Dynamic Range on the K-x

Shahmatt · 04-15-2010, 06:39 PM

Hi,

I've been pretty impressed with some of the sample images of the K-x. To my eye it seems like it's got a really good dynamic range.

I wonder if anyone know how it compares with other entry level DSLRs and also the kings of dynamic range like the Nikon D700 or traditionally the Fuji S5 pro?

jct us101 · 04-15-2010, 07:01 PM

The Fuji S5 pro isn't a traditional camera, it uses a Super CCD that allows for it to have twice as much dynamic range as anything else in the competition. There's also not really a good comparison between it and the Nikon D700 since that has a full frame sensor which is going to have more dynamic range due to the sensor size. If you want to check comparisons, I'd recommend going to places like DPreview and DCresource and checking their comparisons against cameras like the Canon 550D (T2i) and the Nikon D5000 and then see what you think of their comparisons (they'll usually put at least one dynamic range comparison in there).

But, there isn't really a kind of dynamic range page where you can check different cameras against each other if that is really what you are asking here. The K-x has pretty good dynamic range as far as I'm concerned though.

Shahmatt · 04-15-2010, 07:13 PM

Well, when I meant traditional, I sort of meant it as a benchmark for DR. Some of the detail that thing could capture was pretty damn awesome. It sucks that Fuji hasn't come up with a replacement for it since, nor have they even tried entering the compact DSLR market.

NoobCA · 04-15-2010, 08:44 PM

I've been using a 35mm Minolta SLR for about 8 years. I really like it and I've sort of been clinging to film. But I think it's time for me to add a digital SLR to my photo life. Would you recommend the K-X for someone who likes to do hobby based photography and is also new to digital photography? I want something that produces really nice shots, but I don't want it to be so complicated that I can't use it to it's full potential. I've been doing a lot of research on this and people seem to say that this camera is better than the Nikon D3000 so I'm leaning this way. Any thoughts?

Marv Toler · 04-15-2010, 09:22 PM

Speaking just for myself, I think that the K-x would be a good choice for you. The K-x is about as easy to use as any good quality digital camera. You can go full auto or full manual with tons of variations in between. You can take some great shots in auto while experimenting and learning new features as your comfort level increases. I've had 2 older Minolta SLRs (SRT-101 and X-370) and I recently bought a Pentax K-x. For me, it was a great decision.

rawr · 04-15-2010, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Shahmatt

..I wonder if anyone know how it compares with other entry level DSLRs and also the kings of dynamic range like the Nikon D700 or traditionally the Fuji S5 pro?

The short answer:

ie the K-x has the best dynamic range of any current APS-C DSLR. It's dynamic range (12.5) even exceeds that of the D700 (12.2). The actual 'king' of dynamic range nowadays is the D3X. The D700 is something of a laggard in fact.

The long answer:

DxOMark Sensor

rawr · 04-15-2010, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by jct us101

But, there isn't really a kind of dynamic range page where you can check different cameras against each other if that is really what you are asking here.

Yes there is, and it's very useful.

DxOMark Sensor

The whole DXOMark site in general is setup to do exactly those sort of comparisons.

jct us101 · 04-15-2010, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Yes there is, and it's very useful.

DxOMark Sensor

The whole DXOMark site in general is setup to do exactly those sort of comparisons.

I totally forgot about DXOMark, but don't worry, there is a very good reason for that.

The company (or whatever owns the website) is very biased in their testing, and they don't test real world applications when they're testing dynamic range for sensors. They said that the Canon Digital Rebel (forgot which one, I think the XT or the XTi, maybe the XSi) had more dynamic range than the 5D, which is a full frame sensor, and automatically with the increased area of the full frame sensor, has more dynamic range by nature. They also claimed that the Panasonic G1 had more dynamic range than the Nikon D700. These things just aren't possible, at least in the way that you are supposed to understand dynamic range and how it's supposed to work.

rawr · 04-16-2010, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by jct us101

I totally forgot about DXOMark, but don't worry, there is a very good reason for that.

Many people and reviewers find the DXOMark metrics entirely credible.

The examples you cite are wrong: according to DXOMark, the D700 scores 12.2 on dynamic range, the GH1 only scores 11.6, and the G1 a mere 10.3.

