K7 and noise ... again.

Jadran · 11-20-2009, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by heliphoto

Yeah - I saw that shot or one's like them in another thread, and the K-X looks pretty impressive.

This photo is from K-7. I just wanted to compare it with your shoot at 3200, I really don't know how you can get that kind of noise on it. Looks like pretty much NR applied.

heliphoto · 11-20-2009, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Jadran

This photo is from K-7. I just wanted to compare it with your shoot at 3200, I really don't know how you can get that kind of noise on it. Looks like pretty much NR applied.

Yeah - I knew that, but I got confused when I responded and I was referring to wll's post (though quoting yours). I went back and edited my comment... I am impressed by your sample - it's nothing like my experience. Like I said in the edit, that noise looks more like the level of graininess I get from the K20D and is much more acceptable in my eyes than what was coming out of my K-7.

Wheatfield · 11-20-2009, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by heliphoto

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)

The 7D is looking pretty good. I believe it's a cropped frame camera.

ISO 6400

ISO 12800

There are out of camera jpegs with "standard" noise reduction.
Photos used with permission.
Copyright Brian Schneider

knoxploration · 11-20-2009, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by heliphoto

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).

Even if one assumes that the noise is significantly worse in the K-7 as compared to the K20D (which it is, *slightly*, for luminance noise - but the K-7 is slightly better for chroma noise), you're only looking at one image quality metric, and one that only really applies to JPEG shooting.

There are a bunch of other image quality metrics where the K-7 beats the K20D, some of which affect both Raw and JPEG, and others limited to JPEG only. Better white balance, better exposure metering, better flash metering, better focusing, and a higher frame rate (that while not strictly speaking an image quality thing) still seems relevant because if you miss the shot, it doesn't matter how great your IQ is).

fejker · 11-20-2009, 11:49 AM

I own the K10D and the K-7 and I mostly shoot with the later because it's just a better experience all together ... faster, quieter, better noise control, nicer viewfinder, clearer and bigger screen. I need a grip tho, because I'm used to the bulky K10D.

I don't regret buying the K-7 ... it's a great tool for taking photos.

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 11:57 AM

Pcarfan:
Thanks for the reply!
That is a very good "user" review and with sample photos too.
By the way, I went to visit your photos on PPG and ... absolutely stunning! I see that this 31mm limited serves you well with the K7. What is the "other"lens you use?
Again, congratulations on your fine work.
JP

P.S. I am trying to add a PPG link as well under my signature but even if I tried many times, I always get a message saying "invalid file". Would you care to explain how exactly this is done? I am a bit of a computer-challenged one.

Jadran · 11-20-2009, 12:01 PM

I completely agree with fejker. The funny thing is that I don't get emotional about tools, but, after a few years (decades?), I think again I have feelings about one camera, this K-7. The first time I felt this way was when I got Minolta XD7, second time with Minolta Dynax 7. All three of them have number 7 in name. Coincidence?

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:19 PM

That sounds good! More positive feedback.
JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by digitaddict

Why do everyone seem to bother with noise
I find tread about noise boring...
All camera produce noise period.

If you do not mind noise, that is OK.
As far as I am concerned, noise in wildlife photography is something you really try to avoid.

JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:27 PM

Heliphoto:

This is almost scary! I am going to the local store this afternoon and they will aloow me to shoot a few pics inside the store. I will test a couple of pics and report back.
Thanks for the feedback.
JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:31 PM

Joey:
Thanks for the reply too!
Yeah! I believe this should be a K7 user thread and not a bunch of ranting. However, I do appreciate ANY comment, whether positive or negative with respect to the issue.
JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:36 PM

Knoxploration:
Here you have a good point of not trying to compare apples to oranges, so to speak. I must admit that the representation of those shots at 3200 ISO were frightening! Mind you, I have mentioned that I have very, very seldom used ISO 1600 and never went any higher with the K20D.
JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by kittykat46

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.

Another positive comment! Good for me!
Funny how different users will interpret this noise thing as absolutely negative while some other K7 users find the results perfectly acceptable at 1600ISO. I am glad to see that it is quite useable at that level.
JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by raider

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?

I asked that question earlier and nobody has yet come up with actual realuts from that.
Let us keep posted here and we may soon have some answers.
JP

**jpzk** · 11-20-2009, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by flyer

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.

