K7 and noise ... again.

Jadran · 11-20-2009, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by heliphoto

Maybe I (and all the other folks complaining about noise

) just have bad copies of the K-7 (or you have an exceptional one.) To address your questions, Lightroom preview quality is set to high, magnification is 1:1. This is a little above average in terms of high ISO noise I usually saw from my K-7

.

Well, could be light conditions, I don't know. If you do shoot and really need high ISO a loot, then it's OK that you complain and want to use another camera.

That is something everybody should decide for themselves. People should know their shooting stile and buy the right tool for it. But, it's annoying that people who don't need high ISO complain about noise. I have the feeling that for majority of people complaining have one particular motto - "my camera has better ISO quality at 3200, therefore I'm better photographer than you".

knoxploration · 11-20-2009, 01:38 AM

K-7 owner here, and I profess myself pretty darned happy with the camera overall, and perfectly satisfied with noise performance. I don't see a rival camera that has close to the same pricing and feature set (frame rate, AF, exposure, white balance, LCD res, weather sealing, etc.) that could give me significantly better noise performance. There are a few APS-C cameras with similar features that could give me *slightly* better performance, but they're all significantly more expensive.

Originally posted by heliphoto

Done! Switched to Canon because of the K-7

... Having had the K200D (my first digital SLR) and then a K20D, I was excited by the promise of the K-7. In so many ways I was not disappointed by it, the fast shooting, the improved AF, the fantastic auto WB, nice feel, there's more... It's a nice body at low ISO, but above 800 for me the noise is a deal breaker - much worse than the K20D. Other switchers from this board that I know of - nostatic (switched to a 5D2 like me), jgredline (D700 - still has his K-7 but complains about noise

), maxwell1295 (a couple 5Ds - I don't think he ever owned a k-7, but left after it came out I think), there are probably more...

...so everybody you list who's switched has gone not to another APS-C camera, but to a FF camera (which one would expect to have dramatically lower noise), and likely paid well over double the cost of the K-7 to do so.

To me, that's a heck of a compliment to the K-7 versus its *real* competition - ~$1,000 APS-C DSLRs. The K-7 isn't intended to compete with the 5D, 5D II, or D700).

kittykat46 · 11-20-2009, 02:36 AM

I'm a very satisfied and happy K-7 user.

The K-7 gives Very Good results under normal daylight and bright indoor lighting.
No problems with ISO1600.
ISO 3200 requires Noise Reduction during RAW processing, but the K-7's noise is of a fine-grained type which cleans up very nicely with NR.

raider · 11-20-2009, 03:04 AM

I am just curious. Has anyone tried to do a 5" x 7" or larger print using a K-7 image at iso3200 and see if the noise actually affect output image quality? Is the noise very visible in actual printout?

Jadran · 11-20-2009, 03:14 AM

Here is one at 3200, crop 1:1, developed in Lightroom, all NR set to 0

edit: this is K-7

flyer · 11-20-2009, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by jpzk

Yves,
I always shoot RAW. So that is not an issue with me. Did you own a previous camera model before the K7? Like K10 or K20D?
I like the fact that it is not worse than any comparable "hi-end" competition.
JP

I've owned a K10D, still own a K20D, and the K-7. For work, I also have a "blad H3D-31. Honestly, when I need high ISO, my first choice is the K20D, but it doesn't mean the K-7 is unusable. It compares favorably with the D300. Not better, but not worst either. One thing I noticed is that noise doesn't seem to bother photographers coming from films as much as those who started directly with digital. Probably because we're used to the film grain.

Jadran · 11-20-2009, 03:26 AM

For heliphoto - one question - did you set any in camera NR when you took that photo?

wll · 11-20-2009, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by heliphoto

Maybe I (and all the other folks complaining about noise

) just have bad copies of the K-7 (or you have an exceptional one.) To address your questions, Lightroom preview quality is set to high, magnification is 1:1. This is a little above average in terms of high ISO noise I usually saw from my K-7

.

