[madbrain]

^^^^^^
That's a slight exaggeration... the K-7 is certainly a fair bit noisier than modern generations, but it still outperforms cell phones in any light. I wouldn't call the sensor obsolete until that test comes out false.

What I meant is that the K200D and K-7 are obsolete compared to just about any camera in similar factor sold new today.

Unfortunately, DXO maintains a separate score for cell phone sensors, "DXOMark mobile", so we can't directly compare them to DSLRs or MILCs.

[Canid]

Well, sure.... if you define obsolete as "all the new stuff can do it better"...

Obsolete, to me means something a bit different... that technology has changed so much, that using the old stuff is so impractical/inferior in comparison that it is only done for historic/archiving/nostalgic purposes. VHS is obsolete because it takes up huge amounts of space, degrades over time, takes effort to digitize, and offers no practical or price advantage over disk/digital formats.
Tiny megapixel compacts are obsolete too because everybody has a phone that can do it bigger, better, more easily, and in a smaller package (that they always have with them).

My K-7? Definitely doesn't fall into that category. It even bests the newer Pentax models fine video detail, because it used better compression algorithms. I have stills that I took from HD footage on my K7, and they are wonderfully crisp

I want better low light performance, more resolution, better autofocus, and longer recording times, so at some point I would like to upgrade. But I don't think the K-3ii, or any of the newer models are fundamentally different beasts than my ~9 year old K-7. They are just do everything several degrees better ((( except video ~> *fizzzz*)))

[madbrain]

Well, sure.... if you define obsolete as "all the new stuff can do it better"...
My K-7? Definitely doesn't fall into that category. It even bests the newer Pentax models fine video detail, because it used better compression algorithms. I have stills that I took from HD footage on my K7, and they are wonderfully crisp

I want better low light performance, more resolution, better autofocus, and longer recording times, so at some point I would like to upgrade. But I don't think the K-3ii, or any of the newer models are fundamentally different beasts than my ~9 year old K-7. They are just do everything several degrees better ((( except video ~> *fizzzz*)))

The better low light performance IMO makes them fundamentally different animals, IMO. ISO max on the K-7 (and K200D) is only 1600. That severely limits your ability to make many shots hand-held under low light conditions. And even ISO 1600 on those generations of cameras are quite grainy. In practice, I often needed a tripod with the K200D, but I wasn't willing to carry one usually.

On my 2012 K-30, ISO 6400 is very usable, I would say more so than ISO 1600 on my K200D (haven't seen the K-7). A used or refurb K-30 body (or comparable K-50) can be had for $250 which is really quite low, about the same price as one low/mid range lens. Certainly not a very consequential expense.
IMO, there really is no point in carrying those old bodies today. They can make good backup or second body. But unless you are extremely stretched for dollars, there is no point in continuing to use them, IMO.

I still have my old K200D body. I had given it to my mom when I got my K-30. She shoots indoor a lot under low light conditions, and actually complained that she was getting a lot of blurry shots, especially trying to shoot grandchildren who move too quickly, and the low usable ISO forces slow shutter speed which causes the blur. So, I got her a K-50 this last Xmas, which I bought for $250, and she gave me back the old K200D. She is much happier with the K-50. My mom is not an advanced photographer, but even she can tell it is night and day between those 2 cameras.

I thought I might be able to sell the K200D body. But even lowering the price to $139, it doesn't get a single offer either here or ebay or craigslist. It's essentially worthless and would not make a lot of sense to sell it for less than that. If it doesn't sell, I will put it in a storage box in my garage and keep as backup body in case I ever need it, but in all likelihood, I will not. I don't have any acquaintance locally that would be interested in it. Space is at a premium in the area and storage of an unused bulky item like a DSLR can be expensive. Many of my friends live in a shared bedroom. If I didn't have space myself to store it, I would probably lower the price and sell it. Maybe I will give it to a friend in 3rd world country who expressed interest in photography last year, beyond what cell phones can do. But I don't have a spare K-mount lens to give him with the camera.

I think the K200D and K-7 are similar generations of sensors. The K-7 has more MP and live view & video, which the K200D lacks. But overall, I stand by what I said. These bodies are just obsolete. I stand by what I said.

[Canid]

Pentax switched to CMOS with the K-7, and it can go up to ISO 6400.... though I think I'd be saying the same thing if I were working with a K200D.

There is no denying the noise at 6400, and I certainly try to avoid using it. But I think I can still get compelling photos...


(These are all ISO 6400 on the K7)

Attached Images

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[madbrain]

Pentax switched to CMOS with the K-7, and it can go up to ISO 6400.... though I think I'd be saying the same thing if I were working with a K200D.

There is no denying the noise at 6400, and I certainly try to avoid using it. But I think I can still get compelling photos...


