Comparison of pictures from NikonD700 and Pentax K-7

therion · 08-28-2009, 11:51 AM

My comparison of Nikon D700 FF 12.1Mpix and Pentax K-7 APS-C 14.6Mpix:

Photographed to RAW, converted with Adobe Camera Raw 5.4, no noise reduction and no sharpening.

Conclusion: Resolution is very similar, I can print perfect looking 70x90cm pictures from K-7. Almost no difference for photographing landscapes, etc....

Just noise si better on Nikon D700, even at ISO 100 as You can see.

ytterbium · 08-28-2009, 12:04 PM

Can't see. Can you provide us with link?

therion · 08-28-2009, 12:07 PM

I´m sorry, I have used this attachment, is not it working?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42059&stc=1&d=1251484943

pingflood · 08-28-2009, 12:08 PM

Not working.. but if you're talking about lower ISO performance, why would you be surprised that a 14.6MP APS-C camera outperforms or does as well as a 12.something MP FF camera? If people want high res for the price they get an A900 or 5D II instead of a D700; the D700's strength is low light and the AF system.

therion · 08-28-2009, 12:11 PM

I think 12Mpix FF is closer to 14.6Mpix APS-C for comparison.

pingflood · 08-28-2009, 12:24 PM

Yeah, but you're missing the point... FF isn't about just resolution, it's about DOF control, dynamic range, and high ISO sensitivity. Neither is going to make a difference in a lower ISO test.

Now go shoot some pics in a bar at ISO 3200 and see if you notice any difference between the two. I suspect you will.

nostatic · 08-28-2009, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

Yeah, but you're missing the point... FF isn't about just resolution, it's about DOF control, dynamic range, and high ISO sensitivity. Neither is going to make a difference in a lower ISO test.

Now go shoot some pics in a bar at ISO 3200 and see if you notice any difference between the two. I suspect you will.

Today I was shooting indoor available light (often dark) candids, switching between 31/1.8 nd 77/1.8 on the K20d. I have to admit more than once I was thinking, "I wish I had a D700," especially when the 77 was hunting in the dark.

But I also was juggling between the K20d and the DLux4 (backup) and was carrying the K20d for almost 3 hours while shooting. At that point I was thinking, "I'm glad this thing doesn't weight too much." And as I was snapping away I was also thinking, "I wish I had a quieter shutter."

No perfect solution. And plenty of keeper so I can't complain too much...

jgredline · 08-28-2009, 01:27 PM

I have both the D700 and K-7 as well and Jpegs are very close, but you can't compare noise (about 2maybe more stops better), AF speed, and DOF...But the K-7 does hold it own as far as image quality goes in ISO levels under 800

therion · 08-29-2009, 02:02 AM

I really like K-7´s small size and weight against D700.

Jgredline: I have done some AF tests with K-7 and 50-135/2.8 SDM, it was so fast, do You think D700 is faster?

ktwse · 08-29-2009, 06:12 AM

I sold my D700 before I got the K-7 so haven't been able to test them head to head. Also, I've only used the K-7 with Ltds and the WR kit zoom, maybe not the fastest lenses in the lineup. But I would say the D700 is slightly faster in locking focus, if only because the K-7 seems to microadjust it after it's acquired it...

DOF is obviously shallower, if that's what you're after but I'd say that goes both ways and actually can erase the noise advantage to a certain degree (ie you have to stop down on the D700 to get the entire subject in focus wherease you can shoot the K-7 more open).

I love the size of the K-7 and consider its advantages to be far more valuable to me than its disadvantages compared to the D700.

Thomas

pcarfan · 08-29-2009, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by ktwse

I sold my D700 before I got the K-7 so haven't been able to test them head to head. Also, I've only used the K-7 with Ltds and the WR kit zoom, maybe not the fastest lenses in the lineup. But I would say the D700 is slightly faster in locking focus, if only because the K-7 seems to microadjust it after it's acquired it...

DOF is obviously shallower, if that's what you're after but I'd say that goes both ways and actually can erase the noise advantage to a certain degree (ie you have to stop down on the D700 to get the entire subject in focus wherease you can shoot the K-7 more open).

I love the size of the K-7 and consider its advantages to be far more valuable to me than its disadvantages compared to the D700.

