K7 & KX picture comparision take 2 (RAW & Jpegs available for download)

Pentaxor · 10-27-2009, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Eruditass

Yeah that probably wouldn't make too much of an impact, I only looked at JPEGs so far though and not the RAW yet as I don't have a converter on this computer. Thanks for the observations! This should settle down the K-7 owners

well I doubt it won't settle down the k-x owners and would still debate that the new Sony sensor has overall better IQ than the k-7. I just don't understand why people can't be happy with their current system for what it is and needed to lash out on the K-7 just to merit their purchase as a more logically sound investment by virtue of debatable IQ superiority at a cheap price. the k-x certainly has IQ strength at the High ISO aspect but not overall that would include the other IQ aspects. it is not everything that you wanted it to appear to be right now. but they could make it better in the next upgraded version of the sensor.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-28-2009 at 12:53 AM.

Pentaxor · 10-27-2009, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Daemos

well the image does have more noise, but there is more detail in the image esp when you are looking at things like text, you can make out the words much better. I consider that to be detail.

you meant more defined rather than soft.

Daemos · 10-28-2009, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Need just 4 RAW

I sent you a pm

Daemos · 10-28-2009, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

you meant more defined rather than soft.

Thanks! I was trying to think of the word to use!

kittykat46 · 10-28-2009, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by rawr

I can't understand it when people say an image has 'more noise but more detail'. Noise fundamentally destroys/replaces detail. And applying NR on a image with underlying noise destroys even more detail.

Yes, it is possible to have relatively more noise and more detail in a photo - if the noise is of the fine-grained quality, which is typical of the K-7 up to ISO3200.
In cleaning up such noise, you may lose a bit of visible detail at 100% crop, but the overall photo is still very usable.
That's also part of the reason the photos still look good printed out - in the process of converting the data to printable form, the fine grained noise just gets smoothed out.

The ugliest noise - which is also difficult to clean up without losing a lot of detail - is the big, blotchy, multi-coloured blobs you see with cameras which have truly bad High-ISO performance.

I've never understood all the angst about the "noisy" K-7 high ISO, some people calling it "crappy".
I shoot RAW, batch process it through moderate NR , I'm pretty happy with the outcome....

rawr · 10-28-2009, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by kittykat46

Yes, it is possible to have relatively more noise and more detail in a photo - if the noise is of the fine-grained quality, which is typical of the K-7 up to ISO3200.
In cleaning up such noise, you may lose a bit of visible detail at 100% crop, but the overall photo is still very usable.
[..]
I've never understood all the angst about the "noisy" K-7 high ISO, some people calling it "crappy".
I shoot RAW, batch process it through moderate NR , I'm pretty happy with the outcome....

It's certainly a challenge to maintain IQ (variables eg dynamic range) while maintaining resolution (detail) as you move up the sensitivity ladder. The K7 and K20D seem to do OK with that (as even does the K200D which I am more familiar with), particularly if you work in RAW. And visually the results aren't too bad - I don't mind the fine grained noise of the K7 or K20D at all.

But detail dies with noise. In a 1000x1000 pixel image area straight off the sensor in RAW even if the noise is fine-grained that means more pixels are displaying junk rather than image.

ogl · 10-28-2009, 01:26 AM

Light Room Beta 3.
NR levels set to ZERO.
WB 3800.
Shaprness 40@0.8, details 50.

Photos from ISO1600 with colour NR (set to 25) and without NR at all.

All are saved with quality 100.

Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT

Last edited by ogl; 10-28-2009 at 03:12 AM.

UnknownVT · 10-28-2009, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Daemos

I took the advise I was given and went to re shoot.

Once again thank you so much for the effort.

I saw the "mistake" in the soft setting for the Kx using PhotoME - there is an obvious difference in detail between the K7 and Kx - which there ought to be since the K7 is 14.6Mp and the Kx 12.4Mp that's an increase of almost 18% in pixel count or about 8.5% increase in linear resolution - that means if the K7 resolved 2300 lines horizontally - then the Kx would only resolve 2120.

