I won't scrap my D. It's a good backup, and it's three years old. I expect the K10 will have at least as long a life. It will hopefully be the backup to a K1. I used to spend around $2000 a year on film, so it's working for me. Paul On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:26 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Make you wanna scrap your 6Mp cameras doesn't it? > I mean, why would you use them anymore? > Be honest, I wouldn't if what your'e saying is > correct and I have no reason to believe it > isn't. I said this before, at this stage, > DSLRS are still short term, almost disposable, > cameras as the newer ones keep getting > signifigantly better and better...Totally > unlike film cameras where all you have to > do is install the latest technology films. > That doesnt mean they are not good values, > they certainly are, its just I would never > expect to keep using the same one long term, > like 5 yrs or more until they reach the point > of recording everything the lens renders, and > they haven't yet ( Maybe Canon's 16MP FF > is the sole exception to this rule, but maybe not ). > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:59 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: K10D image quality > > > I would say the difference is dramatic in terms of sharpness and > detail rendering. But my D cameras were both very good. Excellent > color and relatively good exposure control. But the K10 is > considerably better in almost every respect and probably equal in > noise. > Paul On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:40 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > >> Hi Paul >> you are fast and helpful and a valuable source of information for >> me with >> your answers, thanks! >> >> But, did you ever notice such **drastic** difference between your D >> and K10D >> as James did with the DL? >> It does not sound that dramatic from your report.... >> greetings >> Markus >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of >> Paul Stenquist >> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:20 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: K10D image quality >> >> >> I've shot 16,000 images with a D body and about 600 with a K10. I >> shoot RAW only with both. I've found that my K10 images are closer to >> correct when I first open them in the converter. I don't know what >> that means when one is shooting RAW, but I'm certainly pleased. In >> regard to sharpness and definition, there is no comparison. The K10D >> images are far superior. In regard to noise, I believe it's about a >> tossup. I know this goes against prevailing wisdom, but the 1600 >> images I've shot with the K10 look quite good. I rarely shoot that >> high an IS) with the D, so it's tough to compare. But these seem >> better or at least "as good." I might also add that the K10D tends to >> deliver a bit more exposure at the same setting as I used on the D. >> That could explain the relatively low perceived noise. >> Paul >> On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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
