Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-14-2009, 11:27 AM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
BTW, looking at the posted samples from the "comparometer", I see something different from what most people seem to: I see very high (pretty much objectionally so) levels of noise reduction applied to both the K-x and the D90 images.
I can see that too - that's why I also did the face and textural details to try to show how these differed in more realistic situations.

But since I shoot mainly JPG - this is quite important - the Kx results to my eyes are "as good as" the D90 and in some ways (face, textural details) better than the D90 - and although I can appreciate the K7 - I do not to want to, nor have the time to extract the optimum image via post-processing and having to do RAW conversion - when most of my output is at a mere 600x400!

BTW - I believe this is why Nikon may have dropped back on their noise reduction in JPG in their newer and more up-market D300s - despite of getting lower scores on PopPhoto for noise.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You have to remember those are 100% crops. That's the equivalent of making a print about the size of my refrigerator and then examining it from a foot away. That's just not how photographs are viewed, and that's why I keep emphasizing that people tend to greatly overstate the differences *in practice* between cameras. The idea that there is *any* modern DLSR that could not produce acceptable images in the type of applications being discussed here is lunacy. It's like poring over Car & Driver magazine looking over stats on acceleration and turning ration and whatever it is they rate cars on, and then wondering if one that got a marginally worse socre than the others will still be able to drive you to work.
LoL! I couldn't agree more! (see above re: my output )

BUT all I can really say is that the Kx is a lot better even for my usage at ISO3200 than my K100D - which is no slouch up to ISO1600,
and the Kx at ISO6400 is still probably slightly better/usable than the K100D at ISO3200 - but so far it's kind of moot since I can mostly make do with ISO3200 max.
- but it is nice to have an ISO6400 that's better than the ISO3200 of the K100D.


Last edited by UnknownVT; 12-14-2009 at 11:41 AM.
12-14-2009, 12:43 PM   #47
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
But since I shoot mainly JPG - this is quite important - the Kx results to my eyes are "as good as" the D90 and in some ways (face, textural details) better than the D90
Absolutely. the D90 NR I'd call *definitely* objectionable in terms of the loss of detail. The K-x does do a pretty impressive job keeping detail while reducing noise - it's still just a bit heavy handed handed for my tastes.

QuoteQuote:
I do not to want to, nor have the time to extract the optimum image via post-processing and having to do RAW conversion - when most of my output is at a mere 600x400!
Takes me less time to batch process a week's worth of images for NR than it just took me to type this message (about a minute). Considering that you are having to do some kind of processing anyhow to convert your images to that 600x400 resolution, the NR stage really adds zero additional time. Just something to think about. A lot people have this notion that shooting RAW or doing NR in PP takes a lot of additional time, and that just isn't so.
12-14-2009, 01:04 PM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Takes me less time to batch process a week's worth of images for NR than it just took me to type this message (about a minute). Considering that you are having to do some kind of processing anyhow to convert your images to that 600x400 resolution, the NR stage really adds zero additional time. Just something to think about. A lot people have this notion that shooting RAW or doing NR in PP takes a lot of additional time, and that just isn't so.
I "process" photos almost every single day - on average about 15 shots -and considering my output is mainly in the 600x400 region the gains at ISO3200 and below are not going to be noticed and even at 10x8 prints - for me - so the extra storage,and even short processing is not worth it to me - of course YMMV for many others - and laugh as anyone might - I probably can get away with a 3Mp p&s and have done so.......


from a 2Mp Canon PowerShot S100 the original Digital ELPH.....

In theory this Kx shot -

should be better.....
12-14-2009, 01:46 PM   #49
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
BTW, looking at the posted samples from the "comparometer", I see something different from what most people seem to: I see very high (pretty much objectionally so) levels of noise reduction applied to both the K-x and the D90 images. The K-7 images look like the sorts of things I could easily work with in PP. That's what I do with my K200D - no NR in camera beyond whatever it does beyond my control, but I apply as much as I feel need in my RAW processing. Typically, I use a very light hand - far less heavy-handed than the posted K-x and D90 samples.
After working with K-x RAWs in lightroom for a while, I really think you'd love it. Since I'm using the LR3 beta, there's no luminance NR, but to process for print I really don't think I'd need it. There's barely more grain in a well-exposed ISO 3200 shot than I remember from my K20D at 800 (or the venerated Canon 40D, for that matter). The color noise just disappears with no detail loss. The resulting files are a little too "textured" for screen, but if I want smoothness a quick trip through the neatimage trial version smoothens things up while keeping a surprising level of detail.

At ISO 100-200, where I do most of my work, the dynamic range (mostly in the shadows) is just fantastic as well. I used to want a full-frame like the D700 or 5D for that clean shadow detail, but now... why bother (I still want a 5D to stick on the back of an 85mm since I'm in love with that lens's bokeh, but otherwise...).

