Pentax K20D
The 14.6MP Pentax K20D is the highest resolution sensor available in a prosumer camera today. There are pro models at $8000 or more that feature even higher resolutions, but the $1299 MSRP K20D is a long way from that price class. When it was introduced in late 2007, the K20D was the first 14MP class camera, and its introduction surprised the photo establishment with a Pentax-designed and Samsung-manufactured CMOS sensor.
Tests of K20D resolution show the highest resolution available in its class at lower ISOs. However, resolution and image quality at higher ISO settings are compromised by the higher noise of the K20D at these settings. It appears Pentax made the conscious decision to use minimum in-camera noise processing at higher ISOs.
| Pentax K20D In-Camera JPEG vs. Noiseware Processed |
||
| ISO | Pentax K20D In-Camera JPEG |
Pentax K20D Noiseware Processed |
| 100 |  |
 |
| 200 |  |
 |
| 400 |  |
 |
| 800 |  |
 |
| 1600 |  |
 |
| 3200 |  |
 |
| 6400 |  |
 |
Click on any of the above image crops for the full image. Note: Full size images are between 1.9MB and 11.7MB! |
||
Noiseware completely changes the dynamics of high ISO image capture on the K20D. The comparison of JPEG images that have been Noiseware-processed to the original in-camera JPEG images shows a dramatic improvement in image quality, particularly at ISO 800 and beyond.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
61 Comments
View All Comments
GoSharks - Thursday, July 31, 2008 - link
I agree that the box is a horrible test subject. dpreview's (for one example) shots of a grey patch, and then multiple crops of a high detail image are excellent for showing the level of noise AND detail that exist at each ISO setting. The box only gives you the level of noise, which is only half the story.marokero - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Was the photog shooting through the windows inside a grounded helicopter?I've been shooting with a D3 since February, and I've been getting images that were just "not doable" below ISO 6400 without a flash - and a flash would've ruined the moment. Yes, David Black could've used a slower shutter speed and lower ISO to get the same exposure, but would he have been able to freeze the hockey action at 1/125s and ISO 800? I seriously doubt it.
I surely would like more manufacturers to implement some of Foveon's X3 layered tecnology in their future sensors, but not at the cost of reduced light sensitivity. Noiseware, Noise Ninja, Neat Image... they all do a fine job of cleaning up noise, but they do not do miracles.
peroni - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Sorry Wesley but this article should be withdrawned, the quality is not on par with the rest of this site articles.p.s.
In nearly all the pictures you have posted the originals look better.
Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
The selling point of Sigma cameras are their sharp/full-of-detail images yet the reviwer thinks it's better to smear all of those in favor of low noise. That's just stupid.If he buys a Ferrari, he'd cripple the engine for the sake of low noise, then talk about how great it is to have low noise on Ferrari.
pepsimax2k - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
is that dido on the main page pic?woohoo *wins award for least geeky anandtech post in, ohh, 5 minutes?*
Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
1. That D3 ISO 6400 sample image has shutter speed of 1/1000. Even Nikon D70 or Canon A350 that are known for high noise would only show minimal noise when it's shot in the bright area.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying D3 low-noise/high-ISO sucks. D3, without a doubt, shows the least noise out of all the cameras in market. However, showing ISO 6400 image with shutter speed of 1/1000 and saying 'look at this low noise in ISO 6400' is simply wrong. Hell, I can even show you low-noise ISO 1600 images with D70 so you can talk about how D70 shows very little noise.
2. "However, many incorrectly criticize Sony, for instance, on their "heavy" image processing in the A350. Canon and Nikon also heavily process images in-camera; they just make slightly different choices in their processing algorithms."
That's because, as you know, Sony kills noise in favor of detail and they do it way too much. What good is 14.2MP when it's crippled; in other word, you don't get to see the advantage of 14.2MP when the ISO goes up as the noise processing algorithm kills most of the details. Again, Canon and Nikon doesn't smear images as Sony does.
3. Either your expectation is too low or my expectation is too high, but Imageware creates really smeared images just like Sonys'. Well, if you are a fan of watercolor-like or plastic-like pictures that shows the least detail, I guess Imageware is all good. But....really....pictures processed with Imageware really look terrible.
Given that, I hope you don't waste your money getting quality lenses. You'd be fine with lenses made with window glasses.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I suppose we will all have to chide Nikon for their obvious stupidity. The Hockey image was supplied by Nikon as an example ISO 6400 image in their D3 launch kit.Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
No, the problem is you saying 'Look at this image! it's ISO 6400 and shows so little noise!'Some1ne - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
It completely ruins all the detail in all the photos that include bodies of water. Seriously, in the Noiseware processed one you can't see any of the ripples/waves/other details in the water anymore. Terrible!Ratinator - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Has anyone heard anything about when Kodak is going to release their new filter that was discussed about a year ago mentioned here http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhig...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhig...