Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-08-2010, 05:09 AM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,249
QuoteOriginally posted by hcc Quote
You can always set the K-7 to the Green mode: it is the simplest mode with the same level of ease as a point & shoot (P&S) camera. The next level is the P-mode that many K-7 people use. Typically it is an automatic mode but you can set some default preferences; you can go to manual using the dials and always cme back to the default preference by pushing the Green button.

Please do not confuse the Green mode (on the left dial) and the Green button on the top right of the back LCD. Both have their use and were discussed in a recen thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/90880-no-raw-green-mode-k-7-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/90880-no-raw-green...tml#post926461

Hope that the comment will help ..
I always recommend that people start with Program mode and Av mode. Shooting in green mode should be reserved for situations where you haven't the faintest idea what you are doing. The problem with green mode is that you don't actually learn anything while you are using it.

03-08-2010, 02:47 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by opiedog Quote
the much touted high-iso noise IMHO is not really that bad. yeah, kx is about 1-1.5 better in high-iso, but not really that bad as some folks make it seem.

IMHO
1600 is definitely very very good, 3200 is ok, 6400 is usable in emergencies

the difference isn't much
Canon EOS 7D Digital Camera Raw - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!
Thanks for pointing this out. So much of the crying about the K-7's high ISO noise compared to other cameras is based upon comparisons of JPEGs. In RAW format, it actually holds its own quite well up to ISO 1600. Anyone who wants really clean, detailed images above that level has to go to FF. Why can't people just deal with that simple fact?

Rob
03-08-2010, 03:59 PM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Thanks for pointing this out. So much of the crying about the K-7's high ISO noise compared to other cameras is based upon comparisons of JPEGs. In RAW format, it actually holds its own quite well up to ISO 1600. Anyone who wants really clean, detailed images above that level has to go to FF. Why can't people just deal with that simple fact?

Rob
that is because if you pay half the price you can buy better high iso camera. :-)
03-08-2010, 06:25 PM   #49
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,258
Here's my short answer to the original post:

Because it works!

JP

03-08-2010, 07:16 PM   #50
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Here's my short answer to the original post:

Because it works!

JP
it works to those who know how to use it properly.
03-08-2010, 07:18 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
that is because if you pay half the price you can buy better high iso camera. :-)
What 15MP camera has less RAW noise at ISO 3200 than the K-7 and costs half as much? As I see it, the K-7 may not be perfect, but it packs an awful lot of useful features into a solidly built, compact body. There is much more to desire in a camera than low noise levels at high ISOs, although discussions such as these always seem to concentrate on that one point above all others. One would think that people are predominantly photographing in the dark nowadays. I find myself increasingly amused by it all rather than irritated, knowing that most of the low light photographs taken by high ISO fanatics are mediocre at best.

Rob
03-08-2010, 07:21 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
that is because if you pay half the price you can buy better high iso camera. :-)
I don't know about better. APS-C has come a long way with higher ISO performance but there's no way it can match high to ultra high ISO performance from full frames.

K-x is APS-C leading, D3s is full frame leading. Compare them...
03-08-2010, 07:28 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
What 15MP camera has less RAW noise at ISO 3200 than the K-7 and costs half as much? As I see it, the K-7 may not be perfect, but it packs an awful lot of useful features into a solidly built, compact body. There is much more to desire in a camera than low noise levels at high ISOs, although discussions such as these always seem to concentrate on that one point above all others. One would think that people are predominantly photographing in the dark nowadays. I find myself increasingly amused by it all rather than irritated, knowing that most of the low light photographs taken by high ISO fanatics are mediocre at best.

Rob
I'm someone who thinks high ISO is a big deal. I just can't afford full frame, and I'm not sure I'd want the trade off in size either. Sure there's a lot of talk about high-ISO performance, but that's because cameras are, when it comes down to it, tools to capture light. If they can produce photos in lower and lower light it's a big deal for me and what I shoot.

The technologically of high-ISO performance is moving really fast as far as I can tell, and it's pretty exciting. Nikon's D3s is the closest thing we have camera you could shoot with at anytime, anywhere.

