Hi Tim,
In the case of the *ist D, it was a concious decision by Pentax, to
'undersharpen'. I think it was the wrong one as far as .jpgs are concerned,
because I feel safe in saying that most people that shoot .jpgs are not
planning on doing a lot of post-processing anyway. It would probably have
been better to make the out of camera .jpgs as sharp as the competitors,
unless there was something to conceal (like noise maybe - I don't know).
In the case of the new camera (note - I readily admit we do not have
definitive examples, tests, samples of images from a production body), it
*may* be a case of the sensor is what the sensor is - the noise is what the
noise is. I find this translated quote troublesome:
"Also, they do not reduce high ISO noise too much. For, excessive noise
reduction would lead to loss of sharpness, which would make nonsense of 10MP
as a result. Instead, they pursue increasing of IQ as a whole, without being
stuck in the noise issue. If shoot in RAW, the users can remove noise with
PHOTO Laboratory 3.1. This way they have given priority to retaining the
beauty of original data rather than reducing noise in the camera."
So beauty of original data = noise.
BTW, all those using PHOTO Laboratory on a regular basis, last week, last
month, last year... raise your little hands. :-)
That sounds like an awlful lot of double talk if you ask me. Excessive
noise IMO, IS a loss of image quality, IS a loss of image detail, IS a loss
of overall rendered resolution.
It all remains to be seen what the results are, but I can't help but feel
these statements smack of backpedaling and excuse making.
Likely though, for most of Pentax's customers, printing 4 x 6 or
photosharing, the difference will not be noticed.
Tom C.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Tim Øsleby <[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 20:05:08 +0100
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-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom
C
Sent: 30. oktober 2006 19:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: K10D aimed as D200 killer
To tell the truth it sounds as if they're moving in the wrong direction for
me. While noise is not really a concern for many types of daylight shooting
or when the camera is on a tripod, hence a lower ISO can be used, it is a
significant factor in night photography.
If noise is worse than the *ist D, at any ISO, it's likely not the camera
for me, as more and more I'm going to be doing night/astrophotography.
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.
It appears Canon may have the edge in this area. Though I must admit when
shooting RAW, almost all noise reduction is done post-processing except for
in-camera dark frame subtraction.
Tom C.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]>
To: "'Pentax discussion forum'" <[email protected]>
Subject: K10D aimed as D200 killer
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:00 +0100
More food for speculative minds:
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
Basically the translation, by Susumo a Japanese(?), says that K10D trimmed
as a high IQ camera. The IQ philosophy has been to prioritise sharpness and
resolution. The downside is that images will need post processing. Another
downside is noise at high ISO. Noise from high ISO is also a post processing
matter.
In short (and a bit tabloid). K10D is intended as a low cost pro level
camera, a direct D200 competitor, not a A100, D80 or 400D competitor.
The original interview is here
http://plusd.itmedia.co.jp/lifestyle/articles/0610/30/news079.html
Interesting. Maybe some who actually reads Japanese can have a look.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
--
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
