Imaging Resources K10D review

[*isteve]

A fair review IMO. Kind of sums up how I feel about it. Not a camera for auto-freaks but a serious photographers tool. Found some new minor issues we all missed. Expect some "random pixel" posts in DPreview now its been pointed out


Pentax K10D Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

[dmdctusa]

Thanks for the post and link isteve!

Now I know to thank Mr. Hisashi Tatamiya at Pentax for giving me the DSLR I had been waitng for. Until the K10D not even the top of the line Canon or Nikon DSLR had tempted me to give up film. Now after a month with the K10D I am absolutely certain my choice was corrrect.

I can't agree with the reviewer that the white balnce is a big issue since I shoot raw. For the few times I wanted a JPEG, it was easy and quick enough to set a manual white balance to meet my needs.

By the way the trick of the coffee filter over the lens does work for setting white balance.

David

Overall, I thought the comments quite favorable and in line with the review in the March issue of Digital Camera World.

[Dr_Watso]

I really like that reviewer's style... That was an extremely informative, and I thought very fair review.

[matix]

Originally Posted by Dr_Watso

I really like that reviewer's style... That was an extremely informative, and I thought very fair review.

I agree, this review is in my opinion accurate. Having used the K10D since early December, this review touches on both my likes and the few dislikes, most of which I have learned to live with or accomodate with a change of technique.

I agree that you do need an external flash, one of my major gripes was the onboard flash and the back light issue, but with the ability to tie the Metering zone to the flash, and the fine AF-360FGZ I have that resolved.

Phil

[jeffkrol]

Originally Posted by *isteve

A fair review IMO. Kind of sums up how I feel about it. Not a camera for auto-freaks but a serious photographers tool. Found some new minor issues we all missed. Expect some "random pixel" posts in DPreview now its been pointed out


Pentax K10D Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

Actually I find their findings quite odd because of this. W/ all the banding and pixel peeping, nobody else has seemed to notice it. I even took some long hard 600x looks at some of Phils jpg's to see the edge sharpness of them and never saw anything amiss..... Seems to be a "phantom issue" as well...

[mutley]

Originally Posted by jeffkrol

Actually I find their findings quite odd because of this. W/ all the banding and pixel peeping, nobody else has seemed to notice it... Seems to be a "phantom issue" as well...

The "as well" part is another ridiculous statement. People post what they experience. Many with well exposed high ISO photos have had problems with VPN ruining usability of photos. There are a lot more intelligent ways to acknowledge something that actually bothers some and not others. Using the word "phantom" just annoys people.

This stray pixel problem has not been complained about because it may not have been seen. I haven't been drawn to anything like that in my photos like I have with VPN, and have never even seen a post on it. Even if I do have it, it's not bringing my eye to it, so I'm not affected, though if fixable in firmware by simply designing a better mapping algorithm, then why not?

It is interesting that the "strange" tone curve in the K10D jpegs blocks up shadows in the K10D, where the D80 just doesn't have this problem. Also how does Nikon jpg's get 1700 lines resolution going to "extinction" well beyond 2000 lines AND have all that noise reduction (with a choice of level) - while the K10D gets between 1600-1700, and goes to "extinction AT 2000 lines, but Pentax chooses NOT too use much noise reduction (and NO choice of level) resulting in more chroma noise. Wouldn't that get the K10D more detail in the jpegs rather than less?

[nosnoop]

Originally Posted by mutley

The "as well" part is another ridiculous statement.

If this is how you feel, I would feel the same way towards your statement:

Many with well exposed high ISO photos have had problems with VPN ruining usability of photos.

As you said, people post their experience; that includes people, like myself, who DO NOT experience VPN issue! So for us, VPN is a "phantom" issue; using the same term as described in the review article.

Using the word "phantom" just annoys people.

Why? Because we don't share your experience?

[mutley]

Using the word "phantom" just annoys people.

Originally Posted by nosnoop

Why? Because we don't share your experience?

No, because as long as some do experience problems with it, it is not non-existant or "phantom".

Fortunately, someone on another forum knows engineers within Pentax and has just posted that they have told him they are taking it seriously and working on it. This is a good step. I'm glad you have a high enough acceptance level to not be affected by it, but its good to know Pentax doesn't see it as a "phantom", mythical problem even if not stated officially.

