kx v canon 7D what is going on here? Is this stopping us upgrading?

[johnmarsden]

<p>Check out this link -<br>

This Pentax (Sony) sensor is ridiculously good value.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fotoactualidad.com/2009/12/canon-7d-vs-pentax-k-x.html">http://www.fotoactualidad.com/2009/12/canon-7d-vs-pentax-k-x.html</a></p>

<p>At iso 800 or less it beats the Canon<br>

at 1600 & 3200 it is still the best but I would only use if I had to.<br>

above this they are both poor - one gets the feeling that you may as well underexpose iso 800 by 4 stops in RAW, then mess around in lightroom/PS and pretend you're shooting at iso 12800 'cos most of these mid range cameras are not really giving useful stuff above 1600.<br>

(In fact is this what the cameras are really doing anyway? )<br>

Pentax kx $600 body only Adorama<br>

Canon 7D $1699 body only</p>

<p>(Now I know 7d has lots of fps and stuff but the kx makes for a crazy good entry level camera, and is certainly delaying me buying a replacement for my K20d and and Canon 40D as this sensor or better has got come out in semipro body.<br>

(Now lets be truthful - not so much a replacement but a close friend to join the gang(?) of cameras that float around me from time to time.)<br>

John</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>No, it doesn't beat out the Canon. <strong>You cannot make noise comparisons with two different resolution sensors both at 100% on screen.</strong></p>

<p>And no, they're not terrible or useless above 1600. You can make very good 8x10 prints from a 7D at 6400. When you pixel peep into an 18 MP image on your monitor, you're looking at the equivalent of a 60-70" print depending on monitor resolution. Most of the noise and grain you see is not visible at 8x10 or 11x14. Naturally if you want a 16x24 or 20x30 you need to shoot low ISO. That would be true if you were shooting 645 MF, and especially true with 35mm where you would be stuck with ISO 25-100!</p>

<p>Sometimes I think people should have to have a license to use 100% viewing in Photoshop :-/</p>

[martin_engineer]

<p>I think that Daniel makes a very good point.<br>

When you take the higher megapixel image and reduce the size, you also reduce the noise.<br>

I'd like to see if that reduction of size and noise on a eos 7d from 18 MP down to 12 MP would equal or beat a Pentax K-x</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'd like to see if that reduction of size and noise on a eos 7d from 18 MP down to 12 MP would equal or beat a Pentax K-x"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm fairly certain that it would. If I'm not mistaken, DPReview makes some of their full-size unedited RAW files available for users to download and play with. You or anyone else could download the files from the 7D and K-<em>x</em> , downsample the 7D files to 12MP, and then you'd have a good comparison.</p>

<p>I still think the <em>Foto Actualidad</em> comparison is useful, considering that what we're basically seeing is that a $600 entry-level camera can produce very, very good high-ISO results... results that would have been <em>unthinkable </em> just a year or two ago. Heck, look at the ISO 6400 results from the K-7, which is still Pentax's flagship camera... the K-<em>x</em> blows them out of the water, and that remains true even if you downsample the K-7 images to 12MP... the K<em>-x</em> still wins by a landslide.</p>

<p>Now, the standard disclaimers apply... none of what I just said means that the K-<em>x</em> is a "better" camera than the K-7 or the 7D. It just means that the K-<em>x</em> is capable of producing some of the cleanest and most detailed images of any APS-C DSLR currently available.</p>

[mithrandir]

