[jsherman999]

Let's just say I have my doubts the Q can do that.

Ben Kanarek has been on the cover of Vogue and other fashion magazines with the K10D.

'Q' will get you on... picasaweb. (to be fair, that's the level 75% of DSLR shooters shoot for anyway, but I'm just sayin'... comparing 'Q' or any small-sensored camera to a DSLR only works in very limited, controlled shooting situations.)


.

[Art Vandelay II]

Ben Kanarek has been on the cover of Vogue and other fashion magazines with the K10D.

Ben rarely ever uses over ISO400, as is the case with most every studio photographer. If there's one area of photography where high ISO ability doesn't matter it's for studio use. The whole purpose of shooting in a studio is so you can control the light...so there for you're almost always shooting in good light. Until recently most medium format backs didn't even go above ISO400.

[Blue]

At this age, I am not so sure what to take seriously anymore.

Heck, I'll take a Porsche with a lawn mower engine so I can drive it to the bus station everyday.

I agree. But on the way to the bus stop, I would hate to run into a cute blonde in a Mazda Miata with the top down and not be able to catch up to her.

[jsherman999]

Not an amazing shot, but here's another K10D shot in low light (f/2 ISO 800 1/60):



It's taken with the Jupiter-9 - that's the reason for the softness, in case anyone is wondering.

.


Below is K-M (same sensor as K10D, think I paid $385 for mine)

It's a genius-level choice!

[Blue]

Ben Kanarek has been on the cover of Vogue and other fashion magazines with the K10D.

'Q' will get you on... picasaweb. (to be fair, that's the level 75% of DSLR shooters shoot for anyway, but I'm just sayin'... comparing 'Q' or any small-sensored camera to a DSLR only works in very limited, controlled shooting situations.)


.

I think people should go over to PPG and take a look at some of the images from the k10d and *istD before bashing them to pieces in favor of the Q. There are quite a few taken with those in the Premier Collection as well. For that matter, even the K200d should be looked at. The Q maybe end up being a very good camera, possibly the best in its sensor class, but the hype is built up so high that it will likely be a let down for quite a few people expecting to be at the K20d level with an interchangeable lens compact.

[eddie1960]

I think people should go over to PPG and take a look at some of the images from the k10d and *istD before bashing them to pieces in favor of the Q. There are quite a few taken with those in the Premier Collection as well. For that matter, even the K200d should be looked at. The Q maybe end up being a very good camera, possibly the best in its sensor class, but the hype is built up so high that it will likely be a let down for quite a few people expecting to be at the K20d level with an interchangeable lens compact.

I still think my K10D at 100 iso outperforms my K7, but at other isos it equalizes and above 400 or so the k7 is better. I still like the look from the CCD better than the CMOS though, but then i don't have a K5 (yet)
The Q seems more than adequate for what is intended for but i'm looking forward to seeing the Raw images and some proper test results

[jsherman999]

Ben rarely ever uses over ISO400, as is the case with most every studio photographer. If there's one area of photography where high ISO ability doesn't matter it's for studio use. The whole purpose of shooting in a studio is so you can control the light...so there for you're almost always shooting in good light. Until recently most medium format backs didn't even go above ISO400.

Granted, but the assertion was that anything over ISO 100, 'the Q wins.' based on viewing a few high-EV, downsized Q jpegs that likely had NR applied.

My point was that the flexibility and power of the system is enough to get you your low-light family snaps, all the way up to the cover of Vogue. Try to imagine a Vogue shoot done with 'Q'. Part of the reason we buy DSLRs in the first place is to remove as many functional limits as we can afford.

Further point: comparing 'Q' to a DSLR system like the K10D only works if you limit the use case to favor... really, any camera, any quality P&S.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 07-20-2011 at 12:55 PM.

[Christine Tham]

The problem I always had with my K10D was not high ISO in good light (most any DSLR can do that), but it was high ISO in low light (when you really need high ISO). It just produced horrible vertical color banding. The Q looks splotchy and soft at ISO800 in low light, but I can live with that. Noise reduction software is pretty good about dealing with that sort of thing, but I had a few images with my K10d totally ruined by vertical noise stripes running down the entire image in the shadow areas.

My K10D never produced that even at ISO1600, so maybe there was a problem with your unit?

