Well, they have done their "Review", but just on a pre-production unit:-
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Pentax-K7-11613
As for the high ISO performance, they look Okay to me. The ISO 1600 noise is just acceptable, even for the low key-tone. It's not bad for an APS-C camera, IMHO.
However, what makes me most worried is not about the noise control this time, but is about the image quality of the K-7 as well as the focusing accuracy of the K-7. Just look at the silk flower object, the K-7 ISO samples are blur, with high loss of details and it seems to be somehow out-of-focus too. But anyway, the loss of details seem to be come from aggressive noise reduction actually. A quick comparison to other samples by other DSLRs will reveal that the image quality of the K-7 under this test is just TERRIBLE!
To compare further, you can check also various different samples from the K-m, GX-20, E-620 and 500D at the ephotozine review links below:-
K-m: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Pentax-Km-10820
GX-20: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Samsung-GX20-10669
E-620: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Olympus-E620-11192
500D: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Canon-EOS-500D-first-look-11352
Well, indeed, the K-m samples, especially the high ISO ones, look far better than the K-7 and the GX-20, despite that the white balance maybe a bit warmer (more yellowish - but which is another issue anyway). All the K-m sample images at any ISO actually reproduces more details than both the K-7 and GX-20 (just look at the centre of the flower), so does the E-620 here in reproducing more details. The 500D images are all overexposed and details are lost for the highlights, so it is hard to make the comparison. Afterall, it seems that Pentax/Hoya/Samsung are still unable to make better image quality with lower noise with any of their 14.6M sensors, and/or that the AF system still produces large errors (but why the K-m has NO problem, then? Or, is it a reviewer's problem - he just even doesn't know how to do the AF? Or even MF? Quality issue/Sample variation??)
Anyway, no matter for what reason(s) for the inferior results obtained, I am rather disappointed and actually it is really quite worrisome for the actual image quality of the production K-7s - IQ is the *most* important aspect for a camera! As the pre-production units should be more or less matured but not half-baked at this point - there is only 3 weeks left for the production K-7 to come, this review really shows no good sign for a better K-7 with sufficient IQ! Too bad.. :-(
i've seen different pictures of k7 and i really think the reviewer was that good ...
ReplyDeleteRiceHigh,
ReplyDeletejust look at the cross-hair on the chart on you'll see that all photos, from all vendors, are more or less out of focus. Except K-m. Maybe (probably), different apertures were used.
These photos lack the necessary care when being taken to now draw the kind of conclusion you are drawing from.
http://ivyjopy.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%219C2325683F4C3B9C%2111081.entry
ReplyDeleteWhere those taken with a k-7? Ok now I am confused.
Be cool and wait.
ReplyDeleteShoddy work appearing at ephotozine. No large image samples or anything over ISO 1600 are being allowed by Pentax on the pre-production cameras. Unprincipled individuals wanting first grabs at the limelight?
ReplyDeleteMr. RH, unable to see the forest for the trees.
The file size (compared to other full-size K7 pictures) is curiously smaller and the EXIF data is missing.
ReplyDeleteRice, what are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteEPHOTOZINE is useless source of info.
It may be only three weeks until the production cameras come, but those beta samples has been around for several months. I wouldn't judge the image quality of production models by images taken with several months old beta samples.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it so extremely difficult to wait for the actual production K-7's before judgements are done?
RH: As an engineer, you know that you cannot be confident of the accuracy, reliability, and utility of the data unless you are convinced of the value of the testing methodology and the rigor with which it's applied.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, we have data that's useless, unless for casual speculation over a pint. You usually think and write to a higher standard. I'm a bit disappointed.
The "reviewer" might not be testing or even using the cameras he "reviewed" very properly. But his copy of the K-7 seems not to be that fool-proof neither. So, possibly there is an issue and that's the point.
ReplyDeleteRH please share your 'wisdom' to the world, wait what? You don't even have a K-7 in your hands?
ReplyDeleteI noticed another thing: the lower ISO images are more out of focus and they get sharper with higher ISO. I think he focused badly and compensated higher ISO with lower lens aperture, instead of compensating with lower shutter speed. That's why the high ISO images are sharper.
ReplyDeletePentaxImaging.com store states the camera will be available in mid to late July. Where do you get the production deadline of "only 3 weeks left" from?
ReplyDeletePentax Japan:-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pentax.jp/japan/news/2009/200910.html
Market Date: Fall June 2009
That's the release date in Japan. The USA website says available in mid to late July.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pentaxwebstore.com/product_detail.asp?T1=PTX+17811
It is irrelevant. Pentax have to complete the K-7 firmware well before fall June, which is the first targeted on sales date (at Japan). What to argue?
ReplyDeleteLOL. You assume too much! I am arguing firmware deadlines! Just camera availability. By following ur posts I was under the impression it would generally be available at end of June. But that is only in Japan. I am interested in this camera, but have an early August deadline to get it because of travel.
ReplyDeleteThat should've been *NOT* arguing firmware deadlines.
ReplyDelete