03-08-2010, 08:02 PM   #54
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by CWyatt Quote
I'm someone who thinks high ISO is a big deal. I just can't afford full frame, and I'm not sure I'd want the trade off in size either. Sure there's a lot of talk about high-ISO performance, but that's because cameras are, when it comes down to it, tools to capture light. If they can produce photos in lower and lower light it's a big deal for me and what I shoot.

The technologically of high-ISO performance is moving really fast as far as I can tell, and it's pretty exciting. Nikon's D3s is the closest thing we have camera you could shoot with at anytime, anywhere.
a FF camera is not sought after just because it has a better High ISO performance. the most obvious needs are wider FOV and shallower depth. High ISO is only a bonus feature. otherwise people would be saying that any APS-C dslr is better than a FF 5D MK1, which I find rather false.
03-08-2010, 08:11 PM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
What 15MP camera has less RAW noise at ISO 3200 than the K-7 and costs half as much? As I see it, the K-7 may not be perfect, but it packs an awful lot of useful features into a solidly built, compact body. There is much more to desire in a camera than low noise levels at high ISOs, although discussions such as these always seem to concentrate on that one point above all others. One would think that people are predominantly photographing in the dark nowadays. I find myself increasingly amused by it all rather than irritated, knowing that most of the low light photographs taken by high ISO fanatics are mediocre at best.

Rob

or you could be even more stringent by saying 'what apc camera with 14.6 mp ..', in that way you can only compare k7 with may be 1 or 2 more cameras.

Plus where in your post you said that when we talk of high iso, we are only talking about cameras that match k7 with specification by specification. (that same mp, same dimensions of body, same weight etc etc).

plus2, what makes you think that someone looking for better high iso images is looking to buy apc camera with exact 14.6 mp. By this logic for nikon d3s was complete waste, i mean it is lower resolution than 14.6 mp.

It is fact that release price of k7 (and it stayed very high for long time) is almost double of kx plus it is also a fact that if you only talk of high iso images kx is better camera.

Buyers are not stupid, not everyone is lining to buy k7.

eidted to add: I AM TALKING ABOUT RAW NOISE, in case it is lost somewhere.
03-08-2010, 08:14 PM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by CWyatt Quote
I don't know about better. APS-C has come a long way with higher ISO performance but there's no way it can match high to ultra high ISO performance from full frames.

K-x is APS-C leading, D3s is full frame leading. Compare them...
apc can not match full frame for noise part. D3s is amazing.
03-08-2010, 08:31 PM   #57
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
What 15MP camera has less RAW noise at ISO 3200 than the K-7 and costs half as much? As I see it, the K-7 may not be perfect, but it packs an awful lot of useful features into a solidly built, compact body. There is much more to desire in a camera than low noise levels at high ISOs, although discussions such as these always seem to concentrate on that one point above all others. One would think that people are predominantly photographing in the dark nowadays. I find myself increasingly amused by it all rather than irritated, knowing that most of the low light photographs taken by high ISO fanatics are mediocre at best.

Rob
a High ISO dslr is good for a person who shoots most of his shots under lowlight. the debate ends when the so-called user often shoots during daylight, or with the flash, or doesn't use an ISO of above 1600 more than 20%. it's funny how people complain about High ISO noises but very seldom shoot with the camera at such sensitivities. it's more like someone who prefers to have a ketchup at his table, but never intends to use it more than he asked for. that's what you call a total waste. or just maybe the shooter is sensitive to light, and prefers shooting in the dark.

as far as RAW ISO noise is concerned, there is no better dslr at half-the price at such MP resolution right now. that's just bullshit. what I found is that such cameras are sold at a much higher premium. such cameras are pretty known, and none are Pentax dslrs. so quit fantasizing about the recent Pentax dslrs are of match to the upper echelons of other brands, it's unhealthy.

as for my part, I do use High ISO during daylight and lowlight, but that is to create noise for my photos, not to reduce them. if I want myself some clean images, I'm sure my 2 current Noise Removal softwares are more than enough and even better in handling unwanted noise compared to the in-camera NRs. some people just need to educate themselves before complaining.

and yes, I would be interested in a camera with a very good 25,600 ISO. but only as a feature, but not as a necessity that would affect less than 10% of my shots.
03-08-2010, 08:38 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
or you could be even more stringent by saying 'what apc camera with 14.6 mp ..', in that way you can only compare k7 with may be 1 or 2 more cameras.

