A new K7 with the KX sensor? Please?

Jasvox · 11-24-2009, 05:06 AM

If you apply NR to 25 on the K-7 shot above as the earlier poster suggested, you may have a better result.

Jason

ogl · 11-24-2009, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by h734790

??? Are we talking about the same cameras?

Welcome here

Colour NR 25. - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT
IMGP9633.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT
IMGP9629.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT

Colour NR 25 - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT
IMGP9643.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT
IMGP9639.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT

LR 3.0 beta is no good for K-x and K-7. I 've made a lot photos of K-x in LR 3.0.
And I don't see even at your strange samples from IR with focus problem (of Sigma at K-7) that K-x is 1.5 stops better.

AdrianN · 11-24-2009, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by h734790

??? Are we talking about the same cameras?

Where can you see, exactly, that "better resolution"?

The K-7 image seems to be missing detail and has a softer look overall.

ogl · 11-24-2009, 05:35 AM

http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/24445pwW2GP2SlT/GZa8syV6SN/422174.jpg

K-x ISO1600 UFRAW default

http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/24445pwW2GP2SlT/GZa8syV6SN/422175.jpg
K-7

http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/24445pwW2GP2SlT/GZa8syV6SN/422176.jpg
resize to 12 MP

K-x left, K-7 right

Attached Images

Last edited by ogl; 11-24-2009 at 05:42 AM.

**Pål Jensen** · 11-24-2009, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by h734790

??? Are we talking about the same cameras?

Where can you see, exactly, that "better resolution"?

Easy to spot. TheK-7 images has much higher resolution. It can be seen in the texture. Even take into the account that the K-7 images is much larger and the fact that the subject is not very well chosen for showing off details and texture.

Digital images still look phony due to the lack of resolution. An image from an APS camera won't look real until around 30mp...Still a long way to go.

99% of all images are shot at "normal" ISO values.

ogl · 11-24-2009, 05:47 AM

K-7 and K-x

K-7 has a bit better resolution (without NR and sharpness)

ogl · 11-24-2009, 05:54 AM

K-7 and K-x

Attached Images

h734790 · 11-24-2009, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by ogl

LR 3.0 beta is no good for K-x and K-7.

Why didn't you like the results from LR3? It seems to do a very good job at colour NR.

I must admit that your images show much less difference between the two cameras in noise and resolution-wise.

Regards,
Bela

ogl · 11-24-2009, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by h734790

Why didn't you like the results from LR3? It seems to do a very good job at colour NR.

I must admit that your images show much less difference between the two cameras in noise and resolution-wise.

Regards,
Bela

I don't use NR in my real life. There is LR 2.6 RC. New.

LR 2.6 knows K-x's colour profile.
LR 3.0 is beta version.

I use LR very often, and I also use C1Pro, UFRAW and Silky Pix (very rare).

Yes. K-7 is just a bit better in resolution and K-x is better in noise at ISO1600 and above. Approx. 1/3-2/3 stops. Not above. K-x has also better tonal curves. IMO.

WerTicus · 11-24-2009, 09:48 AM

Coming from a k20d to the kx it is slightly annoying to have missing things like no 2nd dial, no focus indicators, no sr switch etc.

But holy crap the kx's sensor is light years ahead of the k20d. Dynamic range is massive, let alone the noise factor.

Its also far faster at focusing. (but i guess the k7 would be better still with its lamp)

When a k7 with kx sensor comes out ill be onto it instantly.

Riktar · 11-24-2009, 05:11 PM

I have been quite happy with my decision to buy into the Pentax (K20D) system after having shot Canon (40D), Sigma (SD14), and Nikon (D90).

While I was hoping for faster auto focusing with a (possible) K-7 purchase after the holidays, me thinks I will wait to see if the "new fangled" sensor gets into the K30D, K-8, etc.

Sits firmly on the fence.

ogl · 11-24-2009, 09:56 PM

K-x with K-x's sensor will never be.

