K-7 vs K-x, 500D, D5000, D90 - Why is the K-7 a better camera?

Pentaxor · 03-08-2010, 11:54 PM

I hope that Pentax releases the 645D soon, so that all this hoopla about which camera has the best IQ of them all ends. and for such picture quality and capability, it doesn't come cheap nor the present Pentax dslrs come close to matching it. if you want the best possible IQ, you can't find it on a $1000 camera or $600 camera. it's a fact and not some baloney fanatism.

zxaar · 03-09-2010, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by robgo2

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

this part i agree with you. I was only explaining why people complain. Not much to do with what i feel.

i do shoot with kx but rarely go above iso1600. High iso was not the reason i bought this cam. I have faster glass and more or less could live with iso800 or iso1600 max.

robgo2 · 03-09-2010, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

this part i agree with you. I was only explaining why people complain. Not much to do with what i feel.

i do shoot with kx but rarely go above iso1600. High iso was not the reason i bought this cam. I have faster glass and more or less could live with iso800 or iso1600 max.

I think this is true for most photographers. Low light shooting is not the norm. When it is necessary, however, it is certainly an advantage to have a camera that can handle it, but honestly, ISO 1600 with SR and fast lenses will get you through most, though not all, such situations. For those who shoot in very low light on a regular basis, APS-C is not the right tool.

Rob

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by robgo2

I think this is true for most photographers. Low light shooting is not the norm. When it is necessary, however, it is certainly an advantage to have a camera that can handle it, but honestly, ISO 1600 with SR and fast lenses will get you through most, though not all, such situations. For those who shoot in very low light on a regular basis, APS-C is not the right tool.

Rob

night shoots are often done with lighting equipment, be it flash, strobes, etc....

without lighting equipment, the purpose is to shoot with long exposures or bulb exposures, especially nightscapes. and definitely shooting at low ISO is the highest priority for optimal IQ.

I do concur with you that APS-C is not the right tool for regular very low light shoots. I believe it takes a very good 25,600 ISO dlsr camera for such task. and Pentax doesn't have one right now.

opiedog · 03-09-2010, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

night shoots are often done with lighting equipment, be it flash, strobes, etc....

without lighting equipment, the purpose is to shoot with long exposures or bulb exposures, especially nightscapes. and definitely shooting at low ISO is the highest priority for optimal IQ.

I

while it is nice to have high-ISO capabilities, you are absolutely right in saying that lowest possible ISO should be used for optimal IQ!

CWyatt · 03-09-2010, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor:

without lighting equipment, the purpose is to shoot with long exposures or bulb exposures

What about normal-length exposures without lighting equipment?
brassai - Google Search

opiedog · 03-09-2010, 01:47 PM

a good tripod or in some cases a monopod is all you need.

still, good high-iso images have their place, but given the choice and the opportunity, i would always choose the lowest possible ISO.

which i'm going to try tonight photographing M42. no, that's not the M42 lenses, but the orion nebula

CWyatt · 03-09-2010, 01:49 PM

I'd choose the lowest ISO possible as well, but a tripod won't help you get sharp street/people photos in low light...

opiedog · 03-09-2010, 02:08 PM

ur right.

if you need to freeze the action, no choice but high-iso.
for static subjects a tripod w/ do fine.

good thing M42 would be relatively static tonight

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by CWyatt

I'd choose the lowest ISO possible as well, but a tripod won't help you get sharp street/people photos in low light...

well you better keep them still.

zxaar · 03-09-2010, 03:21 PM

dxmark has given mark to kx sensor.
So i am pasting them here as compared to k7.

(why because of a k7 fanboy posting in this thread who was arguing with me that kx has inferior sensor than k7).

(@robgo2, you are not a fanboy , in case you mistake what i just said i was not talking about you. )

overall comparison.

dynamic range

SNR

as expected dxomark also agrees that kx has better sensor overall. At high isos has better noise control at low iso better dynamic range.

LeDave · 03-09-2010, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by zxaar

dxmark has given mark to kx sensor.
So i am pasting them here as compared to k7.

(why because of a k7 fanboy posting in this thread who was arguing with me that kx has inferior sensor than k7).

(@robgo2, you are not a fanboy , in case you mistake what i just said i was not talking about you. )

Ricehigh, it's not because others are fanboys, it's because you're a K-7 hateboy. Judging from all 177 of your posts, it's the only thing you do on this forum.

Converted with ACR, ISO 3200 on both cameras. Pentax K-7 on the left with Noise Ninja applied (autoprofiled, USM ->0, Luma->6, Chroma->9) and scaled down to meet K-x. K-x on the right with no Noise Ninja applied, the details would be even more washed out if done so.

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

Ricehigh, it's not because others are fanboys, it's because you're a K-7 hateboy. Judging from all 177 of your posts, it's the only thing you do on this forum.

true, it's all the thing that he does in this forum. not to mention that the k-x is the best camera in the world, according to him.

zxaar · 03-09-2010, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

Ricehigh, it's not because others are fanboys, it's because you're a K-7 hateboy. Judging from all 177 of your posts, it's the only thing you do on this forum.

you are fanboy number 2 in the list of fanboys. Could you prove me wrong by giving any tests. No you can not because these graphs are what i had been saying in my 177 posts.

and yes, i am not Ricehigh. :-)

zxaar · 03-09-2010, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

true, it's all the thing that he does in this forum. not to mention that the k-x is the best camera in the world, according to him.

o fanboy number 1 spoke to subject.

do you think dxomark also can not afford k7 and that is why they gave it low marks.

lol.

