but you wont get the full 66 percent increase in resolution unless you had an **infinately** sharp lens. The actual increase is less, and signifigantly less with average or mediocre lenses...This is not taking IS into account of course. IS is a seperate issue unrelated to sensor resolution... jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:03 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 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
