Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2009, 01:42 AM   #31
Veteran Member
cbaytan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Trabzon/Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,010
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
One other thing to keep in mind could be, that Pentax will eventually come up with a K8 or whatever it's name might be, that combines all sophisticated K7-features with the performance of KX. .
A new K8 with a performance of K-x? Is this a typo if you mean IQ by performance?

10-14-2009, 10:10 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
exactly Wombat, it took me quite a while to add K20D to the K100Ds I already had. Part of the decision was the focus adjustment, as I wasn't too enthusiastic about the focus accuracy of the K100Ds, part was my hope for better high ISO, as my K100Ds shown banding at 3200; in fact, K20D did a worse job on that, focus isn't much better either (still I like it for it's more film like grain). However, the only reason to upgrade for me could be high ISO performance. KX is extremely good at that it seems, actually the best I ever saw in the consumer and semi pro segment. See first review at http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Pentax-Kx-12172; very positive indeed and worth considering. K-7 is absolutely not on par with this. If you are interested in low light photography, KX will do a better job I guess, as it obviously got over the banding issue K7 and K20D had. One other thing to keep in mind could be, that Pentax will eventually come up with a K8 or whatever it's name might be, that combines all sophisticated K7-features with the performance of KX. By that time then, we are probably already prospecting full format, so better be prepared to purchase the right lenses in time;-)... .
better in HIGH ISO performance, YES ! but generally better in IQ, I wouldn't say so. the K-7 has better much detail as compared to the initial k-x results which are quite a bit softer. even when used with kit lens. anyway, I would be interested to see how the k-x would perform with better glass. until then, I wouldn't jump immediately into that conclusion. btw, we are talking about a 12MP sensor versus a 14.6 sensor here. so that alone should be a thing to consider.
10-14-2009, 11:30 AM   #33
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,213
From talking to the outsourced support department for Pentax UK, a lot of the advantage in the K-7 lies in its memory/processing abilities. In other words if you're shooting a lot or even 'machine gunning' with the K-7 it can go on longer, and keeps going, and going, and going... whereas the KX can't manage this to the same degree.

I don't know if that's been independantly tested/confirmed by anyone?

Noise is another story that I still havent gotten to the bottom of yet.
10-14-2009, 02:34 PM   #34
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by cbaytan Quote
A new K8 with a performance of K-x? Is this a typo if you mean IQ by performance?
should have been more accurate in wording. ISO performance was what I referred to. This was the most prevalent issue of Pentax to my experience. Having seen the impressive results of KX, I can only assume, Pentax has got access to better sensors or deeper know-how to use them or even both. I agree to what was said lately, that K7 might be more punchy in detail, which should be obvious due to the higher pixel count, but I see the banding is a real issue, that both, K20D (that I have personal experience with) and, according to the reports given in this forum, and K7 exhibit. This may - to my findings - affect shots down to as low as ISO 800 if you look closely enough. I got my sample adjusted, but with no satisfactory result. Banding however, seems to be no issue anymore with KX. This is a great step forward for Pentax. I am actually very close to order a KX as "low-light" specialist.

10-14-2009, 06:06 PM   #35
Veteran Member
cbaytan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Trabzon/Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,010
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
should have been more accurate in wording. ISO performance was what I referred to. This was the most prevalent issue of Pentax to my experience. Having seen the impressive results of KX, I can only assume, Pentax has got access to better sensors or deeper know-how to use them or even both. I agree to what was said lately, that K7 might be more punchy in detail, which should be obvious due to the higher pixel count, but I see the banding is a real issue, that both, K20D (that I have personal experience with) and, according to the reports given in this forum, and K7 exhibit. This may - to my findings - affect shots down to as low as ISO 800 if you look closely enough. I got my sample adjusted, but with no satisfactory result. Banding however, seems to be no issue anymore with KX. This is a great step forward for Pentax. I am actually very close to order a KX as "low-light" specialist.
I wasn't aware K7 have such a problem, by banding do you mean posterization like 1'st picture or Moire like this by banding in the 2'nd pic?

