K7 Vs Kx?

Judging by DXO Mark, the Kx looks to be miles better than the K7, check here: link
What do you guys think?

If you would test a 4 pixel camera according DXO test you would get the perfect camera

The K200D beats the K-7 in the same tests - except for colour depth where it is about equal. I KNOW that the K-7 has better image quality and low ISO performance than the K200D so I am not sure what is going on there.

Edit - Stefan, there we have the answer!

Interestingly the K-x slam-dunks Canon and Nikon 12MP cameras. link

The impression I get from reviews is that the K-x is better at high ISO numbers than the K7, certainly this seems to be a feature of the more recent Pentax DSLR designs as my K-m is quite happy up to ISO 1600 without much noise, although judging by the review I saw it drops off badly when you take the next step up to 3200.

Of course with the K-7, the higher resolution will reduce the effect of noise on printed images. (And the firmware update appears to have reduced the noise levels significantly). Yes... I still want a K-7...

It's a tricky one. If all the numbers came up I think I'd have both, a full set of FA and DA * and Limited lenses, and the battery grip for the K7.

As we keep getting faulty lottery tickets I'll stick with my K-m and collection of K, M and A series primes for now!

From what I've seen that's not true, the K200D has better low iso performance than the K7 and the K7 has better low iso performance than the KX and vice versa for high iso.
The sensor in the KX is aimed at iso 400 and does perform very well but it isn't as clean as the K7 or the K200D at low ISO.

Also I find DxO very sceptical, there is quite some difference between the Samsung & the Pentax model for example, how can that be?

Thanks guys, for your info on this.

Stefan, maybe someone here may notice if the dynamic range on the K7 has been improved since being updated, like you mentioned?

I think the K-x is superb, but it's not as highly spec'ed or nicely (and robustly) designed, and the IQ issues pretty negligible - and even the differences seen at 100% are a matter of swings and roundabouts. If my lottery numbers came up, it'd be a K-7 and a 645D, no doubt! And I'd travel the world with them by my side... on my replica 17th Century Schooner.... lol

Stefan this is viewed at 100% - images with the K-7 are significantly bigger, so the noise is bound to be less of an issue at print sizes. Even at 100% from what I have seen, the noise on a K-7 image is more granular and less splodgy than K200D, which I ind more acceptable!

- Edit - Sorry Stefan, I misread your post!

But the point stands that the extra resolution should result in better IQ at all ISO settings, doesn't it? Unless you are looking at a 100% crop.

i have found the k7 to be about the same at high iso as the k200d and k20d, the kx looks like it has very good high iso control, looks to be the best crop camera for high iso pn the market.

Did not say that anywhere?

No problem happens to me as well.

Yes resolution has certainly something but CCD sensors are better at lower iso because in the way they are build and behave. The Dynamic range and uniformity of the CCD sensor is better as that of the CMOS sensor, because the ISO noise is not so much a point at low ISO those things I just named are more important.
Indeed you can make a bigger print with a higher resolution but there is not much use if you use all those pixels. If you're going to compare A3 prints which the K10D and the K7 are easily capable off resolution has not so much of an effect, certainly because you take more distance from the photo the larger it gets.

Here is a read about the sensor link

As for the K-X, superb camera and sensor so please don't get me wrong but if you shoot ISO100 or ISO200 the K-X won't provide you the best image quality Pentax has to offer. The DxO test doesn't show it but artefacts and other thing start to play a roll when using software tricks to use ISO100 & ISO200 because that's with the K-X does.

Stefan,

That's why I'm keeping the K10, and using the K-x as a backup and for low light / higher ISO work.

I haven't found a lottery ticket that works sufficiently to get me a K7, 645D and overseas trips either.

Don't forget the boat!

Ah but what I mean is that the noise which may have been apparent at 100% is reduced in size more in the 15mp image than the 10mp image...

To take an extreme example, say you had a 5mp image, and a 20mp image, and at viewed at 100% the 20mp image had twice as much noise. If you then printed both at A3, the noise would still be far more apparent in the 5mp image, because you are viewing it at closer to 100%.

Perhaps I will have another think about this tomorrow when the effects of this pinot grigio has left me!

Will you are certainly right about the noise getting less with higher resolution on a print but I was talking about photos taken at low ISO so there is almost no noise there so nothing to gain. With higher ISO you are certainly right, I've even uploaded ISO1600 photos here from the K10D, because they are only 800px they still look very good