Here is a shot at 12,800 ISO with the K-x shot at about 1/15 as I remember, in a corner of my living room. Crappy light, hand held. Blows every Pentax I have had out of the water in the low noise department. This photo is untouched, as it came out of the camera.

http://photos.imageevent.com/wlleven/k10dtest/downloadphotos/Front%20Room%20...0Untouched.jpg

wll

pcarfan · 11-20-2009, 05:34 AM

5D and D700, aren't they FF...are we comparing the K-7 to those as well ? I think if you can swing it towards a FF and lenses, that would be ideal, if you can deal with the bigger size and cost. I am sure many have done so..........

If the K20D has much better iso performance than the K-7, then, yes, either the unit is broken or the shooter only shoots jpeg, or if he is using RAW, he really doesn't know how to use RAW. DPR only found marginal improvements with the K20D, and no proper tests have shown the K20D to be significantly superior to the K-7. So, it's either a defective unit or user error.

However, you don't have to look far for an APS-C camera that will smoke the K-7 in iso performance right out of the water. The picture is posted right above my response, and the camera costs less than half of the K-7.

Jadran · 11-20-2009, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

However, you don't have to look far for an APS-C camera that will smoke the K-7 in iso performance right out of the water. The picture is posted right above my response, and the camera costs less than half of the K-7.

Yes, K-x costs less then K-7, but those two are completely different class, and there are a lot of reasons for that. I am really bored of this "smoke out of the water" and such. How many of you shoot 3200? What are you going to do with such 12800 image anyway? If use on the web is the goal, then OK. Everybody should know what he/she needs, and chose on that premises. Very high ISO is just one of them. Here is one crop from jpg straight from K-7 at 6400 with no NR. Is noise horrible? (well, the light is a key) We could go on for like this for ages. Yes, K-x looks appx. 1 stop better at ISO higher then 1600. If somebody really need to shoot that much high ISO shoots, then Kx is maybe right tool for them. But, there is no sense to compare K-7 and Kx in any other way.

unkabin · 11-20-2009, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Jadran

Yes, K-x costs less then K-7, but those two are completely different class, and there are a lot of reasons for that. I am really bored of this "smoke out of the water" and such. How many of you shoot 3200? What are you going to do with such 12800 image anyway? If use on the web is the goal, then OK. Everybody should know what he/she needs, and chose on that premises. Very high ISO is just one of them. Here is one crop from jpg straight from K-7 at 6400 with no NR. Is noise horrible? (well, the light is a key) We could go on for like this for ages. Yes, K-x looks appx. 1 stop better at ISO higher then 1600. If somebody really need to shoot that much high ISO shoots, then Kx is maybe right tool for them. But, there is no sense to compare K-7 and Kx in any other way.

+1

Dial up your 'Kx's and take all the not-quite-as-ugly high ISO shots you want. Have a ball with that for a week or two, and then watch yourself dial back down and start taking some quality photos. ISO seems to be the new Megapixel.

cwood · 11-20-2009, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by unkabin

+1

Dial up your 'Kx's and take all the not-quite-as-ugly high ISO shots you want. Have a ball with that for a week or two, and then watch yourself dial back down and start taking some quality photos. ISO seems to be the new Megapixel.

To be fair the megapixel race was relevant up to a point. For me 10MP was the end of the race because at that point you had plenty of resolution to do some serious cropping and still get a good picture.

The ISO race is similar in that people will on occasion shoot insanely high ISO's and when they do so they will appreciate a camera with lower noise.

What these two things have in common, though, is that they are both appreciated as much by people who are making mistakes in their photography as by the true professionals who shoot under exceptional circumstances and need those extreme resolution values. With the megapixel race if *I* had taken the photo with the correct framing in the first place then I would not need to crop. With ISO performance people need to realize that once they hit a certain point they may be overlooking some of their photographic techniques (like the use of flash, aperture and shutter speed). Without going into detailed description of what I mean I'll just say that not ALL sports photos need to be taken at > 1/1000

Of course there ARE exceptions which is why you can get a 50MP PhaseOne Medium format camera and why you can shoot comfortably at ISO 6400 on a D3. But MOST of the complaining about ISO noise can be attributed more to either user error or just simply wanting to "keep up with the Jones".