Does banding occur in low ISO's also?

PS. Pictures taken from : DPanswer: Defects
Attached Images
   

Last edited by cbaytan; 10-14-2009 at 07:19 PM. Reason: emphesizing
10-14-2009, 07:14 PM   #36
Veteran Member
georgweb's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,381
Cbaytan,
I think your examples show different things than high ISO banding. FWIW I see this with very high ISO and/or long exposures and it is horizontal fine stripes. I ain't got no K7 but guess that's a general digital phenomenon like your two examples also. I had a look at your link and my best guess would be the line noise.

I am very intrigued by the K-X for the same reasons (real-world low light photos) many others here have posted: The K-X uses another company's film than the K7. That's a new technology from Sony (scroll down one frame) and it is very simply gathering more light. The same technology is in the Sony A500/550 and afaik in the Nikon D5000, as well as in two Sony point-and-shoot cams.

Good technology :-)
Georg (the techie)
10-14-2009, 07:56 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
should have been more accurate in wording. ISO performance was what I referred to. This was the most prevalent issue of Pentax to my experience. Having seen the impressive results of KX, I can only assume, Pentax has got access to better sensors or deeper know-how to use them or even both. I agree to what was said lately, that K7 might be more punchy in detail, which should be obvious due to the higher pixel count, but I see the banding is a real issue, that both, K20D (that I have personal experience with) and, according to the reports given in this forum, and K7 exhibit. This may - to my findings - affect shots down to as low as ISO 800 if you look closely enough. I got my sample adjusted, but with no satisfactory result. Banding however, seems to be no issue anymore with KX. This is a great step forward for Pentax. I am actually very close to order a KX as "low-light" specialist.
this would be more correct assessment. I do admit that the k-x is really tempting considering the High-ISO noise performance and usable 12800 images. from what I have seen so far is that it is quickly narrowing the gap and advantage of current FF dslrs High ISO performance. honestly, I believe it already did overtook or did better results of other FF dslrs with regards to High ISO performance. honestly, the k-x results does look like it did better in preserving the details of the images rather than smear the images caused by NR by other APS-C brand camera. although it is still soft for my taste. I might consider having one as a second body or just wait til next year for something better with both detail and High ISO performance. whether it would be in a FF, 645D, or an APS-C sensor camera, I'll be sold as hell.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-15-2009 at 05:48 AM.
10-15-2009, 02:14 AM   #38
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by georgweb Quote
The K-X uses another company's film than the K7. That's a new technology from Sony (scroll down one frame) and it is very simply gathering more light. The same technology is in the Sony A500/550 and afaik in the Nikon D5000, as well as in two Sony point-and-shoot cams.
Georg,

I am sorry to disappoint you.


Because quite a few believe what you just posted, let me spell out the truth here.

Sony introduced "Exmor R" sensors which use back illumination. And to confuse the masses (and sell more stuff) it rebranded their normal sensors as "Exmor" which doesn't have anything to do with back illumination.

AFAIK, only some P&S already have "Exmor R", no dSLR. Definitely NOT Sony A500/550. This was confirmed by Sony.

So, there is no a priori reason the K-x should perform better noise-wise than the K-7.

However, the plain "Exmor" already has another interesting feature: A/D converters on chip (1 per line) rather than off chip (one per channel). Will be interesting to see what this means for live view and video.


And since you are German, here is a link for you: http://szene.digitalkamera.de/blogs/randnotizen/archive/2009/09/05/sony-exmo...achfolger.aspx

10-15-2009, 03:53 AM   #39
Veteran Member
georgweb's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,381
Thanks Falk for clarifying,
I appreciate your insight knowledge exactly for the reasons you mentioned, separating the marketing hype from real innovation, which I obviously have missed :-)

I have read your linked article and understand that the new technology is too expensive relative to the smaller gains it would bring in DSLR sensors ATM. OTOH I still stick to my assumption that Pentax K-X, Sony A500 and Nikon D5000 share the same sensor and therefore it'll be really interesting to compare real world low light image quality of those three.

