k7 v k20 for noise


shim

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 21:35
RR wrote:
George Lazarette wrote:
Quote:
...before i go splashing out 1200 on a k7 i wanna know its that much better,...

And ignore all these inadequate tests by people who ought to be out shooting.

G

Hah ! Of course indescriminately slagging people off on a public forum is much better use of time than performing a few home-grown comparisons. Strangely, some people may actually appreciate the effort of the latter.

Shouldn't you be out "shooting" or is a 400mm & 2x TC still not enough reach to take a usable photo from such a high horse ?

Absolutely Brilliant Bob.... Cant stop Laughing Ha! Ha!

shim

RR

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 21:46
Malo1961 wrote:
RR wrote:
Quote:
scottthehat wrote:
...before i go splashing out 1200 on a k7 i wanna know its that much better,...

And ignore all these inadequate tests by people who ought to be out shooting.

G

Hah ! Of course indescriminately slagging people off on a public forum is much better use of time than performing a few home-grown comparisons. Strangely, some people may actually appreciate the effort of the latter.
Shouldn't you be out "shooting" or is a 400mm & 2x TC still not enough reach to take a usable photo from such a high horse ?

Come on Bob,
Is it so hard to see at who George is referring to? He is talking about Depressingreview (and the pixel peeping inhabitants) and idiots like Rice High. No one at this forum is being slagged.

And as a side note, it is advisable to quote a complete text and not just a small part.

Because this:
Quote:
And ignore all these inadequate tests by people who ought to be out shooting.

sound rather very different compared to this:
Quote:
The K7 has the same sensor as the K20D. You're not going to see a massive difference.

And ignore all these inadequate tests by people who ought to be out shooting. In time it will become clear that the K7 is much the same as the K20D from the point of view of image quality (maybe slightly better), and rather superior in most other ways.

You can ofcourse, as a viable alternative always read back every post to make sure you place every remark in the right context.
To keep matters in perspective, right?

Just my two cnts,

Martin.



I simply cut down the quote to simplify the thread as posts like this one with quote marks around all and sundry just get confusing. I wont bother pointing out the obvious & more subtle but somewhat sideways personal digs being issued out, but for the record I did write "indescriminately".

I'm an easy going bloke & usually don't lower myself to forum arguments as you normally get dragged down to a level & beaten with experience, but I'm in a grumpy mood & just don't fancy swallowing opinion as ipso facto this evening. It's about time I got into a soon-to-be-moderated-under-the-rug type thread anyway. Surely I can make noise in a thread about noise. Although we all know this results in feedback & thanks for yours Martin

Reading back to ascertain context isn't appealing either I never was any good at revision.
My Flickr

George Lazarette

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 22:17
We can see you are an easy-going bloke, and would never lower yourself to slagging people off.

If you have a link to a good "home-grown comparison" please share it.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

RR

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 22:35
Never say never, when usually applies.

Personally I haven't looked at the K-7 vs K20d comparisons at all, whether they be in peoples kitchens, of brick walls or resolution charts. It would be difficult to envisage IQ being vastly different due to the lack of advancement on that side of things. For those that shoot jpeg however noise control could have been altered significantly through camera firmware so I'm sure a comparison could be of interest to those.

I have seen home-grown comparisons which I have appreciated in the past, I'm not going to bother trying to find one now to humour you in picking up technicalities, but if done well with plenty of constants involved they can actually be useful. Maybe you can't see the point & that's your perogative entirely which I respect. I was just struck by the negativity escalating from a innocuous opening post.

I'm going to have a Cider & listen to some heavy metal to soothe my grumpy mood now.
My Flickr

George Lazarette

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 23:04
RR wrote:
Maybe you can't see the point & that's your perogative entirely which I respect.

Periodically I pop over to Depressingreview to see what's going on. Predictably, there's a whole load of people coming up with silly tests which don't compare like with like, and anyway, everybody is interpreting the results differently.

So I have a jaundiced view of such things. And the worst of it is, that these often wholly inaccurate "tests" can serve to put people off perfectly good kit, or lead them to choose unsuitable kit. We can see a few instances of that happening right now.

Quote:
I'm going to have a Cider & listen to some heavy metal to soothe my grumpy mood now.

Seems like a good plan.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Mannesty

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 23:47
George Lazarette wrote:
The K7 has the same sensor as the K20D. You're not going to see a massive difference.

Sorry George but the K7 does not have the same sensor as the K20D. The same size and pixel count/density maybe, but it has been totally redesigned having 4 read channels compared to the K20D's 2 channels.

The sensor was modified again between pre-production models, like that which Unlocker was using for 2 weeks , and the production models on sale now.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Mannesty

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 23:57
Whilst my image presented above is not technically brilliant (my fault), I find it bizarrre that, in a thread with much 'chest puffing' about digital noise issues, it has been ignored as an example of digital noise (or lack of it) in an ISO6400 image from a K20D.

I rest my case. The K20D is good enough, for me anyway.

