[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > First the obvious; we haven't seen the performance of the camera yet. > > What you call tradeoffs some would call compromises. > > Nikon accepted banding problems (in D200), they solved the problem in > firmware. Canon went full frame (with it's limitations). Pentax compromise > is to leave the decision to us, the users, to decide what compromises we > want to make, Sharpness/resolution vs. noise. > Since they are pushing in-camera processing to get decent JPGs out, I hope that they are also providing an option to turn high ISO noise reduction on/off. That way you can have it both ways.
> The difference is that they are honest about their compromises. I can't see > anything wrong about that. > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom > C > Sent: 30. oktober 2006 23:01 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: K10D aimed as D200 killer > > I agree with that in principle, but the issue here as I read it, is one of > the sensor making this an issue because of high noise levels that were not a > > concern in the 6MP models. > > In other words, I expected that image qualiy would get better in the new > body across the board, not that their would be tradeoffs. > > It seems Canon at least (don't know about Nikon) has been able to > continually increase sensor resolution while continuing to keep noise to a > low level. > > > Tom C. > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: K10D aimed as D200 killer > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:31:02 -0500 > > The issue here is whether or not the camera should do any non-reversable > processing such as sharpening or noise reduction. Nikon has decided to > make it configurable on the D80, and set the defaults to what's > appropriate for P&S use, while Pentax has chosen to make its defaults > more appropriate for post-processing. > > I prefer Pentax's approach. It gives me more control over rendering, and > does not reduce the level of information in the image (which noise > reduction does). > > -Adam > > > Tom C wrote: > > In my mind it's difficult to understand the difference between > > sharpness/unsharpness/detail and noise. It seems to me that an image > > considered to be sharp, yet with a lot of noise, is in reality not sharp > > and/or contains less detail because the noise is itself replacing detail > > that would otherwise be there. > > > > Noisy picture = Yucky picture. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: K10D aimed as D200 killer > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:09:23 -0800 > > > > My comment at end. (Caution: Some of you wll hate it. You may not want > > to read it.) > > > > ----- > > > > Remember the reviews of the *istD? It got beaten up because Pentax > > decided to make soft pictures strait out of the box. I was not part of > > the list then, but I imagine many talking about this being better > > because it left the decision to the photographer. > > > > As I understand it, it's the same with noise vs. details. > > > > > > Tim > > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > In addition, requiring the the user to do even more in post-processing > > to try to correct for what could be viewed as a camera short-coming, > > strikes me as a cop out. I already don't use the *ist D for anything > > serious over ISO 800. I don't want additional post-processing work, > > that may or may not correct the situation on an image-by-image basis. > > > > Tom C. > > > > ----- > > At dpreview I just found a translation of a interview with Hisashi > > Tatamiya, who has been leading the K10D project. > > > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=20671456 > > > > ----- > > > > I believe Pentax made the right decision in regard to high ISO noise. > > Image sharpness is retained, if you can figure out a way to reduce noise > > in PP without softening the image. But Nikon may have been smarter > > marketing-wise. > > > > Pentax would have been criticized whichever way they went. Popular > > Photography's review of the D80 praised it for low noise at high ISO, > > completely forgetting to mention that the D80 achieves this at the cost > > of soft images. When Pop reviews the K10D, they will complain that it > > compares poorly to the D80 in high ISO noise. And readers who don't know > > any better will believe that that is the final word. > > > > Reading between the lines of the summary of the interview, Mr. Tatamiya > > is (it seems to me) saying two things: (1) there will be noise at high > > ISO and you may not like it, and (2) its your problem. None of this is a > > surprise. The sensor is known to be noisy at high ISO, and I suspected > > that Pentax would choose a middle course between Nikon and Sony. I just > > hope that images will be useable at ISO 800. If they are, I'll be > > satisfied. But I am not expecting this. > > > > Herb Chong contacted me off-list, and suggested something I had not > > heard before. According to Herb, the rule of thumb for good image > > quality is two steps above the base ISO. This matches my experience with > > the D, which is fine at 800, but (to my eye) not at 1600. If this rule > > of thumb holds for the 10 mp sensor, then ISO 400 will be the point > > above which we can expect image quality to decline noticeably due to > noise. > > > > (Actually, the paragraph above assumes that all else is equal--like > > pixel density. Since the K10D has a higher pixel density, one may expect > > the loss of an additional step due to inherently higher noise. Combining > > (1) lower base ISO, and (2) smaller pixel size, the K10D could > > conceiveably yield noticeable degradation in image quality above ISO > > 200. But Nikon seems to get good image quality without softening at ISO > > 400, so I believe we will too.) > > > > Joe > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