<p>Bang for the Buck, the K-x seems to be the place to be for low-light capability.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I don't see why this should stop someone from upgrading from a lesser Canon to a 7D. Even if K-x is *slightly* better for high-ISO, 7D is very close, and is pretty much the best-of-the-rest for APS-C. It's also still quite new and probably won't be super-ceded for some time yet..and it is also state of the art in just about every other respect. I do get why Pentaxians might stop and think before upgrading to K-7--particularly when shooting a K20D since imaging performance is very similar to K-7--wondering when something better is going to come down the pipe. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>There are more things to consider when selectiong a camera body than noise and high ISO performance. I am looking at the eventual possiblity of a K-x to join the gang, in my case the K20D and K200D. For its especially ultra compact dimunitive size and high ISO performance, along with fine IQ at normal ISO, and having video. But for excellent IQ along with superb handling, weather-sealed durable body, quiet operation and convenient control functions, it is the K20D, or the compact K200D which is very good in those aspects. From my point of view, without spending a whole lot, it would be nice to have a very nice camera in each of these three categories, each bringing something of special value to the table of usefulness. Nice to be able to select any one of these for a particular set of needs, and expect fine IQ regardless. I can't complain after getting BOTH my K20D AND my K200D new for less than a K-7.</p>

<p>I agree with Hin's recent post, and his categorizing of the K-x in comparison to other more advanced model designs. </p>

[orly_andico]

<p>At the risk of beating a worn drum, I think the major reason for going 7D instead of (any) Pentax is faster auto-focus, and the wide selection of (relatively reliable) ring-drive USM lenses.</p>

<p>Now AF speed isn't everything, but it's something for a lot of people. Having used some ring-drive lenses even on entry-level bottom-of-the-barrel Canon bodies (of course it was the $1000+ 17-55/2.8 EF-S IS), the slow AF of my K20D is definitely not funny.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You cannot make noise comparisons with two different resolution sensors both at 100% on screen.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, you can. Noise is a per-photosite byproduct, so you can compare noise levels between two cameras at 100% - it's the only way to compare just noise. What you shouldn't do is take that as the only measurement point for performance. Resolution and other features matter as well. As far as noise is concerned, looking at those images, the 7D doesn't seem to be any noisier than the K-x, so taking into account its larger resolution and extra features, there is nothing that the K-x has going for it other than price. Noise levels being pretty much the same is clear from looking at the green and blue areas next to the sleeve shots, while the better resolution paying off for the 7D is obvious from looking at the details of the sleeve. The fact that the Canon sensor is the same size yet manages to get similar noise and better detail is truly impressive. Canon has made great progress with this sensor.<br>

This doesn't mean that the K-x is not an impressive entry level APS camera - that, it is.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>I don't quite understand your post Laurentiu, in this test (whether or not the test is fair I don't know) the K-x is clearly superior in keeping detail. I don't know which lenses were used, but the K-x seems a lot sharper, even at ISO 200. I have read that the 7D does require some heavy sharpening in PP, so again maybe this isn't a totally fair comparison, I don't know. But on the face of it the K-x easily wins for me.</p>

<p>But, as others have said, in no other way does the K-x compare with the 7D, or Nikon D300. I'd much rather have them (or full frame). BUT, I was going to move to Nikon, and after seeing the huge high ISO improvements in the K-x, I might wait and see if Pentax can come out soon with a flagship model with good AF and frame rate, then I would really consider that.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>in this test (whether or not the test is fair I don't know) the K-x is clearly superior in keeping detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We can assume the test is fair for now, but which detail are you referring to? Can you point to a detail that is present in the K-x shots but that cannot be seen in the 7D ones? I can't see much significant difference until 3200 after which the larger resolution of the 7D still manages to keep detail that gets washed out on the K-x - or so it seems in this test.<br>

Differences are small enough that it is not clear whether they are due to differences in focusing, differences in lens resolution/contrast, or differences in sensors. This is the kind of test that can be quoted if it proves your point and can be safely ignored if it doesn't :)</p>

[s_arena]

<p>I agree with Orlando. The k-x may have good iso performance in darkness, but unfortunately to realize the benefit you also have to be able to <em>focus</em> in that darkness...<br /> The Canon 7D combined with a ring-USM is by far the fastest and most consistent AF system I have ever experienced. Even in dim lighting with no assist lamp. Makes my k-7 seem like it came out of the 1990's.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>If I read this right, you have Canon and Pentax cameras, and are choosing between what kind to get next? And that you have lenses to fit both kinds of camera already? What's wrong with your existing collection?</p>