So for me the "Clean ISO in an APS-C Camera" race ends at ISO 1600 or 3200. Since this is a photography forum with a lot more talk than pictures here are my examples:

This shot was taken with a Canon 1D (under stadium lights) at ISO 3200; F2.8, 1/1000. Granted it was taken with a Canon but the point is it was ONLY at ISO 3200... so people are talking about how great a camera is at ISO 12,800 and I'm not sure why they need it?

This one from the Pentax (same game) is not quite as good (ISO 3200, F2.8, 1/800) but it is not a professional sports camera and it cost less than 1/4 as much as the Canon. Still - I wouldn't mind seeing a slight improvement in the next generation. Maybe they could consider a new 10MP model camera with improved ISO?

A funny thing is that I had to go WAY back to last May to find photos I had taken at ISO 3200.

heliphoto · 11-20-2009, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Jadran

Well, could be light conditions, I don't know. If you do shoot and really need high ISO a loot, then it's OK that you complain and want to use another camera.

That is something everybody should decide for themselves. People should know their shooting stile and buy the right tool for it. But, it's annoying that people who don't need high ISO complain about noise. I have the feeling that for majority of people complaining have one particular motto - "my camera has better ISO quality at 3200, therefore I'm better photographer than you".

No way, everybody knows that fps is the real determinant of how good you are

.

I tend to use ISO up to 6400 fairly often (now that I can). 3200 is a given, and the K20D did better than the K-7 in this regard.

Originally posted by knoxploration

...

...so everybody you list who's switched has gone not to another APS-C camera, but to a FF camera (which one would expect to have dramatically lower noise), and likely paid well over double the cost of the K-7 to do so.

To me, that's a heck of a compliment to the K-7 versus its *real* competition - ~$1,000 APS-C DSLRs. The K-7 isn't intended to compete with the 5D, 5D II, or D700).

That's a good point, and it's never been my intention to directly compare the k-7 to a full frame... My intention I guess is to point out that I paid a lot of money to "upgrade", only to get worse images. Had they been equal to the K20D in IQ, or better, I probably wouldn't have messed with things as the K-7 is a pretty sweet machine otherwise, but I just found it irritating the feel bad about choosing which camera to shoot, the one which can autofocus (the K-7) or the one which can take pictures in moderately low light (the K20D).

Originally posted by kittykat46

... the K-7's noise is of a fine-grained type which cleans up very nicely with NR.

This is the exact opposite of my experience. I find the K-7 noise to be very large grain and very destructive to detail - could be I got a bad sample, I don't know.

Originally posted by Jadran

Here is one at 3200, crop 1:1, developed in Lightroom, all NR set to 0

EDIT: That looks way better than mine. I'd say that's more like the K20D produces.

heliphoto · 11-20-2009, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Jadran

For heliphoto - one question - did you set any in camera NR when you took that photo?

I don't remember - I suppose if you really want, I can check with exiftool and see what's stored away in there, but it was my understanding that NR was not applied to the RAW file of the K-7. I did experiment with all NR settings in jpeg mode, figuring that maybe Pentax had included some magic algorithms to fix their noisy images, no luck

.

I'm really not that down on the K-7 everybody, but the OP addressed ISO specifically, and I would be remiss not to mention my experience - it is after all the whole point of these forums is we share experiences right? I think if the OP is after high ISO, he ought to buy a K-X (the obvious choice), a D700, or a 5DII (and there's always Sony (Minolta) which I'm not too familiar with)

deadwolfbones · 11-20-2009, 09:24 AM

I've not noticed any real difference between my K20D and my K-7 with regard to noise, though I don't make a habit of shooting high ISO with either of them. In the dark I use flash, in dim light I use fast lenses and don't go higher than 1600, because I know if I do with EITHER of them I'll get nasty results. To my eye, the K-7 produces a somewhat more film-like grain than the K20D, with less chroma noise as well. That's nice to me.

Anyway, I've ordered a K-x for lightweight/street/low light shooting, and I probably won't have to worry about the noise issue again until Pentax gets the bright idea to put the K-x sensor in the K-7 body.

...or releases a FF camera.

11-20-2009, 03:14 AM	#20
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Here is one at 3200, crop 1:1, developed in Lightroom, all NR set to 0 edit: this is K-7 Last edited by Jadran; 11-20-2009 at 09:35 AM.