I am looking for a good low light P&S for sometime now and have given up on the old Fuji FD30/31 cause they are still too expensive. In that regard those Sony P&S (and who knows which companies follow) deserve a close look sometime.

Best, Georg (the would-be techie :-)
10-15-2009, 04:38 AM   #40
Senior Member
Sew-Classic's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 215
I just did a quick search of the boards as I somehow recall a fair amount of disapointment expressed by some with the K20D and is image noise. - Yep, indeed, it seems folks have been unhappy with that one too. But now, it's the best because DPR says so?

Stepping back a bit and looking at this whole issue of image noise, it seems that all of the mid-range and "pro-sumer" DSLR's (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, etc..) can produce stunning images under a variety of circumstances. They can all produce crap as well.

Anyhow, if we are going to take the noise "tests" that DPR publishes as the gospel, then the 14 MP, $1200 (Per amazon) K-7 perfomrs on par with the 12 MP, $1700 (Amazon price) Nikon D300, and surpasses the 15 MP, $1000 (Amazon), Canon 50D. Without going even touching on many of the other advantages of the K-7, and just looking at this, I wouldn't be disapointed.

Personally, I like to look at some of the images produced by the camera from a variety of photogs to judge it's potential.

Besides, if the current generation of camera isn't "lacking" in some area(s), then it would be tough for the manufacturers to sell us the next, latest and greatest camera with more, better, bigger ....whatever...stuff.

It's interesting that all this whoopla over the k-7 and noise surfaces just as Pentax is releasing the k-x.......just saying.....
10-15-2009, 05:21 AM   #41
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Sew-Classic Quote
Besides, if the current generation of camera isn't "lacking" in some area(s), then it would be tough for the manufacturers to sell us the next, latest and greatest camera with more, better, bigger ....whatever...stuff.
Gigapixel camera with tac sharp pixels so I don't need change lenses anymore. Millisecond focussing. 32 Bit EXR RAWs out of camera. 10s long term exposures electronically stabilized. Fully downsampled 1080p@48Hz. Full resolution panoramas out of a video sweep.

There is enough to keep us buying w/o any need to make cameras worse than they need to be. And all of the above is technically feasible (well, replace Gigapixel by 200 MPixel).
10-15-2009, 06:33 AM   #42
Senior Member
Sew-Classic's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 215
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Gigapixel camera with tac sharp pixels so I don't need change lenses anymore. Millisecond focussing. 32 Bit EXR RAWs out of camera. 10s long term exposures electronically stabilized. Fully downsampled 1080p@48Hz. Full resolution panoramas out of a video sweep.

There is enough to keep us buying w/o any need to make cameras worse than they need to be.
Yep, that's it exactly. There is always something about the current camera that could be improved..focus speed, resolution, FPS, more better features (video, stereo, etc..), and image noise.

My point is that it isn't so much that the K20D or K-7 or whatever model isn't good on it's own merits, but that good never quite seems to be good enough or cheap enough. This isn't a knock of anyone or anything, just the nature of the DSLR beast.

QuoteOriginally posted by Sew-Classic Quote
Anyhow, if we are going to take the noise "tests" that DPR publishes as the gospel, then the 14 MP, $1200 (Per amazon) K-7 performs on par with the 12 MP, $1700 (Amazon price) Nikon D300, and surpasses the 15 MP, $1000 (Amazon), Canon 50D. Without going even touching on many of the other advantages of the K-7, and just looking at this, I wouldn't be disapointed ....
-The K20D turns out to be the leader in this DPR test, and yet people still were distasified and felt that it lacked in comparison to other DSLR's in that regard- at least based on a quick serach of past posts on the forum.