<p>Just interested in the new sensor?</p>

<p>I've got a detail that's showing up in the Pentax: that the camera costs a thousand dollars less, and it will work just fine! </p>

<p>Utility, gentlemen. Utility! </p>

<p>It's not an entry level camera unless it's used by an entry-level operator.</p>

[johnmarsden]

 

<p >Interesting discussion</p>

<p >I suppose my reason for posting was two-fold</p>

<p >One.</p>

<p >To suggest that the Pentax's use of the Sony sensor seems like a good idea. I thought the images were reasonable comparisons as they both showed the same bit/amount of Woody's head or arm etc. -</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As mentioned there are umpteen variables that could account for the differences, so its more of a comment of 'look how good the KX is going against the supadupa canon 7d.' and to my eye the kx images at lower iso are preferable.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The second point is that one has to suspect that this great sensor (or use of this sensor by Pentax) will be put into a pro type body – and we all suspect it will, and so are we waiting for the K7d super or better before upgrading? Ie was this a bit of a marketing stuff up by Pentax therby affecting K7 sales.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As for me and my mixed tribe of cameras</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Canon 40d for sports – currently 6.3 fps (and would like 7d at 8fps).</p>

<p >I do not shoot L glass so I cannot be a serious Canon user (I have better things to spend my money on – like food and clothing.)</p>

<p >and Pentax K20d for 'studio' usually at iso 200 using off camera flash etc. with my DA* lenses. (Got these lenses when they were still sensibly priced a few years ago.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Given that I have some nice gear – I would like to have the new cameras – yet there is not such a big gain for a significant cash outlay.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This issue I feel will start to affect camera manufacturers and they will need to come out with significant upgrades for buyers to move up a model. At present I suspect my cameras will last me at least 5 years more – at 20k shots a year. Wether my patience and avarice will let me wait until then remains to be seen.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All the best</p>

<p > </p>

<p >John</p>

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>I think the Canon 7D is worth the extra $1,000 over Pentax K-x if your shooting needs require it.</p>

<p>Here's a couple Interesting links of Canon 7D in action.</p>

<p>If you need this level of performance from a camera how is it not worth the extra grand?</p>

<p><a href="http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-1-weather-sealing/">http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-1-weather-sealing/</a></p>

<p><a href="http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-cold-winter/">http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-cold-winter/</a></p>

<p>The Samsung sensor outfitted Pentax K-7 with the Sony sensor taken straight from budget model K-x is a dream camera that seems to be on most Pentaxian's wish lists. I suspect we'll see an array of colored K-7 bodies before we see a Sony made sensor upgrade in a K-7 "Super".</p>

<p>Instead, this is the Year of 645D or so it has been widely "leaked". We may see 645D on display in LasVegas today at the annual Consumer Electronics Show:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2009/12/15/ces-2010-preview/">http://www.photographybay.com/2009/12/15/ces-2010-preview/</a></p>

[orly_andico]

<p>interestingly enough my 16-45 + K20D focuses in almost total darkness quite quickly and competently... with help from the AF 360's AF assist red light!</p>

<p>although i'm sure part of that is the large DOF at short focal lengths. it may not translate well to longer FL's.</p>

 

[wpoupore]

<p>Orlando,</p>

<p>Responding to your earlier post, in my experience, the K20 isn't indicative of Pentax autofocus at it's best. I can't comment on the focusing speed of the K-x, but I found that the K7, in practical terms, had dramatically faster autfocus than the K20. By I mean that I picked up the camera, hit the autofocus button and it was done. The hunting that I was so common with the K20 was a thing of the past. I don't know if it's as good as any Canon, but it was certainly unlike any other Pentax I had used.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[s_arena]

