Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
Rick, I used both K10D and K20D for over a year. one thing that really peeved me is that the K20 is marketed as an evolutionary upgrade to K10. That's very, very far from the truth. Especially when it comes to dealing with the images in post processing. The K10D is a CCD based camera, with an oversized A/D converter to sift out as much dynamic range as possible. The noise characteristic of this camera is very grain-like and reminiscent of film. Much in contrast with the CMOS-based K20D with its more reticular, gritty looking noise characteristics. I came to appreciate the K20D anyway, though, because its noise is easier to reduce in post processing than is K10D noise. I use NoiseNinja as plugin to Photoshop, btw, and for the record I think the DxO tests are measurbating BS. :-) The K-7 has essentially the same sensor as has the K20D. However the image quality is improved over K20D. Not much, but the devil is as usual in the details. Literally. :-) On my trip to Antarctica, I got the opportunity to compare my own files to raw files from various Canon cameras, and what struck me most was the amount of detail preserved in the K-7 raw files. The noise reduction with Canon is a lot more brutal, clipping quite a lot of detail in the shadows. It's a matter of taste whether the Canon look is plastic or clean, but I know for myself that I much prefer to have the detail recorded, and tweak the noise vs. detail ratio myself. Besides, the post-processing noise reduction software has a lot more data power to draw from than the in-camera processing, and I suspect the algorithms are more sophisticated as well. In comparison with K20D, I believe the K-7 is better at discerning between shadow detail and noise. No idea if the lab tests take this into account, but I find the K-7 raw files (I shoot DNG, btw) very pleasing to work with. I also think the K-7 is an improvement in exposure accuracy over K20D. I tend to get histograms leaning more to the right with K-7. Where I would lift the shadows in a K20D shot, I end up reducing the highlights with K-7. Yet I rarely get burned highlights, so the overall effect is one of less noise all together. So in short, don't get hung up on those tests. The K-7 is one heck of a performer, and the best tool out there for your K-mount glass. You'll need a few hundred shots to get used to the new sensor, but trust me that you won't look back afterwards. It's a significant step up from the K10D's strategy of masking noise as grain. Jostein 2010/1/3 Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com: Right now, I am not planning to replace my K10D with a K7, because the latter does not seem to have significantly better low-light performance. By reputation, the K20 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10 in low light, and the K7 is about a half-stop worse than the K20 (thus a stop better than the K10). That seemed simple, until I began looking into low-light performance test results. The noise testing on dpreview used only jpgs until their review of the K7, which compared RAW noise in the K7 and K20. For chroma noise, a score of 10 (y-axis) corresponds to an ISO of about 2800 for the K20, and about 2000 for the K7; this agrees with others' observations that the K20's low-light performance is about a half-stop better. When one goes to dxomark.com, things get confusing. Even though the low-light performance of the K20 is reputed to be about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10, the low light ISOs are 639 and 522, which is only about a 1/3 stop difference; and the overall scores (blending low-light ISO, dynamic range, and color depth) are almost identical. The K7 sensor has a lower overall score than the K10 by 5 points, having 1 stop less dynamic range and almost the same low light ISO. Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware? Comments or explanations? Cheers, Rick P.S. I am very intrigued by the dpreview results on the Kx sensor, which (in RAW) has a chroma noise score of 10 at an ISO of 6400. No dxomark testing yet. If a similar sensor found its way into a K7-like body, they'd have a sale. http://photo.net/photos/RickW -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
