K20D vs. K7 in High-ISO RAW Noise

Greg Lovern wrote:

It looks like Santa may bring a used K20D or K7 this year. I'm still using my *ist D.

I recall much discussion, disagreement, and angst about whether the K7 was noisier than the K20D at high ISO, even in RAW. What's the truth?

I'm sure that measurements show the K-7 to be slightly noisier (see Gordon's post, for example) but I've found the two to be indistinguishable in real life. This is possibly because the K-7 meters a bit better, so exposure can be reliably a bit brighter - it is, of course, the dark areas that show noise.

There's the matter of sample variation and improvements through a product life cycle; but here's what the noise looks like on my K-7

compared to my K20

I think the best answer to your basic question is that noise isn't really the defining difference between the two cameras.

What I find much more significant is the ergonomics of the K-7, which seem more logical (although there isn't a vast amount of difference) and, especially, the rear LCD. 3" compared to 2.7" might not sound a lot but factor in the extra resolution (920k v 230k) and it's quite noticable in use. It makes focusing in LV a really useful tool rather than something that is just OK.

K-7 (taken with the K20)

K20 (taken with the K-7)

Both are at 8X magnification, which is where the K20 stops: the K-7 goes on to 10X. Here's the actual shot (taken with the K20)