Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Pentaxes head to head
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:09 pm    Post subject: Pentaxes head to head Reply with quote
A non-scientific sunday test. 4 years and 8.5 Megapixels between the cameras.

K20d vs istDS at iso1600. Shot in RAW. Converted in ACR at default setting, AWB adjusted from the elf's scarf. A50/1.7@2.2, 1/80s. The color differences might be due to the change in lighting I was mainly seeing if the 6 megapixel ccd is still better @ high isos. Can take some more test shots if somebody is interested.

K20d:



IstDS:


100% crops:






Edit: Noticed a fault: the sharpening in ACR was 44 in DS shot and the K20d shot at nominal 25. Doesn't make such a great difference though

Last edited by soikka on Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scaled to the approximately same size.





PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
K20 is better, but not by as much as I thought.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
K20 is better, but not by as much as I thought.


Yes, there is more detail in the K20d image, but the pixel density takes its toll at high iso values...iso200 images have a lot more detail I believe.

But K20d is way better than K10d.

Here 100% crops with some chroma noise removal in ACR. And similar sharpening plus some contrast/brightness adjustment.





PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have seen great results from the K20D but not that much better than the K10D. I have just read an interesting bit about the K20D via Luminous landscape and a link to a write up on the Sony, Nikon and new Canon 5D II FF DSLRs.

IMO my K100D is better at 1600iso than my K10D (Only just) when both are used in poor conditions (More normal use for high iso) in decent but low lighting the K10D is better. But the K10D at its 1250iso setting is better than the K100d at 800iso !
I must admit I have never bothered to resize the K10D down (Testing camera to camera) to see the result.
I also find the K100d usable at 3200iso for BW but have never really pushed the K10D
I regularly use the K10D at 1250 and the K100D at 1600iso. I also use ACR but always make adjustments taking extra care with shadows, not touching exposure and using some colour noise reduction at 1600iso. I also turn off default sharpening and apply smart sharpen or selective sharpening with a layer mask later.
I have compared both the K100D and K10D with other DSLRs but that is another story and involves other variables like resolution and in camera noise reduction.
(Yes some cameras do have noise reduction on RAW files easily seen when you compare fine detail between 200 and 1600iso in the RAW converter ACR at 100% with 50% sharpening and RAW noise reduction settings at 0)


PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
We have very different usage profiles then.

I almost never use ISO > 200. I can barely stand the noise and general aspect of the image at ISO 400.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
We have very different usage profiles then.

I almost never use ISO > 200. I can barely stand the noise and general aspect of the image at ISO 400.


That's just crazy.

I find it's one of the advances in dslr vs. film that you can easily use higher iso values. I think that K100d is usable even at iso1600 and the grain sometimes only makes the image better Smile.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
I have seen great results from the K20D but not that much better than the K10D...


This is true in lower isos, I meant that K20d is way better only the high iso results. At least this was the case between my copies.

Rob Leslie wrote:
IMO my K100D is better at 1600iso than my K10D (Only just) when both are used in poor conditions (More normal use for high iso) in decent but low lighting the K10D is better. But the K10D at its 1250iso setting is better than the K100d at 800iso !
I must admit I have never bothered to resize the K10D down (Testing camera to camera) to see the result.
I also find the K100d usable at 3200iso for BW but have never really pushed the K10D
I regularly use the K10D at 1250 and the K100D at 1600iso. I also use ACR but always make adjustments taking extra care with shadows, not touching exposure and using some colour noise reduction at 1600iso. I also turn off default sharpening and apply smart sharpen or selective sharpening with a layer mask later.
I have compared both the K100D and K10D with other DSLRs but that is another story and involves other variables like resolution and in camera noise reduction.
(Yes some cameras do have noise reduction on RAW files easily seen when you compare fine detail between 200 and 1600iso in the RAW converter ACR at 100% with 50% sharpening and RAW noise reduction settings at 0)


I also use my DS regularly at iso1600 and the iso3200 is great for B&W Smile.

My late K10d was a poor performer, really usable and great up till 800, then the blotchy noise with banding started to show and ruined images.

That's why I'm pretty happy how the K20d performs. Iso1600 is great and iso3200 usable, a bit better than 6Mpixels CCDs. I find the lack of noise removal in Pentaxes really as a great thing, just hate smooth surfases with no detail or grain Smile.

We have pretty similar approach to the noise and it's removal I think...


PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
soikka wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
We have very different usage profiles then.

I almost never use ISO > 200. I can barely stand the noise and general aspect of the image at ISO 400.


That's just crazy.

I find it's one of the advances in dslr vs. film that you can easily use higher iso values. I think that K100d is usable even at iso1600 and the grain sometimes only makes the image better Smile.


I think the K100D is noticably better at 200iso, but agree it is still excellent at 400 and very good at 800 iso. like you I don't mind 1600iso
If you do need to shoot at high iso it is so easy to just use the slightest amount of noise reduction in ACR or use the Pentax profiles in Neat Image. But if I have the choice I will always knock the iso down. Working with the best file you can manage always makes life easier.

With the K10D it is different again. I once read ther is a 2% difference in quality/noise with the K10D between 100-800iso and I believe it. It is veru hard to tell you have used 800iso and that is looking at the file in ACR at 100% with the sharpening turned up. I cant remember ever using any 3rd party noise reduction on a K10D shot.

I do agree with your idea about noise, only colour noise offends me and it is so easy to get rid of. I even have no problems using my Canon G5 and Ricoh GX100 P & S at 400iso (RAW) and have even had great BW images (Film like grain) from the Ricoh at 1600iso
Also I believe with noise some of it is down to PP and also exposure. I still hear of some DSLR user who always shoot at half or a stop under just in case!

I have not noticed any great advantage with the K20D. A freind now has one so I have tried it. Maybe it is because I don't feel the need to upgrade but the improvement is only very slight. But again I have only done a couple of shots at 1600iso with it and neveer even tried above.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
I have not noticed any great advantage with the K20D. A freind now has one so I have tried it. Maybe it is because I don't feel the need to upgrade but the improvement is only very slight. But again I have only done a couple of shots at 1600iso with it and neveer even tried above.


I think there's quite a bit sample variation between early and latest K10s. Look at the iso performance in k-m for example, it's using the same ccd, and is a lot better than at least my K10d ever was!!

I was pretty satisfied with it though, but K20d and istDs are noticeably better.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1