K7 noise versus the rest question (a different take)

harleynitelite · 12-20-2009, 07:47 PM

Here it is folks,

I had a k20d in the past, sold it, and recently purchased the kx. While everyone raves about the high iso capabilities, I find that in comparison to the detail the k20d is capable of is night and day under the same picture settings and shooting conditions. Maybe I was spoiled by the high IQ I don't know but I yearn for the high IQ that I once had.

To get to the point, yes seems like every review I see describes how bad the noise is on the k7 beyond 1600...BUT in jpegs only except for dpreview. On there they also take into consideration the noise levels in RAW and to my suprise the k7 is right there with the rest in noise levels.

To anyone out there that owns a k7...does anyone have any examples of high iso shots run through noise ninja? I wonder how that would compare to the kx then?

Apparently whatever noise control in the k7 jpegs is much lower even at the highest settings to retain detail and I prefer it that way as you can always reduce the noise, but never get back the detail that was smudged away from the start.

Can anyone help?
Thank you

erickallemeyn · 12-20-2009, 07:53 PM

Credit to pcarfan. K7 ISO 3200 RAW + noiseware

Use the search.

GeneV · 12-20-2009, 08:29 PM

Wow. These software packages are amazing--really levels out this factor between various bodies.

gfmucci · 12-20-2009, 08:38 PM

Was that with NoiseWare plug-in or stand-alone? Using Photoshop or Elements or something else?

Do you recommend Noiseware? The plug-in from the NoiseWare site is $49. What is their competition and how does it stack up?

**jpzk** · 12-20-2009, 09:10 PM

Here's one of mine:
ISO 3200; shot RAW, converted to TIFF then NR with NoisewarePro - Stand-Alone version(medium settings).
K7, Lens: DA*16-50 f2.8 taken at 50mm; 1/250s
Handheld/no flash

harleynitelite · 12-20-2009, 10:36 PM

Both of those examples are sweet...thanks to both of you for taking the time to upload those. I know it seems like everyone loves the k-x sensor, but I for one am the exception. Yes the high iso may be excellent, but from my experience the detail usually gained at low iso's just aren't there with the kx. My old canon xsi easily seemed to outresolve the kx when I reviewed some old pics I had.

I've been also wondering if the mark I 18-55mm that comes with the k-x kit could be some of the problem as the k20d I had came with the mark II version...granted the k20 has 2 extra megs on it, but the difference seems greater than 2 mp's could provide. Possibly a combination of the two? I dont know

**Hannican** · 12-20-2009, 11:02 PM

Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too.

Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

harleynitelite · 12-20-2009, 11:26 PM

I'm glad there are others out there like myself. Granted a higher iso gives you the opportunity to utilize slower glass in low light scenarios or for fast action (sports) but it can't replace good fast glass. Maybe I'm a perfectionist, but I agree with hannican for the most part in that I love the detail in the lower iso, contrast, etc, than at higher iso without the detail...for me anyhow....it just never comes out good enough and this is coming from someone that cant afford some good glass that can autofocus. The closest I'll get is the $300 50mm 1.4 and thats a stretch for low light.

Problem remains though that even with fast glass on the k-x, I'm uncertain if the IQ would really be there. From what I see it looks below what a 10 mp camera would catch with the kit lens.

Jadran · 12-21-2009, 02:32 AM

K-7, ISO 6400 + noiseware:

PentaxForums.com - Jadran's Album: K-7 Test photos - Picture

Jonson PL · 12-21-2009, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by harleynitelite

Here it is folks,

I had a k20d in the past, sold it, and recently purchased the kx. While everyone raves about the high iso capabilities, I find that in comparison to the detail the k20d is capable of is night and day under the same picture settings and shooting conditions. Maybe I was spoiled by the high IQ I don't know but I yearn for the high IQ that I once had.

To get to the point, yes seems like every review I see describes how bad the noise is on the k7 beyond 1600...BUT in jpegs only except for dpreview. On there they also take into consideration the noise levels in RAW and to my suprise the k7 is right there with the rest in noise levels.

Yep, what you discribe has been discussed in this thread :
The Noise Myth is Over ... thx DPR. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

And Falk also inclosed it in his examination of the two cameras :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/844373-post6.html

Originally posted by harleynitelite

To anyone out there that owns a k7...does anyone have any examples of high iso shots run through noise ninja? I wonder how that would compare to the kx then?

