k7 v k20 for noise


ttk

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 12:39
Back on Topic

Why dose the K-7 seem to have a noise problem now over the K20D, when Danny had the pre production model it seemed to handel noise quite well IMO.
Tel,

scottthehat

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 12:40
yeah totaly agree terry,
just keep snapping,

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/scottbenson

http://s727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/


CAMERAS = k200d + battery grip.
nikon d300 + battery grip.
LENSES = tamron aspherical DII 18-200mm f3.5/6.3,
nikon 18-200mm afs vr f3.5/5.6 g dx
sigma 150-500mm apo dg hsm os
sigma 170-500mm apo dg
FLASH = samsung sef36pzf flash + more.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 12:47
Scotty,

In an effort to get this back on track, may I just say that the launch of the K7 has been just like the launch of all its predecessors. Huge intitial excitement, followed by a great army of waggleheads and nerds putting it through a barrage of ridiculous non-real-world tests and finding faults. Faults that make no difference whatsoever in real photography. Anyone remember the great vertical banding problem with the K20D, for instance? A huge non-event.

So far, there hasn't been too much of that on here, and I just hope it will stay that way. This forum is an oasis of sanity compared to DPReview. So much so, that it seems it is a magnet for non-Pentax-users, too!

So, I wasn't trying to get at you; I was just worried at the prospect of this forum going the way of others.

Let's see some more bird pictures.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

johnriley

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 12:50
There seems to be quite a lot of noise in this thread that might need some Noise Reduction soon...
Best regards, John

Mannesty

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 12:52
johnriley wrote:
There seems to be quite a lot of noise in this thread that might need some Noise Reduction soon...


Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

scottthehat

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 13:00
george i can see your point, but my point is that i would like more noise control than the k20d even know its very good it could still be better, now is the k7 600 more better than the k20, yes i know the k7 has more features, but that is to no interest to me, the k7 has a higher fps and an advanced af system but how much better than the k20,before i go splashing out 1200 on a k7 i wanna know its that much better, and as there is no pentax dealers where i live i ask on here, or do i spend 1000 on a nikon d300 witch has better noise control and the best af system of any dslr,
just keep snapping,

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/scottbenson

http://s727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/


CAMERAS = k200d + battery grip.
nikon d300 + battery grip.
LENSES = tamron aspherical DII 18-200mm f3.5/6.3,
nikon 18-200mm afs vr f3.5/5.6 g dx
sigma 150-500mm apo dg hsm os
sigma 170-500mm apo dg
FLASH = samsung sef36pzf flash + more.
Last Edited by scottthehat on 14/07/2009 - 13:01

johnriley

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 13:06
Well at the moment very few people have a K7 and probably haven't had much of a chance to put it through its paces, so it may be premature to discuss comparison noise levels.

I would just wait and see for a short while and the information will become available very soon I'm sure.
Best regards, John

scottthehat

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 13:09
you could well be right john, i will just have to hold on to my cash a little bit longer, or
just keep snapping,

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/scottbenson

http://s727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/


CAMERAS = k200d + battery grip.
nikon d300 + battery grip.
LENSES = tamron aspherical DII 18-200mm f3.5/6.3,
nikon 18-200mm afs vr f3.5/5.6 g dx
sigma 150-500mm apo dg hsm os
sigma 170-500mm apo dg
FLASH = samsung sef36pzf flash + more.

shim

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 13:21
Mannesty wrote:
shim wrote:
Noise is probably the biggest problem/defect in digital photography and needs to be vastly improved

What a load of bottox (intentional spelling adjustment out of respect for the female members). Did you get wonderful grain free images shooting ISO 6400 on film?

I'm quite happy with my results, I try and work within the limitations of the hardware as I understand them. I haven't exceeded my camera's capabilities yet.

Nothing to do with film Pete, I used to buy GAF 500 and Tri-X which I rated up to 6400ASA and brewed in very dilute HC110 for about an hour. With digital that's a NO-NO. Grain was the New Black

It would be sad if we hadn't moved on anyway. My first digital was a Nikon 600 with 1.3M pixels at least the pixel count has moved on and I don't work within the limitations of the hardware in that respect. So if we can move on with the pixel count, why object to improving the noise level as well.

Anyone who's tried photographing birds in poor light with a 500-600mm lens quickly realizes the problems with noise and high ISO's.

I've only used Pentax but I believe bigger sensors are not as noisy.

shim
Last Edited by shim on 14/07/2009 - 13:25

MattMatic

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 14:02
There will always be noise - it's inherent in the electronic nature of the sensors. The quality of the noise will be different between cameras. Even larger sensors have noise - but larger doesn't necessarily mean better

Whether the K7 is "better" (ie more controllable) we'll have to wait and see.

Or, one could jump ship, sell everything Pentax and splash out on a D300 (why stop there - why not go for 1DsMk III?). Spending the money might give a warm fuzzy feeling - but each system has pros and cons. (I certainly feel as George does that a lot of the difference comes down to PP, rather than equipment.)

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 14/07/2009 - 14:03

shim

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 14:25
Quite a good noise comparison here



shim

ttk

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 14:38
shim wrote:
Quite a good noise comparison here



shim

Interesting Shim thanks looking at this I good get good 6400Iso shots.
Tel,
Last Edited by ttk on 14/07/2009 - 14:40

johnriley

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 14:38
I've had a look at that and to be honest I think I could argue that in favour of any of the cameras, depending on which colours, speeds and images I wanted to notice and which I wanted to ignore.

This might mean that the difference at normal ISO ratings is irrelevant and not a problem for any of the cameras.
Best regards, John

ttk

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 14:56
johnriley wrote:


This might mean that the difference at normal ISO ratings is irrelevant and not a problem for any of the cameras.

I think your right John up to 1600Iso for most photography on most cameras there is not much difference, but for high Iso photography or when a high Iso is required then looking at this test there is a marked difference in the three cameras.
If these tests were done in a controled way and can be belived then the K20D only just holds it's own against the Canon 50D (showing to be the best at high Iso) but the K-7 looks like it has a problem controling noise.

When danny had the Pre sale K-7 it seemed better at noise control.
Tel,
Last Edited by ttk on 14/07/2009 - 14:58

MattMatic

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 15:00
Hmmm. If I were comparing noise of various cameras I would compare RAW, not the in-camera JPG
Different marques have different goals for incamera JPG, and Pentax has always taken the "softly softly" approach to sharpening and noise reduction so you can eek the most out in PP.

Differences in camera show up much more readily when you are working in RAW - and using the same converter for each camera. I have personally seen noticeable differences in quality between the K20D and the 20D & 30D in RAW. But, having said that, people chose equally from the sets of images. Obviously they were more concerned with composition and content than with technical nitty-gritty

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.