[seliscan]

Hy everybody,

I know that the camera's are much more then the sensor inside them, but man can not close his eyes when he sees how brilliant the little Kx does in comparison to the Full Frame (and muuuch more expensive) Sensors.

I made a collage of images at high iso's at both RAW and JPG settings, and the results are very clear: The Kx sensor is between (less than) a stop and 1 stop difference when compared to Nikon D700 and 5D mark 2, an almost equal at high ISO's with the 5D.

Attached Images

   

---

Last edited by seliscan; 01-28-2010 at 01:31 PM.

[dylansalt]

amazingly the not to revered Rice High on his blog (when testing the kx) stated that the IQ was the best from any aps-c dslr and was just about equal to his C 5D

[SteveM]

I've seen quite a few comparisons focusing on high ISO, which makes sence since it tends to be a problematic area, but has anyone focused on low ISO (100)? I'm presuming the KX is great at high and low, but since I almost always shoot in good light (low), I'd hate to buy a camera to later find out that it wasn't the best sensor for 98% of my use...

[PentaxPoke]

No doubt the k-x has a good sensor, but let's not get carried away comparing an entry level DSLR, to pro/am cameras. The pictures you posted are a tiny little sliver from a 100% crop at DPR. The "hair" of a stamp picture is not a really good way of quantifying the amount of detail left. Go to Imaging Resources and look at results from the comparometer. In particular, look at the parts of the picture that includes the "proportional scale" so you can see the remaining resolution and detail. The k-x is at least 2 stops behind the D700 and the 5dMkII.

Still, the k-x is excellent for an entry level camera, but is it really any better than the direct competition? Which is the k-x below, and which is the entry-level Nikon D5000? Both are 100% crop at ISO 6400:


Edit: smc, regarding your question about ISO100, this thread was related to that question: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/86265-k-x-blows-45...omparisin.html

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by PentaxPoke; 01-30-2010 at 02:07 PM.

[er1kksen]

I've seen quite a few comparisons focusing on high ISO, which makes sence since it tends to be a problematic area, but has anyone focused on low ISO (100)? I'm presuming the KX is great at high and low, but since I almost always shoot in good light (low), I'd hate to buy a camera to later find out that it wasn't the best sensor for 98% of my use...

From what I saw of that thread (I didn't follow it very far, I admit...) there wasn't much of worth in it. However, I can state from my own use that the K-x has, overall, the absolute best RAW IQ at ISO 100 out of all the DSLRs I've used (the K20D and 40D included). The level of detail captured nearly equals the K20D (lower pixel count but slightly higher acutance) and the shadows are just so incredibly clean... shots I used to not even attempt because I knew I'd have to resort to clunky HDR workflow I now just shoot at ISO 100 letting the highlights blow by a stop. The shadows that look black on the LCD inevitably yield an incredible amount if clean detail in post (I use the lightroom 3 beta). The 40D sensor which everyone seems to think is so clean doesn't even come close- 2 stops of recovery at most before everything starts to look like coarse sandpaper.

[PentaxPoke]

However, I can state from my own use that the K-x has, overall, the absolute best RAW IQ at ISO 100 out of all the DSLRs I've used (the K20D and 40D included).

Er1k,
That would make sense since the k20D and the 40D are both 2-generations old DSLR's. It appears that the present APS-C cameras are all converging in noise performance (with the exception of the k-7, but it is a bit older than the new crop of APS-C cameras like the k-x, 7D, 300s, D5000, XTi, etc.) I disagree with the original premise however, that the k-x approaches the performance of the present crop of FF cameras.

[zxaar]

No doubt the k-x has a good sensor, but let's not get carried away comparing an entry level DSLR, to pro/am cameras. The pictures you posted are a tiny little sliver from a 100% crop at DPR. The "hair" of a stamp picture is not a really good way of quantifying the amount of detail left. Go to Imaging Resources and look at results from the comparometer. In particular, look at the parts of the picture that includes the "proportional scale" so you can see the remaining resolution and detail. The k-x is at least 2 stops behind the D700 and the 5dMkII.

really two stops behind.

