Pentax K200D Imatest Results

Pentax K200D Imatest Results

We routinely use Norman Koren's excellent "Imatest" analysis program for quantitative, thoroughly objective analysis of digicam test images. I highly recommend it to our technically-oriented readers, as it's far and away the best, most comprehensive analysis program I've found to date.

My comments below are just brief observations of what we see in the Imatest results. A full discussion of all the data Imatest produces is really beyond the scope of this review: Visit the Imatest web site for a full discussion of what the program measures, how it performs its computations, and how to interpret its output.

Here's some of the results produced by Imatest for the Pentax K200D:

The Pentax K200D showed fairly good color accuracy, though its average saturation is quite a bit higher than most of its competition. Hue accuracy was good, with small hue shifts occurring in many colors. Average saturation was 129.4% (29.4% oversaturated) and average "delta-C" color error was 7.18 after correction for saturation, which while not bad, isn't as good as some of the competition. (Delta-C is the same as the more commonly referred to delta-E, but delta-C takes into account only color differences, ignoring luminance variation.) Overall, a good (albeit vibrant) color response for a dSLR. Mouse over the links below the illustration above to compare results with other recent models.

Unlike most cameras, when using the Adobe RGB color space (which provides a much wider gamut, or range of colors that can be expressed), the Pentax K200D delivers less saturated, more accurate color, with an average saturation of 112.2% and average saturation-corrected hue error of 6.15 "delta-C" units. Again, mouse over the links below the illustration above to compare results with those of other recent dSLRs.

This image shows how the Pentax K200D actually rendered the colors of the MacBeth chart, compared to a numerically ideal treatment. In each color swatch, the outer perimeter shows the color as actually captured by the camera, the inner square shows the numerically ideal color, after correcting for the luminance of the photographed chart (as determined by a second-order curve fit to the values of the gray swatches), and the small rectangle inside the inner square shows the numerically ideal color, without any luminance correction. In this image, you can see the slight hue shifts in oranges, yellows, and yellow-greens, as well as a tone curve that darkens "deep" colors, such as dark blues and purples.

There's a lot in this particular graph, a lot more than we have room to go into here. (This set of plots has also changed a little in the more recent versions of Imatest. Some of the plots that were shown here previously are now shown in other Imatest output. Since we largely focus on the Noise Spectrum plot, we'll only show the graphic above, which includes that plot.)

In comparing these graphs with those from competing cameras, I've found that the Noise Spectrum graph at lower right is the most important. Cameras that manage to shift their noise spectrum to higher frequencies have much finer-grained noise structures, making their noise less visually objectionable. In the graph above, this would show up as a noise spectrum curve that remained higher on the right side, representing higher noise frequencies. The champion at this was the Nikon EOS-1Ds Mark II, which produced remarkably fine-grained image noise, even at very high ISOs.

Except for the red and blue channels, the Pentax K200D does an pretty good job of keeping plenty of the noise energy at high frequencies. What little low-ISO image noise that's there is more fine-grained as a result. The red and blue channels are a bit noisier, but that's not at all unusual these days, and not easily discernible even when inspecting shadow areas of low ISO shots very closely.

Here's the same set of noise data at ISO 1,600, the K200D's maximum sensitivity. Here, the Noise Spectrum graph is shifted quite a bit toward the left-hand, lower-frequency side than it was at ISO 100. This indicates a coarsening of the "grain" of the image noise patterns by quite a bit, and indeed that's what we see when inspecting the K200D's ISO 1,600 images. The red and blue channels are more in-line with the others, most likely the result of Pentax's default high ISO noise reduction, but they're still quite a bit higher than the luminance curve at low frequencies. (Most cameras still perform some noise-reduction at high ISOs even with noise reduction set to "Off".) Looking at the lower-left plot showing total noise, we see that noise in the shadows (the left side of that plot) is upwards of 20x higher than it was in the ISO 100 case. This isn't at all unusual, but when combined with the elevated color-channel noise, the result is fairly obvious chroma noise in darker areas at ISO 1,600.

This chart compares the Pentax K200D's noise performance over a range of ISOs against that of other cameras. While I continue to show noise plots of this sort because readers ask for them, I each time point out that the noise magnitude is only a small part of the story, the grain pattern being much more important. Here, we can see that the Pentax K200D's luminance noise magnitude is higher than competing models across its entire ISO range. This is in part because the K200D's High ISO Noise Reduction is "Off" by default, and also because the default contrast is a little high, which emphasizes noise even at lower ISOs. This is why we ask that you do keep in mind these measurements are at default settings, so the shape or position of the curve is influenced by the settings you choose to use. In the case of the Pentax K200D, the fine grain pattern in its luminance noise makes it less objectionable than it might otherwise be.

Pentax K200D Dynamic Range Analysis

A key parameter in a digital camera is its Dynamic Range, the range of brightness that can be faithfully recorded. At the upper end of the tonal scale, dynamic range is dictated by the point at which the RGB data "saturates" at values of 255, 255, 255. At the lower end of the tonal scale, dynamic range is determined by the point at which there ceases to be any useful difference between adjacent tonal steps. Note the use of the qualifier "useful" in there: While it's tempting to evaluate dynamic range as the maximum number of tonal steps that can be discerned at all, that measure of dynamic range has very little relevance to real-world photography. What we care about as photographers is how much detail we can pull out of the shadows before image noise becomes too objectionable. This, of course, is a very subjective matter, and will vary with the application and even the subject matter in question. (Noise will be much more visible in subjects with large areas of flat tints and subtle shading than it would in subjects with strong, highly contrasting surface texture.)