(These are all ISO 6400 on the K7)

Ah, I didn't know the K-7 went to ISO 1600. That changes things. I did some google searches before posting and found information that said it could only do up to ISO 1600. Not sure where I found it. Clearly, it was wrong.
At least, 6400 allows you to avoid blurry shots. Blurry shots cannot be recovered with post processing. The noise in your pics is significant, though, and you need to do some noise reduction in post-processing to get acceptable prints of above average size. I sometimes do PP on my K-30 shots at 6400 too, but it is fairly minimal. I never shoot beyond 6400 even though the K-30 allows it, as I'm never happy with the results above that. My camera is set to auto ISO from 100-6400. I set my mother's K-50 to the same.

I notice that your pics were at F2.0 and 35mm. Which lens is that ? My favorite lens for low-light shots is the inexpensive DA35 f2.4 . To get back on the video topic, I have not tried it yet on my DMC-GX85 body. The crop factor makes it a little bit too close for indoor use. I have tried my Sigma 10-20 with more success for indoor. Of course, that lens costs as much as the GX85 camera body. There is significant barrel distortion, which I can correct for stills with the free version of DXO Optics, but cannot correct in video using PowerDirector. Not sure if there is other software that can. It would likely be extremely slow. And when using a K-mount to micro 4/3 adapter, there is no lens information in EXIF or video file headers.

I recently saw a movie in the theater called "Unsane" which was entirely shot on an iPhone 7 body, but with some wide lenses adapted to it. There was horrible barrel distortion throughout in wide shots, which was not corrected in post. But the image quality was surprisingly good, except in low-light scenes, as expected. I did not know it was shot on an iPhone before seeing it. I only read about it afterwards. But I noticed the barrel distortion, as well as the strange aspect ratio of the movie. For that matter, many movies shot on film look terrible in low light scenes too. One of my favorite movies in recent time is "Call me by your name", which was shot on film. I saw it in the theater in January, and bought the Blu-ray , which I watched in my home theater last night on my Optoma UHD65 4K projector. The daytime scenes look gorgeous. But some night scenes were nearly unwatchable, very grainy and with very little contrast, so little that you could barely make out the subject. They would have greatly benefited from being shot on modern digital bodies, IMO. Of course, daytime scenes were fine, and the digital transfer to Blu-ray looked much better than transfer of old movies shot on films in the 80s, back when just about no one was worrying about noise and grain in low-light scenes.

Just found info about how they shot it with a single 35mm lens.
"Call Me By Your Name" - A Feature Film Shot with Only One 35mm Lens | cinema5D

[stevebrot]

I notice that your pics were at F2.0 and 35mm. Which lens is that ?

Pentax FA 35/2?


Steve

(...mine is on my "will not sell list"...)

[PiDicus Rex]

Okie, skipping most of this and just answering Canid's questions,...

Firstly, heat. Unless you're outdoors in direct sunlight on a day with temperatures in the high-30's (Celsius,.... for those of you in the one country that hasn't gone metric,...) the odds of you overheating a Pentax body are negligible.

I've reported in other threads, the one time I saw the temp warning symbol on my original K-01, was in direct sunlight and the temp had hit 41 degrees.

In most uses, you will never overheat a Pentax body.

I've recorded for 4 hours, hitting the button again every 19 minutes, without issue.


Now, as to which Pentax camera to upgrade to?

KP.

Most recent APS-c sensor (Close to super35 sized), and the data rate of the CoDec was taken from 19mbits/second to 24. So it's the most amount of information recorded in the image in any Pentax body.

If I was spending my own money on a Pentax for general use, that's the keeper, especially if needing to record video at night.

If you shoot 95% stills and 5% video, get a K-1ii (we all would anyway,..)

If you shoot 5% stills and 95% video, and don't need 4K, the KP is acceptable.

If you need 4K and want to keep the manual Pentax lenses - GX85, G85, GH4, GH5.
Don't bother with the Sony's unless you can afford a gimbal, the IBIS (Including Sensor Shift!) in the Panasonic's blow everything else away for 4K, but the colour science in stills is waaaay behind Pentax.

I looked very closely at the G85 to replace my K-01's, as I have an external recorder, so don't need the high data rate CoDec's in the GH bodies.

The GH's also use a version of the DLi-90 battery, so if your K-7 uses that, you can keep using the battery.


This is where my Pentax Primes live now.

CION - Science of the Beautiful - Products - AJA Video Systems

---

Last edited by PiDicus Rex; 04-17-2018 at 06:41 AM.

[Canid]

the data rate of the CoDec was taken from 19mbits/second to 24. So it's the most amount of information recorded in the image in any Pentax body.

How does this compare to the K-7 I already own? My understanding was that video compression took a dive after the K-5 and never recovered. I have been very happy with the level of detail in the videos from my K-7, and I can get away with the light conditions for all my filming needs as long as I have a fast lens attached.

