A lot of the "reviewers" have reviewed the K-7 already, I think 1001 Noisy Cameras have kept track of all those online reviews very well and have been updating their review links and summary very quickly (up to the minute, I would say). Here is their summary:-
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/pentax-k7-reviews.html
The latest K-7 review is published by the DC Resource, here is the Conclusion page:-
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k7-review/compare
Do read the Cons, they talk about underexposure and soft images directly out of the camera. Well, aren't these two problems exactly what I found when I tested the K-7 back to the July and reported?
There is another new European review that have many of those full-sized K-7 sample photos posted. Various "luxury" Pentax contemporary digital lenses were used to produce the shots. But actually I am not impressed with the Image Quality of those samples once again, or I would say those are just terrible. Narrow Dynamic Range, exposure errors (with manual compensations already - may argue as user errors, though), soft images, obvious corner blurs (possibly owing to low optical performance), high noise at just ISO 800 and super grainy pictures (see the model portraits). Well, I have already stopped to inspect further! It's just too disappointing afterall!
As for other non-internet K-7 tests or just other not-so-typical K-7 tests and shootouts (against other APS-C upper class DSLR models), you may wish to dig into my this Blog for more!
E.g. http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/search?q=k-7+test
Last but not least, I notice that Dpreview (DPR)'s K-7 test is yet once again delayed (for long already, actually almost everyone else has done that now). Is it possible that there might be some technical issues and/or quality issues that cause the delay, just like what we were told for the previous DPR review tests of many of the Pentax DSLR bodies and lenses before? Don't ask me about more details, go read the stories told by DPR (in their lens and body reviews) yourself if you want to know but haven't yet known about those! :-)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Logging you in...
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Prognathous · 809 weeks ago
Canon EOS 50D
"Slight tendency to clip highlights and overexpose"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_50d-r...
Nikon D300:
"camera tends to overexpose"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d300-revi...
Olympus E3:
"Camera tends to underexpose"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e3-revi...
Sony A700:
"Tends to underexpose a bit"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a700-...
Nikon D700:
"Tendency to slightly overexpose"
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d700-revi...
Do tell, do you prefer slight overexposure (which causes unrecoverable clipped highlighted, visible at any print/display size) or slight underexposure (which causes more shadow noise, visible only when pixel peeping)?
As for sharpness, all DSLR's needlessly apply irreversible sharping to make the picture look nice at 100% crops. In practice, this is a senseless exercise. Sharpness should be turned off and only applied *after* the picture is resized to the intended screen or print size. In short, to anyone who understands anything about photography, DSLR's which use a "soft" default sharpening are better than those that use a "sharp" setting.
Prog.
illdefined · 809 weeks ago
they are much longer than the Cons, yet that's all you ever focus on and talk about. you even choose to quantify the differences between "slight", "bit" and "tends" to try and feebly prove your point.
you'll make entire blog posts based purely on 1 or 2 complaints on forums, but completely ignore the 100s of positive posts on that same forum.
why is that?
if you ever choose to answer that question, you will know why nobody would ever consider you to be even remotely objective. it's true, you are definitely not a Fanboy.
you are a Hateboy.
ptys · 809 weeks ago
Prognathous · 809 weeks ago
Oh, and you forgot to reply to this part:
"do you prefer slight overexposure (which causes unrecoverable clipped highlighted, visible at any print/display size) or slight underexposure (which causes more shadow noise, visible only when pixel peeping)?"
Prog.
Real Engineer · 809 weeks ago
High noise at 800 yet the first article you linked to says negligible noise only starting at 800.
Peoples bad photos are not an example of a camera's performance, they are examples of a person's mistake in taking that photo.
Get your favorite camera, underexpose significantly and then brighten it using software.
That is what you'll get.
Its really simple to simulate on any camera no matter how good.
Surely you as an "engineer" should know that?
BTW, I'm still waiting for that apology or retraction RH.
You owe it to your readers to be honest.
Come on.
You can do it.
Hate_Id · 809 weeks ago
I´m back ...
Did you miss me?
No?
Yes?
chillgreg · 809 weeks ago
"Despite a few flaws -- most of them being easy to work-around -- the Pentax K-7 is an excellent digital SLR, offering features normally found on cameras two or three times its price. Heck, some of the K-7's features won't be found on any other camera. While I doubt that folks with a lot of money invested in other DSLR systems will be jumping ship for the K-7, owners of Pentax cameras or those just starting out will be lining up to get their hands on this camera, and well they should. The K-7 is a great camera for enthusiasts, and it easily earns my recommendation."
