Hi ISO ? and or Camera specs

Marc Sabatella · 12-09-2009, 05:49 PM

My impression, based on lookng at other people's images (since I own neither camera) and reading the very detailed analyses be people like GordonBGood, is that K20D's advantage over the K-7 in the noise department is almost entirely due to difference in the amount of NR done to the RAW files, and that if you process them yourself (even if just to apply a preset) you can get virtually identical results.

I suppose if you really need the camera to do the job for you, then you could experiment with the different "high iso nr" settings in your camera. But you'll never get nearly the same level of control you get by doing it in PP - agan, if with just a simple preset you create yourself that is optimized for what kind of tradeoff you like to see between noise, detail, and artifacts.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 12-10-2009 at 11:47 AM.

JohnBee · 12-09-2009, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

My impression, based on lookng at other people's images (since I own neither camera) and reading the very detailed analyses be people like GordonBGood, is that K20D's advantage over the K-7 in the noise department is almost entirely due to difference in the amount of NR done to the RAW files, and that if you process them yourslef (even if just to apply a preset) you can get virtually identical results.

I can see why you might see it this way. However, I think there are also sensitivity handling differences between both units as well. Having shot with both units, I tried my best to clean-up the K-7 to either match or exceed the K20D up to ISO3200.

Unfortunately(despite my best efforts), I was not able to retain nearly any of the detail I could with the K20D. A scenario that stood fast with or without NR. Another "very" interesting issue between the two units was that the K-7 seemed to have a much cleaner(or consistent) noise patterns than the K20D. Yet... I was never able to coax the K-7 into retaining anything near that of the K20 after all was said and done.

All in all, I found the experience to be as frustrating as it was disappointing because I really wanted to get on-board with a K7 this year.

So... we retaliated by picking-up another K20 until Pentax puts out their next model.

Arpe · 12-10-2009, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

Can someone teach me how to read that chart? The larger the number on the Y axis means the more worse it is off with noise?

Yes, so K-7 black noise isn't so good, but the other two are pretty good.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
High ISO (3200) shots - guess which camera?	Christine Tham	Pentax DSLR Discussion	27	10-19-2010 08:31 PM
pentax MF camera specs	namtot	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	7	08-31-2010 08:02 AM
high iso in-camera processing duration k7 vs k20d	navicore	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	12-09-2009 12:03 PM
ISO 102400 !!! D3s Specs via British Journal of Photography posted EARLY	Samsungian	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	32	10-15-2009 05:53 AM
Best low-ISO P&S camera?	kjao	Pentax Compact Cameras	8	03-01-2008 07:19 PM

12-09-2009, 05:49 PM	#31
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	My impression, based on lookng at other people's images (since I own neither camera) and reading the very detailed analyses be people like GordonBGood, is that K20D's advantage over the K-7 in the noise department is almost entirely due to difference in the amount of NR done to the RAW files, and that if you process them yourself (even if just to apply a preset) you can get virtually identical results. I suppose if you really need the camera to do the job for you, then you could experiment with the different "high iso nr" settings in your camera. But you'll never get nearly the same level of control you get by doing it in PP - agan, if with just a simple preset you create yourself that is optimized for what kind of tradeoff you like to see between noise, detail, and artifacts. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 12-10-2009 at 11:47 AM.

12-09-2009, 06:10 PM	#32
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella My impression, based on lookng at other people's images (since I own neither camera) and reading the very detailed analyses be people like GordonBGood, is that K20D's advantage over the K-7 in the noise department is almost entirely due to difference in the amount of NR done to the RAW files, and that if you process them yourslef (even if just to apply a preset) you can get virtually identical results. I can see why you might see it this way. However, I think there are also sensitivity handling differences between both units as well. Having shot with both units, I tried my best to clean-up the K-7 to either match or exceed the K20D up to ISO3200. Unfortunately(despite my best efforts), I was not able to retain nearly any of the detail I could with the K20D. A scenario that stood fast with or without NR. Another "very" interesting issue between the two units was that the K-7 seemed to have a much cleaner(or consistent) noise patterns than the K20D. Yet... I was never able to coax the K-7 into retaining anything near that of the K20 after all was said and done. All in all, I found the experience to be as frustrating as it was disappointing because I really wanted to get on-board with a K7 this year. So... we retaliated by picking-up another K20 until Pentax puts out their next model.

12-10-2009, 04:52 PM	#33
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Originally posted by LeDave Can someone teach me how to read that chart? The larger the number on the Y axis means the more worse it is off with noise? Yes, so K-7 black noise isn't so good, but the other two are pretty good.