K7 poor image quality
Posted 20/11/2010 - 17:58
Link
Snappychapy
Are you a member of any photography clubs? I am a member at two clubs, but the one I support the most is Castleford Camera Club, purley because we do lots of hands on stuff, take a look at their website if you are interested. If you ever want to hook up for some photographic trips out or tips, just send me a PM and I will give you my mobile number OK.
Regards
Are you a member of any photography clubs? I am a member at two clubs, but the one I support the most is Castleford Camera Club, purley because we do lots of hands on stuff, take a look at their website if you are interested. If you ever want to hook up for some photographic trips out or tips, just send me a PM and I will give you my mobile number OK.
Regards
Fletcher8.
Posted 20/11/2010 - 20:58
Link
Fletcher8 wrote:
Just a quick question. Why did you take the shot at f/4,5? Not the best choice of aperture for the image you posted in my opinion. There are numerous things you could try to improve your images and these are not meant to patronise you, but may give you an insight in improving the images and your photography.
1, Take some shots in different dial settings modes on the camera
2. Adjust your white balance for the conditions
3. Try different focal lengths
4. try f/7, f/8, f/9 these apertures often produce crisp images
5 Try different focus modes
6 Try different metering modes
On a short ferry trip, in the rain, I pointed the camera and pressed the button. I hoped I was showing an example of the performance of the kit lens and also indoor ISO400 1/15s noise levels. For the OP to compare.Just a quick question. Why did you take the shot at f/4,5? Not the best choice of aperture for the image you posted in my opinion. There are numerous things you could try to improve your images and these are not meant to patronise you, but may give you an insight in improving the images and your photography.
1, Take some shots in different dial settings modes on the camera
2. Adjust your white balance for the conditions
3. Try different focal lengths
4. try f/7, f/8, f/9 these apertures often produce crisp images
5 Try different focus modes
6 Try different metering modes
Your post does entirely come across as completely patronizing.
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 20/11/2010 - 21:08
Link
From the archives, a kit lens thread using the K-7. Again some ideas of the kind of "field" performance.
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/16-45mm-vs-wr-18-55mm-vs-samsun-18-55mm-f...
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/16-45mm-vs-wr-18-55mm-vs-samsun-18-55mm-f...
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 20/11/2010 - 23:33
Link
davidrobinson wrote:
I have just bought my first DSLR the K7, upgrading from a Fuji 9600s. I bought it with the kit lenses 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR. Up to now I am unimpressed with image quality. I have tried changing settings to ensure ISO stays low but I still find images are noisey grainy and with poor sharpness. AF Focus seems to be accurate when using view finder, anti shake is ON. I have tried alternative sharpness settings etc but see no improvement with image quality. What am I doing wrong or is it due to the KIT lenses? If so do they cause image noise associated with high ISO even when ISO is set to no more than 200?
You may need to calibrate your autofocus. This year I bought a K10D as a 2nd body to my K20D and it was softer than a soft thing until I calibrated the AF.
I have just bought my first DSLR the K7, upgrading from a Fuji 9600s. I bought it with the kit lenses 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR. Up to now I am unimpressed with image quality. I have tried changing settings to ensure ISO stays low but I still find images are noisey grainy and with poor sharpness. AF Focus seems to be accurate when using view finder, anti shake is ON. I have tried alternative sharpness settings etc but see no improvement with image quality. What am I doing wrong or is it due to the KIT lenses? If so do they cause image noise associated with high ISO even when ISO is set to no more than 200?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 21/11/2010 - 02:06
Link
dougf8 wrote:
Your post does entirely come across as completely patronizing.
Posting a snapshot taken in the rain with a kit lens and no post-processing is not a good way to demonstrate the capability of a camera.Your post does entirely come across as completely patronizing.
So perhaps you should not be totally surprised if people seem to patronise you.
G
PS: I've edited this a bit.
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 21/11/2010 - 06:44 - Helpful Comment
Link
link
DxOMark does not give the K-7 sensor a good rating as it's behind (in ascending order) the Km, K200D, K20D, K10D, K-r, K-x & the K-5 (which is the standout performer. However, if it's any consolation, it's ahead of the Leica M8!
Even though the K-7 sensor drags the chain in these tests & (as it does in my experience also) is not a great sensor it's not THAT bad so there must be something wrong. It will be interesting to see some samples (with the EXIF data).
DxOMark does not give the K-7 sensor a good rating as it's behind (in ascending order) the Km, K200D, K20D, K10D, K-r, K-x & the K-5 (which is the standout performer. However, if it's any consolation, it's ahead of the Leica M8!
Even though the K-7 sensor drags the chain in these tests & (as it does in my experience also) is not a great sensor it's not THAT bad so there must be something wrong. It will be interesting to see some samples (with the EXIF data).
Posted 21/11/2010 - 07:28
Link
davidrobinson wrote: Your post does entirely come across as completely patronizing.
David in no way did I intend my answer to your question to be patronizing. I was trying to offer some solutions to the problem you were highlighting. If you point and shoot without telling the camera what you want it to do you may as well have purchased a digital compact camera.
David in no way did I intend my answer to your question to be patronizing. I was trying to offer some solutions to the problem you were highlighting. If you point and shoot without telling the camera what you want it to do you may as well have purchased a digital compact camera.
