[Pentaxor]

Could you link to some of these soft samples (I assume these aren't the horrible flickr ones). One person has the opposite view, saying the K-x has better per-pixel sharpness than the K-7

In the a very controlled comparison a member did against the K2000, the K-x seemed to be just as sharp and detail retaining.

aside from those flicker results, you can find a lot in the internet. as far as personal results from the k-x that I shoot and saw at the camera stores, the SD card stayed with them as it wasn't mine. but from my own assessment, I didn't get the so-called sharpness that I was looking for. I did the same type of initial testing before I got the K-7 some months ago, so I'm sure that the testing was no different. one thing I do like is the High ISO performance, but that's it. by far, I gave the K-x a fair share of good and not so good review of the IQ results.

I did mention before that I needed to see how the k-x performed if it used a LTD or anything better than the kit lens. I did just that with the DA40 which was ok but less than compared to what I saw from K-7 and a DA40 combo. that's why I'm hoping for a better new Sony sensor. there's nothing wrong about it if you want better results. that's what we are all looking for.

[zxaar]

about the softness. Here is one of the test shots i took in shop with k7.

This is base iso shot , iso 200.




and here is 100% crop from the file
(notice the noise and smudging of details).




I think if this is acceptable at base iso, then k-x produces acceptable results because k-x files not not worse than this.

[Pentaxor]

about the softness. Here is one of the test shots i took in shop with k7.

This is base iso shot , iso 200.




and here is 100% crop from the file
(notice the noise and smudging of details).




I think if this is acceptable at base iso, then k-x produces acceptable results because k-x files not not worse than this.

and from what I saw, it's the complete opposite. btw, some strong CA in there.

[Pentaxor]

basing from the exifs data, you used an FA50/1.4 (default aperture). and you applied a substantial amount of contrast and sharpness which you may not know could cause an adverse effect to image noise and sharpness. there was a discussion about that months ago, so I think you need to do some digging.

btw, those results do look ugly and I don't know what you did because it's quite uncharacteristic with a lens like that on a K-7 to produce such horrendous output. mind you that I haven't encountered an issue or result like that on the K-7 with such a great lens or any lens with such caliber.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-27-2009 at 10:40 PM.

[Pentaxor]

here is a sample shot during initial testing taken a few months ago with the K-7. this is a straight out of the camera jpeg results and no PP nor sharpening done afterwards except for resize and file compression. taken at ISO 100.

full image



and at 100% crop




zxaar, I have no idea why and how you got that kind of result from the K-7. but it sure thus is far from what I am getting from ISO 100 and even at ISO 200. I could increase and boost the ISO a lil bit more to 400 and my image would still be better than that from what you got.


P.S.
I could make this a lot more better with in-camera NR adjustment setting, custom image tweaking or if I shot this at RAW and PP it later using Photoshop. but this is just to show that the camera jpeg outputs are very nice as well and doesn't show the horrible results that you've shown.

[Pentaxor]

another cropped section of the same photo. just to make sure that the result is consistent across the plain.



NOTE: there is degradation of the image uploaded due to file compression, but it does show that the results are otherwise nice here and much nicer in the original photo.

[Eruditass]

I think you can get both bad and good results from both, might as well wait for a good K-x K-7 comparison.

[Daemos]

I had a chance to go to two camera stores and use a Kx and compare it to my K7 with my 16-50mm DA* at 50mm.

The first test I did was not done right (I am new to this) but I went to another store and was able to take the advice I was given to hopefully make a better comparision:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/77902-k7-kx-pictur...-download.html

[Pentaxor]

I think you can get both bad and good results from both, might as well wait for a good K-x K-7 comparison.

for me, that would be unnecessary since I did some initial testing in the shops myself. that alone is conclusive enough, unless if I did something wrong which would be unlikely. I could buy it for someone who isn't really into minute details and sharpness but would be contented in a 4x6 print and night time shooting w/o flash. very good for entry-level if you ask me.

[Pentaxor]

I had a chance to go to two camera stores and use a Kx and compare it to my K7 with my 16-50mm DA* at 50mm.

The first test I did was not done right (I am new to this) but I went to another store and was able to take the advice I was given to hopefully make a better comparision:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/77902-k7-kx-pictur...-download.html

thank you for that comparison.

[zxaar]

zxaar, I have no idea why and how you got that kind of result from the K-7. but it sure thus is far from what I am getting from ISO 100 and even at ISO 200. I could increase and boost the ISO a lil bit more to 400 and my image would still be better than that from what you got.

actually i tried twice on different days and i always got similar results.

Anyway i am not basing my conclusion on this one file.
and to be honest, i have seen much better images posted by k7 users.

Anyway, what i did conclude was that using k7 means using it in raw, which i do not like to do. ( i will change my tune in a minute you will see).

When k-x released i got much better out of jpeg and that killed my deal with k7.

So about not using dng, using raw was not really big deal was k7 too because it saves dng format.
With k-x i found out that i can not control sharpness / saturation/ contrast in jpeg so jpegs are out of question and i am back to dng.

What changed though is i spent 500$ less with k-x and got the same thing.

[jerrymouse]

actually i tried twice on different days and i always got similar results.
With k-x i found out that i can not control sharpness / saturation/ contrast in jpeg so jpegs are out of question and i am back to dng.

You can set all these settings pressing INFO button and OK in the upper left corner.

[zxaar]

You can set all these settings pressing INFO button and OK in the upper left corner.

hey thanks i checked, yes there is a way to control all these settings.

:-D

[saien]

That's pretty odd zxaar, I haven't seen anything like it out of my camera either (except from once practising manual focus without my glasses on ).

On topic - I was a fairly early adopter and even though I paid a lot more than what people are paying these days I still don't regret it. I certainly wouldn't rather have a K-x.. unless I can recover the difference, return the K-x and buy a cheaper K-7! Like everyone else I don't need the high ISO, but I do need the WR, and I find the top LCD and two dials really useful too.

[Daemos]

actually i tried twice on different days and i always got similar results.

Anyway i am not basing my conclusion on this one file.
and to be honest, i have seen much better images posted by k7 users.

Anyway, what i did conclude was that using k7 means using it in raw, which i do not like to do. ( i will change my tune in a minute you will see).

When k-x released i got much better out of jpeg and that killed my deal with k7.

So about not using dng, using raw was not really big deal was k7 too because it saves dng format.
With k-x i found out that i can not control sharpness / saturation/ contrast in jpeg so jpegs are out of question and i am back to dng.

What changed though is i spent 500$ less with k-x and got the same thing.

Based on my experience the K7 from ISO100-1600 takes more detailed pictures than the KX RAW and Jpeg (I did 2 comparisons) at 3200+ The K7 is more defined but noiser and the KX is softer so IMO they are similar, at 6400+ the Kx is clearly better.

I'm not too sure what testing you have done to back up these claims.