And I don't believe the sensor size (eg full-frame, APS-C etc) alone is what counts for achieving a good dynamic range. It is more technically complicated than that, I think.

WerTicus · 04-16-2010, 12:31 AM

Dynamic range of the Kx is nothing short of incredible.

Its up there with the medium format cameras.

DxOMark Sensor

its number 10 in the world actually.

Shahmatt · 04-16-2010, 12:34 AM

@rawr

Thanks for the information. I've looked at the site.

I find it interesting that the K20D actually has a lower DR compared with the K10D. The K7 is only 10.6 which is way lower than the immediate competition (do real world comments reflect this?). The K-x at 12.6 is pretty darn astonishing actually.

jct us101 · 04-16-2010, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Many people and reviewers find the DXOMark metrics entirely credible.

The examples you cite are wrong: according to DXOMark, the D700 scores 12.2 on dynamic range, the GH1 only scores 11.6, and the G1 a mere 10.3.

And I don't believe the sensor size (eg full-frame, APS-C etc) alone is what counts for achieving a good dynamic range. It is more technically complicated than that, I think.

There was a huge critisism done not that long ago on them, I wouldn't be suprised if the scores were changed now because of it, but what I said before is entirely true. Look around for it, I wish I could remember what website it was on (maybe Photography-on-the.net?) but some of the tests were totally ridiculous and biased towards different cameras.

dlacouture · 04-16-2010, 02:27 AM

I have both (K7 and Kx), and it's something that I noticed, without really investigating further.
Seeing the DXOMark results, I'll try some informal tests of my own...

The K7 indeed already felt "narrower" than the K10, so compared to the low-noise Kx, it's not really surprising...
But it simply beats the Kx in every other aspects. So, it's more a matter of the right tool at the right moment (but if only Pentax had put the Kx sensor in the K7, that would be another story!)

Wheatfield · 04-16-2010, 06:40 AM

Something the measurebeators won't tell you is how absolutely meaningless dynamic range is once you get past 7 or so stops.
Very few scenes will take more than 6 or 7 stops of DR, so any camera that hits more than about 9 stops (I'm pretty sure that is all of them), has ample DR, and any additional headroom, while it looks good on the spec sheet, is wasted.

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-16-2010, 07:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Something the measurebeators won't tell you is how absolutely meaningless dynamic range is once you get past 7 or so stops.
Very few scenes will take more than 6 or 7 stops of DR, so any camera that hits more than about 9 stops (I'm pretty sure that is all of them), has ample DR, and any additional headroom, while it looks good on the spec sheet, is wasted.

How true.

Just for every one's information, I did a test with my *istD where I ran 2 series of exposures with a lens (my smc-m 100F4 macro) using a uniformly lit concrete wall. The first set started at F32 and what the green button metering set as normal exposure (the result was a grey scale at about 120) I then left the shutter speed constant and opened the lens up 1 aperture click at a time, and took a shot.
I repeated the tests with the lens wide open, set exposure with the green button, (again about 120 greyscale value) and then stopped down one click at a time.

What I found was that if you potted greyscale vs stops, you could detect about 5 stops between 25 and 225 grey scale linearly spaced at about 40 greyscale/stop, and about 2 1/2 stops either side, of this range but no longer linearly varying, the first was about 17 greyscale the second was about 7 and the remaining 1/2 stop was 1-2.

The only difference between RAW and JPEG was raw had more data in the high end of the exposure, but what it demonstrates is that there is at least 10 stops of dynamic range within the sensor, with 7-8 stops that have reasonably good resolution within the stop, and 2-3 stops where there is some resolution of detail at the extremes.

That was 6 years ago.

I have not tried since, because as you say, every camera has the ability to record most scenes fairly well because the dynamic range of most scenes is well within the really good resolution 7-8 EV dynamic range in the middle of the curve
The

04-15-2010, 06:39 PM	#1
Shahmatt Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 68	Dynamic Range on the K-x Hi, I've been pretty impressed with some of the sample images of the K-x. To my eye it seems like it's got a really good dynamic range. I wonder if anyone know how it compares with other entry level DSLRs and also the kings of dynamic range like the Nikon D700 or traditionally the Fuji S5 pro?

