1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

K10D - What you wanted?

Discussion in 'Pentax Chat' started by Damien_Demolder, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    I am amazed that you have found problems with exposure on the K10D samples you tried. I have had mine for a few weeks and spent last week in Yorkshire photographing my daughter's wedding and shots of the surrounding beauty spots et all. I have not had a single bad exposure. All spot on. Were you shooting RAW? Did you check to make sure someone hadn't dialled in some exposure compensation before you used it?

    Have a look at my photos on the Exhibition Lounge and the Appraisal gallery, taken in Beamish.

    My only concern is the one raised by Damien in his test. Out of focus highlights, especially small ones, turn out as soft circles on the photo and have to be clones away or have Gaussian Blur added to soften them. I am hoping Pentax will sort this out with a firmware upgrade. The build quality is excellent and the camera feels right to use. The Hyper-Program mode, which can be altered to Av or Sv at the turn of a wheel is wonderful (on my Z1-P as well).

    May I suggest you have another look before you decide.
     
  2. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    I'd hardly call the K10D an entry level camera.... Pentax have the K100D and K110D models for that.

    As far as image quality is concerned to accurately, or at least fairly, test the cameras you need to ensure that the lenses are of the same quality, ie kit lens vs kit lens or pro vs pro, that the file processing is as identical as possible with the minimum or no in camera contrast, sharpness, saturation etc adjustments applied (RAW capture is best) and that the lighting conditions of the test shots is the same.

    Even then this is no guarantee that one model is inherently 'better' than another as the post processing routine required to produce pictures for normal use may be quite different yet still lead to prints of equal quality.

    As for exposure you are aware that the D80 appears to have a reputation, on the web at least, for over exposing and blowing highlights? IIRC I have read posts on here suggesting that users are applying quite a bit of -ve compensation to avoid this.....
     
  3. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I had to do the same with my bro's D70. Simple fix, but annoying when you forget to adjust it back to normal for a quick grab shot.

    I had a play today with a K10D and a D80, and the K10D just edged the D80 in the handling/feel test. Kit lens not so nice to use though, I'd not be able to live with it I'm afraid, not my cup of tea at all...
     
  4. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Could always see if they'd do a deal on the K10D and this...
     
  5. arthurb

    arthurb Well-Known Member

    This thread is probably moribund, but I'll add my thoughts anyway.

    I have been put off the K10D a bit by its size and weight compared to the D80. But here's a thing: looking at pictures of it and the D80 side by side I notice that the although its overall height is greater, the 'side' height (from base to shoulder by the shutter button) is significantly less than the D80. This makes the K10D effectively smaller, or a least seem more manageable. I must take a trip to a dealer and handle one. I suffer from M.E. and attendent aches and pains, and size and weight are important to me; my old Minolta XD7s are perfect for me, and smaller and lighter than the K10D.

    As to desirable features:
    - a dedicated AF assist light is high on my list.
    - a dedicated button for a 'one-shot' WB setting (from a white card or whatever).

    Anybody have anything to say on these two, or the size?
     
  6. arthurb

    arthurb Well-Known Member

    In your reply to the Abstruse Academic aka Ivory Tower you said:
    I can't help but feel that Ivor-in-the-Sky is a wind-up merchant, probably committed to Nikon for some time and that his great interest in the subject of photography is levened with a deal of mischief. You are clearly right: the K10D is a genuine enthusiast/semi-pro camera. As to metering, Angela Nicholson (who seems to me the toughest and therefore best reviewer), in AP's second look at the K10D, seemed to think that it was fine, especially for RAW format, just a little under (?no bad thing?).

    However, do the shortcomings in JPEGs really cause problems, and is it actually true that Ivory needs to translate every RAW file to JPEG?
     
  7. arthurb

    arthurb Well-Known Member

    Zou - could I ask you to look at my earlier post above (about 2 back). Does the K10D actually feel smaller in the hands, and thus a bit easier to manage than the D80, and is the extra weight noticeable?
     
  8. arthurb

    arthurb Well-Known Member

    Mono - I am pleased to hear that you've had no issues with the metering, but could I ask you about the WB control; specifically its flexibility and usability? Sorry to be a bother.
     
  9. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    The answer to some extent has to be yes and no. I suspect the hard edges referred to are a firmware issue which can be (has been?) cured by a firmware update. The other 'shortcoming' of JPEG is of course the one related to the 8bits-per-channel nature of the format coupled with the lossy nature of the compression routine. Once the image has been converted to JPEG in camera, according to predetermined settings (include user adjustable ones) the amount of post capture tweaking possible is somewhat limited compared to what can be done with the full RAW file (be they 12, 14 or 22 bit) before image degradation (noise, posterisation etc) sets in. Nevertheless JPEG can be used to produce very decent images with more than enough detail even at large print sizes.

    Where I would say JPEG will struggle is in adverse lighting situations such as high contrast scenes, mixed lighting sources and flash photography where the dynamic range of the camera at capture may be exceeded. With RAW files multiple conversions can be made with exposure and WB tailored specifically for different parts of the image and blended in a photo editor such as PhotoShop. With JPEG this is difficult if not impossible due to the significant amount of data that has been discarded. I do use JPEG when I don't need best image quality or in moderate lighting where it can cope.

    Not unless he can manage a 100% strike rate in his photgraphy.... :D

    What I do with RAW files is sift through them in my RAW converter and discard the crud (ie most of them) and then only convert the rest - or more accurately export them to PS for final tweaking before saving as JPEG and printing. Some RAW converters will allow printing from RAW (Canon's DPP does) but others don't.

    In the end it's a matter of personal preference. Yes RAW does give you the ultimate in potential for the captured image but at the cost of the computer time required while JPEG is far more likely to give an 'instant result' but with less potential for polishing up. In the end you can only try both and then decide...
     
  10. johnriley1uk

    johnriley1uk Well-Known Member

    If there is a Golden Rule I think it should be never save as a JPEG (except for web of course)

    Having worked so hard on your RAW file it does seem a shame to then compress the data. I always save as a TIFF, which is lossless.
     
  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Ditto.
     
  12. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    It's just a print file, in case I need to make changes I also keep the PSD...
     
  13. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    I take everything in RAW, dump the bad and the ugly, then tweak them in CameraRAW (Photoshop) and convert them to TIF files. If the TIF needs further work, I save the TIFF first, then work on it. Finally saving the finished work to a new TIF file. I only convert to jpeg for the web, or to send to family etc who may not be able to print or store the tif, due to size limitations. I also print from the TIF file.
     
  14. johnriley1uk

    johnriley1uk Well-Known Member

    Absolutely right.
     
  15. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    3 months later... :eek:

    didn't spot this until now. I felt that the D80 was more brick like, whereas the K10D felt as if it had a better centre of gravity. To be fair the D80 had the heavier and longer 18-135 on it, but I think the Pentax is a better fit for my small hands. The D80 seems to be slightly bulkier to hold than a D70, either that or my memory is fading... ;)
     

Share This Page