Yves,
At last: I have a reply from someone who actually has the K10D and the K20D, as well as the K7. I trust your comments based on the fact that you can make direct comparisons between each model.
Thanks for the reply !
JP

11-20-2009, 10:00 AM	#33
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by heliphoto 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) The 7D is looking pretty good. I believe it's a cropped frame camera. ISO 6400 ISO 12800 There are out of camera jpegs with "standard" noise reduction. Photos used with permission. Copyright Brian Schneider Last edited by Wheatfield; 11-20-2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Technical info from owner of files

11-20-2009, 11:57 AM	#36
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Pcarfan: Thanks for the reply! That is a very good "user" review and with sample photos too. By the way, I went to visit your photos on PPG and ... absolutely stunning! I see that this 31mm limited serves you well with the K7. What is the "other"lens you use? Again, congratulations on your fine work. JP P.S. I am trying to add a PPG link as well under my signature but even if I tried many times, I always get a message saying "invalid file". Would you care to explain how exactly this is done? I am a bit of a computer-challenged one. Last edited by jpzk; 11-20-2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason: added a question

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, 09:30 AM	#31
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	Originally posted by heliphoto Yeah - I saw that shot or one's like them in another thread, and the K-X looks pretty impressive. This photo is from K-7. I just wanted to compare it with your shoot at 3200, I really don't know how you can get that kind of noise on it. Looks like pretty much NR applied.

11-20-2009, 09:42 AM	#32
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	Originally posted by Jadran This photo is from K-7. I just wanted to compare it with your shoot at 3200, I really don't know how you can get that kind of noise on it. Looks like pretty much NR applied. Yeah - I knew that, but I got confused when I responded and I was referring to wll's post (though quoting yours). I went back and edited my comment... I am impressed by your sample - it's nothing like my experience. Like I said in the edit, that noise looks more like the level of graininess I get from the K20D and is much more acceptable in my eyes than what was coming out of my K-7.

11-20-2009, 11:02 AM	#34
knoxploration Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 846	Originally posted by heliphoto 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). Even if one assumes that the noise is significantly worse in the K-7 as compared to the K20D (which it is, slightly, for luminance noise - but the K-7 is slightly better for chroma noise), you're only looking at one image quality metric, and one that only really applies to JPEG shooting. There are a bunch of other image quality metrics where the K-7 beats the K20D, some of which affect both Raw and JPEG, and others limited to JPEG only. Better white balance, better exposure metering, better flash metering, better focusing, and a higher frame rate (that while not strictly speaking an image quality thing) still seems relevant because if you miss the shot, it doesn't matter how great your IQ is).

11-20-2009, 11:49 AM	#35
fejker Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	I own the K10D and the K-7 and I mostly shoot with the later because it's just a better experience all together ... faster, quieter, better noise control, nicer viewfinder, clearer and bigger screen. I need a grip tho, because I'm used to the bulky K10D. I don't regret buying the K-7 ... it's a great tool for taking photos.

11-20-2009, 12:01 PM	#37
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	I completely agree with fejker. The funny thing is that I don't get emotional about tools, but, after a few years (decades?), I think again I have feelings about one camera, this K-7. The first time I felt this way was when I got Minolta XD7, second time with Minolta Dynax 7. All three of them have number 7 in name. Coincidence?

11-20-2009, 12:19 PM	#38
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	That sounds good! More positive feedback. JP

11-20-2009, 12:22 PM	#39
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by digitaddict Why do everyone seem to bother with noise I find tread about noise boring... All camera produce noise period. If you do not mind noise, that is OK. As far as I am concerned, noise in wildlife photography is something you really try to avoid. JP

11-20-2009, 12:27 PM	#40
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Heliphoto: This is almost scary! I am going to the local store this afternoon and they will aloow me to shoot a few pics inside the store. I will test a couple of pics and report back. Thanks for the feedback. JP

11-20-2009, 12:31 PM	#41
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Joey: Thanks for the reply too! Yeah! I believe this should be a K7 user thread and not a bunch of ranting. However, I do appreciate ANY comment, whether positive or negative with respect to the issue. JP

11-20-2009, 12:36 PM	#42
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Knoxploration: Here you have a good point of not trying to compare apples to oranges, so to speak. I must admit that the representation of those shots at 3200 ISO were frightening! Mind you, I have mentioned that I have very, very seldom used ISO 1600 and never went any higher with the K20D. JP

11-20-2009, 12:39 PM	#43
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by kittykat46 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. Another positive comment! Good for me! Funny how different users will interpret this noise thing as absolutely negative while some other K7 users find the results perfectly acceptable at 1600ISO. I am glad to see that it is quite useable at that level. JP

11-20-2009, 12:40 PM	#44
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by raider 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? I asked that question earlier and nobody has yet come up with actual realuts from that. Let us keep posted here and we may soon have some answers. JP

11-20-2009, 12:43 PM	#45
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251 Original Poster	Originally posted by flyer 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. Yves, At last: I have a reply from someone who actually has the K10D and the K20D, as well as the K7. I trust your comments based on the fact that you can make direct comparisons between each model. Thanks for the reply ! JP