04-15-2010, 08:44 PM	#4
NoobCA New Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Posts: 6	thinking of a k-x I've been using a 35mm Minolta SLR for about 8 years. I really like it and I've sort of been clinging to film. But I think it's time for me to add a digital SLR to my photo life. Would you recommend the K-X for someone who likes to do hobby based photography and is also new to digital photography? I want something that produces really nice shots, but I don't want it to be so complicated that I can't use it to it's full potential. I've been doing a lot of research on this and people seem to say that this camera is better than the Nikon D3000 so I'm leaning this way. Any thoughts?

04-16-2010, 12:11 AM	#9
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by jct us101 I totally forgot about DXOMark, but don't worry, there is a very good reason for that. Many people and reviewers find the DXOMark metrics entirely credible. The examples you cite are wrong: according to DXOMark, the D700 scores 12.2 on dynamic range, the GH1 only scores 11.6, and the G1 a mere 10.3. And I don't believe the sensor size (eg full-frame, APS-C etc) alone is what counts for achieving a good dynamic range. It is more technically complicated than that, I think. Last edited by rawr; 04-16-2010 at 12:15 AM. Reason: fixed up GH1/G1 numbers

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
dynamic range K20D	dafiryde	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	01-08-2009 10:51 AM
Dynamic Range	Rene`	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	09-25-2008 07:46 AM
better dynamic range (?) needed	FHPhotographer	Photo Critique	12	09-11-2008 01:52 PM
Dynamic Range	Vlad	Photographic Technique	5	06-01-2008 10:40 PM
High Dynamic Range - How do you do it?	MShawn63	Photographic Technique	32	01-11-2008 05:44 AM

04-15-2010, 07:01 PM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	The Fuji S5 pro isn't a traditional camera, it uses a Super CCD that allows for it to have twice as much dynamic range as anything else in the competition. There's also not really a good comparison between it and the Nikon D700 since that has a full frame sensor which is going to have more dynamic range due to the sensor size. If you want to check comparisons, I'd recommend going to places like DPreview and DCresource and checking their comparisons against cameras like the Canon 550D (T2i) and the Nikon D5000 and then see what you think of their comparisons (they'll usually put at least one dynamic range comparison in there). But, there isn't really a kind of dynamic range page where you can check different cameras against each other if that is really what you are asking here. The K-x has pretty good dynamic range as far as I'm concerned though.

04-15-2010, 07:13 PM	#3
Shahmatt Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 68 Original Poster	Well, when I meant traditional, I sort of meant it as a benchmark for DR. Some of the detail that thing could capture was pretty damn awesome. It sucks that Fuji hasn't come up with a replacement for it since, nor have they even tried entering the compact DSLR market.

04-15-2010, 09:22 PM	#5
Marv Toler Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Okemos, MI Posts: 29	Speaking just for myself, I think that the K-x would be a good choice for you. The K-x is about as easy to use as any good quality digital camera. You can go full auto or full manual with tons of variations in between. You can take some great shots in auto while experimenting and learning new features as your comfort level increases. I've had 2 older Minolta SLRs (SRT-101 and X-370) and I recently bought a Pentax K-x. For me, it was a great decision.

04-15-2010, 11:34 PM	#6
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Shahmatt ..I wonder if anyone know how it compares with other entry level DSLRs and also the kings of dynamic range like the Nikon D700 or traditionally the Fuji S5 pro? The short answer: ie the K-x has the best dynamic range of any current APS-C DSLR. It's dynamic range (12.5) even exceeds that of the D700 (12.2). The actual 'king' of dynamic range nowadays is the D3X. The D700 is something of a laggard in fact. The long answer: DxOMark Sensor

04-15-2010, 11:41 PM	#7
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by jct us101 But, there isn't really a kind of dynamic range page where you can check different cameras against each other if that is really what you are asking here. Yes there is, and it's very useful. DxOMark Sensor The whole DXOMark site in general is setup to do exactly those sort of comparisons.

