I've only got the DL and K10D I noticed the red cast before and just adjusted levels to correct it in photoshop. It doesn't seem too bad until compared directly with the K10D. There is certainly better quality straight out of the camera with the K10D and I will probably spend a lot less time in Photoshop as a result, which is great. Having said that, I was always happy enough with the DL's image quality.
Quoting Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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
