Thanks Godfrey. I have now corrected the RAW selection (Raw/DNG by default), RAW+ by pressing the button). I also discovered that I had the contrast set to +1. This may partly have caused the burned out sky/the missing clouds.
I will never get used to having to dial in MINUS CORRECTION for back lit scenery or bright sky (quite the opposite of what I have been doing for the past 30 years. Even dispite matrix metering). So I'll be doing more test tomorrow, preferably in RAW format (now that I don't have to reset it all the time :-) Hopefully I don't have to have it repaired ( I use it every day). And I'll try to get a good price on a Extreeme Card :-) You are right on the image quality issue, of cource. However, I don't see any big difference in image quality. The bigest diffences would probably be: 1. SR prevents a great deal of unusable shots, especially in low ligh, resulting in: Less motion blurr or less noise. 2. Better cropability: 10 Mp often means, that after cropping I still have sufficent resolution, often I still have 6 Mp left. 3. Faster speeds (write speed and FPS) means that I get shots with the K10D, that I would have missed, with the D. All very important issues to me, because I do a lot of reportage shots an a lot of concert shots. So, if I can get the exposure right, I'm quite pleased. I maen, how can I compare image quality to the shots I didn't get, with the D :-) I am also very pleased that the K10D is quite affardable, compared to the D (in it's time). The price of the K10D in Denmark was close one third of the D. So, the K10D will pay for it self much faster than the D did :-) Regards Jens Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 10. februar 2007 17:10 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > ... However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. > The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a > certain > point. Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write > speed. > > Where would this point be with the K10D, please? Simply put, it means the *ist D's IO transfer limit was exceeded by cards faster than a given spec (I think it was 45x but am not sure about that). Since the K10D's ability to write files to storage faster continues up to the fastest cards currently available on the market, I would say the body's IO transfer limits have yet to be reached by current card technology. The Sandisk Extreme III cards seem to be about the fastest SD cards currently available, and are available in capacities up to 2Gbyte at present. In SDHC you can get larger capacities but, as far as I'm aware, the fastest cards currently available are Sandisk Ultra II spec, or 60x. The Panasonic SDHC offerings *might* be faster, I just don't know enough about them yet. (BTW: I was poking around the Epson sight recently and discovered that the Epson P3000 and P5000 are now SDHC enabled. So I now doubt that Epson is going to produce an SDHC update for my old P2000 ... Oh well ... the price of progress. Good, fast SDHC cards and readers are still rare so it's not quite time yet to buy into 4G cards ... ) > Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. > I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc > troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack > to JPEG's > every time I trun it off (Grrr...). Do you have RAW file format output selected in the Record Menu? or are you switching to RAW capture mode by pressing the RAW button? The latter always resets on a power cycle, the former should not. > The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the > shots > quite consistantly. I have no idea why. > And I had to ficus manually on the D, because the AF is no adjusted > right. > > Here's two test shots done with a FA* 2.8 80-200mm @ F.8: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594527835191/ Hmm. It seems to me that your judgment is very subjective. The K10D did a better job of exposing for the darker foreground, the *ist D did a better job of retaining the sky values with this test. With JPEG's limited dynamic range, you don't get both. Depending upon what *you* were trying to get out of the photograph, either one could be better than the other. I set the K10D to RAW/DNG and leave it that way. I see from comparing many many DS and K10D exposures that the K10D does a better job of exposing for RAW format: I rarely have to add exposure with the compensation control, the DS nearly always needed +.3 to +.7 EV to get the best results. So I fully believe that you're seeing on the order of about a +1EV plus exposure bias with JPEGs and the K10D. However, this doesn't say anything about image quality. It simply says that you need to recalibrate your exposure settings for the new body. Once you have achieved proper exposure with both cameras, then you can evaluate how the image quality compares. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