[*isteve]

Originally Posted by mutley

It is interesting that the "strange" tone curve in the K10D jpegs blocks up shadows in the K10D, where the D80 just doesn't have this problem. Also how does Nikon jpg's get 1700 lines resolution going to "extinction" well beyond 2000 lines AND have all that noise reduction (with a choice of level) - while the K10D gets between 1600-1700, and goes to "extinction AT 2000 lines, but Pentax chooses NOT too use much noise reduction (and NO choice of level) resulting in more chroma noise. Wouldn't that get the K10D more detail in the jpegs rather than less?

Why are you so obsessed with numbers. They dont tell you anything about aesthetics. I compared quite a few shots from the D80 and K10D and the colour rendition on the K10D was far more subtle and had more nuanced shades. You cant measure that*. On the other hand they possibly made some compromises which resulted in other areas being less ideal. Its more about what you think is important, but the K10D has a setting for just about any kind of output if you know how to use it.

Actually you can measure it*, Richard Day compared some online samples from the D80, K10D and other cameras and the K10D used far more RGB values to record the same scene than any other camera. So, its not measured in Phils tests or anyone elses so noone notices except the folk who go "wow these pics look amazing in print especially if you use an expanded gamut". These folk sadly do not include Phil Askey or most other reviewers but did include Ben and M Reichman (which might tell you something).

In this test, looking at the actual charts, the K10D came a lot closer to matching the D80 resolution (in JPEG) than it did in Phils tests, which I also find interesting. This is at ISO100 so how the NR in the D80 at ISO1600 is supposed to apply I dont know. We already know that the RAW resolution is as good or better.

I despair that you will ever find something to like about your K10D. I cant remember a post from you praising any particular aspect of it without condemning something else. Most of us are fully aware of the issues and work around them. At the same time we get a bunch of features and a look that no other camera can replicate. Thats good enough for me, but then I only really care what prints look like and that has very little to do with its on-screen performance.

I have come across several issues which never get mentioned because noone seems to be bothered about having rational discussions and they are not serious enough to worry about, but I passed them on to Pentax so they can think about them for future cameras. That seems like the obvious way forward and does not cost Pentax any sales when such faults are taken out of context.

If the D80 is so much better, then for heavens sake get one. Your constant negativity is really getting annoying.

[jeffkrol]

Originally Posted by mutley

The "as well" part is another ridiculous statement. People post what they experience. Many with well exposed high ISO photos have had problems with VPN ruining usability of photos. There are a lot more intelligent ways to acknowledge something that actually bothers some and not others. Using the word "phantom" just annoys people.

This stray pixel problem has not been complained about because it may not have been seen. I haven't been drawn to anything like that in my photos like I have with VPN, and have never even seen a post on it. Even if I do have it, it's not bringing my eye to it, so I'm not affected, though if fixable in firmware by simply designing a better mapping algorithm, then why not?

It is interesting that the "strange" tone curve in the K10D jpegs blocks up shadows in the K10D, where the D80 just doesn't have this problem. Also how does Nikon jpg's get 1700 lines resolution going to "extinction" well beyond 2000 lines AND have all that noise reduction (with a choice of level) - while the K10D gets between 1600-1700, and goes to "extinction AT 2000 lines, but Pentax chooses NOT too use much noise reduction (and NO choice of level) resulting in more chroma noise. Wouldn't that get the K10D more detail in the jpegs rather than less?

My are we touchy today. Actually the "phantom" part was just directed at the fact that, till this review, nobody in 3 forums and months had reported seeing "the phantom pixels". Not a comment on their reality (which really wasn't a question) nor related to any other issues.
The statement had nothing to do w/ VPN, JPG, or M metering anomolies.
As to the definition: Pick the larger text.....
phan·tom also fan·tom (făn'təm) pronunciation
n.

1.
a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.
b. Something elusive or delusive.
2. An image that appears only in the mind; an illusion.
3. Something dreaded or despised.
adj.

1. Resembling, characteristic of, or being a phantom; illusive.
2. Fictitious; nonexistent: phantom employees on the payroll.