>From 6 megapixels to 10 megapixels is a 66% increase in resolution. That >has to make a difference. And >it does.
Especially when making large prints where no interpolation is required. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: K10D image quality >I was never of that opinion. From 6 megapixels to 10 megapixels is a 66% >increase in resolution. That has to make a difference. And it does. > Paul > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Funny, a year ago it seemed a number of people here were of the opinion >> that >> a 10MP wasn't that big of a jump in resolution and one would not see a >> big >> increase in picture quality. I guess that's changed now that Pentax has >> a >> higher MP camera on the market. >> >> >> Tom C. >> >> >> >> >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> >Subject: Re: K10D image quality >> >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:39:00 -0500 >> > >> >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 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