11-20-2009, 09:02 AM	#28
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	Originally posted by Jadran Well, could be light conditions, I don't know. If you do shoot and really need high ISO a loot, then it's OK that you complain and want to use another camera. That is something everybody should decide for themselves. People should know their shooting stile and buy the right tool for it. But, it's annoying that people who don't need high ISO complain about noise. I have the feeling that for majority of people complaining have one particular motto - "my camera has better ISO quality at 3200, therefore I'm better photographer than you". No way, everybody knows that fps is the real determinant of how good you are . I tend to use ISO up to 6400 fairly often (now that I can). 3200 is a given, and the K20D did better than the K-7 in this regard. Originally posted by knoxploration ... ...so everybody you list who's switched has gone not to another APS-C camera, but to a FF camera (which one would expect to have dramatically lower noise), and likely paid well over double the cost of the K-7 to do so. To me, that's a heck of a compliment to the K-7 versus its real competition - ~$1,000 APS-C DSLRs. The K-7 isn't intended to compete with the 5D, 5D II, or D700). That's a good point, and it's never been my intention to directly compare the k-7 to a full frame... My intention I guess is to point out that I paid a lot of money to "upgrade", only to get worse images. Had they been equal to the K20D in IQ, or better, I probably wouldn't have messed with things as the K-7 is a pretty sweet machine otherwise, but I just found it irritating the feel bad about choosing which camera to shoot, the one which can autofocus (the K-7) or the one which can take pictures in moderately low light (the K20D). Originally posted by kittykat46 ... the K-7's noise is of a fine-grained type which cleans up very nicely with NR. This is the exact opposite of my experience. I find the K-7 noise to be very large grain and very destructive to detail - could be I got a bad sample, I don't know. Originally posted by Jadran Here is one at 3200, crop 1:1, developed in Lightroom, all NR set to 0 EDIT: That looks way better than mine. I'd say that's more like the K20D produces. Last edited by heliphoto; 11-20-2009 at 09:38 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SR noise in K-x	Hemi345	Video Recording and Processing	3	02-17-2011 09:17 PM
Noise	Nubi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	06-28-2010 02:17 PM
Another.....K-7 noise.....	the swede	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	10-17-2009 02:57 AM
Noise	Simon23	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	05-12-2009 08:03 AM
cs3 noise filter vs. noise ninja vs. ???	reknelb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	03-04-2008 04:55 PM

11-20-2009, 01:30 AM	#16
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by heliphoto Maybe I (and all the other folks complaining about noise ) just have bad copies of the K-7 (or you have an exceptional one.) To address your questions, Lightroom preview quality is set to high, magnification is 1:1. This is a little above average in terms of high ISO noise I usually saw from my K-7 . Well, could be light conditions, I don't know. If you do shoot and really need high ISO a loot, then it's OK that you complain and want to use another camera. That is something everybody should decide for themselves. People should know their shooting stile and buy the right tool for it. But, it's annoying that people who don't need high ISO complain about noise. I have the feeling that for majority of people complaining have one particular motto - "my camera has better ISO quality at 3200, therefore I'm better photographer than you".

11-20-2009, 01:38 AM	#17
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	K-7 owner here, and I profess myself pretty darned happy with the camera overall, and perfectly satisfied with noise performance. I don't see a rival camera that has close to the same pricing and feature set (frame rate, AF, exposure, white balance, LCD res, weather sealing, etc.) that could give me significantly better noise performance. There are a few APS-C cameras with similar features that could give me slightly better performance, but they're all significantly more expensive. Originally posted by heliphoto Done! Switched to Canon because of the K-7 ... Having had the K200D (my first digital SLR) and then a K20D, I was excited by the promise of the K-7. In so many ways I was not disappointed by it, the fast shooting, the improved AF, the fantastic auto WB, nice feel, there's more... It's a nice body at low ISO, but above 800 for me the noise is a deal breaker - much worse than the K20D. Other switchers from this board that I know of - nostatic (switched to a 5D2 like me), jgredline (D700 - still has his K-7 but complains about noise ), maxwell1295 (a couple 5Ds - I don't think he ever owned a k-7, but left after it came out I think), there are probably more... ...so everybody you list who's switched has gone not to another APS-C camera, but to a FF camera (which one would expect to have dramatically lower noise), and likely paid well over double the cost of the K-7 to do so. To me, that's a heck of a compliment to the K-7 versus its real competition - ~$1,000 APS-C DSLRs. The K-7 isn't intended to compete with the 5D, 5D II, or D700).