<p>Bill,<br /> Unfortunately those of us who had only been comparing Pentax AF systems over the years have been blind to just how good the competition is. Sure the k-7 AF is much faster than the k20d, but that is like saying Mo is smarter than Curly (Three Stooges reference.) I recently used a Canon 7D with a couple of ring-USM lenses, and I can honestly say, it made my k-7 feel like it was the 1980's. I found this video that illustrates some of the differences. It is consistent with my experience:<br />

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Yep. Canon ring USM is blazing fast and accurate. If you bother to visit the Canon forum you will find that focus speed is basically a non issue there, at least as far as ring USM lenses are concerned.<br />I can't for the life of me figure out why Pentax bothered to make the jump to SDM lenses only to hobble them with micromotors. Its like they decided from the outset to be an "also ran".</p>

[s_arena]

<p>Take a look at this new video I found that compares the K-7, to a 19 year-old EOS 700. And that Pentax 18-55 is faster with screw drive than any SDM lens. Wow, Pentax really needs to ditch SAFOX.<br>

 

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You cannot make noise comparisons with two different resolution sensors both at 100% on screen.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, you can.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No you can't unless your only objective is to compare two images for noise at substantially different veiwing sizes.<br>

A 17 megapixel image is a much larger image than a 12 megapixel image. If viewing both at 100 per cent your are loking at one image at something like a 40x60 enlargement and the other at something like 25x40. Its apples to oranges.<br>

The fair way is to make the same size print from both cameras or same size web enlargement. Downscaling 17 MP to 12 MP will decrease the visible noise. Similarly uprezzing 12 MP to 17 MP will increase the visible noise.</p>

<p> </p>

[laur1]

<p>Geoff said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No you can't unless your only objective is to compare two images for noise at substantially different veiwing sizes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that's exactly what the original statement was about: noise comparisons, not image comparisons (emphasis is mine below):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You cannot make <strong>noise comparisons</strong> with two different resolution sensors both at 100% on screen.<strong></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why dpreview also makes their noise comparisons on small crops at 100% - because they're comparing noise, not the images. dpreview may not do everything right, but they got that part right.<br /> Look at it another way - rather than photographing a complex scene for this test, just photograph a blue wall with no detail in it - if you're interested in comparing sensor noise, would you still compare noise by scaling the 17MP image down to 12MP, or would you just look at two similar sized 100% crops and see which sensor is noisier when rendering a plain blue area.<br /> I perfectly understand that for photographic use, resolution matters too - I already said that - but a sensor noise comparison has really little to do with photography and more with comparing the sensitivity of electronic equipment.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>S Arena,</p>

<p>A 400D + 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/4L already knocked my socks off! so the 7D AF must be mind-boggling.</p>

<p>Some people claim the Canon AF is fast but fast-and-loose (e.g. not very accurate). Others claim the K-m has faster AF than the K20D because it gives up faster and has looser AF tolerances. It is said that the K20D has the most accurate AF - but it takes ages to figure that out.</p>

[s_arena]

<p>Orlando,<br>

Yes, to me the 7D AF is using your words: "mind boggling." It is so fast, responsive and accurate. Not loose at all from my experience trying one. <br>

Have you seen this video about the 7D? It is mind boggling as well (since I am used to Pentax)<br>

http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-cold-winter/</p>

 

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>but a sensor noise comparison has really little to do with photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For sports, photojournalists and low light photographers that like to use high ISO noise is very important.<br>

I stand by my statement that comparing images with substantially different pixel counts both at 100 per cent is meaningless from the point of view of assessing final image quality. It is about as sensible as enlarging Kodak Gold 100 ISO film to poster size and comparing it to Kodak Gold 200 ISO film at letter size and then saying look the 100 ISO film has more noticeable grain.<br>

Canon AF is fast and accurate, as is Nikon these days. There is a reason why they put ring motors on their high and medium grade lenses. They are high torque and precise.<br>

Most of the pros moved from Nikon to Canon in the 1990s due to its superior AF. Canon's decision to put motors in the lenses ultimately proved superior to putting motors in the body, at least as far as the pros were concerned.</p>