Why... to get to know, that K-7 successor will be worth of buying. There
is technical progress going on, you know. Besides, our K20Ds didn't got
any worse with appearance f K-7 and K-x... Pentax K-x has it's good
sides, but in other areas it's still not comparable with K-7.
BR, Margus
Toine wrote:
Why did I download this zip file? Now I want a K-x next to my K20D. I
skipped the K7 because I hate the noise and banding of the K20.
Thanks for posting.
Toine
2009/12/31 Dario Bonazza <dario.bona...@virgilio.it>:
Igor Roshchin wrote:
So, what is the present consensus on the subject of the high-ISO
performance of K-x (besides the decrease in the number of pixels):
is it mostly due to processing and hence is applicable only to JPEG,
or RAW images also show considerable improvement over K-7?
Judge by yourself these comparison shots for K-20D and K-x (136 MB file to
download): www.dariobonazza.com/public/HighISO.zip
Warning: serious risk of camera buying can result from seeing those pics!
I believe the decrease in pixel count is negligible in practical use, while
the improvement in high-ISO performance is so evident one could think of
comparing APS to FF. And remember the K-7 high-ISO performance has not
improved over the K20D, given the extra noise caused by the four-channel
structure and higher transfer rate of the K-7.
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