So for the target market, this still seems the ideal camera. As quite a few posts from experienced pro's state, that as a second compact, weatherproof system, they are more than happy with the shortcomings. One particular quote from http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_onli...
"I was in the market for a second body. As a long time Canon guy, I looked at the entry level bodies, but they just didn't do it for me. I looked at Nikon for a few moments, but, again, feature and price never intersected. Then on a whim, I thought I'd check out Pentax. The more I looked at the K-7, the more I couldn't believe it. It was as if they had me in mind when they made it: size, rugged build, performance...it all came together in a package that, frankly was a refreshing surprise. I won't go on to parrot your well done reviews as my findings parallel what you've written. I will say that this camera has invigorated me in ways a "second" body has no right in doing. It's simply one of those investments with a greater than anticipated return."
Oh, and another:
"I am also heavily invested in a Canon system and very pleased with how Canon performs for the type of photography that I aspire to accomplish. When reading Mike's write up after Pentax announced the K7 earlier this year I decided to order one and give it a try. I really wanted something smaller and lighter than my 5D Mark II. What was desirable was a camera that can be thrown in a backpack with an extra lens for a long morning or evening hike. I can attest to what Gordon has said in each of his three reviews. This camera has tons of very good features that I am still learning and it is more than adequate for much (but not all) of what and how I like to photograph. I recently acquired the DA* 55-135mm F/2.8 lens which has proven to be simply amazing as well! My thanks first to Mike for his post announcing the K7 back in May and to Gordon for well thought through review, commentary and inspiring images. Now I think I am officially a two system fan!"
Nonetheless, as an aspiring K-7 owner (budget), and PTPP (part-time pixel-peeper :), IQ and acceptable sensor noise are very important to me. Yes it's one thing to have a great tool, but if the end result disappoints or requires many extra hours PP, then I have to question that don't I?
To be more specific, I am confused! In the vast majority of reviews and posts on the internet the K-7 is highly praised, and in some notable and specific examples can even better the 50D, D700, D300/s, 5dII etc in terms of IQ and usability. B U T... one of the main reasons to own a DSLR is to enjoy the big advantage in low-light situations that even decent P&S's can't cope with. So take a look at the night-time comparison between the K-7 and the D90 at (half way down page) http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k7-revie... and http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d90-revie...
I think (and my jaw really literally dropped at the monstrous difference here, the D90 absolutely wipes the floor with the K-7 and IMHO looks better at ISO 3200 than the K-7 at 800! :( :( :(
So I may be just dreaming for now, of an announcement from the newly revitalized Pentax/Hoya, that a K7x/K-8 is coming, with an innovative 12ish MP Sony Exmor sensor...("The newly developed CMOS image sensor achieves a signal-to-noise ratio of +8dB(+6dB sensitivity, -2dB noise) in comparison to existing Sony CMOS image sensors of the same pixel size.") http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmo...
I welcome constructive comments in relation to my thoughts. Real Engineer, you seem to know what you are talking about, would you kindly take a moment from taking RH to task and offer your advice on my dilemma?
chillgreg · 809 weeks ago
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
chillgreg · 809 weeks ago
Pentax · 809 weeks ago
Real Engineer · 809 weeks ago
Of course RH is comparing pictures on a monitor. He searches the internet to find pictures of unknown quality and origin and when he finds a bad one he posts it here and blames the camera.
Chillgreg,
Thanks for your kind words.
I'm not quite sure where your dilemma is regarding the IQ of two cameras but when taking night shots what we are pushing is the dynamic range, specifically at the low end. When we do this we need to get near everything spot on the same to do a valid comparison.
If you look at the 100 ISO pictures on both the Pentax and the Nikon you will have a base to start when making a comparison.
What I mean by this is look at the 100 ISO and see the difference in quality between them and that difference is what we refer to as a reference. When you look at the ISO 800 results you don't just compare the ISO 800 results to each other, you also have to consider the reference. Since the ISO 100 results look quite different then what we would expect is a much greater variation in the ISO 800 pictures.
The ISO 100 pictures of the Pentax look inferior to the Nikon. That doesn't mean that they are, it means that the settings have not been normalised to make them similar.
