K100D replacement

Hi everyone

Im thinking of replacing my k100d with a k7 from srs.

Ive recently been buyng lenses (16-45, 55-300 and dfa 100mm) and feel i need to replace the body to get the most out of these.

I like my k100 but some things bug me (main problem being everything is in a menu somewhere and takes too long to change). I really like the k7 with its features and size.

One q i have is what kind of difference would i see with the increase in pixel count? I know this would enable me to print at larger sizes but this does not interest me. The main thing second to useability features would be getting the most out of my new lenses in image quality and detail especially with my new macro lens.

Is the k7 a significant jump from the k100d?

Cheers
Rich

If you are not going to print A3 or A2 format, I doubt that you will notice a big difference in IQ with the increased pixel count, and you definitely don't have to switch body to justify your lenses.

IMO investing in lenses is more important than having the latest and greatest in camera body.

However, the ergonomics and functionality of the K7 vs. K100D is quite different - more direct access to important functions, two control wheels, improved SR etc., etc. You get what you pay for, but in this case not necessarily in picture quality.

Happy K7 owners will soon be here to correct me

Rich - it's a major step up:

6.1meg CCD > 14.6 CMOS
Weather sealed
Dust Removal
Sensor Orientation
Better viewfinder .85 v .92
Better ISO range 100-6400 v 200-3200
Better AF
More accessible controls - ISO especially now on button/wheel combo
More programable options 37 v 19

to list but a few

I still use an ist D for work related photos. It has the same CCD sensor and is very adequate. But it's harder to use relative to the K10/K20 series and definately so compared to the K7. You'll find the K7 so much more user friendly and even if you don't use the full range of options and facilities (not many will or do), you won't regret it.

HTH


Steve

The increased pixel count will also mean you have a lot more latitude in cropping. This was the main reason I upgraded from my K100D to a K20D. That plus individual AF adjustments for lenses.

However, make sure your computer is up to the task. Editing the 24MB raw files from my K20D can sometmies bring my laptop to a crawl, whereas it was always pretty snappy with the 10MB K100D raw files.

Has the K100D a 6.1 or a 10meg censor? Steve says the former, Tim the latter. Just interested, I'm happy with my 10-meg K10Ds.
David

It's a 6MP sensor, which produces 10MB raw files.

Thanks for the replys.

will the 14.6 CMOS vs 6.1meg CCD give me more detail?

Im currently using silkypixs trial for pp and liking it a lot. (need to get lightroom for a comparison) Its great on my desktop i recently built. Bit slow on my nc10 netbook though

What do you mean by more latitude thoughton?

Just that the K100D images are 3000 x 2000, whereas the K20D (and K7) images are 4600 x 3100, so you can crop much smaller on the K20D and still end up with a usable size image for the web or not-huge prints.

Not if you don't use those extra pixels.

It's the same as asking if Ferrari will be faster as a Volkswagen on a public road if you keep on the speed limit both will be evenly fast

So you either use those pixels to have more room to Crop like Tim says or you use those pixels for a bigger print if you don't do that they would be both evenly sharp.

i think i get the crop thing now with the extra pixels.

if i were to say take a pic of a bird at 300mm with the k100 that fills the frame and then took the same pic at 150mm and cropped down so the bird filled the frame again would the images look the same detail wise?

I use (and love using) a K100D and have no plans to "upgrade". I'm still amazed by what it can do and have only begun to explore its potential for image making.

But if someone offered a swap with a K7 I'd bite their hand off. I'd love to own one.

Yet I know my pictures wouldn't be £700 (or whaterever) better!

(I'm not sure this helps you at all, sorry!)

How precise do you want your answer?

One thing is focal length stays the same no matter what or how much you crop or do with your photo, so the f/2.8 DOF of a 150mm lens would not be the same after crop as the DOF of a 300mm at f/2.8.

Than you also have the sharpness of the lens, since you make enlarge a part of the photo that would mean the quality of that would also need to be better then the fullframed photo.
And in the same spirit the larger pixel of the k100D is of better quality than a single pixel of the K7 simply because that Pixel is larger but because the K7 has more in the end the quality would be the same and the extra pixels would give you more play room so to say.

So in order to get the same detail in the situation you suggest you would need a 150mm lens that's twice as sharp as the 300mm and the pixels of each camera need to be of the same quality since it's probably neither you can say that the K100D with a 300mm lens would make a better photo than the K7 with 150mm and cropped 50% or at least the k7 and the 150mm lens need to work twice as hard to get the same results.

thanks stefan for explaining.

but now im really confused.

why if i have more pixels can i print a picture larger than if i have less pixels in the same image if the images are of the same quality?

You got me also confused but I think I get you.

A normal print is often around the 250 dots per inch you can roughly translate dots to pixels I believe.
If you've more pixels you've more dots so more inch you can print, I believe we all agree on that.

Now the problem is since the quality of a pixel of the K7 is not as good as the quality of the larger pixel of the K100D there is more to think about.

One of the biggest advantages that the more pixels brings is the ability to capture finer detials better even if the quality per pixels is less and that's one reason why you can print largers prints with more pixels since there is more detial in it.
So the details are finer but the quality of those detials is less, I hope you understand that.

It's a bit like you paint with a smaller brush but with less quality paint.


Now you can also print small and since a standard is 250 dots per inch and you want to have a print 2 by 2 inch you see you don't need as many dots and so the finer detials the smaller pixels captured are lost, I think you already undstood that but wanted to at it just in case.

thanks again stefan

i think i am getting it now.

so the k7 can capture more detail but each pixel as its smaller than a k100s is not as good quality.

I suppose this is where larer sensor sizes comes in.

Cheers
Rich