Also, are we sure that the overheating issue is fixed for all current models? The k-01 is the only mirrorless Pentax, and as such had to have an always on sensor - it may have been designed with heat more in mind than other models.

[Adam]

How does this compare to the K-7 I already own? My understanding was that video compression took a dive after the K-5 and never recovered. I have been very happy with the level of detail in the videos from my K-7, and I can get away with the light conditions for all my filming needs as long as I have a fast lens attached.

Also, are we sure that the overheating issue is fixed for all current models? The k-01 is the only mirrorless Pentax, and as such had to have an always on sensor - it may have been designed with heat more in mind than other models.

The compression is still pretty bad in newer bodies (compared to other makes), but the KP sensor's native lower noise levels combined with higher video resolution mean that you'll be able to capture clearer video overall. Plus, you get full manual control and a much wider range of ISOs.

As others have said, ambient temperature is the biggest factor in overheating. I don't think the K-01 has any edge in this repsect.

[madbrain]

Okie, skipping most of this and just answering Canid's questions,...
If you need 4K and want to keep the manual Pentax lenses - GX85, G85, GH4, GH5.

Not sure what you mean by "manual Pentax lenses" here, but you can use just about any K-mount lens, including DA lenses, using the Fotodiox adapter in those Panasonic bodies. This adapter has an aperture ring, so it works even if the lens lacks one. You do need a focus ring on the lens, but I'm not aware that any K-mount lens lacks one.
You will have to set aperture manually on the adapter, and focus manually. And of course, the different crop factor means they won't necessarily capture the image you want.

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 07:47 PM ----------

The compression is still pretty bad in newer bodies (compared to other makes), but the KP sensor's native lower noise levels combined with higher video resolution mean that you'll be able to capture clearer video overall. Plus, you get full manual control and a much wider range of ISOs.

As others have said, ambient temperature is the biggest factor in overheating. I don't think the K-01 has any edge in this repsect.

Is any comparison available in terms of sensor and noise for bodies like the K-30/K-50 vs the newer K-70 and K-P ? Unfortunately, DXO has not tested either of the later bodies. I would certainly like to get know how quantifiable the improvement might be, not just for video but also for stills. The K-70 & K-P have higher megapixel count, which can sometimes be counter-productive in terms of noise performance vs lower MP bodies. I have certainly seen that on compact cameras.

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 08:02 PM ----------

Now, as to which Pentax camera to upgrade to?

KP.

Most recent APS-c sensor (Close to super35 sized), and the data rate of the CoDec was taken from 19mbits/second to 24. So it's the most amount of information recorded in the image in any Pentax body.

If I was spending my own money on a Pentax for general use, that's the keeper, especially if needing to record video at night.

If you shoot 95% stills and 5% video, get a K-1ii (we all would anyway,..)

If you shoot 5% stills and 95% video, and don't need 4K, the KP is acceptable.

Since this thread is concerned with video continuous recording time, I think that rules out any Pentax camera as "acceptable". I would agree overheating a Pentax body is not a concern.
The K-P does not just lack 4K, but also 1920x1080 at 60 Hz , ie. 1080p.

I'm not sure about the video auto-focus capabilities on the K-P either. On my K-30, I can press the "AF" button to refocus, but there is no way to change the focus point after the recording is started, as far as I know. That is quite a shortcoming for hand-held use.

For handheld use, rolling shutter has been nothing short of horrible in the K-30. Has this been improved in the K-P ?

IMO it's irresponsible to recommend a current Pentax DSLR if one is doing 95% video. The Pentax bodies are great for stills, but their video is simply not competitive nowadays.

[Adam]

Is any comparison available in terms of sensor and noise for bodies like the K-30/K-50 vs the newer K-70 and K-P ? Unfortunately, DXO has not tested either of the later bodies. I would certainly like to get know how quantifiable the improvement might be, not just for video but also for stills. The K-70 & K-P have higher megapixel count, which can sometimes be counter-productive in terms of noise performance vs lower MP bodies. I have certainly seen that on compact cameras.

For stills you should refer to our in-depth reviews. The image accelerator unit should take care of the noise concern; for all practical purposes (alongside generational improvements) it negates the lower MP count argument (at least for Pentax DSLRs). You might be particularly interested in this page:

Pentax K-70 Review - Sharpness & Noise | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[madbrain]

For stills you should refer to our in-depth reviews. The image accelerator unit should take care of the noise concern; for all practical purposes (alongside generational improvements) it negates the lower MP count argument (at least for Pentax DSLRs). You might be particularly interested in this page:

Pentax K-70 Review - Sharpness & Noise | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Thanks. It's visually helpful, except it doesn't compare with my current camera (K-30), so hard to get an idea of how much better it would be.

The lens used as well as aperture, shutter and lighting conditions aren't specified.

