

You are not comparing apples to apples here. Many of the images on Comparometer use dissimilar lenses, lens focal length (or magnification), lighting is sometime different, camera angle, exposure parameters, camera settings, lens aperture settings, white balance, and the list go on....

The above posted comparison photos should do nothing more than prove my point. Citing any example on this site to 'prove' your camera is better just makes you look foolish!

Sorry, no offence intended to C.W Tsorotes or anyone else that fell into this trap.

pentaxmz · 08-28-2009, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by kittykat46

Off at the edges, the resolution , good or bad, is simply dependent on the quality of the lens, even individual variation between lenses of the same type.
Comparing the centres of the frame is a better match in terms of looking at the sensor capability.

The Sony's chroma (colour) noise at ISO6400 definitely looks worse - there are blotches of red noise on the black bottle cap. Then again, we already know the K-7 has very good chroma noise control from previous testing. Good to see the K-7 can hold itself up against a Full Frame camera costing (?) quite a bit more even for a "budget" FF.

Or it could be a focus or depth of field setting. Chroma can be controlled by camera NR settings. The most appropriate NR settings on the K7 may even beat the best DSLR in the world is it's camera settings are sub-optimal.

That's why Comparometer is useless UNLESS all criteria are carefully matched up (which is nearly impossible to accomplish).

rawr · 08-28-2009, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by pentaxmz

I swear, some of you people go at this with a disturbing religious zeal, looking for anything that will prove that your Camera is better than another.

+1.
There's an awful lot of that about. Often evidence is discarded if it gets in the way of zeal too, I've noticed.

shaolin95 · 08-28-2009, 07:58 PM

Which is the point I tried to bring up when I mentioned how my K20D was looking pretty much better than anything else. As much as I want that to be a reality, I know it cannot be true.

08-28-2009, 10:12 AM	#20
jacksonpritt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 124	Pentax K-7 on the Left <=> Sony A850 on the Right ISO 6400 They both look pretty bad, but if I had to pick I'd probably go with the K-7. Attached Images

08-28-2009, 10:17 AM	#21
jacksonpritt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 124	jacksonpritt Pentax K-7 on the Left <=> Sony A850 on the Right ISO 800 The Shot from the K-7 is sharper and the A850 is looking kind of soft, but there's more noticeable noise in the dark areas in the K-7 shot. Attached Images

08-28-2009, 07:31 PM	#26
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by snostorm I think you would be better served by comparing the centers of the frame instead of near the edges where lens resolution falls off. I think that this would give you a better idea of what each body/sensor can do at its best. just my .02 Scott Off at the edges, the resolution , good or bad, is simply dependent on the quality of the lens, even individual variation between lenses of the same type. Comparing the centres of the frame is a better match in terms of looking at the sensor capability. The Sony's chroma (colour) noise at ISO6400 definitely looks worse - there are blotches of red noise on the black bottle cap. Then again, we already know the K-7 has very good chroma noise control from previous testing. Good to see the K-7 can hold itself up against a Full Frame camera costing (?) quite a bit more even for a "budget" FF. Last edited by kittykat46; 08-28-2009 at 07:43 PM.

08-28-2009, 07:58 PM	#30
shaolin95 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 201	Which is the point I tried to bring up when I mentioned how my K20D was looking pretty much better than anything else. As much as I want that to be a reality, I know it cannot be true. Last edited by shaolin95; 08-29-2009 at 08:49 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's a FAST (used to be fast) film lens	neverbnnba	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	07-03-2010 05:42 PM
How fast is the K7 really	Jomy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	11-16-2009 01:50 PM
What is "Fast" about the fast Fifties...	jess	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	01-04-2009 05:18 PM
A Fast Fifty Is Really A Fast 75mm	drewdlephone	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	182	12-08-2008 10:38 AM
Help Fast	NYpHoToGraphEr	Photographic Technique	4	11-08-2007 11:32 AM

08-28-2009, 02:24 AM	#16
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	For architecture and textures - FF will be better. But it's hard to get razor sharp picture from 24 MP FF like 10 MP APS-C can.

08-28-2009, 08:42 AM	#17
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	DXO Labs had some interesting things to say about how NR works in the A850: DxOMark review for the Sony Alpha 850 and here's the full image quality technical report for the A850: Alpha 850 Unfortunately DXO Labs have tested all three of the new Sony's, but have yet to do the K7.

