Funny, a year ago it seemed a number of people here were of the opinion that a 10MP wasn't that big of a jump in resolution and one would not see a big increase in picture quality. I guess that's changed now that Pentax has a higher MP camera on the market.
Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: K10D image quality >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:39:00 -0500 > >I won't scrap my D. It's a good backup, and it's three years old. I >expect the K10 will have at least as long a life. It will hopefully >be the backup to a K1. I used to spend around $2000 a year on film, >so it's working for me. >Paul >On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:26 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > Make you wanna scrap your 6Mp cameras doesn't it? > > I mean, why would you use them anymore? > > Be honest, I wouldn't if what your'e saying is > > correct and I have no reason to believe it > > isn't. I said this before, at this stage, > > DSLRS are still short term, almost disposable, > > cameras as the newer ones keep getting > > signifigantly better and better...Totally > > unlike film cameras where all you have to > > do is install the latest technology films. > > That doesnt mean they are not good values, > > they certainly are, its just I would never > > expect to keep using the same one long term, > > like 5 yrs or more until they reach the point > > of recording everything the lens renders, and > > they haven't yet ( Maybe Canon's 16MP FF > > is the sole exception to this rule, but maybe not ). > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of > > Paul Stenquist > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:59 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: K10D image quality > > > > > > I would say the difference is dramatic in terms of sharpness and > > detail rendering. But my D cameras were both very good. Excellent > > color and relatively good exposure control. But the K10 is > > considerably better in almost every respect and probably equal in > > noise. > > Paul On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:40 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > > > >> Hi Paul > >> you are fast and helpful and a valuable source of information for > >> me with > >> your answers, thanks! > >> > >> But, did you ever notice such **drastic** difference between your D > >> and K10D > >> as James did with the DL? > >> It does not sound that dramatic from your report.... > >> greetings > >> Markus > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Behalf Of > >> Paul Stenquist > >> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:20 AM > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: K10D image quality > >> > >> > >> I've shot 16,000 images with a D body and about 600 with a K10. I > >> shoot RAW only with both. I've found that my K10 images are closer to > >> correct when I first open them in the converter. I don't know what > >> that means when one is shooting RAW, but I'm certainly pleased. In > >> regard to sharpness and definition, there is no comparison. The K10D > >> images are far superior. In regard to noise, I believe it's about a > >> tossup. I know this goes against prevailing wisdom, but the 1600 > >> images I've shot with the K10 look quite good. I rarely shoot that > >> high an IS) with the D, so it's tough to compare. But these seem > >> better or at least "as good." I might also add that the K10D tends to > >> deliver a bit more exposure at the same setting as I used on the D. > >> That could explain the relatively low perceived noise. > >> Paul > >> On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > >> > >>> Hi James > >>> > >>> I would be interested to see a comparison among all of the digital > >>> Pentax > >>> bodies with the same lens. > >>> Could you possible have got a bad sample of the DL or can anybody > >>> confirm > >>> the red cast and other things mentioned? > >>> Is there indeed a different amount of "photoshopping" required with > >>> the > >>> D/DS/DL/K family? > >>> Since I soon will buy my first digital body.... > >>> > >>> greetings > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Behalf Of > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:50 AM > >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> Subject: Re: K10D image quality > >>> > >>> > >>> Here's the link to the comparison shots...as I said, they're tiny > >>> but the > >>> difference is > >>> very noticeable. Both were iso200 with auto whitebalance in > >>> aperture > >>> priority with > >>> the lens stopped right down. > >>> > >>> http://tinyurl.com/y5mqe4 > >>> > >>> Another interesting thing is that these files have been resized to > >>> exactly > >>> the same > >>> number of pixels, however the K10D file is about 25% larger. > >>> Clearly the > >>> K10D > >>> captures and retains more data. > >>> > >>> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >>> > >>>> There may be wailing and gnashing of teeth over on DPReview about > >>>> perceived problems > >>>> with the K10D, but my initial impressions with my new K10D are that > >>>> this camera delivers > >>>> astonishing image quality! Images are much sharper right out of > >>>> the > >>>> camera (even with > >>>> the same lens) than my istDL. The colour balance and rendition are > >>>> vastly superior to > >>>> the istDL and the tonal gradations and shadow detail (in fact > >>>> dynamic > >>>> range in general) > >>>> are also vastly superior to the DL. > >>>> > >>>> Every shot from the DL had to be quite drastically tweaked in > >>>> levels > >>>> to get rid of the red > >>>> cast in every shot. Levels, curves, selective colour and slight > >>>> selective saturation > >>>> adjustments are part of my regular workflow for images from the DL. > >>>> > >>>> Last night, I found that a very quick and subtle tweak of levels > >>>> and > >>>> curves were all I > >>>> needed to get more than satisfactory results from my K10D files. > >>>> > >>>> They really do POP! I also did an experiment with the same lens, > >>>> same settings on the > >>>> tripod, etc between the two cameras. I shot RAW and converted to > >>>> JPEG with no > >>>> adjustments whatsoever. Unfortunately, I resized them a little too > >>>> small, so I'll redo it > >>>> with larger files, but the difference between the two was > >>>> staggering. > >>>> > >>>> In isolation the istDL shot looks okay. When compared to the K10D > >>>> shot, the istDL shot > >>>> is unacceptably soft, muddy, underexposed and red. The difference > >>>> really did blow me > >>>> away. > >>>> > >>>> Long story short...even though I had built the K10D up a huge > >>>> amount, > >>>> it has certainly > >>>> met my expectations. > >>>> > >>>> The only issue I've had is the shake reduction appears to be a > >>>> little > >>>> intermittant. > >>>> Sometimes it works (you can hear it during exposure) and > >>>> sometimes it > >>>> doesn't. > >>>> > >>>> Cheeers > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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
