(dxomark) K20D and K7.

Reportage · 01-05-2010, 08:25 PM

comparison here

and from the results, the K20D is seriously close to 5D MK2`s Dynamic Range.

huh?

I wonder where the Kx will stand once tested.

asdf · 01-05-2010, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Reportage

comparison here

and from the results, the K20D is seriously close to 5D MK2`s Dynamic Range.

huh?

I wonder where the Kx will stand once tested.

I find it interesting that K20D's pixels are bigger than K-7. Keeping all other things equal, that should explain its superior scores.

LeDave · 01-05-2010, 11:38 PM

People still use this as a credible source?

If people believed this, then I wonder if anybody will believe them that the K-7 has ISO levels that is between the K200D and K-m/K2000.
------>Compare cameras

asdf · 01-05-2010, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

People still use this as a credible source?

I can't remember who (falconeye, maybe) pointed out that dxomark people don't understand what they're talking about. I didn't really research into what they're talking about, so I don't get it either (I'm referring to how they get their numbers).

Laurentiu Cristofor · 01-06-2010, 01:17 AM

I looked at their scores a bit and maybe their numbers are right. But then the differences of their numbers might not be really perceptible for my eyes.

netrex · 01-06-2010, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by asdf

I find it interesting that K20D's pixels are bigger than K-7. Keeping all other things equal, that should explain its superior scores.

K20D has noise reduction before the raw files are saved, which would explain the difference.

asdf · 01-06-2010, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by netrex

K20D has noise reduction before the raw files are saved, which would explain the difference.

Hmm...I thought you could turn the noise reduction completely off for high ISO images (there is an option after all and I have it set to "1. Off").

Gimbal · 01-06-2010, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Reportage

comparison here

and from the results, the K20D is seriously close to 5D MK2`s Dynamic Range.

huh?

I wonder where the Kx will stand once tested.

What? Do you think the yellow graph is seriously close to red ones?
Are we looking at the same graphs here?
(Select "Dynamic range" and "print") They are not close in my opinion.

Jasvox · 01-06-2010, 03:25 AM

I'd bet all of my gear that no one could tell the difference in real world examples. Useless, unless your "photography" interest lies in numbers, graphs, wanking off to stats, etc.

Jason

asdf · 01-06-2010, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

I'd bet all of my gear that no one could tell the difference in real world examples. Useless, unless your "photography" interest lies in numbers, graphs, wanking off to stats, etc.

Jason

Numbers are useful to me, when I understand their significance. I have no idea upon what this dxomark stuff is based.

BTW, the k-x has a HUGE qualitative edge--it appears to me--over the older cameras: at very high ISO, I don't see any UGLY ink-jet-like banding.

Pentax 10D – A Hands-On Report

(scroll down to high iso and banding example)

Gimbal · 01-06-2010, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

I'd bet all of my gear that no one could tell the difference in real world examples. Useless, unless your "photography" interest lies in numbers, graphs, wanking off to stats, etc.

Jason

It depends on the scene naturally, but according to the graphs there is more then 2EV difference around ISO 800 between K7 and 5D in dynamic range. That might be pretty visible in blown highlights or blackouts.

Jasvox · 01-06-2010, 03:36 AM

yes, perceivable differences are one thing, minute decimal level, unperceivable differences are nonsense. People spend far too much time being concerned with numbers than they do perfecting a skill. Perhaps PlayStation will come out with "Photographer Star" one day for these people.

Jason

WerTicus · 01-06-2010, 03:42 AM

Real world the Kx performance blows away the K20d.

mainly because of dynamic range imo, not so much the high iso because its not something i use a lot.

LeDave · 01-06-2010, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

yes, perceivable differences are one thing, minute decimal level, unperceivable differences are nonsense. People spend far too much time being concerned with numbers than they do perfecting a skill. Perhaps PlayStation will come out with "Photographer Star" one day for these people.

Jason

Sony did come out with Afrika =P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAaY9TzJHYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mASKIvxn3p0

Reportage · 01-06-2010, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by WerTicus

Real world the Kx performance blows away the K20d.

mainly because of dynamic range imo, not so much the high iso because its not something i use a lot.

Now i am really wondering...is Pentax "purposely ignoring" the K20D?

01-05-2010, 08:25 PM	#1
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739	(dxomark) K20D and K7. comparison here and from the results, the K20D is seriously close to 5D MK2`s Dynamic Range. huh? I wonder where the Kx will stand once tested.

