Options
Oly E1 --> Pentax K7 --> Nikon D90
Hello all you Olympians, Pentaxians and Nikonians.
I recently went through some upgrading trials and purchasing and thought I would share.
Coming from an Olympus E-1, I was initially interested in staying with a sturdy weather resistant body, but without the weight and bulk of the E-3. I also want to get back to the standard 35mm aspect ratio. Also Olympus is not keeping up in regard to noise levels.
(Grrrrr.... :wxwax ..why don't they spend the R&D on improving the image quality instead of adding an in-camera "watercolor filter"?)
When I saw the Pentax K-7, I said "here it is at last - a smallish tough camera" ..... and it is nice ..... to handle.
With a 18 - 55 WR lens it was a great size and weight for going anywhere (a bit pricey now.)
But........ I just wasn't happy with the image quality and its handling of color. Pretty disappointing because I loved using the camera. Contrast and exposure were all over the place and there seemed to be a greyish/blueish cast to everything. The color was overall cold. I mainly tried it with a Sigma polarizer filter which may have added some blue cast. Yes, I did play around with the color settings - no, I did not shoot RAW. Coming from Olympus I am used to using JPGs right out of the can. After going through as many on-line sample photos that I could find, I think that this is just the Pentax "look".
I have attached a comparison between the K-7 and the D90. The 2 "untouched" photos are not technically the same .... it just illustrates what I saw. I believe the D90 was set for "Vivid".
k7-d90-vichotel.jpg
Right now I am a happy shooter
with the Nikon D90 though it is bigger and heavier than I originally wanted and not water resistant. I got the Nikkor 16-85 DX lens and it is great (though a bit heavy.)
If there is interest there, I could put up an album of shots from both cameras.
It would be interesting to see some side by side comparisons of different cameras. Different manufacturers all have different "looks" to their unprocessed JPG results - like buying film , it would be neat to see how they all compare. As well as looking at the samples on the camera reviews, I went to flickr.com, pbase.com and some others to see what real world shots looked like.
Here is the flickr K-7 group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxk7/
the flickr D90 group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d90/
.... looking forward to your comments.
- Dave
I recently went through some upgrading trials and purchasing and thought I would share.
Coming from an Olympus E-1, I was initially interested in staying with a sturdy weather resistant body, but without the weight and bulk of the E-3. I also want to get back to the standard 35mm aspect ratio. Also Olympus is not keeping up in regard to noise levels.
(Grrrrr.... :wxwax ..why don't they spend the R&D on improving the image quality instead of adding an in-camera "watercolor filter"?)
When I saw the Pentax K-7, I said "here it is at last - a smallish tough camera" ..... and it is nice ..... to handle.
With a 18 - 55 WR lens it was a great size and weight for going anywhere (a bit pricey now.)
But........ I just wasn't happy with the image quality and its handling of color. Pretty disappointing because I loved using the camera. Contrast and exposure were all over the place and there seemed to be a greyish/blueish cast to everything. The color was overall cold. I mainly tried it with a Sigma polarizer filter which may have added some blue cast. Yes, I did play around with the color settings - no, I did not shoot RAW. Coming from Olympus I am used to using JPGs right out of the can. After going through as many on-line sample photos that I could find, I think that this is just the Pentax "look".
I have attached a comparison between the K-7 and the D90. The 2 "untouched" photos are not technically the same .... it just illustrates what I saw. I believe the D90 was set for "Vivid".
k7-d90-vichotel.jpg
Right now I am a happy shooter
with the Nikon D90 though it is bigger and heavier than I originally wanted and not water resistant. I got the Nikkor 16-85 DX lens and it is great (though a bit heavy.)If there is interest there, I could put up an album of shots from both cameras.
It would be interesting to see some side by side comparisons of different cameras. Different manufacturers all have different "looks" to their unprocessed JPG results - like buying film , it would be neat to see how they all compare. As well as looking at the samples on the camera reviews, I went to flickr.com, pbase.com and some others to see what real world shots looked like.
Here is the flickr K-7 group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxk7/
the flickr D90 group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d90/
.... looking forward to your comments.
