K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO

supa007 · 07-09-2009, 07:44 AM

Unfortunately, I think my K-7 actually performs worse than the K20D. Just did a simple test with both camera in my dimly lit livingroom on a tripod and some of my daughter's toys. Both raw files (K7 using DNG, K20D using PEF), imported into iPhoto and screen captured in TIFF. Apart from K-7 giving much better white balance, the K20D wins in amount of noise present and details retained...

1. F5, 1/15 @50mm, ISO 1600 (DA*50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right
ISO1600 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

2. F8, 1/13 @50mm, ISO 3200 (DA*50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right
ISO3200 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Just want to know if this is what you people with both camera have observed.

If so, I'm a little disappointed...

kent · 07-09-2009, 08:02 AM

interesting WB difference

jstevewhite · 07-09-2009, 08:15 AM

I think you're right there. It looks like the K-7 has more color noise, while the K20D still limits noise mostly to luminance. Hrm...

pcarfan · 07-09-2009, 08:28 AM

It is definitely worse than the K20D here...hmmmm....interesting to see what others who own both can post.....

Sleepy · 07-09-2009, 08:37 AM

Thanks for your test.
After checking the high iso photos from several K7(production model) owners online, it seems that K-7 has the same or a bit worse high iso noise as or than K20D.
I would probably get K-7 because of its great improvements other than iso performance (compared to K20D) even though the high iso noise kind of disappoints me.

rawr · 07-09-2009, 08:39 AM

Interesting. Be good to have the same color temperature though across both samples.

Also the depth of field seems slightly different in the photos, with the K20D's DOF bringing some of the rear details into focus while they remain out of focus a tad in the K7 image.

But the K7 does seem to have coarser noise grain across the board. What did the supposed K7 sensor tweaking do?

Croc · 07-09-2009, 09:03 AM

might be worth trying to redo your test with WB set by hand instead of auto but as is it would seem that shot is more crisp on k7 and almost as if the k20 had slight noise rudction done

Torphoto · 07-09-2009, 09:16 AM

My K7 just arrived, charging the batteries now so will test vs the K20D in a bit

Venturi · 07-09-2009, 09:23 AM

I'm not rebutting here, but what were the NR settings on both cameras when you performed the test? Was High ISO NR turned OFF on both bodies?

lavascript · 07-09-2009, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Croc

might be worth trying to redo your test with WB set by hand instead of auto but as is it would seem that shot is more crisp on k7 and almost as if the k20 had slight noise rudction done

I agree... looks like NR on the K20 shot. But they're both from RAW?

nostatic · 07-09-2009, 09:26 AM

Have you converted to monochrome? Looks to me like the K7 image would take to that pp better than the K20. Since I do a fair amount of b&w, this "test" actually sways me towards the K7.

nephoto · 07-09-2009, 09:40 AM

Sorry, but I disagree. K7 has more detail, better colors, better white balance. You have helped persuade me to buy one.

Thanks

SALUKIS97 · 07-09-2009, 09:44 AM

Wow. That sucks. Since I still own a K10, I think I may just opt for the K20 deal at Wal mart if it's still available. So far, I've not read anything that backs up any substantial "real world" improvement over the K20.

robgo2 · 07-09-2009, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by supa007

Unfortunately, I think my K-7 actually performs worse than the K20D. Just did a simple test with both camera in my dimly lit livingroom on a tripod and some of my daughter's toys. Both raw files (K7 using DNG, K20D using PEF), imported into iPhoto and screen captured in TIFF. Apart from K-7 giving much better white balance, the K20D wins in amount of noise present and details retained...

1. F5, 1/15 @50mm, ISO 1600 (DA*50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right
ISO1600 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

2. F8, 1/13 @50mm, ISO 3200 (DA*50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right
ISO3200 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Just want to know if this is what you people with both camera have observed.

If so, I'm a little disappointed...

I much prefer the K-7 at ISO 1600. It has so much more detail that you can see surface textures that are completely gone in the K20D pic. I ran it through my NR program (Dfine) a got it looking quite presentable.

The ISO 3200 shot is more problematic, but once again, the K-7 shows more detail. Dfine makes it very usable.

It does appear that high ISO noise may not be improved in the K-7. For my purposes, I just want good detail retention at ISO 1600 with unobtrusive noise that can be dealt with in PP. So far, I think the K-7 will deliver that. Those who want absolutely clean and detailed images at ISO 3200 and above have got to adjust their expectations for what an APS-C camera can do. If the K20D does as well or better than the K-7 in that department, some people may hesitate to upgrade. Just remember that noise/grain are not always enemies that must be completely eliminated.

P.S. I am eagerly waiting for DxO Optics Pro to support the K-7. It has unique noise removal before demosaicisation that is really excellent at high ISOs.

Rob

RawheaD · 07-09-2009, 10:44 AM

Since I sold my K20D away, I can't do a direct comparison, but my initial response to high ISO was great; while with the K20D I felt ISO800 the upper limit for me, personally, I don't mind the ISO1600 pictures coming out of my K-7 at all.

Regarding the comparison, if I remember correctly, there was no way to completely turn off NR on the K20D (which is one of things people bitched about). Please make sure that whatever is happening, you are comparing apples to apples

07-09-2009, 07:44 AM	#1
supa007 New Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 15	K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO Unfortunately, I think my K-7 actually performs worse than the K20D. Just did a simple test with both camera in my dimly lit livingroom on a tripod and some of my daughter's toys. Both raw files (K7 using DNG, K20D using PEF), imported into iPhoto and screen captured in TIFF. Apart from K-7 giving much better white balance, the K20D wins in amount of noise present and details retained... 1. F5, 1/15 @50mm, ISO 1600 (DA50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right ISO1600 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! 2. F8, 1/13 @50mm, ISO 3200 (DA50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right ISO3200 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Just want to know if this is what you people with both camera have observed. If so, I'm a little disappointed...