01-05-2010, 11:38 PM	#3
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	People still use this as a credible source? If people believed this, then I wonder if anybody will believe them that the K-7 has ISO levels that is between the K200D and K-m/K2000. ------>Compare cameras Last edited by LeDave; 01-05-2010 at 11:45 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DxOMark rates Pentax K-r	lexurian	Pentax News and Rumors	72	11-09-2010 04:05 PM
DXOMark evaluates the 645D	rawr	Pentax News and Rumors	30	11-08-2010 02:59 PM
Pentax Kx Now on dxoMark	taurus9	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	03-10-2010 02:28 PM
Dynamic range measurements on Dxomark - K20D - this doesn't seem right	pingflood	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	09-21-2009 11:53 AM
DxOMark Sensor ranks	yakiniku	Photographic Technique	7	01-16-2009 11:01 PM

01-05-2010, 10:36 PM	#2
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Reportage comparison here and from the results, the K20D is seriously close to 5D MK2`s Dynamic Range. huh? I wonder where the Kx will stand once tested. I find it interesting that K20D's pixels are bigger than K-7. Keeping all other things equal, that should explain its superior scores.

01-05-2010, 11:43 PM	#4
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by LeDave People still use this as a credible source? I can't remember who (falconeye, maybe) pointed out that dxomark people don't understand what they're talking about. I didn't really research into what they're talking about, so I don't get it either (I'm referring to how they get their numbers).

01-06-2010, 01:17 AM	#5
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	I looked at their scores a bit and maybe their numbers are right. But then the differences of their numbers might not be really perceptible for my eyes.

01-06-2010, 02:03 AM	#6
netrex Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Alta Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 279	Originally posted by asdf I find it interesting that K20D's pixels are bigger than K-7. Keeping all other things equal, that should explain its superior scores. K20D has noise reduction before the raw files are saved, which would explain the difference.

01-06-2010, 02:37 AM	#7
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by netrex K20D has noise reduction before the raw files are saved, which would explain the difference. Hmm...I thought you could turn the noise reduction completely off for high ISO images (there is an option after all and I have it set to "1. Off").

01-06-2010, 03:17 AM	#8
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by Reportage comparison here and from the results, the K20D is seriously close to 5D MK2`s Dynamic Range. huh? I wonder where the Kx will stand once tested. What? Do you think the yellow graph is seriously close to red ones? Are we looking at the same graphs here? (Select "Dynamic range" and "print") They are not close in my opinion.

01-06-2010, 03:25 AM	#9
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	I'd bet all of my gear that no one could tell the difference in real world examples. Useless, unless your "photography" interest lies in numbers, graphs, wanking off to stats, etc. Jason

01-06-2010, 03:31 AM	#10
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Jasvox I'd bet all of my gear that no one could tell the difference in real world examples. Useless, unless your "photography" interest lies in numbers, graphs, wanking off to stats, etc. Jason Numbers are useful to me, when I understand their significance. I have no idea upon what this dxomark stuff is based. BTW, the k-x has a HUGE qualitative edge--it appears to me--over the older cameras: at very high ISO, I don't see any UGLY ink-jet-like banding. Pentax 10D – A Hands-On Report (scroll down to high iso and banding example)

01-06-2010, 03:34 AM	#11
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by Jasvox I'd bet all of my gear that no one could tell the difference in real world examples. Useless, unless your "photography" interest lies in numbers, graphs, wanking off to stats, etc. Jason It depends on the scene naturally, but according to the graphs there is more then 2EV difference around ISO 800 between K7 and 5D in dynamic range. That might be pretty visible in blown highlights or blackouts.

01-06-2010, 03:36 AM	#12
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	yes, perceivable differences are one thing, minute decimal level, unperceivable differences are nonsense. People spend far too much time being concerned with numbers than they do perfecting a skill. Perhaps PlayStation will come out with "Photographer Star" one day for these people. Jason

01-06-2010, 03:42 AM	#13
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Real world the Kx performance blows away the K20d. mainly because of dynamic range imo, not so much the high iso because its not something i use a lot.

01-06-2010, 10:47 AM	#14
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by Jasvox yes, perceivable differences are one thing, minute decimal level, unperceivable differences are nonsense. People spend far too much time being concerned with numbers than they do perfecting a skill. Perhaps PlayStation will come out with "Photographer Star" one day for these people. Jason Sony did come out with Afrika =P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAaY9TzJHYk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mASKIvxn3p0

01-06-2010, 06:01 PM	#15
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739 Original Poster	Originally posted by WerTicus Real world the Kx performance blows away the K20d. mainly because of dynamic range imo, not so much the high iso because its not something i use a lot. Now i am really wondering...is Pentax "purposely ignoring" the K20D?