Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 9, 2010, 2:03 PM   #21
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

a controlled test for you. 100% crops. i think you can see much more detail out of the k-x at iso 1600. in particular look at the fine lines above the #1. it is thought the AA filter on the kx is lighter than the nikons.

KX


D5000
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 2:20 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

SOLD

what is an AA filter tho???



a prescreener for Alcoholics Anonymous??

Last edited by littlejohn; Jan 9, 2010 at 2:22 PM.
littlejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 2:25 PM   #23
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn View Post
SOLD

what is an AA filter tho???



a prescreener for Alcoholics Anonymous??
actually i am not trying to sell anyone on anything. just showing that the k-x is most likely the best high iso performer of the current crop of entry-level cameras. however, that difference as you can see, and you can find evidence of this everywhere, is really quite small.

there are many other pieces of the puzzle that are more important to deciding on the right camera than a minuscule detail difference at 100% magnification.

such as the system, does it have the lenses you need/want at a price you can afford. is the autofocus system up to the tasks you desire? etc.

AA-anti-aliasing
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 3:19 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

littlejohn,

In the real world unless you are a pixel peeper, you will not be able to see these details on your shots. Like hards said. Get the one that fits your needs. The pixel quality of the newer dslr are so close, that when I choose my camera, imagine quality was not a big deciding factor. Ergo and feature where more important.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 4:36 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
actually i am not trying to sell anyone on anything. just showing that the k-x is most likely the best high iso performer of the current crop of entry-level cameras. however, that difference as you can see, and you can find evidence of this everywhere, is really quite small.
You didn't comment on IR images posted where D90 outperforms Kx with default jpeg. there could be many other important factors, too. here is one more example where someone who owns both kx and a550 gets better high Iso result with his A550

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=34197397
oneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 9:14 PM   #26
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

well in your first example, you showed me a screen shot from some random member of dpreview. and you are also comparing a entry level camera to a semipro camera. i showed you a better comparison in a controlled environment at 100% crop, that was my reply.

and in the 2nd post. you posted some random fanboys thread with severely underexposed shots in bad lighting, those photos do not warrant comment.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 1:51 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
well in your first example, you showed me a screen shot from some random member of dpreview. and you are also comparing a entry level camera to a semipro camera. i showed you a better comparison in a controlled environment at 100% crop, that was my reply.

and in the 2nd post. you posted some random fanboys thread with severely underexposed shots in bad lighting, those photos do not warrant comment.
No, it was not random. The original source was IR. That's controlled environment (including the lens, lighting, etc) at 100% crop. Go here

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Select Kx for one side. Select D90 (or D5000) for the other side. Scroll down to images titled "still-life". You will see exactly what I was posted earlier. Kx has excellent high-ISO but it's no better than other cameras with similar Sony's 12 MP CMOS sensor (and that includes Sony's own A500, as you can compare A500 vs Kx images too on IR web site).
oneguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 8:41 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

Oh boy. This is not the thread I intended. To clarify, however, what I wanted to show is that the Kx is an extremely capable camera for my purposes. Below, you will see a shot with the Km at ISO 3200 taken at a music event. It's a pretty good shot, but note the ghosting on the guitar hand at left. With the Kx, I can eliminate that with the high ISO, faster shutter speed capabilities and get a cleaner shot for publication. After careful research, I chose the Pentax system because of bang for buck, starting with the K10D several years ago (sold it for half of what I paid), moving to the Km (that is now my backup) and currently the Kx. Unless you are shooting for Sports Illustrated or Vogue, bang for the buck is very important. For a small town, highly underpaid , reporter, the Kx is an incredible value. Last but not least, I showed a friend who is seriously invested in a high level Canon system a Kx ISO 6400 shot and his mouth just flat fell open at the quality.
Attached Images
 
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 9:05 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I thought oneguy's first picture was interesting - if you look at the green cloth and especially the pink cloth on the back, you can see much more detail in the K-X picture. It is only the one red cloth that the K-x seems to have less detail than the Nikon. And with the 2nd and 3rd pictures you can also see more detail (look at the letters in the second one), though also more noise. As Hards said, Nikon has always had more aggressive noise reduction while sacrificing detail.

Some people will prefer Nikon's noise reduction over capturing all of the detail possible. I shoot lots of macro so I prefer to have the detail. If I want less noise, I'll use noise reduction software and decide for myself how much detail I want to lose to reduce noise. The only thing that the pictures convince me is that the K-x struggles with bright reds (if it's like the K20, changing to natural over bright or turning down the saturation a bit makes a big difference in how the camera handles reds).

I also agree that you probably wouldn't notice much difference in real world conditions.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2010, 9:48 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

You are welcome. Never hurts to try the others though as your preference may not be mine. I love free ones though. LOL
__________________
Big Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 PM.