03-09-2010, 03:57 PM	#72
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by zxaar dxmark has given mark to kx sensor. So i am pasting them here as compared to k7. (why because of a k7 fanboy posting in this thread who was arguing with me that kx has inferior sensor than k7). (@robgo2, you are not a fanboy , in case you mistake what i just said i was not talking about you. ) Ricehigh, it's not because others are fanboys, it's because you're a K-7 hateboy. Judging from all 177 of your posts, it's the only thing you do on this forum. Converted with ACR, ISO 3200 on both cameras. Pentax K-7 on the left with Noise Ninja applied (autoprofiled, USM ->0, Luma->6, Chroma->9) and scaled down to meet K-x. K-x on the right with no Noise Ninja applied, the details would be even more washed out if done so. Last edited by LeDave; 03-09-2010 at 04:26 PM.

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

03-08-2010, 11:54 PM	#61
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I hope that Pentax releases the 645D soon, so that all this hoopla about which camera has the best IQ of them all ends. and for such picture quality and capability, it doesn't come cheap nor the present Pentax dslrs come close to matching it. if you want the best possible IQ, you can't find it on a $1000 camera or $600 camera. it's a fact and not some baloney fanatism.

03-09-2010, 12:22 AM	#62
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by robgo2 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 this part i agree with you. I was only explaining why people complain. Not much to do with what i feel. i do shoot with kx but rarely go above iso1600. High iso was not the reason i bought this cam. I have faster glass and more or less could live with iso800 or iso1600 max.

03-09-2010, 11:43 AM	#63
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by zxaar this part i agree with you. I was only explaining why people complain. Not much to do with what i feel. i do shoot with kx but rarely go above iso1600. High iso was not the reason i bought this cam. I have faster glass and more or less could live with iso800 or iso1600 max. I think this is true for most photographers. Low light shooting is not the norm. When it is necessary, however, it is certainly an advantage to have a camera that can handle it, but honestly, ISO 1600 with SR and fast lenses will get you through most, though not all, such situations. For those who shoot in very low light on a regular basis, APS-C is not the right tool. Rob

03-09-2010, 11:57 AM	#64
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by robgo2 I think this is true for most photographers. Low light shooting is not the norm. When it is necessary, however, it is certainly an advantage to have a camera that can handle it, but honestly, ISO 1600 with SR and fast lenses will get you through most, though not all, such situations. For those who shoot in very low light on a regular basis, APS-C is not the right tool. Rob night shoots are often done with lighting equipment, be it flash, strobes, etc.... without lighting equipment, the purpose is to shoot with long exposures or bulb exposures, especially nightscapes. and definitely shooting at low ISO is the highest priority for optimal IQ. I do concur with you that APS-C is not the right tool for regular very low light shoots. I believe it takes a very good 25,600 ISO dlsr camera for such task. and Pentax doesn't have one right now.

03-09-2010, 01:35 PM	#65
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	Originally posted by Pentaxor night shoots are often done with lighting equipment, be it flash, strobes, etc.... without lighting equipment, the purpose is to shoot with long exposures or bulb exposures, especially nightscapes. and definitely shooting at low ISO is the highest priority for optimal IQ. I while it is nice to have high-ISO capabilities, you are absolutely right in saying that lowest possible ISO should be used for optimal IQ!

03-09-2010, 01:38 PM	#66
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Originally posted by Pentaxor: without lighting equipment, the purpose is to shoot with long exposures or bulb exposures What about normal-length exposures without lighting equipment? brassai - Google Search

03-09-2010, 01:47 PM	#67
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	a good tripod or in some cases a monopod is all you need. still, good high-iso images have their place, but given the choice and the opportunity, i would always choose the lowest possible ISO. which i'm going to try tonight photographing M42. no, that's not the M42 lenses, but the orion nebula

03-09-2010, 01:49 PM	#68
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	I'd choose the lowest ISO possible as well, but a tripod won't help you get sharp street/people photos in low light...

03-09-2010, 02:08 PM	#69
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	ur right. if you need to freeze the action, no choice but high-iso. for static subjects a tripod w/ do fine. good thing M42 would be relatively static tonight

03-09-2010, 02:10 PM	#70
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by CWyatt I'd choose the lowest ISO possible as well, but a tripod won't help you get sharp street/people photos in low light... well you better keep them still.

03-09-2010, 03:21 PM	#71
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	dxmark has given mark to kx sensor. So i am pasting them here as compared to k7. (why because of a k7 fanboy posting in this thread who was arguing with me that kx has inferior sensor than k7). (@robgo2, you are not a fanboy , in case you mistake what i just said i was not talking about you. ) overall comparison. dynamic range SNR as expected dxomark also agrees that kx has better sensor overall. At high isos has better noise control at low iso better dynamic range.

03-09-2010, 04:23 PM	#73
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by LeDave Ricehigh, it's not because others are fanboys, it's because you're a K-7 hateboy. Judging from all 177 of your posts, it's the only thing you do on this forum. true, it's all the thing that he does in this forum. not to mention that the k-x is the best camera in the world, according to him.

03-09-2010, 04:25 PM	#74
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by LeDave Ricehigh, it's not because others are fanboys, it's because you're a K-7 hateboy. Judging from all 177 of your posts, it's the only thing you do on this forum. you are fanboy number 2 in the list of fanboys. Could you prove me wrong by giving any tests. No you can not because these graphs are what i had been saying in my 177 posts. and yes, i am not Ricehigh. :-)

03-09-2010, 04:26 PM	#75
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by Pentaxor true, it's all the thing that he does in this forum. not to mention that the k-x is the best camera in the world, according to him. o fanboy number 1 spoke to subject. do you think dxomark also can not afford k7 and that is why they gave it low marks. lol.