[Vaikis_]

it's hard to believe, how a picture can be better than K20d in low ISOs..

another thing i've noticed, that in pentax world such things as Dynamic range expanders such 200 dynamic range on k20d or shadow compensation on k-m make things only worse..

so I believe the same is with k-7.

one just needs to turn off all DR expanders such as shadow or highlight compensations, and widen the DR via ACR or lightroom by boosting shadows, otherwise things get more noisy, and less pleasant to watch..

but that's only my subjective opinion..

so, will anyone show some high ISO k-7 images? slightly postprocessed as you usually do..

no problems:
Drift Kova 4 | Kaunas 2009-09-12
all photos in dark ISO 1600-3200 postprocessed with Noise Ninja. Lenses Pentax FA 77mm f1.8

P.S. negi sunku Lietuviu paprasyti

[Steve.Ledger]

What a great set of shots and clearly shows I have much to learn with my new K-7

Thanks for posting.

[Mystic]

no problems:
Drift Kova 4 | Kaunas 2009-09-12
all photos in dark ISO 1600-3200 postprocessed with Noise Ninja. Lenses Pentax FA 77mm f1.8

P.S. negi sunku Lietuviu paprasyti

your pics really make k-7 shine, even though many were a little bit underexposed, it's not a problem, and it's better than overexposed.. but i guess they look natural, as you saw them there..

P.S. na reikia man ta noise ninja isigyti ir ishmokt naudotis.. ar ilgai trunka viena nuotrauka per ja pervaryti? ar daug nustatymu tenka reguliuoti? ar yra koks auto rezimas? ar jis gerai tvarko? ar daromi presetai?

[Rondec]

pcarfan had a couple of posts when he got his K7 where he posted multiple photos taken at iso 1600-6400. Some were zoo photos and some were taken at an air force museum. They looked pretty good, cleaned up well.

[pcarfan]

The only way to get decent images out of the K-7 at high iso is to shoot in RAW and process with a decent noiseware like NR program. Now, that you mention that some processing is ok, here are some sample I just took. The brighter one was taken last night and the second one (darker subjects) just a minute ago. Shot in RAW opened in Rawtherapee and removed color noise, opened in CS2 and processed in Noiseware (basic processing with preset option, no fancy masking), then one application of USM. Exif intact.

This takes less than a minute of processing, and is not ideal but quick and dirty test samples in poor light (check the exif, both shots hand held).





These are iso 3200, IMO not horrible but nothing to brag about.....IMO, I wouldn't upgrade from K20D to K-7 for high iso performance. The only reasons I can think of is overall ease of use in being a smaller package and in being more responsive.

The IQ at high iso sucks in every camera, it is just a matter of which one sucks less. So, I rather get a camera that does well in low iso, where the IQ is at it's highest. A couple of quick samples at lower iso's.

This image shows detail in the white feather (taken last wknd.)


This one for overall rendering (Was taken on my frist outing with the K-7_


The biggest asset of the K-7 is that it makes photography fun,...it's got the ease of a point and shoot and the speed and control of a top end DSLR.

[Sew-Classic]

Junk in the corner of my livingroom.

K-7, 1250 iso, jpg straight from camera absolutely NO PP at all except for resizing and a crop (below)
f/4.0, shutter 1/8, Tamron 28-75mm lens at 43mm

Natural light, in the corner on a cloudy day.

ETA: I screwed up with these and forgot to turn off the D-range settings...probably would have turned out better if these were off.- sorry.



100% crop for the pixel peepers:

[al_undy]

Here are some at various isos. All shot raw, processed in Bibble Pro 5 which comes with Noise Ninja plugin and is reasonably priced. Each image has a version with and without Noise Ninja noise reduction. I haven't printed them but I think they would look fine.
iso demo - a set on Flickr

[knoxploration]

On this forum, for instance, many people are not happy with high iso results from k7.

You see "many". I see "a few". The true answer is that neither of us knows what percentage of K-7 owners are or aren't happy with their high ISO performance.

I recognize that though, which is why I'm not making blanket statements like "People are getting very good images above iso 800 with k7".

You don't seem to recognize that anybody could be happy with it just because you're not though, stating "People are not getting very good images above iso 800 with k7"

See the difference?

And also tests against k20 suport the statement.

No, it doesn't support the statement. If the statement was that the K-7 had higher luminance noise than its predecessor, it would support it. The K-7 has lower chrominance noise (more objectionable), incidentally.

Your statement though was that people "are not ... getting good images" with the K-7 - and a measurebator's graphs don't tell you whether or not good images are possible above ISO 800. Believe me, they are.

then show us, and let the pictures talk for themselves.