Right now, I am not planning to replace my K10D with a K7, because the latter does not seem to have significantly better low-light performance. By reputation, the K20 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10 in low light, and the K7 is about a half-stop worse than the K20 (thus a stop better than the K10). That seemed simple, until I began looking into low-light performance test results. The noise testing on dpreview used only jpgs until their review of the K7, which compared RAW noise in the K7 and K20. For chroma noise, a score of 10 (y-axis) corresponds to an ISO of about 2800 for the K20, and about 2000 for the K7; this agrees with others' observations that the K20's low-light performance is about a half-stop better. When one goes to dxomark.com, things get confusing. Even though the low-light performance of the K20 is reputed to be about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10, the low light ISOs are 639 and 522, which is only about a 1/3 stop difference; and the overall scores (blending low-light ISO, dynamic range, and color depth) are almost identical. The K7 sensor has a lower overall score than the K10 by 5 points, having 1 stop less dynamic range and almost the same low light ISO. Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware? Comments or explanations? Cheers, Rick P.S. I am very intrigued by the dpreview results on the Kx sensor, which (in RAW) has a chroma noise score of 10 at an ISO of 6400. No dxomark testing yet. If a similar sensor found its way into a K7-like body, they'd have a sale. http://photo.net/photos/RickW -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
On Jan 3, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Rick Womer wrote: Right now, I am not planning to replace my K10D with a K7, because the latter does not seem to have significantly better low-light performance. By reputation, the K20 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10 in low light, and the K7 is about a half-stop worse than the K20 (thus a stop better than the K10). I've found the k7 to be a bit better than the K20 In use. This might be due to the fact that it offers far better metering, so the accurate exposures help improve noise performance. I find myself regularly shooting at 1600 with the K7, while I rarely exceeded 800 with the K20D. Hadn't realized that until you raised the issue, and I reviewed some of my exposure data. That seemed simple, until I began looking into low-light performance test results. The noise testing on dpreview used only jpgs until their review of the K7, which compared RAW noise in the K7 and K20. For chroma noise, a score of 10 (y-axis) corresponds to an ISO of about 2800 for the K20, and about 2000 for the K7; this agrees with others' observations that the K20's low-light performance is about a half-stop better. When one goes to dxomark.com, things get confusing. Even though the low-light performance of the K20 is reputed to be about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10, the low light ISOs are 639 and 522, which is only about a 1/3 stop difference; and the overall scores (blending low-light ISO, dynamic range, and color depth) are almost identical. The K7 sensor has a lower overall score than the K10 by 5 points, having 1 stop less dynamic range and almost the same low light ISO. Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware? Comments or explanations? Cheers, Rick P.S. I am very intrigued by the dpreview results on the Kx sensor, which (in RAW) has a chroma noise score of 10 at an ISO of 6400. No dxomark testing yet. If a similar sensor found its way into a K7-like body, they'd have a sale. http://photo.net/photos/RickW -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that none of the tests really mean
much, and they seem to be more subjective than all the charts and graphs
would indicate.. The best way to see if the low light performance is to
shoot some photos and decide it you like hot they look.
On 1/3/2010 5:59 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
Right now, I am not planning to replace my K10D with a K7, because the latter
does not seem to have significantly better low-light performance. By
reputation, the K20 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10 in low light, and
the K7 is about a half-stop worse than the K20 (thus a stop better than the
K10).
That seemed simple, until I began looking into low-light performance test
results.
The noise testing on dpreview used only jpgs until their review of the K7,
which compared RAW noise in the K7 and K20. For chroma noise, a score of 10
(y-axis) corresponds to an ISO of about 2800 for the K20, and about 2000 for
the K7; this agrees with others' observations that the K20's low-light
performance is about a half-stop better.
When one goes to dxomark.com, things get confusing. Even though the low-light
performance of the K20 is reputed to be about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10,
the low light ISOs are 639 and 522, which is only about a 1/3 stop difference;
and the overall scores (blending low-light ISO, dynamic range, and color depth)
are almost identical. The K7 sensor has a lower overall score than the K10 by
5 points, having 1 stop less dynamic range and almost the same low light ISO.
Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is
almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the
K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware?
Comments or explanations?
Cheers,
Rick
P.S. I am very intrigued by the dpreview results on the Kx sensor, which (in
RAW) has a chroma noise score of 10 at an ISO of 6400. No dxomark testing yet.
If a similar sensor found its way into a K7-like body, they'd have a sale.