04-15-2010, 11:47 PM	#8
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by rawr Yes there is, and it's very useful. DxOMark Sensor The whole DXOMark site in general is setup to do exactly those sort of comparisons. I totally forgot about DXOMark, but don't worry, there is a very good reason for that. The company (or whatever owns the website) is very biased in their testing, and they don't test real world applications when they're testing dynamic range for sensors. They said that the Canon Digital Rebel (forgot which one, I think the XT or the XTi, maybe the XSi) had more dynamic range than the 5D, which is a full frame sensor, and automatically with the increased area of the full frame sensor, has more dynamic range by nature. They also claimed that the Panasonic G1 had more dynamic range than the Nikon D700. These things just aren't possible, at least in the way that you are supposed to understand dynamic range and how it's supposed to work.

04-16-2010, 12:31 AM	#10
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Dynamic range of the Kx is nothing short of incredible. Its up there with the medium format cameras. DxOMark Sensor its number 10 in the world actually.

04-16-2010, 12:34 AM	#11
Shahmatt Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 68 Original Poster	@rawr Thanks for the information. I've looked at the site. I find it interesting that the K20D actually has a lower DR compared with the K10D. The K7 is only 10.6 which is way lower than the immediate competition (do real world comments reflect this?). The K-x at 12.6 is pretty darn astonishing actually.

04-16-2010, 01:14 AM	#12
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by rawr Many people and reviewers find the DXOMark metrics entirely credible. The examples you cite are wrong: according to DXOMark, the D700 scores 12.2 on dynamic range, the GH1 only scores 11.6, and the G1 a mere 10.3. And I don't believe the sensor size (eg full-frame, APS-C etc) alone is what counts for achieving a good dynamic range. It is more technically complicated than that, I think. There was a huge critisism done not that long ago on them, I wouldn't be suprised if the scores were changed now because of it, but what I said before is entirely true. Look around for it, I wish I could remember what website it was on (maybe Photography-on-the.net?) but some of the tests were totally ridiculous and biased towards different cameras.

04-16-2010, 02:27 AM	#13
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	I have both (K7 and Kx), and it's something that I noticed, without really investigating further. Seeing the DXOMark results, I'll try some informal tests of my own... The K7 indeed already felt "narrower" than the K10, so compared to the low-noise Kx, it's not really surprising... But it simply beats the Kx in every other aspects. So, it's more a matter of the right tool at the right moment (but if only Pentax had put the Kx sensor in the K7, that would be another story!)

04-16-2010, 06:40 AM	#14
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	Something the measurebeators won't tell you is how absolutely meaningless dynamic range is once you get past 7 or so stops. Very few scenes will take more than 6 or 7 stops of DR, so any camera that hits more than about 9 stops (I'm pretty sure that is all of them), has ample DR, and any additional headroom, while it looks good on the spec sheet, is wasted.

04-16-2010, 07:05 AM - 1 Like	#15
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by Wheatfield Something the measurebeators won't tell you is how absolutely meaningless dynamic range is once you get past 7 or so stops. Very few scenes will take more than 6 or 7 stops of DR, so any camera that hits more than about 9 stops (I'm pretty sure that is all of them), has ample DR, and any additional headroom, while it looks good on the spec sheet, is wasted. How true. Just for every one's information, I did a test with my *istD where I ran 2 series of exposures with a lens (my smc-m 100F4 macro) using a uniformly lit concrete wall. The first set started at F32 and what the green button metering set as normal exposure (the result was a grey scale at about 120) I then left the shutter speed constant and opened the lens up 1 aperture click at a time, and took a shot. I repeated the tests with the lens wide open, set exposure with the green button, (again about 120 greyscale value) and then stopped down one click at a time. What I found was that if you potted greyscale vs stops, you could detect about 5 stops between 25 and 225 grey scale linearly spaced at about 40 greyscale/stop, and about 2 1/2 stops either side, of this range but no longer linearly varying, the first was about 17 greyscale the second was about 7 and the remaining 1/2 stop was 1-2. The only difference between RAW and JPEG was raw had more data in the high end of the exposure, but what it demonstrates is that there is at least 10 stops of dynamic range within the sensor, with 7-8 stops that have reasonably good resolution within the stop, and 2-3 stops where there is some resolution of detail at the extremes. That was 6 years ago. I have not tried since, because as you say, every camera has the ability to record most scenes fairly well because the dynamic range of most scenes is well within the really good resolution 7-8 EV dynamic range in the middle of the curve The