The art of getting a reference seems to be lost lately.
What needs to be done is that the settings on the ISO 100 need to be setup so that they look the same or as similar as they can be. Only then can the higher results be compared. The difference in the reference settings needs to be knows also so this can be factored into interpreting the result.
Otherwise you are comparing two different dynamic ranges.
This gives immediately different expected results.
The one operating at the extremes of its dynamic range will show the worse quality.
There are other things to consider.
The night itself, the aperture the shutter speed.
ISO is just one factor.
Noise reduction, is it on or off etc.
I've played with the K7 for night shooting quite a bit to experiment and depending on the settings I choose I can get either shockingly terrible noise or get a relatively clean shot. This is seconds apart with the same equipment not different days or years and lenses and cameras.
Get you camera and try different settings of aperture, ISO and shutter speed. You will find a sweet spot for it. Experience will teach you how to find that sweet spot. When we compare cameras we need to compare those sweet spots against each other with as much else being the same as possible. Otherwise its like comparing two manual cars by using the same RPM to measure performance. Some have their peak higher in the rev range and others lower. If we limit to one point then we get little valuable information from it.
This is why some reviewers will tell you they get great low noise ISO pictures when others get bad ones even when using the same camera.
The best place I've seen so far is DXOmark.
There may be better but they are good.
They also haven't tested the K7.
Likewise, they like Pentax above, understand that what you see on the screen and on the printer are two different things. Hence offer you the results for both. The difference is sometimes astounding.
I hope that helps.
chillgreg · 809 weeks ago
Does a scanned print show get any closer than an original file to "real-world" results when viewed on a monitor?
Pentax · 809 weeks ago
This may depend not only on the quality of the print itself, but also on the capability of the scanner. Again, when considering aesthetics of the image quality, "real-worldness" may not have been what we were looking for. What does it mean to take a picture of something? What are we supposed to get out of photography? Sharpness and color rendition and such are not typically the only parameters. Again, thank you for thinking outside of the box.
Real Engineer · 809 weeks ago
Making a successful blog requires a lot of spare time, time which don't I have. I spend what spare time I do taking pictures and making my wife happy :)
I dream of capturing a great picture of a bear or Autumn colors on the skyline drive rather than finding tit bits on a camera and going into the details of differences between a Nikon or a Canon and a Pentax.
They all make great cameras, they all make great lenses and they can all produce wonderful photo's.
I see little practical difference between the image quality of any of these cameras and unless one has specific needs they will all do the job if the photographer puts in his/her share of the effort.
I bought a Pentax because I liked the features and the value for money I got from it.
The K7 specifically for the movie mode because the opportunity to use SLR lenses in a movie is just too wonderful an opportunity to miss.
The SR and movie mode sold me. Otherwise I'd still just use my K10D. It has served me extremely well after all.
My friend owns a Canon. He stays with Canon because that's what he knows and has lenses for. One of his close family friends is a well known landscape photographer in Australia of Dutch decent. He uses the medium format Pentax more than anything. He also has a Canon.
Another goes with Nikon.
Cameras are just a tool. Some people can use a poor or average tools and build a beautiful house.
Others have the best tools money can buy and yet can't fix a leaky tap.
The tool does not define the photographer. Its the photographer that is the key.
Which gets me to the point of all this.
One can't be spending quality time photographing and enjoying if one spends so much time talking about it.
That is why I'll never start a blog. I will then become a blogger instead of a photographer in my spare time.
Its also one great reason to take all reviews and internet blog opinions with caution.
Great photographers rarely give reviews of cameras.
If you want to buy a camera so you can review it, then reviews and blogs are great but most people want to buy a camera to take pictures with. Any SLR will do that well from any manufacturer.
Real Engineer · 809 weeks ago
Sorry if I sounded harsh.
Real Engineer · 809 weeks ago
Posts arrive after I have posted but que up before I have read them.
Is there a delay for some posters?
Anyway...
Pentax,
I feel like I need to explain something to you.
My wife is a writer. She wants me to film some of her scripts.
This has been in planning for some time. As time goes we get one step closer and fill one need at a time.
About the time we wanted to buy a video camera, a 3CCD RGB camera to be exact, the K7 was released.
My wife needed a video camera, I already had a still camera.
She placed the task onto me to decide what to get.
I did a lot of research. Really, a lot of it.
Turns out for filming (I use the word meaning movie making for commercial production) the needs are not what I expected them to be.
