Yesterday I spent a couple hours comparing pictures with a friend who is a pro in picture manipulation and pre-press services, sort of a wizard with picture tweaking (and has been very critical with Pentax DLSR's quality in the past).
We compared and optimized the following pictures: K10D: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/74252-5136-16-1.html http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/74256-5136-16-2.html (one of the two, not sure which one) EOS400D/Kiss DIgital X: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/74250-5136-17-1.html Nikon D80: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/74161-5136-17-2.html Alpha100: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/74157-5136-18-1.html By direct comparison, the K10D picture wins. However, the big difference really comes when you try tweaking the images (Shadow/highlight, Noise Ninja, and the like). After proper tuning, there is a huge difference in favor of the K10D: detail, dynamic range and "presence" (not sure how to describe that perception, it's the feeling of objects being truly there, so that they look real and you can even touch them). That's sign that the image contains more info to work on. Now my friend (who always criticized Pentax DSLR's) thinks the Pentax is truly ahead of the bunch of 10MP cameras, and wants one for him too. Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:26 AM Subject: K10D image quality > 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