Apparently whatever noise control in the k7 jpegs is much lower even at the highest settings to retain detail and I prefer it that way as you can always reduce the noise, but never get back the detail that was smudged away from the start.

Can anyone help?
Thank you

Here are some of the higher Iso K7 pictures that I've come across :

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/71691-k-7-iso3200-images...rocessing.html

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=32960496

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=32695870

The extra 2.2 MP of the K7 can be of interest to me, as I often need to crop my pictures. And then I need all the resolution I can get, as long as Iso 1600 is still looking good.

mattdm · 12-21-2009, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Hannican

Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

Hate tripods, check. Candlelight, sometimes. Shake reduction: good too, but doesn't freeze the subject.

GeneV · 12-21-2009, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Hannican

Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too.

Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

Outdoors or shooting a subject that does not move, I'm with you. I'll go as high as 400 on the K20d and 200 on the K10d. However, weddings, parties, plays and events are so much better at ISO 800- 1600, even with the marginal built-in NR of Photoshop. It is the difference between catching the moment and not.

GeneV · 12-21-2009, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Jadran

K-7, ISO 6400 + noiseware:

PentaxForums.com - Jadran's Album: K-7 Test photos - Picture

Thank you.

Gimbal · 12-21-2009, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Hannican

Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too.

Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

You think ISO over 200 looks like ”shit” and then you wonder why people want better high ISO?

MJB DIGITAL · 12-21-2009, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Hannican

Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too.

Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

I try to stay at or below 320.

This includes receptions, but in my left hand is a lightstand with a flash on top ready to be deployed...

12-20-2009, 07:47 PM	#1
harleynitelite Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lawrenceburg, IN Photos: Albums Posts: 118	K7 noise versus the rest question (a different take) Here it is folks, I had a k20d in the past, sold it, and recently purchased the kx. While everyone raves about the high iso capabilities, I find that in comparison to the detail the k20d is capable of is night and day under the same picture settings and shooting conditions. Maybe I was spoiled by the high IQ I don't know but I yearn for the high IQ that I once had. To get to the point, yes seems like every review I see describes how bad the noise is on the k7 beyond 1600...BUT in jpegs only except for dpreview. On there they also take into consideration the noise levels in RAW and to my suprise the k7 is right there with the rest in noise levels. To anyone out there that owns a k7...does anyone have any examples of high iso shots run through noise ninja? I wonder how that would compare to the kx then? Apparently whatever noise control in the k7 jpegs is much lower even at the highest settings to retain detail and I prefer it that way as you can always reduce the noise, but never get back the detail that was smudged away from the start. Can anyone help? Thank you

12-20-2009, 07:53 PM	#2
erickallemeyn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 112	Credit to pcarfan. K7 ISO 3200 RAW + noiseware Use the search. Last edited by erickallemeyn; 12-20-2009 at 07:59 PM.

12-20-2009, 09:10 PM	#5
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Here's one of mine: ISO 3200; shot RAW, converted to TIFF then NR with NoisewarePro - Stand-Alone version(medium settings). K7, Lens: DA16-50 f2.8 taken at 50mm; 1/250s Handheld/no flash Last edited by jpzk; 08-30-2015 at 06:47 PM.*

12-21-2009, 02:44 AM	#10
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	Originally posted by harleynitelite Here it is folks, I had a k20d in the past, sold it, and recently purchased the kx. While everyone raves about the high iso capabilities, I find that in comparison to the detail the k20d is capable of is night and day under the same picture settings and shooting conditions. Maybe I was spoiled by the high IQ I don't know but I yearn for the high IQ that I once had. To get to the point, yes seems like every review I see describes how bad the noise is on the k7 beyond 1600...BUT in jpegs only except for dpreview. On there they also take into consideration the noise levels in RAW and to my suprise the k7 is right there with the rest in noise levels. Yep, what you discribe has been discussed in this thread : The Noise Myth is Over ... thx DPR. [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review And Falk also inclosed it in his examination of the two cameras : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/844373-post6.html Originally posted by harleynitelite To anyone out there that owns a k7...does anyone have any examples of high iso shots run through noise ninja? I wonder how that would compare to the kx then? Apparently whatever noise control in the k7 jpegs is much lower even at the highest settings to retain detail and I prefer it that way as you can always reduce the noise, but never get back the detail that was smudged away from the start. Can anyone help? Thank you Here are some of the higher Iso K7 pictures that I've come across : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/71691-k-7-iso3200-images...rocessing.html http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=32960496 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=32695870 The extra 2.2 MP of the K7 can be of interest to me, as I often need to crop my pictures. And then I need all the resolution I can get, as long as Iso 1600 is still looking good. Last edited by Jonson PL; 12-21-2009 at 04:10 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question Re: K-x a different kind of noise	Katsura	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	12-05-2009 11:37 PM
Question about noise	Lainey	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	05-27-2009 11:44 AM
Trying To Lay the D-Range Question to Rest	Das Boot	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	12-25-2008 01:39 PM
Noise Reduction question k20d	jbrowning	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	10-22-2008 04:18 PM
Another noise question	Eddie	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	11-15-2007 10:47 AM