12-14-2009, 01:52 PM   #50
Senior Member
pakuchn's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 166
Original Poster
What software does the K-x and K7 come with for photoprocessing? Is it any good?
Nikon people use Capture NX2 which works well.
12-14-2009, 01:52 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I see something different from what most people seem to: I see very high (pretty much objectionally so) levels of noise reduction applied to both the K-x and the D90 images.
I've noticed that too so I'm a bit careful in the praising of the Kx sensor, I'm not a fan of heavy in camera noise reduction of raw files. At least you should be able to switch it off.
12-14-2009, 02:05 PM   #52
Senior Member
pakuchn's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 166
Original Poster
So, I been reading some reviews on Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality and comparing K-7 and D90. How should I translate the low light stats? Does this mean that D90 is much better? I wish they had this type of review for K-x.
Attached Images
 
12-14-2009, 02:08 PM   #53
Veteran Member
kevinschoenmakers's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pakuchn Quote
What software does the K-x and K7 come with for photoprocessing? Is it any good?
Nikon people use Capture NX2 which works well.
This has already been answered a few pages back. It comes with software based on Silkypics. I've not had any experience with it but DPReview rated it 'very good': Pentax K-7 Review: 32. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review (last positive point).

Reading this thread and what you want to do with a camera, I'd recommend going for an entry-level camera (such as the K-x). You seem to want to use your camera for just everyday use, and it sounds like you will probably never use the features that come with a more expensive model such as the K-7 or the D90. The K-x is a well-built, easy-to-learn camera that will not confuse a first-time dSLR-user yet potentially produces stunning images (I say 'potentially' because in the end it comes down to the person using the camera, not the camera itself). You will also have more money to spend on lenses (which really are more important for getting good image quality than camerabodies) and perhaps a flash. And on top of that you'll be able to use all your old pentax lenses from your film camera.

Really, why not buy a K-x? It seems to me to be the perfect camera for your needs.

12-14-2009, 02:11 PM   #54
Veteran Member
kevinschoenmakers's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pakuchn Quote
So, I been reading some reviews on Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality and comparing K-7 and D90. How should I translate the low light stats? Does this mean that D90 is much better? I wish they had this type of review for K-x.
The DxO score should be taken with a grain of salt since they overly simplify the results. It's better to compare actual pictures than looking at some abstract measurement.

Also, as far as I know the K-x and the D90 have the same (or very similar) 12mp Sony-sensor. I suspect they would score the same on the DxO score. In any case, the pictures posted in this thread showed how similar they were in image quality.
12-14-2009, 02:13 PM   #55
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,684
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
There's barely more grain in a well-exposed ISO 3200 shot than I remember from my K20D at 800
I think you'd better check your memory. I downloaded files from the Image Comparometer. Viewed at equal resolution, ISO 1600 from the K20D shows more detail and less noise than the K-x file at ISO 3200. Which means there's less than one stop difference.
12-14-2009, 02:31 PM   #56
Pentaxian
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,683
I'm not talking about IR comparometer images, dan. I'm talking about real images taken in the real-world situations I like to shoot.
12-14-2009, 02:34 PM   #57
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,684
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
I'm not talking about IR comparometer images, dan. I'm talking about real images taken in the real-world situations I like to shoot.
Got any evidence? No one else is talking about two stops that I've seen.
12-14-2009, 03:10 PM   #58
Senior Member
pakuchn's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 166
Original Poster
Interesting reading.
Falk Lumo: Lumolabs: Pentax K-x vs. K-7, sensor and video

"Pentax has recently released a new SLR, the Pentax K-x. And while it is positioned at the entry-level market and very competitively priced, it is yet rumoured to have a very good noise performance.

After having done all my lab tests, I may say that the rumors are not true.

The truth is that the K-x may be the 35mm SLR camera which has the best high ISO noise and dynamic range performance to date. This isn't "very good". This is outstanding".
12-14-2009, 03:17 PM   #59
Veteran Member
kevinschoenmakers's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pakuchn Quote
Interesting reading.
Falk Lumo: Lumolabs: Pentax K-x vs. K-7, sensor and video

"Pentax has recently released a new SLR, the Pentax K-x. And while it is positioned at the entry-level market and very competitively priced, it is yet rumoured to have a very good noise performance.

After having done all my lab tests, I may say that the rumors are not true.

The truth is that the K-x may be the 35mm SLR camera which has the best high ISO noise and dynamic range performance to date. This isn't "very good". This is outstanding".
Like I said, why not go for the K-x?
12-14-2009, 03:27 PM   #60
Pentaxian
LeDave's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,904
QuoteOriginally posted by kevinschoenmakers Quote
Like I said, why not go for the K-x?
Well we've given him all the necessary and available information he needs to choose. Undecided as he is, it's clear that he wants the K-7 but he needs us to somehow "re-assure" him that it's better than the K-x and D90, when technically there are is no DSLR that is "all-out" better than it's competition or "all-out" better than a lower-level that boasts newer technology.

I don't know what else to say, he clearly wants the K-7 but unable to buy it until we given him the information he wants to buy it. He's not going to buy the K-x or D90 because he doesn't want the K-x or D90 since he is locked on the K-7, still he doesn't want to buy it because we haven't"re-assured" him enough.

In the end he will most likely get the K-7 due to this rant, obviously the majority and if not all has recommended him the K-x, yet he doesn't buy it, which shows something else. He asked for advice and comparison and we gave him advice and comparison, but he wants what doesn't exist, and the K-7 being all out better doesn't exist, although it is better in most ways over the K-x.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, d90, dslr, nikon, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do I need Pentax K-x, if I have Nikon D90? Jaleel Pentax DSLR Discussion 31 12-26-2009 07:04 AM
Nikon D90 and neverending story Reps Photographic Technique 2 10-13-2008 01:16 PM
Tempted by Nikon D90 hinman Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 29 10-06-2008 06:11 PM
new nikon D90 ?? HD movie mode txsbluesguy Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 12 08-28-2008 12:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:53 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top