Pentax K7 apparently noisier than the K20D

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Nice body. Small, strong and weather sealed (metal), great, near
silent shutter. Focus seems pretty quick to. But, high ISO images
are a tad noisy. So much so that I don't think this will match the
Canon and Nikon crop gear for detail and noise control at higher ISOs.

800 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823343

1600 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823347

What sort of idiot would compare an in focus shot to an out of focus shot
taken under completely uncontrolled conditions and then draw a conclusion
that took none of this into consideration?


You know that depending on camera settings and shutter speeds on the K7
different noise reduction is applied differently don't you. You have taken
time to RTFM? You shot in RAW and converted so both shots were processed the
same????

Damn your incompetance man, you make brainless morons look smart.

Pete D wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Nice body. Small, strong and weather sealed (metal), great, near
silent shutter. Focus seems pretty quick to. But, high ISO images
are a tad noisy. So much so that I don't think this will match the
Canon and Nikon crop gear for detail and noise control at higher ISOs.

800 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823343

1600 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823347

What sort of idiot would compare an in focus shot to an out of focus shot
taken under completely uncontrolled conditions and then draw a conclusion
that took none of this into consideration?


You know that depending on camera settings and shutter speeds on the K7
different noise reduction is applied differently don't you. You have taken
time to RTFM? You shot in RAW and converted so both shots were processed the
same????

Damn your incompetance man, you make brainless morons look smart.

But he gets points for consistency.

Pete D wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

Nice body. Small, strong and weather sealed (metal), great, near
silent shutter. Focus seems pretty quick to. But, high ISO images
are a tad noisy. So much so that I don't think this will match the
Canon and Nikon crop gear for detail and noise control at higher ISOs.

800 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823343

1600 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823347

What sort of idiot would compare an in focus shot to an out of focus shot
taken under completely uncontrolled conditions and then draw a conclusion
that took none of this into consideration?

Rhetorical question?

--
Ray Fischer

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Nice body. Small, strong and weather sealed (metal), great, near
silent shutter. Focus seems pretty quick to. But, high ISO images
are a tad noisy. So much so that I don't think this will match the
Canon and Nikon crop gear for detail and noise control at higher ISOs.

800 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823343

1600 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823347

What sort of idiot would compare an in focus shot to an out of focus shot
taken under completely uncontrolled conditions and then draw a conclusion
that took none of this into consideration?


You know that depending on camera settings and shutter speeds on the K7
different noise reduction is applied differently don't you. You have
taken time to RTFM? You shot in RAW and converted so both shots were
processed the same????

Damn your incompetance man, you make brainless morons look smart.

But he gets points for consistency.

Indeed he does, definate repeat offender.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

Nice body. Small, strong and weather sealed (metal), great, near
silent shutter. Focus seems pretty quick to. But, high ISO images
are a tad noisy. So much so that I don't think this will match the
Canon and Nikon crop gear for detail and noise control at higher ISOs.

800 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823343

1600 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823347

What sort of idiot would compare an in focus shot to an out of focus shot
taken under completely uncontrolled conditions and then draw a conclusion
that took none of this into consideration?

Rhetorical question?

Yeah I guess but to be honest he does occasionally have an interesting point
but this is just stupid in the extreme.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 4:51 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...

Nice body. Small, strong and weather sealed (metal), great, near
silent shutter. Focus seems pretty quick to. But, high ISO images
are a tad noisy. So much so that I don't think this will match the
Canon and Nikon crop gear for detail and noise control at higher ISOs.

800 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823343

1600 ISO: Raw to Jpeg

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/114823347

What sort of idiot would compare an in focus shot to an out of focus shot
taken under completely uncontrolled conditions and then draw a conclusion
that took none of this into consideration?

You know that depending on camera settings and shutter speeds on the K7
different noise reduction is applied differently don't you. You have taken
time to RTFM? You shot in RAW and converted so both shots were processed
the
same????

Damn your incompetance man, you make brainless morons look smart.

You can rationalize it however you like, but the Samsung sensor in
that camera is NOISY. Take a look at any of the example shots that
have shown up on various sites.
It simply cannot keep up with the Nikon and Canon gear.

That may be the case but you posting examples that are simply rubbish makes
you look a fool. Not explaining what settings you used makes you look a
fool. Did you use the Pentax software?

Noisy is a relative thing anyway, the rare occasions I may use ISO 3200 and
above would not be enough to make me change to using another camera with
less features.

The real proof is in the printing and I am guessing you are going to do some
full tests with prints and tell us all the results?

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:50*pm, "Pete D" wrote:

The real proof is in the printing and I am guessing you are going to do some
full tests with prints and tell us all the results?

Lets dispense with that idea right now. The real proof is not in the
print because less than 0.1% of images are ever printed.

Yes, this is very true. For the 99.9%+ of all camera owners that really are
nothing but snapshooters.

I'm guessing (is this even a guess?) that you qualify for that category or
you'd defend the other side of the coin.

Whatta maroon!

Rich writes:
You can rationalize it however you like, but the Samsung sensor in
that camera is NOISY. Take a look at any of the example shots that
have shown up on various sites.

I dunno, I've looked at identical raw files taken with e.g., Pentax K-7
and Canon 50D, and the noise levels (and "character") are pretty much
identical (I only looked at 800 iso and 1600 iso though). Canon does
much heavier NR processing when converting to jpeg, but the basic sensor
noise levels seem pretty much the same.

[I downloaded the raw files from imaging-resource.com]

It simply cannot keep up with the Nikon and Canon gear.

Ah, you're a troll. Never mind.

-Miles

--
Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement)