[rjm]

6MP in-camera JPEGS, center 100% crop, natural image setting, AWB, NR off, highlight correction etc. off. Pentax-A 50mm F2 at F8.

K10ISO100


K10ISO200


K10ISO400


K10ISO800


K10ISO1600



***

KxISO200


KxISO400


KxISO800


KxISO1600


KxISO3200


KxISO6400

[Andi Lo]

K-x up to 3200 still looks very good

And just FYI to those who are unaware, K10d has a horrible JPEG engine, making the pictures look soft. The point here is the noise comparison I assume.

[causey]

Is it only my perception, or do the K10D ISO 100-800 look better than K-x ISO 200-800? The K10D pics seem better focused. Anyway, at this size, it's impossible to distinguish finer noise levels.

[ankit]

The K10D shows better contrast and details. Maybe it is just the better whitebalance. Or maybe the lens was misfocused?

[ogl]

6MP in-camera JPEGS, center 100% crop, natural image setting, AWB, NR off, highlight correction etc. off. Pentax-A 50mm F2 at F8.
bums/g160/rmurdey/Pentax/k10800.jpg[/IMGWIDE]

Do You think that we shoot in 6 MP in-camera JPEG? What is the point of such comparision?

[Marc Sabatella]

Considering that probably no one on this forum owns a monitor big enough to display any bigger than a 6MP image, and view of us regularly print images with any more resolution than 6MP provides, I'd say one point of such a test is to show how the images will look in the real world - eg, when not pixel peeping at 100% just to see if you can possibly convince ourselves there might be a difference worth worrying about.

[dylansalt]

K-x up to 3200 still looks very good

And just FYI to those who are unaware, K10d has a horrible JPEG engine, making the pictures look soft. The point here is the noise comparison I assume.

And the K10D still has better detail & looks sharper than the KX up to ISO 1600.

[dylansalt]

Considering that probably no one on this forum owns a monitor big enough to display any bigger than a 6MP image, and view of us regularly print images with any more resolution than 6MP provides, I'd say one point of such a test is to show how the images will look in the real world - eg, when not pixel peeping at 100% just to see if you can possibly convince ourselves there might be a difference worth worrying about.

True - judging by the above pics the K10D will look much better printed up to ISO1600.

Too be quite honest if a person wants significant improvements at high iso with really good IQ they need to invest in a N D700 or C 5D etc.

[causey]

I wonder whether Kx's poorer output at iso above 800 (or 1600) shown here is specific to the OP's individual camera or to the K-x in general.

[artemapei]

I only see different colors and contrast - I think it's due to different CMOPs and default camera soft settings.

[jbinpg]

Please check out Post #43 in the "K-x is king for long exposures and astrophotography!" here. You can't argue with the improvement in chroma noise with the new sensor. It is staggering, really.

Jack

[Ash]

A nice test.
I'm finding it difficult to see much in the way of noise from wither camera. I've never seen a K10D ISO 1600 image that clean before!

Either your exposure settings are spot on and the JPEG in camera settings are perfect for the scene, and perhaps the image has been cleaned up in PP - or your K10D has had a sensor transplant.

[causey]

Depending on the amount of light, my K200D's high ISO output looks more or less clean. The real question is how well cameras fare in the dark or semi-dark.

[rjm]

A nice test.
I'm finding it difficult to see much in the way of noise from wither camera. I've never seen a K10D ISO 1600 image that clean before!

Either your exposure settings are spot on and the JPEG in camera settings are perfect for the scene, and perhaps the image has been cleaned up in PP - or your K10D has had a sensor transplant.

The images coming from the cameras are 6MP, so you are seeing reduced noise in both due to the downsampling (pixel averaging). I did this to produce a level playing field, to simulate what the output would look when printed a at fixed size.

I chose in-camera JPEGs to give the K-x the full benefit of it's more modern PRIME II image processor. This is meant as a results test, not a sensor test. The WB, contrast settings are slightly different, you'll have to factor that into the evaluation as best you can. It's also under fluorescent lighting, which doesn't help.

It's interesting that a number of you preferred the K10D output up to ISO numbers I personally tend to award to the K-x. Based on my own field evaluation, I consistently prefer the K10D at ISO100 and 200, but it's pretty much even at ISO400 and the K-x is better at ISO800 and above.

Even at low ISO it's mostly subjective as you'd be hard pressed to see a difference under controlled test conditions.

(Camera defaults, PEF converted in DCU4, DA35 macro. ISO200. F8. Tripod. Don't nag about focal plane, it's close enough and you can be sure to find something in the image that's in focus. Native resolution in both cases, so the K-x is at a slight disadvantage.)

Here's the K10, resize and 100% crop:





And here's the Kx, resize and 100% crop:

[WerTicus]

can you re order the first set of images so that its k10/kx k10/kx?