Of course visual acuity/sharpness can make a lot of difference - sometimes lower resolution images can look sharper (as higher resolution does not necessarily mean sharper).

So there's a possible double-whammy against the Kx where it not only resolves less and has been set to lower sharpening.

Of course with your images one can take it into a photo editor and sharpen the image (esp RAW) and see if it improves things.

Originally posted by Eruditass

not the RAW yet as I don't have a converter on this computer.

There is no need to convert the RAW files first to view them -
there are RAW viewers available.

May I suggest FastStone Image Viewer which is Freeware and can view most photo formats including most RAW.....

ogl · 10-28-2009, 01:35 AM

K-7 is better in terms of resolution and sharpness.
DA*16-50 looks very good at 14.6 MP sensor.

jerrymouse · 10-28-2009, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Light Room Beta 3.
NR levels set to ZERO.
WB 3800.
Shaprness 40@0.8, details 50.

Photos from ISO1600 with colour NR (set to 25) and without NR at all.

Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT

Thank you. The difference at iso 100 is so huge that I think it can't be only sensor issue, because I don't see such softness in my ISO 100 (K-x) pictures (but I don't have K-7 to compare).

ogl · 10-28-2009, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by jerrymouse

Thank you. The difference at iso 100 is so huge that I think it can't be only sensor issue, because I don't see such softness in my ISO 100 (K-x) pictures (but I don't have K-7 to compare).

Maybe, DA*16-50 has some problems at K-x. But photos are in focus....

I see in exif - K-x sharpness - soft, K-7 - normal.

But these are DNG files...

jerrymouse · 10-28-2009, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Maybe, DA*16-50 has some problems at K-x. But photos are in focus....

Well I don't think so. The lens pen, zeiss lens cleaning solution and "photofinishing specialist" magazine are cleary OOF in K-x shot while in focus on K-7. I think K-x is focused a bit "behind" ("SD Camcorder" label on the card board seems in focus and is sharp). I'm talking about ISO 100 shot.

UnknownVT · 10-28-2009, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by jerrymouse

Thank you. The difference at iso 100 is so huge that I think it can't be only sensor issue, because I don't see such softness in my ISO 100 (K-x) pictures (but I don't have K-7 to compare).

The Sharpness setting does make a lot of difference.

I only did this with the JPGs -
Opened both normal NR ISO100 jpgs in my photo editor - tiled them side by side.
The just applied standard sharpen to the Kx image -
bang! the visual acuity/sharpness was immediate and noticeable -
now the Kx image looks a lot clearer and sharper.

Let me see if I can illustrate this -
below are crops (from 100% ie: NO resizing)
from the STD-NR versions of the ISO100 JPGs -
the EXIF info should still be attached -

the larger crop is obviously the K7 the Before and After are the Kx
all I did was to crop the images and save them to medium quality JPG
the "After" (Kx) shot had simple one-click standard Sharpen applied -
that's all nothing fancy -
look at the obvious difference
I would now pick the After shot as the better over the K7 -
whereas Before I would have chosen the K7......

ogl · 10-28-2009, 02:22 AM

I don't care JPEG at all. I've opened DNG in LR and add the same sharpness.
K-7 is better with various sharpness settings.

ogl · 10-28-2009, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by jerrymouse

Well I don't think so. The lens pen, zeiss lens cleaning solution and "photofinishing specialist" magazine are cleary OOF in K-x shot while in focus on K-7. I think K-x is focused a bit "behind" ("SD Camcorder" label on the card board seems in focus and is sharp). I'm talking about ISO 100 shot.

It seems to me focus is at the word CAMCODER for K-x and K-7.

