K-x vs K7 at iso 3200

artemapei · 11-18-2009, 01:48 AM

K-x has, obviously, a newer CMOP and has max iso level as high as 6400, while k7 - 3200.
Thus K-x must be having lower noise level at high ISO. Is it realy one stop difference and K-x performs at 6400 as k7 at 3200 and has much less noise at ISO 3200?

frank · 11-18-2009, 02:10 AM

The logic of your question is wrong I think?

But yes, Kx does has better noise control over K7, probably by more than 1 stop.

jup · 11-18-2009, 02:23 AM

K-x has been recently added to Imaging Resource, so see for yourself. Comparing K-7 at 3200 vs K-x at 6400 really seem to show quite similar level of noise, but keep in mind that K-x does probably more NR by default. Still, it's one heck of a camera.

That said, it doesn't mean that K-7 is flawed in any way. High ISO noise is just one of a paramters - but K-x clearly beats more or less any APS-C DSLR currently on the market in this one.

Now, I am off to do some more night shots with my K-x.

ogl · 11-18-2009, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by artemapei

K-x has, obviously, a newer CMOP and has max iso level as high as 6400, while k7 - 3200.
Thus K-x must be having lower noise level at high ISO. Is it realy one stop difference and K-x performs at 6400 as k7 at 3200 and has much less noise at ISO 3200?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/80452-k-x-comparometer.html

a lot of comparison from RAW to jpeg with crops - K-x and D300s.

Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT
here is some photos from ISO100 and 1600.

All are from RAW to JPEG.

NR OFF.

knoxploration · 11-18-2009, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by artemapei

K-x has, obviously, a newer CMOP and has max iso level as high as 6400, while k7 - 3200.
Thus K-x must be having lower noise level at high ISO. Is it realy one stop difference and K-x performs at 6400 as k7 at 3200 and has much less noise at ISO 3200?

They're both CMOS sensors, and the age difference is very slight - both are realistically from the same generation, just different suppliers.

The difference comes down to the K-x having slightly lower resolution and a slightly larger sensor (ie. larger pixels which can collect more light than the K-7), along with higher noise processing, and what looks to be slightly better noise performance from the sensor design as well. Together, they allow the K-x a bit of an advantage in noise, although it lags in other areas.

artemapei · 11-18-2009, 04:20 AM

hm, it seems like we're having quite different opinions on the matter...

as far as I can see from imaging-resource.com k-X is defently better at 3200 (keeps more details) than k7, and almost as good as k7's 3200 at 6400. so i would say it seems to be like 2/3 stop better at hi ISO - which I consider to be quite a remarcable difference for the same generation of CMOPs.
ps. k7 pics look much more saturated and contrasted.

Quote:

but K-x clearly beats more or less any APS-C DSLR currently on the market in this one.

Sony a500 and new canon d7 seems to be of a very hi estimation among their users, i dobt that they'll loose to k-X at high ISO noise level - but it's out of topic here.

artemapei · 11-18-2009, 05:50 AM

I've wrote a post, but it's disappeared @to be checked and approved by the moderator@ - sorry, I'm newcomer here.
the summary:
comparing the tests I found that kX performs like 2/3 stop better than k7 at hi iso (3200-6400).
still waiting for the full post to come out

causey · 11-18-2009, 06:27 AM

is it true, however, as rumors say, that k-x isn't so good at lower iso-s?

artemapei · 11-18-2009, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by causey

is it true, however, as rumors say, that k-x isn't so good at lower iso-s?

i do not think anter could be any serious problem with lower ISO in new cameras - may be just the colors - is seems to be less saturated and less contrasted than the sample picture by k7

causey · 11-18-2009, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by artemapei

i do not think anter could be any serious problem with lower ISO in new cameras - may be just the colors - is seems to be less saturated and less contrasted than the sample picture by k7

THIS and some similar discussions on dpreview forum motivated my question...

artemapei · 11-18-2009, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by causey

THIS and some similar discussions on dpreview forum motivated my question...

replied there

er1kksen · 11-18-2009, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by causey

is it true, however, as rumors say, that k-x isn't so good at lower iso-s?

Having used a variety of cameras, I'd say the K-x is my favorite so far at low ISOs. The high ISOs are fun, but I still shoot ISO 200 almost all the time and I love the fact that I can raise the shadows to a ridiculous degree without seeing noise.