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:11 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: My opinion, for what it's worth, is that none of the tests really mean much, and they seem to be more subjective than all the charts and graphs would indicate.. The best way to see if the low light performance is to shoot some photos and decide it you like hot they look. That's true, but the consensus is that none of the K-10/20/7 represent a major leap forward in terms of low-light mojo. I went from *ist-D to K20 and that was significant, but I bet the anti-shake was part of the deal. Haven't tried a K-X, but it may be the case that it's a pleasant surprise. BTW, I did some test shooting the other night at a not-very-well-lit party with a Canon S90 and was flabbergasted. Mind you, I was judging the pix by their presentation on the dinky LCD on the back, but jeepers, it seemed remarkable for a pocket camera. -T -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:11 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: My opinion, for what it's worth, is that none of the tests really mean much, and they seem to be more subjective than all the charts and graphs would indicate.. The best way to see if the low light performance is to shoot some photos and decide it you like hot they look. That's true, but the consensus is that none of the K-10/20/7 represent a major leap forward in terms of low-light mojo. I went from *ist-D to K20 and that was significant, but I bet the anti-shake was part of the deal. Haven't tried a K-X, but it may be the case that it's a pleasant surprise. BTW, I did some test shooting the other night at a not-very-well-lit party with a Canon S90 and was flabbergasted. Mind you, I was judging the pix by their presentation on the dinky LCD on the back, but jeepers, it seemed remarkable for a pocket camera. -T I'd be surprised if those S90 pics passed the test of real world scrutiny. In any case, as I've mentioned before, the major benefits of the K7 are superb exposure accuracy, write speed and build quality. Low light performance is more than adequate for everything I do, including performance pics in a rather dark bar. Paul -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
- Original Message - From: Rick Womer Subject: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware? You've said it yourself, the K7 is worse than the K20. If you take a small deal and makea lot of noise about it, it becomes a big deal. To the idiotisticracy, this is a BIG DEAL. Hence it seems much worse than it is. William Robb -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
C'mon Bill, I still have my K10D and need to feel good about it. --Original Message-- From: William Robb Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List ReplyTo: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion Sent: Jan 3, 2010 8:43 PM - Original Message - From: Rick Womer Subject: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware? You've said it yourself, the K7 is worse than the K20. If you take a small deal and makea lot of noise about it, it becomes a big deal. To the idiotisticracy, this is a BIG DEAL. Hence it seems much worse than it is. William Robb -- 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. Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
Well thanks for the reply, Tim, but... Evaluating low-light results with the LCD is like evaluating the flavor of a steak by looking at its photo in Gourmet Magazine. Only Ken Rockwell does it that way. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote: BTW, I did some test shooting the other night at a not-very-well-lit party with a Canon S90 and was flabbergasted.. Mind you, I was judging the pix by their presentation on the dinky LCD on the back, but jeepers, it seemed remarkable for a pocket camera. -T -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
On Jan 3, 2010, at 9:29 PM, Rick Womer wrote: Well thanks for the reply, Tim, but... Evaluating low-light results with the LCD is like evaluating the flavor of a steak by looking at its photo in Gourmet Magazine. Mark! http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote: BTW, I did some test shooting the other night at a not-very-well-lit party with a Canon S90 and was flabbergasted.. Mind you, I was judging the pix by their presentation on the dinky LCD on the back, but jeepers, it seemed remarkable for a pocket camera. -T -- 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. -- 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.
Re: K10, K20, K7, and low light Konfusion
Rick, in my (not really too humble) opinion, most of these tests are rubbish. I doubt that they are done in statistically correct manner (read: many scenes, many cameras, many lenses, etc). I also doubt their sense, as there doesn't seem to be involved any real life shooting, only special targets in controlled environment. Also, often you would end up in the situation like the one you described - confused, self-contrary, no real conclusion - helpless. From my experience, for example K-7 has at least (actually more) dynamic range than K10D. That would be in direct contradiction with DXOMark scoring. I cannot compare K-7 with K20D in low light having no K20D, but I don't think that K-7 will be significantly worse than K20D, as it would probably mean that Pentax engineering and marketing and management are all gone nuts. I do believe however in asking people for their opinions, especially those people whose shooting style is somewhat similar to mine. I also believe in asking people to provide me with their real life pictures and looking at these pictures myself. To that end, I am perfectly willing to send you as many PEF's and DNG's as you'd like for evaluation of K-7 and/or K10D at any possible conditions, as long as I'd have these shots. HTH. On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com wrote: Right now, I am not planning to replace my K10D with a K7, because the latter does not seem to have significantly better low-light performance. By reputation, the K20 is about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10 in low light, and the K7 is about a half-stop worse than the K20 (thus a stop better than the K10). That seemed simple, until I began looking into low-light performance test results. The noise testing on dpreview used only jpgs until their review of the K7, which compared RAW noise in the K7 and K20. For chroma noise, a score of 10 (y-axis) corresponds to an ISO of about 2800 for the K20, and about 2000 for the K7; this agrees with others' observations that the K20's low-light performance is about a half-stop better. When one goes to dxomark.com, things get confusing. Even though the low-light performance of the K20 is reputed to be about 1 1/2 stops better than the K10, the low light ISOs are 639 and 522, which is only about a 1/3 stop difference; and the overall scores (blending low-light ISO, dynamic range, and color depth) are almost identical. The K7 sensor has a lower overall score than the K10 by 5 points, having 1 stop less dynamic range and almost the same low light ISO. Which leads me to think that the K10 and K7 sensors' low light performance is almost the same, and only slightly worse thana the K20's. So where does the K20's reputedly better performance come from? Firmware? Comments or explanations? Cheers, Rick P.S. I am very intrigued by the dpreview results on the Kx sensor, which (in RAW) has a chroma noise score of 10 at an ISO of 6400. No dxomark testing yet. If a similar sensor found its way into a K7-like body, they'd have a sale. http://photo.net/photos/RickW -- 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. -- Boris -- 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.