11-20-2009, 02:36 AM	#18
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	I'm a very satisfied and happy K-7 user. The K-7 gives Very Good results under normal daylight and bright indoor lighting. No problems with ISO1600. ISO 3200 requires Noise Reduction during RAW processing, but the K-7's noise is of a fine-grained type which cleans up very nicely with NR.

11-20-2009, 03:04 AM	#19
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	I am just curious. Has anyone tried to do a 5" x 7" or larger print using a K-7 image at iso3200 and see if the noise actually affect output image quality? Is the noise very visible in actual printout?

11-20-2009, 03:15 AM	#21
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by jpzk Yves, I always shoot RAW. So that is not an issue with me. Did you own a previous camera model before the K7? Like K10 or K20D? I like the fact that it is not worse than any comparable "hi-end" competition. JP I've owned a K10D, still own a K20D, and the K-7. For work, I also have a "blad H3D-31. Honestly, when I need high ISO, my first choice is the K20D, but it doesn't mean the K-7 is unusable. It compares favorably with the D300. Not better, but not worst either. One thing I noticed is that noise doesn't seem to bother photographers coming from films as much as those who started directly with digital. Probably because we're used to the film grain.

11-20-2009, 03:26 AM	#22
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	For heliphoto - one question - did you set any in camera NR when you took that photo?

11-20-2009, 04:12 AM	#23
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	Originally posted by heliphoto Maybe I (and all the other folks complaining about noise ) just have bad copies of the K-7 (or you have an exceptional one.) To address your questions, Lightroom preview quality is set to high, magnification is 1:1. This is a little above average in terms of high ISO noise I usually saw from my K-7 . Here is a shot at 12,800 ISO with the K-x shot at about 1/15 as I remember, in a corner of my living room. Crappy light, hand held. Blows every Pentax I have had out of the water in the low noise department. This photo is untouched, as it came out of the camera. http://photos.imageevent.com/wlleven/k10dtest/downloadphotos/Front%20Room%20...0Untouched.jpg wll

11-20-2009, 05:34 AM	#24
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	5D and D700, aren't they FF...are we comparing the K-7 to those as well ? I think if you can swing it towards a FF and lenses, that would be ideal, if you can deal with the bigger size and cost. I am sure many have done so.......... If the K20D has much better iso performance than the K-7, then, yes, either the unit is broken or the shooter only shoots jpeg, or if he is using RAW, he really doesn't know how to use RAW. DPR only found marginal improvements with the K20D, and no proper tests have shown the K20D to be significantly superior to the K-7. So, it's either a defective unit or user error. However, you don't have to look far for an APS-C camera that will smoke the K-7 in iso performance right out of the water. The picture is posted right above my response, and the camera costs less than half of the K-7.

11-20-2009, 05:59 AM	#25
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by pcarfan However, you don't have to look far for an APS-C camera that will smoke the K-7 in iso performance right out of the water. The picture is posted right above my response, and the camera costs less than half of the K-7. Yes, K-x costs less then K-7, but those two are completely different class, and there are a lot of reasons for that. I am really bored of this "smoke out of the water" and such. How many of you shoot 3200? What are you going to do with such 12800 image anyway? If use on the web is the goal, then OK. Everybody should know what he/she needs, and chose on that premises. Very high ISO is just one of them. Here is one crop from jpg straight from K-7 at 6400 with no NR. Is noise horrible? (well, the light is a key) We could go on for like this for ages. Yes, K-x looks appx. 1 stop better at ISO higher then 1600. If somebody really need to shoot that much high ISO shoots, then Kx is maybe right tool for them. But, there is no sense to compare K-7 and Kx in any other way.