As it happens, what the K7 offers is in not really limiting the film making process, e.g. the max length of one scene is rarely more than a few minutes.
It does however offer the selection of various SLR lenses, which in the film (movie) world would be very expensive to do.
Wide lens for example is relatively cheap in a SLR yet really expensive for a video camera.
I had to weigh up the advantages of video specific equipment vs the K7 which was geared to stills but could provide what I wanted in terms of lenses.
Bottom line is the K7, for my wife's needs of filming movies, was a better choice than the competitions specific for video alternative that was costing more.
You didn't win a sale to an SLR competitor, you won a sale against a video competitor who had designed a camera specifically for video.
That is in my book an impressive goal. A change in the way people will view cameras (SLR's in particular) in the future.
So don't take it as an insult that I bough the K7 for movies, it is a great compliment.
I chose an SLR designed for still pictures so I can film movies instead of buying a video camera costing more designed to do just movies.
Now I must go, my wife requests me to go to bed to warm her and that is one thing this blog is not going to delay me from doing.
Real Engineer · 809 weeks ago
Not only can you deduce hardware/software issues with limited information we now learn you expect to be able to predict or mind read a woman's intentions in advance. In this case, she tired of researching her script so wanted to sleep. I was waiting on her.
Expecting the impossible, yet again.
I'm sensing a theme here.
Speaking of expecting the impossible, I'm wondering when we your readers, can expect your reply to the technical problems in your blog regarding the incorrect conclusions you reached when analysing the SR performance of the K7?
I won't go into all the other incorrect posts you've made yet. Let's just work one out at a time for now.
jamesm007 · 809 weeks ago
In all reality it has the build quality of the most expensive Canon or Nikons, maybe better, because of its light weight and use of polycarbonate some really nice stuff along with stainless steel so you don't see pics of corroded dSLRS like Canon or Nikon. For the price Pentax is really raising the bar. They found no QC issues BTW, dpreview pulls no punches, if there was an issue with the sensor you would know as dpreview would say so. Don't know how much better anyone could want in a non-FF camera? Leave it to Pentax, oh and a WR kit lens!
jamesm007 · 809 weeks ago
Barbarosa · 809 weeks ago
what else to say
Real Engineer · 808 weeks ago
"But actually I am not impressed with the Image Quality of those samples once again, or I would say those are just terrible. Narrow Dynamic Range, exposure errors (with manual compensations already - may argue as user errors, though), soft images, obvious corner blurs (possibly owing to low optical performance), high noise at just ISO 800 and super grainy pictures (see the model portraits). Well, I have already stopped to inspect further! It's just too disappointing afterall!"
Points to note:
1) It has a high dynamic range. If activating the extended highlight option it will give more range than any other camera in the comparison. At that point you should note that the curve for the K7 is almost identical to the Nikon D300 but it would have better shadow range. Interesting, isn't it?
2) The noise figures are about the same in RAW for all the cameras. Its the JPEG conversion that is more noisy in the Pentax cameras at high ISO. This is a non issue for many people since shooting at high ISO requires RAW to get the best performance in such hard conditions. Post processing does the rest far better than any camera can.
3) Softer images, that's a setting issue. They provide adjustable settings so that each person can adjust it to their preference. That is the lamest complaint yet. What do you want, maybe a Pentax engineer to come to your house and adjust it for you everytime you want to change it?
4) Exposure accuracy. Yeah. How do you separate the camera from the photographer when viewing these pictures? You just assume the camera screwed up.
The best complain I've heard is that the Pentax underexposes by less than a stop. Um, duh. That's where its maximum dynamic range is found. Its also generally best to underexpose than overexpose. If you don't want that there is also this handy little button called exposure compensation. It takes about 0.75sec to set it up.
I can understand people complaining about issues that are real and serious but when they can change a setting to get what they want and no longer have that problem then there is no point in complaining.
Chillgreg,
As you can see from DPreview, the outputs at high ISO (in RAW) from all the camera's compared are very similar.
The noise in the Jpegs is due to a different strategy in noise filtering.
However there is a RAW button so you can take RAW pics very easily if you want.
I think Pentax went for less filtering means you can choose to do for cleaner noise or more detail.
If heavy noise reduction is applied (e.g. on the Canon) then the detail is lost and there is no recovery from that.
In any case, as usual, RH is wrong.