Here is iso 3200 kx in left and iso 12800 5dmk2 on right from imaging resources.



compare images directly on imaging-resources, there is no way mk2 2 stops ahead. May be one stop due to full frame advantage but thats all.

[PentaxPoke]

really two stops behind.

Here is iso 3200 kx in left and iso 12800 5dmk2 on right from imaging resources.


compare images directly on imaging-resources, there is no way mk2 2 stops ahead. May be one stop due to full frame advantage but thats all.

Where is the D700 in your comparison?

[er1kksen]

Er1k,
That would make sense since the k20D and the 40D are both 2-generations old DSLR's. It appears that the present APS-C cameras are all converging in noise performance (with the exception of the k-7, but it is a bit older than the new crop of APS-C cameras like the k-x, 7D, 300s, D5000, XTi, etc.) I disagree with the original premise however, that the k-x approaches the performance of the present crop of FF cameras.

I agree. However, the post I was answering did not ask "Is the K-x better than X camera?" The post was asking "Does the K-x deliver the goods at low ISO."

My answer is absolutely, yes it does.

zxaar, the comparometer is fun, but I wouldn't rely on it as an absolute reference, particularly for RAW performance. What were the settings of the two jpegs you took these crops from?

[zxaar]

Where is the D700 in your comparison?

i did not bother you mentioned two cams, i needed only one to show it false.

but if you insist, here is kx vs d700. d700 on right.



not two stops as you claimed.

[PentaxPoke]

I'm not sure why you insist on avoiding the part of the image that actually shows in a quantifiable way, the resolution and detail that is left. (Although i have a suspicion as to why.) I clearly indicated that above. Since you are not going to post it, I'll do it for you.

kx ISO 3200 left, D700 ISO 12,800 right.

Yup, about 2 stops. But of course, this is like arguing: "My Ford Fiesta can go 80 mph, just like a Ferrari!!

[zxaar]

I'm not sure why you insist on avoiding the part of the image that actually shows in a quantifiable way, the resolution and detail that is left. (Although i have a suspicion as to why.) Since you are not going to post it, I'll do it for you.

isn't it the purpose of high iso is to shoot things that has low light rather than well lit. What i picked was darker area where noise is usually an issue, what you picked is bright area where noise is not an issue.


If you claim two stops would this be not valid for full image and not some parts of an image? (i shall be able to pick any part i want for comparison, two stops statement should be valid for image as a whole).

Or you are saying that i posted crop from different image??

[PentaxPoke]

isn't it the purpose of high iso is to shoot things that has low light rather than well lit. What i picked was darker area where noise is usually an issue, what you picked is bright area where noise is not an issue.

I'm not sure if you fully understand sensor gain. ISO3200, is ISO3200 no matter where you look on the sensor. Lack of noise is completely useless without retention of detail. Looking at a dark spot on a picture saying: " See there is more noise there!" is not useful information.

Again, you may have missed the part where I said this conversation is like comparing a Ford Fiesta at 80mph to a Ferrari at 80mph. Sure they are both going 80, but...

[zxaar]

I'm not sure if you fully understand sensor gain. ISO3200, is ISO3200 no matter where you look on the sensor. Lack of noise is completely useless without retention of detail. Looking at a dark spot on a picture saying: " See there is more noise there!" is not useful information.

Again, you may have missed the part where I said this conversation is like comparing a Ford Fiesta at 80mph to a Ferrari at 80mph. Sure they are both going 80, but...

i do understand noise and signal thing.

do you think d700 image has more detail than kx image.

[PentaxPoke]

i do understand noise and signal thing.

do you think d700 image has more detail than kx image.

[Sigh] Go back to post #11 and repeat. After that go back to post#4 and answer my question. Which was the k-x and which was the D5000? What is the point of me posting replies to you if you are not going to look at them?


Jees...the k-x is a great camera. What is the point of continuing to compare it to other cameras? Just be happy with it, and stop worrying about how it compares to Canon and Nikon.