10-28-2009, 01:57 AM	#26
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by jerrymouse Thank you. The difference at iso 100 is so huge that I think it can't be only sensor issue, because I don't see such softness in my ISO 100 (K-x) pictures (but I don't have K-7 to compare). Maybe, DA16-50 has some problems at K-x. But photos are in focus.... I see in exif - K-x sharpness - soft, K-7 - normal. But these are DNG files... Last edited by ogl; 10-28-2009 at 02:04 AM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: (AUS) SMC Pentax-M 50mm/1.4 & A35-105mm/3.5 & MV1 body & DB1 Grip (AUS)	ddhytz	Sold Items	4	04-22-2010 03:28 AM
Another RAW conversion comparision	HGMonaro	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	02-11-2010 05:33 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 18-250mm, 2X TC, SMC 50mm f1.4 & f2, Grip DBG2 w/remote & Batt. Flash A	Peter Zack	Sold Items	8	12-26-2009 12:58 PM
Pentax K-7 & K-X: My picture comparision (RAW & JPEG)	Daemos	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	10-27-2009 09:18 PM
For Sale - Sold: ist DS camera & Quantaray 28-90mm lens & accessories, Promaster 7000m flash	rockmaster1964	Sold Items	10	01-30-2009 05:57 PM

10-27-2009, 11:57 PM	#16
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Eruditass Yeah that probably wouldn't make too much of an impact, I only looked at JPEGs so far though and not the RAW yet as I don't have a converter on this computer. Thanks for the observations! This should settle down the K-7 owners well I doubt it won't settle down the k-x owners and would still debate that the new Sony sensor has overall better IQ than the k-7. I just don't understand why people can't be happy with their current system for what it is and needed to lash out on the K-7 just to merit their purchase as a more logically sound investment by virtue of debatable IQ superiority at a cheap price. the k-x certainly has IQ strength at the High ISO aspect but not overall that would include the other IQ aspects. it is not everything that you wanted it to appear to be right now. but they could make it better in the next upgraded version of the sensor. Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-28-2009 at 12:53 AM.

10-27-2009, 11:58 PM	#17
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Daemos well the image does have more noise, but there is more detail in the image esp when you are looking at things like text, you can make out the words much better. I consider that to be detail. you meant more defined rather than soft.

10-28-2009, 12:16 AM	#18
Daemos Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 106 Original Poster	Originally posted by ogl Need just 4 RAW I sent you a pm

10-28-2009, 12:17 AM	#19
Daemos Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 106 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pentaxor you meant more defined rather than soft. Thanks! I was trying to think of the word to use!

10-28-2009, 12:22 AM	#20
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by rawr I can't understand it when people say an image has 'more noise but more detail'. Noise fundamentally destroys/replaces detail. And applying NR on a image with underlying noise destroys even more detail. Yes, it is possible to have relatively more noise and more detail in a photo - if the noise is of the fine-grained quality, which is typical of the K-7 up to ISO3200. In cleaning up such noise, you may lose a bit of visible detail at 100% crop, but the overall photo is still very usable. That's also part of the reason the photos still look good printed out - in the process of converting the data to printable form, the fine grained noise just gets smoothed out. The ugliest noise - which is also difficult to clean up without losing a lot of detail - is the big, blotchy, multi-coloured blobs you see with cameras which have truly bad High-ISO performance. I've never understood all the angst about the "noisy" K-7 high ISO, some people calling it "crappy". I shoot RAW, batch process it through moderate NR , I'm pretty happy with the outcome....

10-28-2009, 12:47 AM	#21
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by kittykat46 Yes, it is possible to have relatively more noise and more detail in a photo - if the noise is of the fine-grained quality, which is typical of the K-7 up to ISO3200. In cleaning up such noise, you may lose a bit of visible detail at 100% crop, but the overall photo is still very usable. [..] I've never understood all the angst about the "noisy" K-7 high ISO, some people calling it "crappy". I shoot RAW, batch process it through moderate NR , I'm pretty happy with the outcome.... It's certainly a challenge to maintain IQ (variables eg dynamic range) while maintaining resolution (detail) as you move up the sensitivity ladder. The K7 and K20D seem to do OK with that (as even does the K200D which I am more familiar with), particularly if you work in RAW. And visually the results aren't too bad - I don't mind the fine grained noise of the K7 or K20D at all. But detail dies with noise. In a 1000x1000 pixel image area straight off the sensor in RAW even if the noise is fine-grained that means more pixels are displaying junk rather than image.