What makes most sense then, is to specify useful dynamic range in terms of the point at which image noise reaches some agreed-upon threshold. To this end, Imatest computes a number of different dynamic range measurements, based on a variety of image noise thresholds. The noise thresholds are specified in terms of f-stops of equivalent luminance variation in the final image file, and dynamic range is computed for noise thresholds of 1.0 (low image quality), 0.5 (medium image quality), 0.25 (medium-high image quality) and 0.1 (high image quality). For most photographers and most applications, the noise thresholds of 0.5 and 0.25 f-stops are probably the most relevant to the production of acceptable-quality finished images, but many noise-sensitive shooters will insist on the 0.1 f-stop limit for their most critical work.

The image below shows the test results from Imatest for an in-camera JPEG file from the Pentax K200D with a nominally-exposed density step target (Stouffer 4110), and the K200D's contrast and D-Range settings at their default positions.

Straight from the camera, the K200D's JPEG images have a smaller than average dynamic range if you limit yourself to the very best quality criteria, a maximum noise level of 0.1 EV. This is likely caused in part by the K200D's higher noise level, which makes it harder to achieve the 0.1 EV noise threshold. Dropping down to the 0.25 EV noise threshold greatly improves results, though, bringing its performance more on par with the general run of DSLRs we've tested.

More significant than the absolute dynamic range is the shape of the density response curve, and how smoothly it transitions from highlight to midtone to shadow. The K200D has a nice gradual curve at the highlight end, meaning it maintains relatively good gradation in highlight areas. At the left (shadow) end of the curve though, its more linear response means the shadows are more likely to become quantized and blocky-looking as you try to bring detail up out of them.

That's the story with JPEG files created in the camera, how about in an external RAW converter, such as Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)?

Processing the Pentax K200D's RAW (.DNG) files through Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) version 4.4.1 increased dynamic range by more than a full stop at the highest quality level, compared to the in-camera JPEG. These results were obtained by using ACR's automatic settings; slightly better results may be possible by adjusting the sliders manually. It's also worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat (see the plot in the lower left-hand corner) relative to the levels in the in-camera JPEG. ACR also shifted slightly more of the noise energy into high spatial frequencies, making its residual noise even less objectionable than that found in the camera JPEGs.

The data above further underscores that the Pentax K200D is a camera that can reward the RAW shooter (particularly one equipped with good third-party noise-reduction software) with excellent image quality, well beyond what's visible in its JPEG images.

Dynamic Range, the bottom line:

The net result was that the K200D performed slightly below average for JPEG images straight from the camera compared to current DSLRs with APS-C size sensors, but performed much better than average from DNG files processed through ACR.

To get some perspective, here's a summary of the Pentax K200D's dynamic range performance, and how it compares to other digital SLRs that we also have Imatest dynamic range data for. (Results are arranged in order of decreasing dynamic range at the "High" quality level.):

The results shown in the table are interesting. One of the first things that struck me when I initially looked at test data for a wide range of DSLRs, was that here again, purely analytical measurements don't necessarily correlate all that well with actual photographic experience. There's no question that the Fuji S3 Pro deserved its place atop the list, as its unique "SR" technology did indeed deliver a very obvious improvement in tonal range in the highlight portion of the tonal scale relative to competing models of its day. (Amazing that it's now surpassed by even consumer-level models using today's technology.) I was also surprised to see the analytical results place the original Olympus E-300 as highly as they did, given that our sense of that camera's images was that they were in fact noisier than those of many other DSLRs that we looked at. In the other direction, I was quite surprised to see the Nikon D2x place as low on the listings as it did, given that we found that camera's shadow detail to be little short of amazing.

One thing that's going on here though, is that we tested each camera at its base ISO setting, which should produce best-case noise levels. This is in fact what many photographers will be most interested in, but it does perhaps place some of the Nikons (like the D40) at a disadvantage, as their lowest ISO setting is 200, as compared to the ISO 100 settings available on most other models.

Pentax K200D Resolution Chart Test Results

The chart above shows consolidated results from spatial frequency response measurements in both the horizontal and vertical axes. The "MTF 50" numbers tend to correlate best with visual perceptions of sharpness, so those are what I focus on here. The uncorrected resolution figures are 1,672 line widths per picture height in the horizontal direction (corresponding to the vertically-oriented edge), and 1,968 lines along the vertical axis (corresponding to the horizontally-oriented edge), for a combined average of 1,790 LW/PH, a little low for a 10-megapixel camera. However, correcting to a "standardized" sharpening with a one-pixel radius increased both vertical and horizontal resolution by quite a bit, resulting in an average of 2,583 LW/PH, which is excellent for 10 megapixels.

To see what's going on, refer to the plots below, which show the actual edge profiles for both horizontal and vertical edges, in both their original and corrected forms. Here, you can see that somewhat conservative in-camera sharpening is applied in the horizontal direction (undersharpened by 12.9%) . Slightly more in-camera sharpening is applied in the vertical direction, but it's still undersharpened (by 9.92%). Images from the Pentax K200D taken with low in-camera sharpening respond well to sharpening performed after the fact in Photoshop or other image-processing application. (Although we're a little puzzled by our own Far-Field test shot, which looked a little oversharpened in the JPEG file, despite having been shot with the default sharpening settings.)