12-20-2009, 08:29 PM	#3
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Wow. These software packages are amazing--really levels out this factor between various bodies.

12-20-2009, 08:38 PM	#4
gfmucci Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The Villages, FL Posts: 70	Was that with NoiseWare plug-in or stand-alone? Using Photoshop or Elements or something else? Do you recommend Noiseware? The plug-in from the NoiseWare site is $49. What is their competition and how does it stack up?

12-20-2009, 10:36 PM	#6
harleynitelite Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lawrenceburg, IN Photos: Albums Posts: 118 Original Poster	Both of those examples are sweet...thanks to both of you for taking the time to upload those. I know it seems like everyone loves the k-x sensor, but I for one am the exception. Yes the high iso may be excellent, but from my experience the detail usually gained at low iso's just aren't there with the kx. My old canon xsi easily seemed to outresolve the kx when I reviewed some old pics I had. I've been also wondering if the mark I 18-55mm that comes with the k-x kit could be some of the problem as the k20d I had came with the mark II version...granted the k20 has 2 extra megs on it, but the difference seems greater than 2 mp's could provide. Possibly a combination of the two? I dont know

12-20-2009, 11:02 PM	#7
Hannican Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 485	Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too. Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff?

12-20-2009, 11:26 PM	#8
harleynitelite Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lawrenceburg, IN Photos: Albums Posts: 118 Original Poster	I'm glad there are others out there like myself. Granted a higher iso gives you the opportunity to utilize slower glass in low light scenarios or for fast action (sports) but it can't replace good fast glass. Maybe I'm a perfectionist, but I agree with hannican for the most part in that I love the detail in the lower iso, contrast, etc, than at higher iso without the detail...for me anyhow....it just never comes out good enough and this is coming from someone that cant afford some good glass that can autofocus. The closest I'll get is the $300 50mm 1.4 and thats a stretch for low light. Problem remains though that even with fast glass on the k-x, I'm uncertain if the IQ would really be there. From what I see it looks below what a 10 mp camera would catch with the kit lens.

12-21-2009, 02:32 AM	#9
Jadran Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zagreb Photos: Albums Posts: 105	K-7, ISO 6400 + noiseware: PentaxForums.com - Jadran's Album: K-7 Test photos - Picture

12-21-2009, 07:46 AM	#11
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by Hannican Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff? Hate tripods, check. Candlelight, sometimes. Shake reduction: good too, but doesn't freeze the subject.

12-21-2009, 07:56 AM	#12
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Hannican Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too. Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff? Outdoors or shooting a subject that does not move, I'm with you. I'll go as high as 400 on the K20d and 200 on the K10d. However, weddings, parties, plays and events are so much better at ISO 800- 1600, even with the marginal built-in NR of Photoshop. It is the difference between catching the moment and not.

12-21-2009, 08:01 AM	#13
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Jadran K-7, ISO 6400 + noiseware: PentaxForums.com - Jadran's Album: K-7 Test photos - Picture Thank you.

12-21-2009, 08:13 AM	#14
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by Hannican Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too. Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff? You think ISO over 200 looks like ”shit” and then you wonder why people want better high ISO?

12-21-2009, 08:52 AM	#15
MJB DIGITAL Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: st. louis Posts: 1,170	Originally posted by Hannican Am I the only man alive who never sets ISO over 200? I'm using a K10D, but I find anything above 200 to look like total shit... I have enough trouble processing every photo I take for proper leveling, and don't really feel like dealing with noise reduction too. Do you guys hate Tripods? Are you shooting sports photography by candlelight? Not trust Shake Reduction? What's with all the high ISO stuff? I try to stay at or below 320. This includes receptions, but in my left hand is a lightstand with a flash on top ready to be deployed...