Fletcher8.
Posted 21/11/2010 - 10:51
Link
davidrobinson wrote:
I have just bought my first DSLR the K7, upgrading from a Fuji 9600s. I bought it with the kit lenses 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR. Up to now I am unimpressed with image quality. I have tried changing settings to ensure ISO stays low but I still find images are noisey grainy and with poor sharpness. AF Focus seems to be accurate when using view finder, anti shake is ON. I have tried alternative sharpness settings etc but see no improvement with image quality. What am I doing wrong or is it due to the KIT lenses? If so do they cause image noise associated with high ISO even when ISO is set to no more than 200?
Hello againI have just bought my first DSLR the K7, upgrading from a Fuji 9600s. I bought it with the kit lenses 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR. Up to now I am unimpressed with image quality. I have tried changing settings to ensure ISO stays low but I still find images are noisey grainy and with poor sharpness. AF Focus seems to be accurate when using view finder, anti shake is ON. I have tried alternative sharpness settings etc but see no improvement with image quality. What am I doing wrong or is it due to the KIT lenses? If so do they cause image noise associated with high ISO even when ISO is set to no more than 200?
UPDATE
I have been out in slightly better light and got slightly better results but still not totally happy. Today however I have been playing with settings and find that on a grey day the AWB is not by any means perfect, so have tried a few shots with Shade WB and centre or centre weighted metering this has omproved images greatly. If I am still unhappy in a day or two will probably post some images and restart the thread.
Thanks and thanks again for all the advice, I have taken it all on board and I know most of the problems are due to driver error.
Posted 21/11/2010 - 11:23 - Helpful Comment
Link
I wish you luck David. If you are not seeing a big improvement over your fuji, you must have a problem somewhere.
Fuji s9600 at ISO 800: link
The K-7 should be capable of nice detailed images up to ISO 1250 with a fine-grained noise but none of the destructive smearing and over-processing you can see on the Fuji. If you are shooting jpegs the 'low' NR settings remove the colour noise but leave behind a fine grain on higher ISO images which is film-like and not too unpleasant. Shoot RAW and use Lightroom for even better results and full control.
Fuji s9600 at ISO 800: link
The K-7 should be capable of nice detailed images up to ISO 1250 with a fine-grained noise but none of the destructive smearing and over-processing you can see on the Fuji. If you are shooting jpegs the 'low' NR settings remove the colour noise but leave behind a fine grain on higher ISO images which is film-like and not too unpleasant. Shoot RAW and use Lightroom for even better results and full control.
Posted 21/11/2010 - 12:26
Link
I'm not sure if it's 100% relevant to your situation but when I moved to DSLR (K10D) a few years ago I was also initially disappointed compared to the results of my then "prosumer" (Konica Minolta A200). I also bought it with the kit lens but after a quick upgrade to the Sigma 17-70 IQ was pretty much transformed - contrast/colour & sharpness were all noticeably better than the kit lens. Not being familiar with the WR version I can't be sure if this is the case but it's possible you have a poor copy?
As others have said too though there's a pretty steep learning curve when moving to DSLR and it's possible you may just need a bit more time perfecting things, give it a bit more time but if things don't improve perhaps try & borrow an alternative lens to test things out
Simon
As others have said too though there's a pretty steep learning curve when moving to DSLR and it's possible you may just need a bit more time perfecting things, give it a bit more time but if things don't improve perhaps try & borrow an alternative lens to test things out
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 21/11/2010 - 12:37
Link
George Lazarette wrote:
So perhaps you should not be totally surprised if people seem to patronise you.
G
PS: I've edited this a bit.
You pompous .....er (I've edited that a bit).dougf8 wrote:
Your post does entirely come across as completely patronizing.
Posting a snapshot taken in the rain with a kit lens and no post-processing is not a good way to demonstrate the capability of a camera.Your post does entirely come across as completely patronizing.
So perhaps you should not be totally surprised if people seem to patronise you.
G
PS: I've edited this a bit.
There appears to be a dearth of images for the OP to compare, just a bit of generic "how to do photography" advice.
Fletcher I think, admits to having never used his kit lens, very helpful for this thread. And you George too, hardly seem keen to address the OP. Its not much use saying, we all shoot raw and don't use the kit lens.
The point of the image is not how superlative it is but there is sufficient sharpness in the kit lens (poor end) and negligible noise at ISO100.
Perhaps you have a JPEG benchmark with 100% crops straight out of the camera that the OP can compare? Instead of nasty sniping.
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 21/11/2010 - 14:35
Link
I totally get what Doug is saying.. if the camera performs OK under sub-optimal conditions, it proves its capabilities.
Anyway here's a recent one I took at ISO 400/f4:
Noise just isn't an issue. And at 100% for pixel peeping purposes (was saved at jpeg medium quality for the web) click here: link
Anyway here's a recent one I took at ISO 400/f4:
Noise just isn't an issue. And at 100% for pixel peeping purposes (was saved at jpeg medium quality for the web) click here: link
Posted 21/11/2010 - 14:59
Link
Lovely pic Will (gareth????? what planet am I on?), you can see the falling rain drops on the large image
Lurking is shirking.!
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2545 posts
17 years
Wakefield