GerryL · 11-25-2009, 10:23 AM

I think what Pentax would do would be a K200D with the K-x sensor and other K-x features.
That would sell more cameras than a K7 with a K-x sensor.

The K-x on itself is already selling a lot of cameras, why make an expensive camera that would not be reachable by the masses/common folks when you can make the same weathersealed body, like the the K200D and just replace the sensor with something like the K-x.
That would sell more as it would be more affordable with the weathersealing at that and a grip could be added too!

Dubious Drewski · 11-25-2009, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by GerryL

The K-x on itself is already selling a lot of cameras, why make an expensive camera that would not be reachable by the masses/common folks when you can make the same weathersealed body, like the the K200D and just replace the sensor with something like the K-x.
That would sell more as it would be more affordable with the weathersealing at that and a grip could be added too!

I'm sorry that I'm going to sound like a pompous ass, but plenty of us can afford something like the K7 or even nicer. Pentax's problem is that their highest-end DSLR bodies aren't as full-featured as the highest-end from other brands. The professionals using Pentax need a body that's $2500 or more (with features to match). I have four friends who all shoot Pentax and all have the K7. I know I was able to buy my K7 after doing a single wedding.

Pentax needs more expensive bodies just as much as they need cheaper ones. High end stuff does sell well. I don't know why you think it wouldn't.

GerryL · 11-25-2009, 12:49 PM

Yeah! Expensive stuff sell well that is why K-x is having a heyday..

People who originally wanted a K7 are now opting to buy K-x instead.

11-24-2009, 05:13 AM	#17
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by h734790 ??? Are we talking about the same cameras? Welcome here Colour NR 25. - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT IMGP9633.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT IMGP9629.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT Colour NR 25 - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT IMGP9643.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT IMGP9639.jpg - Òåñòû K-x è K-7 - îãë - Ó÷àñòíèêè - Ôîòîãàëåðåÿ iXBT LR 3.0 beta is no good for K-x and K-7. I 've made a lot photos of K-x in LR 3.0. And I don't see even at your strange samples from IR with focus problem (of Sigma at K-7) that K-x is 1.5 stops better. Last edited by ogl; 11-24-2009 at 05:20 AM.

11-24-2009, 05:11 PM	#26
Riktar Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Neosho, Wisconsin Photos: Gallery Posts: 115	Well then I have been quite happy with my decision to buy into the Pentax (K20D) system after having shot Canon (40D), Sigma (SD14), and Nikon (D90). While I was hoping for faster auto focusing with a (possible) K-7 purchase after the holidays, me thinks I will wait to see if the "new fangled" sensor gets into the K30D, K-8, etc. Sits firmly on the fence.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x Sony Sensor vs K-7 Samsung Sensor	karl79	Video Recording and Processing	9	09-23-2010 09:35 AM
K-7 Sensor	XH558	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	06-10-2010 11:56 PM
K-7 sensor vs K20d sensor	Mystic	Pentax News and Rumors	33	06-21-2009 03:01 AM
Sensor cleaning: Pec-Pads or Sensor Swabs	gadgetnu	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	29	09-24-2007 10:52 AM
Sensor cleaning > Sensor Swab > void warranty?	Twinky	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	07-28-2007 01:10 AM

11-24-2009, 05:06 AM	#16
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	If you apply NR to 25 on the K-7 shot above as the earlier poster suggested, you may have a better result. Jason

11-24-2009, 05:28 AM	#18
AdrianN Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sydney Posts: 66	Originally posted by h734790 ??? Are we talking about the same cameras? Where can you see, exactly, that "better resolution"? The K-7 image seems to be missing detail and has a softer look overall.

11-24-2009, 05:35 AM	#19
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/24445pwW2GP2SlT/GZa8syV6SN/422174.jpg K-x ISO1600 UFRAW default http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/24445pwW2GP2SlT/GZa8syV6SN/422175.jpg K-7 http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/24445pwW2GP2SlT/GZa8syV6SN/422176.jpg resize to 12 MP K-x left, K-7 right Attached Images Last edited by ogl; 11-24-2009 at 05:42 AM.

