Immediate thing that comes to mind here is that the K10D shot has waaay too much contrast and the mid range in addition to the shadow areas are dissapearing into blackness. I think you have also gone too far (on my monitor) away from the red cast and the K10D shot now has a greenish cast.
I have to say that I would be seriously unhappy with the K10 shot here - unless processing is the cause... Rob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 November 2006 23:50 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