08-28-2009, 08:52 AM	#18
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by mistergee Same Imaging Resource "Comparometer" page as the original post. Select the cameras and choose pictures from dropdown list. Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page thanks, btw I can't seem to find where you've got that cropped image comparison at image-resource.

08-28-2009, 09:16 AM	#19
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by mistergee Yet other comparison pictures tell a different story. Sony on the left, K-7 on right. I think you would be better served by comparing the centers of the frame instead of near the edges where lens resolution falls off. I think that this would give you a better idea of what each body/sensor can do at its best. just my .02 Scott

08-28-2009, 10:24 AM	#22
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Did they shoot posters or actual 3D objects? If the latter, the tests were not fair because both were done at f8 while FF has shallower DOF. Also, lens quality varies. Any tests are actually testing camera+lens, not just the camera.

08-28-2009, 10:38 AM	#23
gfmucci Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The Villages, FL Posts: 70	I've found the Imaging Resources photo comparisons to be too variable and inconsistent to provide meaningful results. I don't own either camera, so I have nothing to gain by that statement.

08-28-2009, 10:44 AM	#24
shaolin95 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 201	I agree about the variables but I am still very happy that the K20D looks so good compared to many of the others! LOL The agony of waiting for the delivery....

08-28-2009, 01:19 PM	#25
unkabin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Moorhead, MN Posts: 176	Originally posted by jacksonpritt Pentax K-7 on the Left <=> Sony A850 on the Right ISO 6400 They both look pretty bad, but if I had to pick I'd probably go with the K-7. I'll take those strings (yarn? thread?) from the Sony over the K7. But the Sony does come off pretty bad in the OP's image. I'm in the camp that ends up feeling that these kinds of comparisons aren't all that useful (especially with different or, worse, unknown lenses). As soon as someone throws up an image that shows one camera's superiority, someone else throws up equally compelling evidence to the contrary. This is why I don't consider IQ-above-all as my buying philosophy. But I have to admit that I'm always drawn to these threads. It's sort of like watching a tennis match. Maybe reality TV. I don't like to admit that I watch them.

08-28-2009, 07:47 PM	#27
pentaxmz Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 659	Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes The image speaks for itself. I'd never buy a Sony digicam always found them to be overpriced and underperforming, yet people buy them because "It's a sony!" I remember when I use to work in electrical retail I this burly mean looking guy come in wanting a Sony sound system, I asked him "Why not something better?" he goes "What's better than Sony?" I go "Oh well Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, etc" He looked at my confused and puzzled. OMG! Please stop with this comparometer stuff! The comparison images prove very little, if anything at all. I swear, some of you people go at this with a disturbing religious zeal, looking for anything that will prove that your Camera is better than another. You are not comparing apples to apples here. Many of the images on Comparometer use dissimilar lenses, lens focal length (or magnification), lighting is sometime different, camera angle, exposure parameters, camera settings, lens aperture settings, white balance, and the list go on.... The above posted comparison photos should do nothing more than prove my point. Citing any example on this site to 'prove' your camera is better just makes you look foolish! Sorry, no offence intended to C.W Tsorotes or anyone else that fell into this trap.

08-28-2009, 07:51 PM	#28
pentaxmz Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 659	Originally posted by kittykat46 Off at the edges, the resolution , good or bad, is simply dependent on the quality of the lens, even individual variation between lenses of the same type. Comparing the centres of the frame is a better match in terms of looking at the sensor capability. The Sony's chroma (colour) noise at ISO6400 definitely looks worse - there are blotches of red noise on the black bottle cap. Then again, we already know the K-7 has very good chroma noise control from previous testing. Good to see the K-7 can hold itself up against a Full Frame camera costing (?) quite a bit more even for a "budget" FF. Or it could be a focus or depth of field setting. Chroma can be controlled by camera NR settings. The most appropriate NR settings on the K7 may even beat the best DSLR in the world is it's camera settings are sub-optimal. That's why Comparometer is useless UNLESS all criteria are carefully matched up (which is nearly impossible to accomplish).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-28-2009, 07:56 PM	#29
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by pentaxmz I swear, some of you people go at this with a disturbing religious zeal, looking for anything that will prove that your Camera is better than another. +1. There's an awful lot of that about. Often evidence is discarded if it gets in the way of zeal too, I've noticed.