Curiously enough I happen to know Max in person. He's really a great guy.
Now to the test. I looked at ISO 1600 images and liked that of K-7 more.
In the conditions similar to those of this test ISO 1600 is perfectly
usable. At ISO 3200 it seems to me that K20D simply applies a bit more
of NR resulting in less noise and less crispness in the image. And
finally ISO 6400 seems to be more like emergency option as it is likely
to be used under low light where it will be far less IQ than what Max
presented.
Interestingly enough, though color temperature is preset the colors are
different between the two cameras...
So indeed, if noise is *the issue* and one does not to bother with NR
software, K20D can be a better choice. Coming from K10D, I think K-7 is
good upgrade nonetheless...
Boris
Joseph Tainter wrote:
This guy has posted the best controlled comparison I have seen of noise
levels in the two cameras:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51031...@n00/sets/72157621362031046/
Navigate through until you get to the original size images.
Pentax claimed that the K7 would have lower noise. This is clearly not
so. The difference is especially apparent at ISO 3200 and 6400 (both of
which I would like to use).
I'm glad I haven't yet bought a K7. I may still buy one, but not for
better noise. Or I may wait to see what testing shows when the K8 comes
out.
Some reports claim that Pentax implemented less noise reduction in RAW
images from the K7, and that this accounts for its poorer noise
performance. I don't know whether this is true or just BS.
From what I read, the K7 is a fine camera in other respects.
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