07-09-2009, 10:28 AM	#14
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by supa007 Unfortunately, I think my K-7 actually performs worse than the K20D. Just did a simple test with both camera in my dimly lit livingroom on a tripod and some of my daughter's toys. Both raw files (K7 using DNG, K20D using PEF), imported into iPhoto and screen captured in TIFF. Apart from K-7 giving much better white balance, the K20D wins in amount of noise present and details retained... 1. F5, 1/15 @50mm, ISO 1600 (DA50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right ISO1600 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! 2. F8, 1/13 @50mm, ISO 3200 (DA50-135mm) - K7 left, K20D right ISO3200 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Just want to know if this is what you people with both camera have observed. If so, I'm a little disappointed... I much prefer the K-7 at ISO 1600. It has so much more detail that you can see surface textures that are completely gone in the K20D pic. I ran it through my NR program (Dfine) a got it looking quite presentable. The ISO 3200 shot is more problematic, but once again, the K-7 shows more detail. Dfine makes it very usable. It does appear that high ISO noise may not be improved in the K-7. For my purposes, I just want good detail retention at ISO 1600 with unobtrusive noise that can be dealt with in PP. So far, I think the K-7 will deliver that. Those who want absolutely clean and detailed images at ISO 3200 and above have got to adjust their expectations for what an APS-C camera can do. If the K20D does as well or better than the K-7 in that department, some people may hesitate to upgrade. Just remember that noise/grain are not always enemies that must be completely eliminated. P.S. I am eagerly waiting for DxO Optics Pro to support the K-7. It has unique noise removal *before* demosaicisation that is really excellent at high ISOs. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 07-09-2009 at 10:34 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
m4/3 high ISO better than K20d ??	arbib	Photographic Technique	12	09-10-2010 06:30 PM
Kx / K20D comparison on high ISO	kasv	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	12-02-2009 03:26 PM
K20D High ISO Performance	joelovotti	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	03-17-2009 06:47 PM
Km vs K20D High ISO	tarsus	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	01-07-2009 03:53 PM
K20D rediculous high ISO pictures	codiac2600	Post Your Photos!	42	03-17-2008 12:11 AM

07-09-2009, 08:02 AM	#2
kent Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 344	interesting WB difference

07-09-2009, 08:15 AM	#3
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	I think you're right there. It looks like the K-7 has more color noise, while the K20D still limits noise mostly to luminance. Hrm...

07-09-2009, 08:28 AM	#4
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	It is definitely worse than the K20D here...hmmmm....interesting to see what others who own both can post.....

07-09-2009, 08:37 AM	#5
Sleepy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Miami Photos: Gallery Posts: 133	Thanks for your test. After checking the high iso photos from several K7(production model) owners online, it seems that K-7 has the same or a bit worse high iso noise as or than K20D. I would probably get K-7 because of its great improvements other than iso performance (compared to K20D) even though the high iso noise kind of disappoints me.

07-09-2009, 08:39 AM	#6
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Interesting. Be good to have the same color temperature though across both samples. Also the depth of field seems slightly different in the photos, with the K20D's DOF bringing some of the rear details into focus while they remain out of focus a tad in the K7 image. But the K7 does seem to have coarser noise grain across the board. What did the supposed K7 sensor tweaking do?

07-09-2009, 09:03 AM	#7
Croc Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Moon Posts: 87	might be worth trying to redo your test with WB set by hand instead of auto but as is it would seem that shot is more crisp on k7 and almost as if the k20 had slight noise rudction done

07-09-2009, 09:16 AM	#8
Torphoto Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Trinidad W.I. Photos: Gallery Posts: 612	My K7 just arrived, charging the batteries now so will test vs the K20D in a bit

07-09-2009, 09:23 AM	#9
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	I'm not rebutting here, but what were the NR settings on both cameras when you performed the test? Was High ISO NR turned OFF on both bodies?

07-09-2009, 09:24 AM	#10
lavascript Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Baton Rouge Posts: 395	Originally posted by Croc might be worth trying to redo your test with WB set by hand instead of auto but as is it would seem that shot is more crisp on k7 and almost as if the k20 had slight noise rudction done I agree... looks like NR on the K20 shot. But they're both from RAW?

07-09-2009, 09:26 AM	#11
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Have you converted to monochrome? Looks to me like the K7 image would take to that pp better than the K20. Since I do a fair amount of b&w, this "test" actually sways me towards the K7.

07-09-2009, 09:40 AM	#12
nephoto New Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: London, England Posts: 4	Sorry, but I disagree. K7 has more detail, better colors, better white balance. You have helped persuade me to buy one. Thanks

07-09-2009, 09:44 AM	#13
SALUKIS97 Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Dawg Country Posts: 41	Wow. That sucks. Since I still own a K10, I think I may just opt for the K20 deal at Wal mart if it's still available. So far, I've not read anything that backs up any substantial "real world" improvement over the K20.

07-09-2009, 10:44 AM	#15
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	Since I sold my K20D away, I can't do a direct comparison, but my initial response to high ISO was great; while with the K20D I felt ISO800 the upper limit for me, personally, I don't mind the ISO1600 pictures coming out of my K-7 at all. Regarding the comparison, if I remember correctly, there was no way to completely turn off NR on the K20D (which is one of things people bitched about). Please make sure that whatever is happening, you are comparing apples to apples