[jeffkrol]

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

[thirdofthree]

Start here and 1000's of other related threads

Thanks, Jeff!

[WMBP]

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

[jbinpg]

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

[WMBP]

...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

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

[Rupert]

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.

[Rupert]

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.