Thomas

Thomas, thank you for your comments...that D700 is such a sweeeaaat camera, glad I read what you have to say...you make an excellent point about the dof and having to stop down nullifying the iso advantage somewhat...never thought of it that way.

pcarfan · 08-29-2009, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

I have both the D700 and K-7 as well and Jpegs are very close, but you can't compare noise (about 2maybe more stops better), AF speed, and DOF...But the K-7 does hold it own as far as image quality goes in ISO levels under 800

D700 and the K-7...my dream set-up. Lucky you.....

**Ash** · 08-29-2009, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by ktwse

DOF is obviously shallower, if that's what you're after but I'd say that goes both ways and actually can erase the noise advantage to a certain degree (ie you have to stop down on the D700 to get the entire subject in focus wherease you can shoot the K-7 more open).
Thomas

That puts things in perfect perspective Thomas.
Thanks for sharing that - a point often disregarded.

jgredline · 08-29-2009, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by therion

Jgredline: I have done some AF tests with K-7 and 50-135/2.8 SDM, it was so fast, do You think D700 is faster?

In AF.C the D700 is much faster to auto focus, but in AF.S they are very close. As it starts to get dark, the differences are more pronounced. Now in saying this, we are talking very small differences and in my case both cameras react faster than my shutter finger

philbaum · 08-29-2009, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

Yeah, but you're missing the point... FF isn't about just resolution, it's about DOF control, dynamic range, and high ISO sensitivity. Neither is going to make a difference in a lower ISO test.

Now go shoot some pics in a bar at ISO 3200 and see if you notice any difference between the two. I suspect you will.

With all respect, he's making his point about for his type of photos, he doesn't see too much difference. I think its rude to hijack someone else's thread by changing the discussion to your point of comparison.

08-28-2009, 11:51 AM	#1
therion Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SLovakia Photos: Gallery Posts: 141	Comparison of pictures from NikonD700 and Pentax K-7 My comparison of Nikon D700 FF 12.1Mpix and Pentax K-7 APS-C 14.6Mpix: Photographed to RAW, converted with Adobe Camera Raw 5.4, no noise reduction and no sharpening. Conclusion: Resolution is very similar, I can print perfect looking 70x90cm pictures from K-7. Almost no difference for photographing landscapes, etc.... Just noise si better on Nikon D700, even at ISO 100 as You can see.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 21/3.2 vs Tamron 17-50/2.8 Comparison	walter	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	07-26-2010 08:34 PM
Why is there no thread on posting pictures of a specific focal length comparison?	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-21-2010 11:44 AM
Pentax K-x and K-7 size comparison	kxuser	Pentax DSLR Discussion	33	04-09-2010 11:55 PM
Pentax K-7 and K-x size comparison	boesgaard	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	02-26-2010 06:09 AM
COMPARISON-PENTAX-QUANTARAY	charliezap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	02-13-2010 07:57 PM

08-28-2009, 12:04 PM	#2
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Can't see. Can you provide us with link?

08-28-2009, 12:07 PM	#3
therion Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SLovakia Photos: Gallery Posts: 141 Original Poster	I´m sorry, I have used this attachment, is not it working? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42059&stc=1&d=1251484943

08-28-2009, 12:08 PM	#4
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Not working.. but if you're talking about lower ISO performance, why would you be surprised that a 14.6MP APS-C camera outperforms or does as well as a 12.something MP FF camera? If people want high res for the price they get an A900 or 5D II instead of a D700; the D700's strength is low light and the AF system.

08-28-2009, 12:11 PM	#5
therion Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SLovakia Photos: Gallery Posts: 141 Original Poster	I think 12Mpix FF is closer to 14.6Mpix APS-C for comparison.

08-28-2009, 12:24 PM	#6
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Yeah, but you're missing the point... FF isn't about just resolution, it's about DOF control, dynamic range, and high ISO sensitivity. Neither is going to make a difference in a lower ISO test. Now go shoot some pics in a bar at ISO 3200 and see if you notice any difference between the two. I suspect you will.

