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