10-28-2009, 01:26 AM	#22
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Light Room Beta 3. NR levels set to ZERO. WB 3800. Shaprness 40@0.8, details 50. Photos from ISO1600 with colour NR (set to 25) and without NR at all. All are saved with quality 100. Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT Last edited by ogl; 10-28-2009 at 03:12 AM.

10-28-2009, 01:31 AM	#23
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by Daemos I took the advise I was given and went to re shoot. Once again thank you so much for the effort. I saw the "mistake" in the soft setting for the Kx using PhotoME - there is an obvious difference in detail between the K7 and Kx - which there ought to be since the K7 is 14.6Mp and the Kx 12.4Mp that's an increase of almost 18% in pixel count or about 8.5% increase in linear resolution - that means if the K7 resolved 2300 lines horizontally - then the Kx would only resolve 2120. Of course visual acuity/sharpness can make a lot of difference - sometimes lower resolution images can look sharper (as higher resolution does not necessarily mean sharper). So there's a possible double-whammy against the Kx where it not only resolves less and has been set to lower sharpening. Of course with your images one can take it into a photo editor and sharpen the image (esp RAW) and see if it improves things. Originally posted by Eruditass not the RAW yet as I don't have a converter on this computer. There is no need to convert the RAW files first to view them - there are RAW viewers available. May I suggest FastStone Image Viewer which is Freeware and can view most photo formats including most RAW.....

10-28-2009, 01:35 AM	#24
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	K-7 is better in terms of resolution and sharpness. DA*16-50 looks very good at 14.6 MP sensor.

10-28-2009, 01:43 AM	#25
jerrymouse Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic Posts: 224	Originally posted by ogl Light Room Beta 3. NR levels set to ZERO. WB 3800. Shaprness 40@0.8, details 50. Photos from ISO1600 with colour NR (set to 25) and without NR at all. Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT Thank you. The difference at iso 100 is so huge that I think it can't be only sensor issue, because I don't see such softness in my ISO 100 (K-x) pictures (but I don't have K-7 to compare).

10-28-2009, 02:04 AM	#27
jerrymouse Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic Posts: 224	Originally posted by ogl Maybe, DA*16-50 has some problems at K-x. But photos are in focus.... Well I don't think so. The lens pen, zeiss lens cleaning solution and "photofinishing specialist" magazine are cleary OOF in K-x shot while in focus on K-7. I think K-x is focused a bit "behind" ("SD Camcorder" label on the card board seems in focus and is sharp). I'm talking about ISO 100 shot.

10-28-2009, 02:18 AM	#28
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by jerrymouse Thank you. The difference at iso 100 is so huge that I think it can't be only sensor issue, because I don't see such softness in my ISO 100 (K-x) pictures (but I don't have K-7 to compare). The Sharpness setting does make a lot of difference. I only did this with the JPGs - Opened both normal NR ISO100 jpgs in my photo editor - tiled them side by side. The just applied standard sharpen to the Kx image - bang! the visual acuity/sharpness was immediate and noticeable - now the Kx image looks a lot clearer and sharper. Let me see if I can illustrate this - below are crops (from 100% ie: NO resizing) from the STD-NR versions of the ISO100 JPGs - the EXIF info should still be attached - the larger crop is obviously the K7 the Before and After are the Kx all I did was to crop the images and save them to medium quality JPG the "After" (Kx) shot had simple one-click standard Sharpen applied - that's all nothing fancy - look at the obvious difference I would now pick the After shot as the better over the K7 - whereas Before I would have chosen the K7......

10-28-2009, 02:22 AM	#29
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	I don't care JPEG at all. I've opened DNG in LR and add the same sharpness. K-7 is better with various sharpness settings.

10-28-2009, 02:25 AM	#30
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by jerrymouse Well I don't think so. The lens pen, zeiss lens cleaning solution and "photofinishing specialist" magazine are cleary OOF in K-x shot while in focus on K-7. I think K-x is focused a bit "behind" ("SD Camcorder" label on the card board seems in focus and is sharp). I'm talking about ISO 100 shot. It seems to me focus is at the word CAMCODER for K-x and K-7.