Since this thread has "evolved" to people showing off pictures taken on the K10D, here's a few of mine taken at ISO800 in low light:


This is a handheld photo:


This one is not in dark conditions, but still low light:


The K10D can produce good results at ISO800 - even ISO1600. Any camera can, even an iPhone. It all depends on the photographer.

That's the point that some on this forum seem to be missing.

All I was saying was that based on the sample photos, the image quality of the Q seem perfectly acceptable and the out of box JPEGs appear to be roughly comparable to the K10D, with the high ISO pictures showing a distinctive advantage. Nothing dramatic there - sensor technology has improved over the years and I would expect nothing less.

Of course, the real test is when I actually take real photos on a real Q rather than looking at sample images. But bear in mind, image quality is not my concern - I am not expecting the Q to produce images rivalling those from the K-5 - but I do have hopes that the prime lens will produce better images than the zoom lenses found in typical compacts.

[Christine Tham]

Some more shots taken by K10D at ISO800 (both handheld).





I would expect the Q to excel at these kind of shots - night time street shooting, stage performances and concerts where carrying a DSLR is impractical and shallow DOF is not a requirement.

[Art Vandelay II]

My K10D never produced that even at ISO1600, so maybe there was a problem with your unit?

It's conceivable I suppose, but here's an old thread on DPR about the subject (so I know I wasn't alone on this issue):
K10D noise/bands/stripes [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I didn't save any bad pics from that time period with it, but mine produced results like this anytime I attempted to go above ISO800. I eventually moved onto a D200, which was also quite noisy, but a more manageable noise at least. After that I got an E-P1, a Canon 50D, Canon G10, a NEX-3, a K-7, then a Panasonic G1 (I think its safe to say I can't find a camera I like) and I haven't had an issue with noise on any of them aside from the G10. So it is possible that I just had a really bad K10D. Even my K100D was much better than my K10D when it came to noise.

[jackseh]

I agree. But on the way to the bus stop, I would hate to run into a cute blonde in a Mazda Miata with the top down and not be able to catch up to her.

Well, sir. You can try to ask her for a ride when you both arrive at a stop sign.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I forgot that I even had a 100% crop showing K10D noise at ISO 1600:



This is from the corner of a portrait shot. I don't find it bad and this noise would not show in a print.

All I was saying was that based on the sample photos, the image quality of the Q seem perfectly acceptable and the out of box JPEGs appear to be roughly comparable to the K10D, with the high ISO pictures showing a distinctive advantage.

You actually said:

I still have my K10D and I disagree with you. At ISO100, the K10D has fantastic image quality - anything above ISO100 the Q wins.

That was an over the top statement. It's not even about high ISO - it states that the Q wins at ISO 200.

[fikkser]

The noise in the k10 is too bad. It was like night and day when I got my k20. In low light at iso 1600 the k10 lost too much color, detail and got ugly noise patterns. A low light shot with the k10 at 1600 was probably not much better than k20 at iso 6400.

Iso 800, f2 1/60 isn't very low light. On a consert it's more likely you need iso 1600 f1,4 1/60. Then you won't get a good shot with the k10.

I think the Q looks much better than k10 from the samples, just because the lack of color noise and it seems to keep the colors pretty good. If it's blurry because of noise reduction, no problem. It looks better then my LX3, it starts losing color at iso 400.

[Christine Tham]

That was an over the top statement. It's not even about high ISO - it states that the Q wins at ISO 200.

And I stand behind that statement. Having taken over 40,000 shots on the K10D (and all of them available on Lightroom), I like to think I know it well. The K10D loses a lot even moving from ISO100 to ISO200, which is why I specifically said ISO200 in my statement.

I am comparing out of the camera JPEG images, and the K10D has a fairly soft JPEG engine, so the comparison is quite possibly tilted towards the Q. And I seem to recall the Q doesn't have an anti alias filter, so another tilt.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The sample images certainly suggest the Q has a more than acceptable base ISO, and quite good high ISO. At what point the Q starts beating the K10D is a moot point - I'm suggesting ISO200 because I know the K10D is significantly worse than the Q at ISO400.

[TOUGEFC]

The only point that the Q will beat the K10D in is size, full stop.

Why are we even comparing apple's and orange's?