08-28-2009, 12:31 PM	#7
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by pingflood Yeah, but you're missing the point... FF isn't about just resolution, it's about DOF control, dynamic range, and high ISO sensitivity. Neither is going to make a difference in a lower ISO test. Now go shoot some pics in a bar at ISO 3200 and see if you notice any difference between the two. I suspect you will. Today I was shooting indoor available light (often dark) candids, switching between 31/1.8 nd 77/1.8 on the K20d. I have to admit more than once I was thinking, "I wish I had a D700," especially when the 77 was hunting in the dark. But I also was juggling between the K20d and the DLux4 (backup) and was carrying the K20d for almost 3 hours while shooting. At that point I was thinking, "I'm glad this thing doesn't weight too much." And as I was snapping away I was also thinking, "I wish I had a quieter shutter." No perfect solution. And plenty of keeper so I can't complain too much...

08-28-2009, 01:27 PM	#8
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	I have both the D700 and K-7 as well and Jpegs are very close, but you can't compare noise (about 2maybe more stops better), AF speed, and DOF...But the K-7 does hold it own as far as image quality goes in ISO levels under 800

08-29-2009, 02:02 AM	#9
therion Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SLovakia Photos: Gallery Posts: 141 Original Poster	I really like K-7´s small size and weight against D700. Jgredline: I have done some AF tests with K-7 and 50-135/2.8 SDM, it was so fast, do You think D700 is faster?

08-29-2009, 06:12 AM	#10
ktwse Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 57	I sold my D700 before I got the K-7 so haven't been able to test them head to head. Also, I've only used the K-7 with Ltds and the WR kit zoom, maybe not the fastest lenses in the lineup. But I would say the D700 is slightly faster in locking focus, if only because the K-7 seems to microadjust it after it's acquired it... DOF is obviously shallower, if that's what you're after but I'd say that goes both ways and actually can erase the noise advantage to a certain degree (ie you have to stop down on the D700 to get the entire subject in focus wherease you can shoot the K-7 more open). I love the size of the K-7 and consider its advantages to be far more valuable to me than its disadvantages compared to the D700. Thomas

08-29-2009, 07:31 AM	#11
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by ktwse I sold my D700 before I got the K-7 so haven't been able to test them head to head. Also, I've only used the K-7 with Ltds and the WR kit zoom, maybe not the fastest lenses in the lineup. But I would say the D700 is slightly faster in locking focus, if only because the K-7 seems to microadjust it after it's acquired it... DOF is obviously shallower, if that's what you're after but I'd say that goes both ways and actually can erase the noise advantage to a certain degree (ie you have to stop down on the D700 to get the entire subject in focus wherease you can shoot the K-7 more open). I love the size of the K-7 and consider its advantages to be far more valuable to me than its disadvantages compared to the D700. Thomas Thomas, thank you for your comments...that D700 is such a sweeeaaat camera, glad I read what you have to say...you make an excellent point about the dof and having to stop down nullifying the iso advantage somewhat...never thought of it that way.

08-29-2009, 07:32 AM	#12
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by jgredline I have both the D700 and K-7 as well and Jpegs are very close, but you can't compare noise (about 2maybe more stops better), AF speed, and DOF...But the K-7 does hold it own as far as image quality goes in ISO levels under 800 D700 and the K-7...my dream set-up. Lucky you.....

08-29-2009, 08:33 AM	#13
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by ktwse DOF is obviously shallower, if that's what you're after but I'd say that goes both ways and actually can erase the noise advantage to a certain degree (ie you have to stop down on the D700 to get the entire subject in focus wherease you can shoot the K-7 more open). Thomas That puts things in perfect perspective Thomas. Thanks for sharing that - a point often disregarded.

08-29-2009, 08:55 AM	#14
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by therion Jgredline: I have done some AF tests with K-7 and 50-135/2.8 SDM, it was so fast, do You think D700 is faster? In AF.C the D700 is much faster to auto focus, but in AF.S they are very close. As it starts to get dark, the differences are more pronounced. Now in saying this, we are talking very small differences and in my case both cameras react faster than my shutter finger

08-29-2009, 11:28 AM	#15
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by pingflood Yeah, but you're missing the point... FF isn't about just resolution, it's about DOF control, dynamic range, and high ISO sensitivity. Neither is going to make a difference in a lower ISO test. Now go shoot some pics in a bar at ISO 3200 and see if you notice any difference between the two. I suspect you will. With all respect, he's making his point about for his type of photos, he doesn't see too much difference. I think its rude to hijack someone else's thread by changing the discussion to your point of comparison.