Perhaps you are all too busy 'scoring points' off each other to even notice it?
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Anvh

Link Posted 14/07/2009 - 23:58
Mannesty wrote:
The sensor was modified again between pre-production models, like that which Unlocker was using for 2 weeks , and the production models on sale now.

The preproduction models had an adapted K20D sensor with four channels so that it could handle movie mode and the FPS.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

johnriley

Link Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:02
Quote:
Whilst my image presented above is not technically brilliant (my fault), I find it bizarrre that, in a thread with much 'chest puffing' about digital noise issues, it has been ignored as an example of digital noise (or lack of it) in an ISO6400 image from a K20D.

Noise is not a problem in this image, at least not at this resolution, but the main problem is the point of focus. I would have liked the face to be the sharp point, but the colours are great.
Best regards, John

George Lazarette

Link Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:05
Mannesty wrote:

The sensor was modified again between pre-production models, like that which Unlocker was using for 2 weeks , and the production models on sale now.

It seems I am misinformed. Thanks for the correction.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

RR

Link Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:08
George Lazarette wrote:
RR wrote:
Maybe you can't see the point & that's your perogative entirely which I respect.

Periodically I pop over to Depressingreview to see what's going on. Predictably, there's a whole load of people coming up with silly tests which don't compare like with like, and anyway, everybody is interpreting the results differently.

So I have a jaundiced view of such things. And the worst of it is, that these often wholly inaccurate "tests" can serve to put people off perfectly good kit, or lead them to choose unsuitable kit. We can see a few instances of that happening right now.



G

Absolutely, those who aren't confident enough to make up their own mind can easily be swayed.

An impartial & controlled comparison can help a little I think as you could just as easily be swayed by comparing different photographers "real life" photos & come to the wrong conclusion as it's the photographers skill rather than the equipment that will shine through.


Back to topic & noise... I'm one of those who has sold up & is about to change manufacturers, for a number of factors, one of which is noise. I personally do not like the appearance of digital chroma noise & also do not like the fact that when trying to reduce its effect you end up reducing detail also. Plus I also PP quite hard & this tends to worsen the appearance of any inherent noise.
It's a pitfall of the megapixel race. I rarely print above A4 so 6 megapixel would be quite adequate for that application & a modern aps-c sized cmos sensor of that ilk would result in much cleaner images. Unfortunately these do not come in a decent body so I'm forced to look at a body with twice the sensor size to give me the same clean files.

Now I only took up photography last November & chose Pentax for the value for money it provided at the time - I didn't know whether I'd really enjoy it as much as I found I have & didn't know if I'd produce any pleasing (at least to me) photographs. Now that I've found I'm capable of producing images I like & that I enjoy the pastime I'm happy to sink more cash into it. With the value advantage of Pentax all but lost & the K-7 not adding a great deal to the party (for my needs) I've come to the point where I no longer wish to invest money in the K system.

I don't regret choosing Pentax at all, the IQ of the K20d is awesome & I have nowhere near reached it's limits, I am after all a newcomer & constantly learning. If I wanted to take static shots in good light then I can think of no better alternative. But an area I wan't to explore is lower light photography & handheld at that which means upping the iso & introducing more noise (which remember I personally do not appreciate even knowing it is a necessary evil)

I could be making an expensive switch for no benefit in the end which would be a mistake (in monetary terms) I do not have the experience yet to know how I will fair. But when I've spent some time learning the new body & trying the type of photography I aspire to I'll know for sure. Feet first is the best way to learn I feel & I'll certainly feed back my findings good or bad.
My Flickr

George Lazarette

Link Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:09
Mannesty wrote:
Whilst my image presented above is not technically brilliant (my fault), I find it bizarrre that, in a thread with much 'chest puffing' about digital noise issues, it has been ignored as an example of digital noise (or lack of it) in an ISO6400 image from a K20D.

It's certainly quite impressive, but I would like to see an image taken in natural light.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Mannesty

Link Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:14
johnriley wrote:
Quote:
Whilst my image presented above is not technically brilliant (my fault), I find it bizarrre that, in a thread with much 'chest puffing' about digital noise issues, it has been ignored as an example of digital noise (or lack of it) in an ISO6400 image from a K20D.

I would have liked the face to be the sharp point

Me too I retook the shot at a lower ISO (1600) which is sharp.
I screwed up on focussing, but that aside, I think it shows that it is possible, with care, to take usable very high ISO images with the K20D.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 15/07/2009 - 00:14

Mannesty

Link Posted 15/07/2009 - 00:16
George Lazarette wrote:
Mannesty wrote:
Whilst my image presented above is not technically brilliant (my fault), I find it bizarrre that, in a thread with much 'chest puffing' about digital noise issues, it has been ignored as an example of digital noise (or lack of it) in an ISO6400 image from a K20D.

It's certainly quite impressive, but I would like to see an image taken in natural light.

G

Your wish is my mission . . . for tomorrow.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.