That comparison thread seems a little sketchy to me and definitely doesn't reflect what I've been experiencing with the camera myself.

Originally posted by artemapei

Sony a500 and new canon d7 seems to be of a very hi estimation among their users, i dobt that they'll loose to k-X at high ISO noise level - but it's out of topic here.

The Sony A500 uses the same sensor, actually, so RAW noise should be very similar. The Canon 7D seems to have similar levels of total-image noise, but its higher resolution means finer "grain" and less obtrusive noise in prints.

causey · 11-18-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

Having used a variety of cameras, I'd say the K-x is my favorite so far at low ISOs. The high ISOs are fun, but I still shoot ISO 200 almost all the time and I love the fact that I can raise the shadows to a ridiculous degree without seeing noise.

That comparison thread seems a little sketchy to me and definitely doesn't reflect what I've been experiencing with the camera myself.

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. (I was thinking of ISO 200 as being low ISO...)

MSsuper · 11-18-2009, 01:15 PM

This link shows the test lab comparison very visually. Looks about 1 stop or so advantage to K-x. Author concludes K-7 still better at lower iso for detail...
http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photography/Technology/Lumolab-Pentax-K-7-vs-K-x...42_tRkk5-O.jpg

artemapei · 11-18-2009, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by MSsuper

This link shows the test lab comparison very visually. Looks about 1 stop or so advantage to K-x. Author concludes K-7 still better at lower iso for detail...
http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photography/Technology/Lumolab-Pentax-K-7-vs-K-x...42_tRkk5-O.jpg

sure, cause of more megapixels

11-18-2009, 01:48 AM	#1
artemapei Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moscow-Guangzhou Posts: 71	K-x vs K7 at iso 3200 K-x has, obviously, a newer CMOP and has max iso level as high as 6400, while k7 - 3200. Thus K-x must be having lower noise level at high ISO. Is it realy one stop difference and K-x performs at 6400 as k7 at 3200 and has much less noise at ISO 3200?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Black & White This is what ISO 3200 used to look like!	brkl	Post Your Photos!	5	01-10-2010 03:35 PM
iso 3200	jolee1990	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	12-22-2009 08:26 AM
K 7 iso 3200	snooked	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	07-21-2009 02:53 PM
ISO 3200! Only PP in lightroom	metroeloise	Post Your Photos!	3	12-12-2008 07:25 PM
Tests iso 200 to iso 3200 with k100d	Deni	Post Your Photos!	0	06-20-2007 05:17 AM

11-18-2009, 02:10 AM	#2
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	The logic of your question is wrong I think? But yes, Kx does has better noise control over K7, probably by more than 1 stop.

11-18-2009, 02:23 AM	#3
jup Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 103	K-x has been recently added to Imaging Resource, so see for yourself. Comparing K-7 at 3200 vs K-x at 6400 really seem to show quite similar level of noise, but keep in mind that K-x does probably more NR by default. Still, it's one heck of a camera. That said, it doesn't mean that K-7 is flawed in any way. High ISO noise is just one of a paramters - but K-x clearly beats more or less any APS-C DSLR currently on the market in this one. Now, I am off to do some more night shots with my K-x.

11-18-2009, 02:40 AM	#4
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by artemapei K-x has, obviously, a newer CMOP and has max iso level as high as 6400, while k7 - 3200. Thus K-x must be having lower noise level at high ISO. Is it realy one stop difference and K-x performs at 6400 as k7 at 3200 and has much less noise at ISO 3200? https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/80452-k-x-comparometer.html a lot of comparison from RAW to jpeg with crops - K-x and D300s. Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT here is some photos from ISO100 and 1600. All are from RAW to JPEG. NR OFF.

11-18-2009, 03:05 AM	#5
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by artemapei K-x has, obviously, a newer CMOP and has max iso level as high as 6400, while k7 - 3200. Thus K-x must be having lower noise level at high ISO. Is it realy one stop difference and K-x performs at 6400 as k7 at 3200 and has much less noise at ISO 3200? They're both CMOS sensors, and the age difference is very slight - both are realistically from the same generation, just different suppliers. The difference comes down to the K-x having slightly lower resolution and a slightly larger sensor (ie. larger pixels which can collect more light than the K-7), along with higher noise processing, and what looks to be slightly better noise performance from the sensor design as well. Together, they allow the K-x a bit of an advantage in noise, although it lags in other areas.