I will do, when I have some pictures that are appropriate for public sharing in this forum. At the moment, I've only had the camera a few weeks and with my current workload, haven't had time to get out and shoot much low-light stuff / high ISO other than family snapshots which my family wouldn't want me posting here. ;-)

[Mystic]

very happy to see more pictures..
thanks pcarfan, Sew-classic and al_undy

i'm considering k-7 not because of high isos but for overall feature package..

even though i've mastered focus trap in many situations with my k20d, there are many more situations when i loose shots.. because of not good enough focusing in low light..

yeah I know there are many threads that cover this question, but
any comments from you on low light focusing with k-7?

[jgredline]

More of my thoughts on this. I know there are quite of few happy customers with their K-7's and I for the most part am happy as well. But as I look around in various forums of late, this HIGH ISO PROBLEM is pretty huge from what I can tell. The excuse the die hard Pentaxian uses is to shoot RAW. Like I said in another thread or maybe it was this one. I am not in panic over the poor ISO performance of the K-7 because I have my K20d'S and I also have a Nikon D700 with some really good lenses. The downside to the D700 is the weight of the beast. Since I shoot mostly street, that matters a great deal. After the 2nd or 3rd mile of walking, that D700 feels like a milstone around my neck. The Nikon lenses are huge and heavy as well. Hence my Pentax Gear. The K-7 with grip and my 21ltd or 24mm lens is the perfect street cam, but I could only use it sunlight because I shoot at F/8 or F/11. Hence I use the K20D with no grip. Atleast I am comfortable with that at ISO2500 and even 3200. with very min PP....

But back to the K-7...I would bet that any wedding photographer worth his salt would hate the K-7....Yet the K20D makes a fine Wedding camera...Very good infact. It is a shame to keep reading things like...I have a K-7 but I am keeping my K20D or K200D or I am getting a K-X or I am Keeping my K100D super for high ISO shooting...What a shame really....Too many folks are in denial over the fact that the high iso performance of the K-7 is really not good...

[al_undy]

I am very happy with my k7 so far. i bought it in August. My previous camera was the k100d so this has been quite a jump in feature set. The k100d has very good image quality in my opinion and K7 seems to as well. I have not printed as many K7 shots so I a reserving judgement a bit. Am I glad I upgraded? You bet. My top features on the K7 are the mtf hyperprogram mode (especially with zooms), AF speed, FPS, in-camera lens correction, and build quality. AF is very good in low light where I am coming from. I also like the size, being similar to k100d. I am a believer that smaller is better. I can recommend that that k100d users upgrade but not sure about k20d users. The AF and FPS might be enough reasons. Depending on your wishes (FF, different sensor) you might hold out for the next generation...

[netuser]

Hi knoxploration

When I was writing about the iso on k-7 I mean for printing purposes as I already debated on another forum thread. Of course it was not a good idea of me to think everyone was following the other thread.

Either way, I have some good k-7 high iso images, problem is that I also want straight from jpeg and k20 is better on that etc.

I'm happy with k-7 almost all the way, only soft spot for me is the lack of better high iso images and jpeg engine.

Let me say when I'm talking about low light photography / high iso images they are exactly that, extreme.

An example, please check my PPG ( PENTAX Photo Gallery: Artist Bio - Nuno Fonseca ), more exactly the image called "captain".

And finally, I'm not a pixelpeeper but I expected more from k-7 regarding the iso issue and jpeg engine ...

[Itai]

Hi,

Does it count if I already posted them elsewhere?

In my review of the K-7, I have 2 full-resolution samples per full-stop ISO. You can see them towards the bottom of this page:
Pentax K-7 Sample Images | NeoCamera.com

(Click the thumbnails to get full res)

These are straight JPEGs out of the camera with NR set to off. You can set NR to other levels to get less noise but also less details.

- Itai

[Sew-Classic]

But back to the K-7...I would bet that any wedding photographer worth his salt would hate the K-7....Yet the K20D makes a fine Wedding camera.....

I only know a handful of wedding photographers, and FWIW, every one of them uses Nikon equipment, and shoots RAW. Considering that the RAW noise on the K-7 is actually on par with the Nikon D300, and I'm not sure noise would be an issue for them using the K-7. (not saying they'd switch..)

But, I for one, get exactly what you've been saying. You don't like the K-7. That's cool, use something else.....

[jgredline]

But, I for one, get exactly what you've been saying. You don't like the K-7. That's cool, use something else.....

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't like the K-7 high iso performance, but love everything else about it.