11-24-2009, 05:38 AM	#20
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by h734790 ??? Are we talking about the same cameras? Where can you see, exactly, that "better resolution"? Easy to spot. TheK-7 images has much higher resolution. It can be seen in the texture. Even take into the account that the K-7 images is much larger and the fact that the subject is not very well chosen for showing off details and texture. Digital images still look phony due to the lack of resolution. An image from an APS camera won't look real until around 30mp...Still a long way to go. 99% of all images are shot at "normal" ISO values.

11-24-2009, 05:54 AM	#22
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	K-7 and K-x Attached Images

11-24-2009, 05:55 AM	#23
h734790 New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Szeged, Hungary Posts: 19	Originally posted by ogl LR 3.0 beta is no good for K-x and K-7. Why didn't you like the results from LR3? It seems to do a very good job at colour NR. I must admit that your images show much less difference between the two cameras in noise and resolution-wise. Regards, Bela

11-24-2009, 06:12 AM	#24
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by h734790 Why didn't you like the results from LR3? It seems to do a very good job at colour NR. I must admit that your images show much less difference between the two cameras in noise and resolution-wise. Regards, Bela I don't use NR in my real life. There is LR 2.6 RC. New. LR 2.6 knows K-x's colour profile. LR 3.0 is beta version. I use LR very often, and I also use C1Pro, UFRAW and Silky Pix (very rare). Yes. K-7 is just a bit better in resolution and K-x is better in noise at ISO1600 and above. Approx. 1/3-2/3 stops. Not above. K-x has also better tonal curves. IMO.

11-24-2009, 09:48 AM	#25
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Coming from a k20d to the kx it is slightly annoying to have missing things like no 2nd dial, no focus indicators, no sr switch etc. But holy crap the kx's sensor is light years ahead of the k20d. Dynamic range is massive, let alone the noise factor. Its also far faster at focusing. (but i guess the k7 would be better still with its lamp) When a k7 with kx sensor comes out ill be onto it instantly.

11-24-2009, 09:56 PM	#27
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	K-x with K-x's sensor will never be.

11-25-2009, 10:23 AM	#28
GerryL Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: CA Posts: 2,731	I think what Pentax would do would be a K200D with the K-x sensor and other K-x features. That would sell more cameras than a K7 with a K-x sensor. The K-x on itself is already selling a lot of cameras, why make an expensive camera that would not be reachable by the masses/common folks when you can make the same weathersealed body, like the the K200D and just replace the sensor with something like the K-x. That would sell more as it would be more affordable with the weathersealing at that and a grip could be added too!

11-25-2009, 12:31 PM	#29
Dubious Drewski Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Calgary Posts: 67 Original Poster	Originally posted by GerryL The K-x on itself is already selling a lot of cameras, why make an expensive camera that would not be reachable by the masses/common folks when you can make the same weathersealed body, like the the K200D and just replace the sensor with something like the K-x. That would sell more as it would be more affordable with the weathersealing at that and a grip could be added too! I'm sorry that I'm going to sound like a pompous ass, but plenty of us can afford something like the K7 or even nicer. Pentax's problem is that their highest-end DSLR bodies aren't as full-featured as the highest-end from other brands. The professionals using Pentax need a body that's $2500 or more (with features to match). I have four friends who all shoot Pentax and all have the K7. I know I was able to buy my K7 after doing a single wedding. Pentax needs more expensive bodies just as much as they need cheaper ones. High end stuff does sell well. I don't know why you think it wouldn't.

11-25-2009, 12:49 PM	#30
GerryL Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: CA Posts: 2,731	Yeah! Expensive stuff sell well that is why K-x is having a heyday.. People who originally wanted a K7 are now opting to buy K-x instead.