- Dave
0
Comments
I'm glad to see that you have found a camera to enjoy. I like camera comparisons but I would insist that full EXIF be available as well as custom camera settings so that folks know how the images were produced.
In your above example, with the Pentax K-7 and the Nikon D90, were both lenses equipped with that same polarizer?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks for your comments, Ziggy.
NO polarizing filters.
I am pretty sure neither shot uses a polarizer in my sample (I know the D90 did not have it on.)
Sorry I wasn't more scientific about it.
I have posted some photos from these 2 cameras on my site at:
http://dave.rd123.ca/main.php?g2_itemId=501
- Dave
.... a road less traveled
The samples you provided of the K7 and D90 look to have been exposed slightly differently, and as you shot jpg from the camera with D90 set to Vivid and K7 set to ???, I'm not entirely sure what to make of your results.
To the praires - hello from the wet coast.....
I recognize that this set of photos does not represent a very professional review of the 2 cameras. Sorry I wasn't more scientific about it.
I do not have access to the K-7 shot information other than what is in the Metadata. There are only 5 shots where the exposure was compensated, 2 for the K-7 ("cityhall" and "garden greyscale")and 3 for the D90 - all reduced. I have now made notes on the photos where there is compensation. I think the D90 handled exposure much better, especially for "snap-shots".
Another thing I noticed is that I set the D90 for AdobeRGB and not the K-7.
Basically I just tried to get a setting that I liked on the K-7 and with a few exceptions never really got there.
When it comes down to it - it is personal preference. If you have been happy with the look of your shots from the K200, I bet you will be very happy using a K-7. (Or did they change the sensor manufacturer?) I still think it is a great camera.
- Dave
.... a road less traveled
I'm happy you found a camera that satisfied you.
Your methods and findings are wholly subjective. You wrote "Different manufacturers all have different "looks" to their unprocessed JPG results. "Unprocessed jpg results" is a bit of an oxymoron. All jpegs are heavily processed and the presets govern what you see. You compared a "natural" K7 to a "vivid" D90 shot (aRBG no less), I mean come on the only person this is meaningful to is you.
Basically using jpegs to establish any kind of a criteria on color rendering, sharpness, and other characteristics is dubious. In real world use, one can always move a saturation setting one notch over for a fix. Or create a custom configuration composed of numerous tailored attributes. RAW would provide a more even baseline.
This approach, combined with placing authoritative faith in a kit lens as the standard of a system's optical performance is, well, pretty unique and perhaps better suited towards evaluating a point-and-shoot.
As you said, your approach wasn't professional--that's OK we all have our unique ways of evaluating products and services--but I wonder what the point of publishing it was?
M
SlickStick25896, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
hi Miguel
Your comments make sense.
I may have accidently made the Pentax look bad....... not a good thing.
I still think the Pentax K-7 is a great camera.
To clarify - by "unprocessed JPGs" I meant not processed outside the camera - just taken out and posted or printed, like those in my Album. I'm afraid I have not got the hang of effective RAW processing and have found few situations where it improved things from the JPG - thats coming from Olympus. I made the K-7 / D90 evaluation based on how I would routinely use the camera. When I had the K-7, I doubted that I could have tweeked presets to my liking.
My intention in posting the information is to address others in my situation and perhaps start some discussion on comparing (JPG) results from different manufacturers.
I think we agree it is subjective, so I hope that this discussion would encourage someone else at my skill level to take a close look at a lot of posted photos before purchase. You get a good idea for what is possible, including from those shooting Raw. Your great photos helped encourage me to try Pentax. I also believe that it is we photographers, amateur to pro, that push for camera improvements where it counts - image quality.
Thanks, ...... Dave
PS - I will re-shoot the Swans Hotel D90 side of my comparison (sRGB and Neutral) when its sunny.
.... a road less traveled
This could be due to how the camera handles WB (I'm assuming that you used AWB here) I think if you shot in RAW and controlled the WB, and processed the shots the difference would probably not really exist.
Anyway, what's important IMO is to get a camera that fits your personal needs. So if you found one that fits your needs, that what counts I say.
Congrats on the D90 BTW.