Personally, I'll be lucky to pull 1/10th of the capability out of any DSLR, even my "lowly" k2000. So, I'll just go try and learn some more and keep my stupid mouth shut about the matter.
10-15-2009, 07:14 AM   #43
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 62
QuoteOriginally posted by cbaytan Quote
I wasn't aware K7 have such a problem, by banding do you mean posterization like 1'st picture or Moire like this by banding in the 2'nd pic?
Does banding occur in low ISO's also?


to come back to your question: on my sample of K20D, it is visible in the deep shades down to ISO 800. I have to admit, I am very critical when it comes to image quality and I sometimes have to force myself to consider, that a photos primary determination is probably to be printed, which graciously corrects one or the other flaw and makes banding in ISO ranges up to 1600 mostly invisible. ISO 3200 and 6400 prints are prone to visible banding in prints. It may make you discard a shot. Banding is most obvious in dark portions and middle tones, as it is caused by lack of light, the sensor obviously cannot cope with, probably due to high electrical leakage of the "pixels". Noise opposed to banding can be quite attractive as I see it - all film pic's of the past had it; plus the grain K20D produced looked more "professional" film-like that that of older CCD-models for what I found. Grain and color noise can also be pretty well reduces by PP, banding seems to be kind of exhausting to handle. See example attached, picture by night plus 100%-crop of upper left corner.
Attached Images
   

Last edited by kasv; 10-15-2009 at 07:20 AM. Reason: atachment formatted faulty
10-15-2009, 08:09 AM   #44
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by kasv Quote
Does banding occur in low ISO's also?


to come back to your question: on my sample of K20D, it is visible in the deep shades down to ISO 800. I have to admit, I am very critical when it comes to image quality and I sometimes have to force myself to consider, that a photos primary determination is probably to be printed, which graciously corrects one or the other flaw and makes banding in ISO ranges up to 1600 mostly invisible. ISO 3200 and 6400 prints are prone to visible banding in prints. It may make you discard a shot. Banding is most obvious in dark portions and middle tones, as it is caused by lack of light, the sensor obviously cannot cope with, probably due to high electrical leakage of the "pixels". Noise opposed to banding can be quite attractive as I see it - all film pic's of the past had it; plus the grain K20D produced looked more "professional" film-like that that of older CCD-models for what I found. Grain and color noise can also be pretty well reduces by PP, banding seems to be kind of exhausting to handle. See example attached, picture by night plus 100%-crop of upper left corner.
banding could be a pain especially when colored. it is more evident especially when ISO is boosted up to get enough light, a bit of small aperture opening, inadequate shutterspeed (shutter needs to be open much longer) and high key adjustment. there is no way you could shoot handheld with a slow lens. so the solutions you have inorder to atleast avoid banding or decrease the possibility of banding is to use a fast lens, use a tripod , and exposing a bit longer. bracketing images for HDR could also be a great alternative.

anyway, I guess the demand for a great HigH ISO performing camera keeps getting higher by the minute, especially if one wants to shoot as quickly as possible without bother. oh the convenience of technology. makes life easier for photographers and non-photographers alike.
10-18-2009, 12:04 AM   #45
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 136
K7 also has an audio input for video, doesn't look like the KX has one.

K7 has better battery life with batt grip compatibility.

And 24 > 30. It looks fine and gives you 20 percent more storage space on your cards and 20 percent faster rendering times.
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, cameras, dslr, k-7, k-x, photography, videos
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WooWhoo -- Pentax Canada Price Drops :D :D and one price increase Jack Simpson Pentax News and Rumors 45 05-06-2009 10:10 PM
Any difference?!!! mchud Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 11-24-2008 07:23 AM
Price difference magnum1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 06-08-2008 07:52 AM
And the Difference is ? Jesus Photographic Technique 15 09-26-2007 02:13 PM
What's the difference between ... kjao Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 12 06-17-2007 08:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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