11-20-2009, 07:28 AM	#26
unkabin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Moorhead, MN Posts: 176	Originally posted by Jadran Yes, K-x costs less then K-7, but those two are completely different class, and there are a lot of reasons for that. I am really bored of this "smoke out of the water" and such. How many of you shoot 3200? What are you going to do with such 12800 image anyway? If use on the web is the goal, then OK. Everybody should know what he/she needs, and chose on that premises. Very high ISO is just one of them. Here is one crop from jpg straight from K-7 at 6400 with no NR. Is noise horrible? (well, the light is a key) We could go on for like this for ages. Yes, K-x looks appx. 1 stop better at ISO higher then 1600. If somebody really need to shoot that much high ISO shoots, then Kx is maybe right tool for them. But, there is no sense to compare K-7 and Kx in any other way. +1 Dial up your 'Kx's and take all the not-quite-as-ugly high ISO shots you want. Have a ball with that for a week or two, and then watch yourself dial back down and start taking some quality photos. ISO seems to be the new Megapixel.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-20-2009, 09:02 AM	#27
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by unkabin +1 Dial up your 'Kx's and take all the not-quite-as-ugly high ISO shots you want. Have a ball with that for a week or two, and then watch yourself dial back down and start taking some quality photos. ISO seems to be the new Megapixel. To be fair the megapixel race was relevant up to a point. For me 10MP was the end of the race because at that point you had plenty of resolution to do some serious cropping and still get a good picture. The ISO race is similar in that people will on occasion shoot insanely high ISO's and when they do so they will appreciate a camera with lower noise. What these two things have in common, though, is that they are both appreciated as much by people who are making mistakes in their photography as by the true professionals who shoot under exceptional circumstances and need those extreme resolution values. With the megapixel race if I had taken the photo with the correct framing in the first place then I would not need to crop. With ISO performance people need to realize that once they hit a certain point they may be overlooking some of their photographic techniques (like the use of flash, aperture and shutter speed). Without going into detailed description of what I mean I'll just say that not ALL sports photos need to be taken at > 1/1000 Of course there ARE exceptions which is why you can get a 50MP PhaseOne Medium format camera and why you can shoot comfortably at ISO 6400 on a D3. But MOST of the complaining about ISO noise can be attributed more to either user error or just simply wanting to "keep up with the Jones". So for me the "Clean ISO in an APS-C Camera" race ends at ISO 1600 or 3200. Since this is a photography forum with a lot more talk than pictures here are my examples: This shot was taken with a Canon 1D (under stadium lights) at ISO 3200; F2.8, 1/1000. Granted it was taken with a Canon but the point is it was ONLY at ISO 3200... so people are talking about how great a camera is at ISO 12,800 and I'm not sure why they need it? This one from the Pentax (same game) is not quite as good (ISO 3200, F2.8, 1/800) but it is not a professional sports camera and it cost less than 1/4 as much as the Canon. Still - I wouldn't mind seeing a slight improvement in the next generation. Maybe they could consider a new 10MP model camera with improved ISO? A funny thing is that I had to go WAY back to last May to find photos I had taken at ISO 3200.

11-20-2009, 09:17 AM	#29
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	Originally posted by Jadran For heliphoto - one question - did you set any in camera NR when you took that photo? I don't remember - I suppose if you really want, I can check with exiftool and see what's stored away in there, but it was my understanding that NR was not applied to the RAW file of the K-7. I did experiment with all NR settings in jpeg mode, figuring that maybe Pentax had included some magic algorithms to fix their noisy images, no luck . I'm really not that down on the K-7 everybody, but the OP addressed ISO specifically, and I would be remiss not to mention my experience - it is after all the whole point of these forums is we share experiences right? I think if the OP is after high ISO, he ought to buy a K-X (the obvious choice), a D700, or a 5DII (and there's always Sony (Minolta) which I'm not too familiar with)

11-20-2009, 09:24 AM	#30
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	I've not noticed any real difference between my K20D and my K-7 with regard to noise, though I don't make a habit of shooting high ISO with either of them. In the dark I use flash, in dim light I use fast lenses and don't go higher than 1600, because I know if I do with EITHER of them I'll get nasty results. To my eye, the K-7 produces a somewhat more film-like grain than the K20D, with less chroma noise as well. That's nice to me. Anyway, I've ordered a K-x for lightweight/street/low light shooting, and I probably won't have to worry about the noise issue again until Pentax gets the bright idea to put the K-x sensor in the K-7 body. ...or releases a FF camera.