The K-70 would appear to be superior to the K-3 II and K-S2 at ISO 51200 .
I'm more concerned about performance in the ISO 6400 - 12800. This is a range I can never use satisfactorily on my K-30.
And I'm concerned primarily with low-light. I shoot a ton of night-time stills handheld on my K-30.

DXOMark shows the K-30 and K-3 II scores to be neck and neck - 79 and 80 . And the low-light ISO performance is actually slightly better on the K-30.
No DXOMark for either the K-S2, K-70 or K-P .

I have attached an example of my favorite type of night shots. Nha Trang Vietnam from the top of a hotel, shot handheld with the DA35. ISO is only 1600 . Lens was wide open.
I have other shots at ISO 3200 and 6400 too. Overall, all suffer from some lack of sharpness that I had to partially compensate for in post. Probably shouldn't have shot with the lens wide open to get sharper pic.
There is some pretty several chromatic aberration on the streetlights too. Not completely sure how to fix it in post. It makes the photo more colorful, though. Just did a print of this at 11x17 and it looked great, better than on my monitor.
I guess that makes sense for the print to be better, since the monitor is 32", physically larger than the print, but 4K resolution and thus only showing about half the pixels in the image.

Not sure also how the accelerator engine would translate to video. This is particularly tough since video only have 8-bit per channel of color data, unlike RAW for stills. So really no room for error if exposure isn't perfect from the get-go.
And of course the Pentax video bit rate does not help. I never shoot video under those tough lighting conditions, though. Maybe will try with my new GX85 to see how the 5-axis IBIS & 4K high bitrate combination does.

[Canid]

I notice that your pics were at F2.0 and 35mm. Which lens is that ?

Pentax FA 35/2? Steve (...mine is on my "will not sell list"...)

Got it in one!
I bought the FA 35/2 specifically for indoor low light situations where using flash was undesirable or not possible, so it has become my default video lens for anything indoors. It is not my favorite lens, but it is one of my most used because it is compact, light, and f2 gives a critical light advantage over f2.8 (my next fastest lens)


This is actually part of the reason I feel inclined to upgrade... with the exception of 35s and 50s, fast lenses are expensive and heavy, and if I upgraded, I might be able to get away with using my 12-24/4 or 55-300/4-5.8 which would give me much more flexibility in situations where I don't have many options for where I can set up.

Up until now, I have been following the "lenses before bodies" principal. But I am pretty satisfied with my lens collection now, and a body upgrade would be like giving a 3 stop exposure boost to all of them.

Video is really the only thing stopping me, because as limiting as it is shooting the 35, it is enough for even night video. And as limiting as 7:31 is with the K-7, it had good compression and sharp images. I don't want to downgrade a feature I use albeit maybe only 1% of the time.

[Adam]

I'm more concerned about performance in the ISO 6400 - 12800. This is a range I can never use satisfactorily on my K-30.

You could look at our K-3 to K-50 comparisons (they are in the K-S1 review AFAIK), then compare the K-3 to KP comparisons to get a sense on the improvement. It should be quite noticeable, but if you want to live in that ISO range, then FF is the way to go of course.

I still have my K-50 lying around, but no KP, otherwise I'd shoot some shots for you. I could compare it to the K-1 II in crop mode, though, as this would give you an idea of the potential improvement in noise alone.

As for the image accelerator, since it cleans the input signal before processing is applied, it leads to an across-the-board improvement. Of course some of that improvement might get washed away given the low bitrate.

[madbrain]

You could look at our K-3 to K-50 comparisons (they are in the K-S1 review AFAIK), then compare the K-3 to KP comparisons to get a sense on the improvement. It should be quite noticeable, but if you want to live in that ISO range, then FF is the way to go of course.

I still have my K-50 lying around, but no KP, otherwise I'd shoot some shots for you. I could compare it to the K-1 II in crop mode, though, as this would give you an idea of the potential improvement in noise alone.

As for the image accelerator, since it cleans the input signal before processing is applied, it leads to an across-the-board improvement. Of course some of that improvement might get washed away given the low bitrate.

Thanks for the offer. I hope you won't mind , but DP Review provided the comparison I was looking for.

Pentax KP Review: Digital Photography Review

I was able to compare the K-P to K-3 II, K-50, and K-1 . My K-30 should be nearly identical to K-50 in terms of performance.
Their nifty tool allows changing light conditions to low-light, and all ISO ranges are covered.
Overall, the K-50 and K-3 II appear to have fairly similar performance levels in terms of noise, even though the K-3 II has more detail due to higher MP.
But the K-P really trounces the K-3 II at higher ISO. That's really impressive. Some shots even seem to match the K-1 . When all are adjusted for identical size, you would have a difficult time picking K-P and K-1 apart in many shots.
I may just need to pick up a K-P for the stills performance (not video).