Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2009, 10:50 AM   #16
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by thirdofthree Quote
Heh, I figured someone would ask. To be honest, I'm not competent enough in the realm of digital photography technology (yet?) to detail a proper methodology. I was hoping some of the far sharper and more experienced PFers could chime in. Sorry.
Start here and 1000's of other related threads.
Re: Pixel density - can the playing field be leveled???: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

09-02-2009, 10:57 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Highland Park, IL
Posts: 211
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Start here and 1000's of other related threads
Thanks, Jeff!
09-02-2009, 11:23 AM   #18
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
So, what is your suggested methodology?
The only methodology that has ever made any sense to me is to look at output. Ideally, you'd compare prints; less ideally, you'd compare jpegs with the same on-screen resolution.

I remember reading a review of the K20D that said it had worse noise than the K10D. I'd already taken quite a few photos with the K20D at the time I read that review and I wondered what they were smoking. Then I did a bit of pixel-peeping, looking at some of my noisier K10D and K20D shots at 100%. I was never completely sure, but it's possible they were right: At 100%, there might be slightly more noise in the K20D shots.

But who gives a darn about that? When I print, the K20D shots are at least as clean as the K10D prints and often cleaner, less noisy. Obviously, you can't compare prints at a size beyond the "natural" reach of one camera: it would be pointless to compare the K20D's 14.7MP images printed at their largest size (not sure what that is) and a K10D up-sampled to the same size. But I don't print a lot of shots (okay, I don't print ANY shots) that huge. A fair comparison for me is what the prints look like at, say, 5"x7" or 8"x10".

But comparing "final" jpeg output seems reasonable too. A lot of my photos these days - even my favorites - don't make it to paper at all. They stay on the computer, on the Web. What matters then is how the images look at the same jpeg resolution. Here the issue of compression arises, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. I suppose I'd say, size the images identically (both 600x800px, for example) and save them at 100% quality (least compression). Here again, the K20D images will be superior most of the time.

I don't have a K-7 to comment on, so I'm talking about the two cameras I do know well.

As for how much noise an engineer can observe viewing my pixels through a magnifying glass, I could not care less.


Will
09-02-2009, 12:52 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,299
I'm not sure if you mean viewing post-processed jpegs without or with noise reduction? You can make even a 6400ISO of a K10/K20D as china-white noiseless as a typical Canon jpeg if you are willing to forego some amount of detail.

Jack

09-02-2009, 01:07 PM   #20
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
...but it's possible they were right: At 100%, there might be slightly more noise in the K20D shots.

But who gives a darn about that? When I print, the K20D shots are at least as clean as the K10D prints and often cleaner, less noisy.


This reminds me of one of the old complaints about raw capture, that the raw files, when viewed on the computer, look "washed out" as compared to the jpegs that the user used to take. But it's not about what the bride looks like in the dressing room, it's about what she looks like when she is dressed and made up and walks down the aisle.

Too many peeping toms here. ;-)

Will
09-02-2009, 01:49 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Dubious Drewski Quote
You're ignoring the fact that I also included a downsampled version of the K7's image.
I'm not ignoring it. Your demonstration showed that it worked out this way for these particular cameras; my point was to simply observe that this should come as no surprise, since this is *always* true for *any* camera.
09-02-2009, 09:09 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,689
I'd love to compare.......

My K20D is very good at higher ISO's where I mostly shoot. I would love to do a side by side comparison with the K7, and if it was as good, I would buy it, no doubt. But the problem is there is no dealer that has one in stock in my small Metroplex of Dallas/Ft Worth, where we only have about four million people.

When I first got my K20D I was at a local eatery and I took this shot from over 40 ft away in low light at ISO 6400. I knew instantly that it was miles ahead of my K10D, no matter what any tester had to say or any charts and graphs or other measurebating he had done that made him go blind in the first place. I'd like the same confirmation from the K7, and maybe in generations to come Pentax will get a few in the hands of dealers of small areas like where I live.
09-02-2009, 09:10 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,689
I'd love to compare.......

My K20D is very good at higher ISO's where I mostly shoot. I would love to do a side by side comparison with the K7, and if it was as good, I would buy it, no doubt. But the problem is there is no dealer that has one in stock in my small Metroplex of Dallas/Ft Worth, where we only have about four million people.

When I first got my K20D I was at a local eatery and I took this shot from over 40 ft away in low light at ISO 6400. I knew instantly that it was miles ahead of my K10D, no matter what any tester had to say or any charts and graphs or other measurebating he had done that made him go blind in the first place. I'd like the same confirmation from the K7, and maybe in generations to come Pentax will get a few in the hands of dealers of small areas like where I live.



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, dng, dslr, files, images, k10, k7, look, mb, performance, photography, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x versus K20D ISO test rparmar Pentax DSLR Discussion 68 08-26-2010 02:19 PM
Very interesting AA battery test dosdan Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 0 10-17-2009 03:14 PM
Interesting DR Test and BG Noise Test of the K20D RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 06-25-2008 09:49 AM
Unscientific test of firmware versus autofocus Rick Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 05-13-2007 11:41 PM
K10 podcast with some interesting things slip Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 11-09-2006 02:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:33 AM. | 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