(Source: http://pentax.photoble.net/?exif=091004009)
Wow! What a practical solution to the dark blindness of the K-7! No more worry about the super high noise of higher ISO speeds other than the base ISO speeds of 100 and 200 only! No more worry about the K-7 of being a "Daylight DSLR"! No limitation of such forever!!
I believe it does work. Just try it out yourself if you're really pissed off by the problem! It can also be used for taking movies! Really great idea and much useful! Thanks, guy! You're really so clever and what a really simple *solution*!!
Logging you in...
Prognathous · 805 weeks ago
(rephrased from a previous comment to bit RH draconian filters)
Dpreview.com shows that the K-7 image quality is better than the competition, at least to anyone who understands the negative impact of in-camera sharpening and noise-reduction. Both cause irreversible damage the picture – the former causes artifacts, the latter kills details. This is why Pentax was right to be so subtle about them. Their approach leads to visibly more detail than the competition and better preserved textures.
Regarding sharpening, all DSLR's needlessly apply irreversible sharpening to make the picture look nice at 100% crops. This may be good uninformed pixel-peepers, but bad for photographers. Those who understand how sharpening works turn any in-camera sharpening off or set it to the minimum setting to prevent irreversible artifacts, then do it right on the PC, with the right tools, the right amount and at the right moment (*after* the picture is resized to the intended screen or print size).
Regarding noise, strong NR kills details, so again Pentax chose well. This is why both the K20D and the k-7 kill the competition when it comes to texture preservation – throughout the ISO scale. See some relevant benchmarks here:
http://falklumo.blogspot.com/2009/08/pentax-k-7-i...
The K-7 applies less NR, which results in far more detail. It also maintains color saturation better than Canon and Nikon, making the pictures not only usable but also attractive, unlike the pale and lifeless rendition of the competition. Here a couple links Ivanko posted that shows how much better the K-7 ISO 1600 is compared to the Canon 50D:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk7/Sample...
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk7/Sample...
No contest. One is never going to get the missing details back in the case of the Canon, as its noise-reduction completely obliterated any fine detail. However, it’s always possible to apply more NR in the case of the Pentax, which is why it’s the clear winner.
Will you be man enough enough to reply this time? Or will you choose the easy route of spreading baseless FUD?
Prog.
RiceHigh 110p · 805 weeks ago
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-k-7-hands...
Blurred pics are not low sharpened pictures. The later have more image data that can be seen. But the former have not. I am not going further to argue with you when the pics are blur but you insist that they are lowly sharpened. People who know how to view can and will judge.
Prognathous · 805 weeks ago
2. Your "tests" are meaningless, as they show zero methodology and compare apples (FF) to oranges (APS-C).
3. Once again you cop out of responding to the principle issues I raised about in-camera sharpening and noise-reduction. This is as good as admitting that you're wrong.
Have a nice day,
Prog.
Real Engineer · 805 weeks ago
I never thought I'd see you agree that the low light superiority of the K7 means it only needs a small light source for video rather than a huge blinding power hungry monstrosity like other video cameras need.
I never thought you'd ever come accept it but you finally did.
junyo · 805 weeks ago
Other than tourists and snapshooters, who cares about JPEGs?
RiceHigh 110p · 805 weeks ago
chillgreg · 805 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 805 weeks ago
nick K · 805 weeks ago
I fail to understand why you choose to distort facts. DPR (a cite you once stated was biased against Pentax) states that the High ISO performance of the K7, particularly in RAW, is as good as the competition and yet you continue to post statements and purile pictures like above.
You claim to be an electrical engineer. I am an electrical engineer by training (multiple degrees) and I work in the semiconductor industry. Thus, I feel a bit qualified to comment upon your purported scientific tests and general negative blog post like this one. In general, I find them lacking in objectivity and I believe you are guilty of selective data presentation.
Real Engineer · 805 weeks ago
marcin · 805 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 805 weeks ago
nick K · 805 weeks ago
The K7 is on par with the above mentioned Nikon and Canon and the K20, in retorspect, was an excellent sensor, but you trashed that camera.. Unless you have some testing facility that is different than DP and you feel that you are more qualified than DP to make these claims, why do you continue to embarasss yourself with your blog posts? Since I believe in being factual plese see this quote pulled from the K7 review:
"With noise reduction turned off we get a more accurate idea of how noisy these sensors are and the image looks slightly different to what we've seen above in the JPEG section of this page. In the RAW comparison the K-7 and K20D can easily keep up with the competition from Nikon and Canon. Surprisingly the older model K20D even outperforms its successor at higher sensitivities and produces slightly cleaner RAW files. "
Where do you see a Noise problem? What school or institution granted your engineering degree?