11-18-2009, 04:20 AM	#6
artemapei Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moscow-Guangzhou Posts: 71 Original Poster	hm, it seems like we're having quite different opinions on the matter... as far as I can see from imaging-resource.com k-X is defently better at 3200 (keeps more details) than k7, and almost as good as k7's 3200 at 6400. so i would say it seems to be like 2/3 stop better at hi ISO - which I consider to be quite a remarcable difference for the same generation of CMOPs. ps. k7 pics look much more saturated and contrasted. Quote: but K-x clearly beats more or less any APS-C DSLR currently on the market in this one. Sony a500 and new canon d7 seems to be of a very hi estimation among their users, i dobt that they'll loose to k-X at high ISO noise level - but it's out of topic here.

11-18-2009, 05:50 AM	#7
artemapei Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moscow-Guangzhou Posts: 71 Original Poster	I've wrote a post, but it's disappeared @to be checked and approved by the moderator@ - sorry, I'm newcomer here. the summary: comparing the tests I found that kX performs like 2/3 stop better than k7 at hi iso (3200-6400). still waiting for the full post to come out

11-18-2009, 06:27 AM	#8
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	is it true, however, as rumors say, that k-x isn't so good at lower iso-s?

11-18-2009, 07:02 AM	#9
artemapei Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moscow-Guangzhou Posts: 71 Original Poster	Originally posted by causey is it true, however, as rumors say, that k-x isn't so good at lower iso-s? i do not think anter could be any serious problem with lower ISO in new cameras - may be just the colors - is seems to be less saturated and less contrasted than the sample picture by k7

11-18-2009, 07:19 AM	#10
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by artemapei i do not think anter could be any serious problem with lower ISO in new cameras - may be just the colors - is seems to be less saturated and less contrasted than the sample picture by k7 THIS and some similar discussions on dpreview forum motivated my question...

11-18-2009, 07:45 AM	#11
artemapei Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moscow-Guangzhou Posts: 71 Original Poster	Originally posted by causey THIS and some similar discussions on dpreview forum motivated my question... replied there

11-18-2009, 11:18 AM	#12
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by causey is it true, however, as rumors say, that k-x isn't so good at lower iso-s? Having used a variety of cameras, I'd say the K-x is my favorite so far at low ISOs. The high ISOs are fun, but I still shoot ISO 200 almost all the time and I love the fact that I can raise the shadows to a ridiculous degree without seeing noise. That comparison thread seems a little sketchy to me and definitely doesn't reflect what I've been experiencing with the camera myself. Originally posted by artemapei Sony a500 and new canon d7 seems to be of a very hi estimation among their users, i dobt that they'll loose to k-X at high ISO noise level - but it's out of topic here. The Sony A500 uses the same sensor, actually, so RAW noise should be very similar. The Canon 7D seems to have similar levels of total-image noise, but its higher resolution means finer "grain" and less obtrusive noise in prints.

11-18-2009, 12:39 PM	#13
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by er1kksen Having used a variety of cameras, I'd say the K-x is my favorite so far at low ISOs. The high ISOs are fun, but I still shoot ISO 200 almost all the time and I love the fact that I can raise the shadows to a ridiculous degree without seeing noise. That comparison thread seems a little sketchy to me and definitely doesn't reflect what I've been experiencing with the camera myself. Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. (I was thinking of ISO 200 as being low ISO...)

11-18-2009, 01:15 PM	#14
MSsuper Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 48	This link shows the test lab comparison very visually. Looks about 1 stop or so advantage to K-x. Author concludes K-7 still better at lower iso for detail... http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photography/Technology/Lumolab-Pentax-K-7-vs-K-x...42_tRkk5-O.jpg

11-18-2009, 02:44 PM	#15
artemapei Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moscow-Guangzhou Posts: 71 Original Poster	Originally posted by MSsuper This link shows the test lab comparison very visually. Looks about 1 stop or so advantage to K-x. Author concludes K-7 still better at lower iso for detail... http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photography/Technology/Lumolab-Pentax-K-7-vs-K-x...42_tRkk5-O.jpg sure, cause of more megapixels