Agreed. My mistake. Paul On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:37 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> but you wont get the full 66 percent increase in > resolution unless you had an **infinately** sharp > lens. The actual increase is less, and signifigantly > less with average or mediocre lenses...This is not > taking IS into account of course. IS is a seperate issue > unrelated to sensor resolution... > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:03 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: K10D image quality > > > I was never of that opinion. From 6 megapixels to 10 megapixels is > a 66% > increase in resolution. That has to make a difference. And it does. > Paul > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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 > > > -- > 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