Plus where in your post you said that when we talk of high iso, we are only talking about cameras that match k7 with specification by specification. (that same mp, same dimensions of body, same weight etc etc).
Well excuse me for thinking that we were making comparisons within the K-7's own category. Most sensible people realize that with cameras, as with all of life, there are always trade-offs. If you want the absolute cleanest, most detailed image in low light, then you had better be prepared to get a much larger and more expensive device. If you are willing to accept something less, an APS-C camera, for instance, you are not going to find one that is substantially better than the K-7, yet has all of its features and solid construction. Yes, the K-x beats it in low light, but that is one of the few areas where it is superior. Care to talk about AF, metering, weather resistance, SR that does not cause blurring etc?

Rob
03-08-2010, 09:07 PM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Well excuse me for thinking that we were making comparisons within the K-7's own category. Most sensible people realize that with cameras, as with all of life, there are always trade-offs. If you want the absolute cleanest, most detailed image in low light, then you had better be prepared to get a much larger and more expensive device. If you are willing to accept something less, an APS-C camera, for instance, you are not going to find one that is substantially better than the K-7, yet has all of its features and solid construction. Yes, the K-x beats it in low light, but that is one of the few areas where it is superior. Care to talk about AF, metering, weather resistance, SR that does not cause blurring etc?

Rob
Yes that is why I said you could be more specific about 14.6 mp, so that you can rubbish any comparison made with k7 saying that it is not 14.6 mp.

In case you did not notice i was responding to

QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Thanks for pointing this out. So much of the crying about the K-7's high ISO noise compared to other cameras is based upon comparisons of JPEGs. In RAW format, it actually holds its own quite well up to ISO 1600. Anyone who wants really clean, detailed images above that level has to go to FF. Why can't people just deal with that simple fact?

Rob
i fail to see why comparison with kx are excluded when you are talking about high iso and not the other things.

you were wondering why people compain , the reason , i re-iterate that pentax bellwether camera does not beat its lower range camera on all counts. It can not beat it is on most important factor of image quality.

i think you have difficulty understanding that people can have different priorities.
03-08-2010, 10:54 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Yes that is why I said you could be more specific about 14.6 mp, so that you can rubbish any comparison made with k7 saying that it is not 14.6 mp.

In case you did not notice i was responding to



i fail to see why comparison with kx are excluded when you are talking about high iso and not the other things.

you were wondering why people compain , the reason , i re-iterate that pentax bellwether camera does not beat its lower range camera on all counts. It can not beat it is on most important factor of image quality.

i think you have difficulty understanding that people can have different priorities.
I think you misunderstand me completely. I object to reducing the evaluation of a camera to a single feature, be it high ISO noise or anything else. And that is precisely what happens in so many threads such as this one. Yes, the K-7 is inferior to the K-x in that one area, but superior in many others. Yet the "high ISO is everything" crowd routinely and predictably look right past that fact. Moreover, an honest appraisal would reveal that the K-7 performs quite respectably for a sensor of that pixel density, certainly not far off from the 7D and the D300s, according to dpreview. So why do people go on incessantly about what a laggard it is and an embarrassment to Pentax? Rubbish!

Of course, we all hope and expect that the K-8 will be a better photographic instrument, but let us be realistic about how technology progresses in a stepwise fashion. Here's a prediction, the K-x II will make the K-x look pretty lame in comparison, and people will wonder why they ever thought its high ISO noise performance was so stellar. And so it will go on into the future, until we use up our planet's resources and technological progress grinds to a halt.

Rob
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, d5000, d90, dslr, features, k-7, k-x, photography, resistance, size, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-x over D5000. Am I wrong? asinla Pentax DSLR Discussion 102 06-17-2010 03:16 PM
K-x vs T1i (500D) vs D5000 ? winglik Pentax DSLR Discussion 37 06-01-2010 07:00 PM
Pentax K7 or Canon 500D? amphysics Pentax DSLR Discussion 137 07-30-2009 08:38 AM
DA 55-300mm with 500d? Blue Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 07-09-2008 03:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 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