[uccemebug]

Terrific photos! Planedriver (Andras)

Agreed! Great subjects, really well rendered.

[planedriver]

Andras, your shots are OUTSTANDING! Beautiful work!

Agreed! Great subjects, really well rendered.

Thank You very much..

Even with the current best p&s (and I have and still use) I have never seen an ooc jpeg that too my eye is "perfect".

I will still apply curve, saturation, etc etc adjustments to bring out the best.

Having used and seen results from Canon 40/50/7D's the K10D can produce enviable results - especially at 100iso, hence why it's still my main dslr.

The images also have a certain "look & feel" (can't quite put my finger on it) that I just can't get from other dslr even from the current Pentax models.

Hence why a lot of users have "stuck" with the K10D AND to be quite honest it also has never failed to nail focus in some of the most demanding situations.

dylansalt-I agree with every single word..using the K-x as well as P&S cameras too I'm on the same opinion as you. For me the K-x was a bit disappointing at base iso compared to the k200d.

Andras

[civiletti]

Late to the discussion...I shoot a GX-10, which is a K-10 for the most part. The JPG presets are rather mild, but can be adjusted to yield images as punchy as one can stand. As many have commented, RAW increases flexibility, especially useful with less than optimum exposures. But with careful technique and bracketing, good JPGs should be no problem.

Coming from a Pentax 6X7, I am still amazed at times what the GX-10, RAW and Lightroom can yield.

[ewig]

have you ever try filter or other accesories ...if not then perhaps you should try ,
i mean ,CPL or ND filter will be fine for the first time, it try to reduce the harsh of the Sun, ...im really satisfied with my K10D ...its a camera where you can grow up into it.... just explore the facility then you will find you way ... here some shoot with K10 D

Attached Images

   

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[paperbag846]

The JPG engine in the K10D / K20D is pretty weak compared to the options that RAW provides... but raw can add hours to your workflow!

Did you know you could edit the JPG settings? Fn button --> OK button. Switch to neutral... I would try Saturation +2, Constrast +2, Fine Sharpness 0. See if that makes your JPG's "pop" like the P&S you liked.

EDIT: The above photo of the church is amazing!

[Flowrider]

jpgs from p&s are mostly oversaturated, oversharpened and overcontrasted. add this to a large depth of field and out comes the poppy clear look the p&s are famous for...
... I have bought a dslr just because I do want to giv my fotos MY look. and as I by myself am not as clear and perfect as the p&s fotos I love the outcomes of my k20...
greetings, flo

p.-s.: it is very easy to give dslr fotos the artificial look (all but the depth of field), just tweakng a little in postprocessing.

[brecklundin]

flowrider:

you can even simulate bokeh with a layer that you blur then mask out the subject. It's a very fake look, even if you are careful, but even that can be somewhat simulated in PP. But in a way it can be fun because you get that "fake" look that is sorta fun once in a while...you know the look where everything/everyone in the shot looks plastic or fake in miniature...

I think we all still prefer to get as much right in the camera as possible then fix the stuff we screw up...hehehehe...and thank the gawds for that ability with RAW!!
--------------------------

For the rest of the thread, the ability to use presets and process things in batches/bulk really can take away a lot of the time overhead some people worry about with shooting RAW. Of course any program that can work this was is fine so one doesn't need LR. I have been slowly making presets for my K20D with different lenses mounted (no not lense profiles just comprehensive camera-lense combo's. I then tell LR to apply one of them on import. It really works nicely and for the shots on which a given preset does not work it takes a second to either tweak the settings or revert that shot to unaltered. This way the need for "hours" of post processing as someone mentioned is not needed all the time. But remember a lot of shots do not happen by accident. It takes a skill in post to really make them great. That is why people who do it for a living are worth the cost.

Luckily my needs are, generally speaking, simple in the area of PP...simple cropping and a bit of sharpening with maybe some WB stuff...might be why presets work well for me most times.

Something people are not mentioning it with RAW files, one can do non-destructive (as in not permanent) edits. As far as I know this is not possible with JPG files so you need to save a copy of the starting image before doing your edits, you know, just in case disaster strikes, something that often happens for a hack like me!!

[chhayanat]

I have to tell you that although I have a K-x, plan to buy the K5, this k200d with this sensor will never be replaced in my camera bag.
Andras

I use the K200D and Samsung GX20. I do not like to change cameras frequently as a matter of habit. I would, however, be interested to know what qualities the K200D possesses which persuade you to retain it, even though you do buy cameras more frequently than I.

If this is off-topic please reply privately.

[falconeye]

James, I don't have time to read thru this thread and I am sure you got most replies already. I only want to share a single idea with yiu:

You are a victim of unconvincing image processing done by the camera. You really should download and install the trial version of DxO. It works on your Jpgs too, improves the lens defects of your Tamron and kit lens, and by applying auto illumination, does what you expected the camera to do in the first place.

It is like a night and day difference, like you purchased a new camera. You didn't buy the wrong camera, you missed out on DxO. That's all.

Most people here on the forum use Raw converters and manual post processing. Or tweak their Jpg setting. But that's not for everybody. But it explains why only few people here on the forum mention DxO.

My wife and I purchased k10d's when they first became available a few years back. We were particularly attracted to the weather-proofing, living as we do in a wet area of the country, as well as the Pentax name. We also purchased Tamron zooms (18-250mm) along with the 50mm lens (and of course the kit lens).

In the intervening years I've been generally displeased with the results. I knew beforehand that the designer of this camera had programed in algorithms that would make the images have a more natural, film-like quality and lack that punch that some camera makers opt for.

However, I've reached a place where I'm now considering selling our Pentaxes and going with something else. The images we produce seem too dead, flat, dark. By way of comparison, I picked up a Panasonic Lumix from Costco (DMC-ZS6) and immediately found the images to be far clearer and bright overall.

So, obviously I must be doing something wrong. That's why I've decided to ask here before making my final decision.

What settings do most of you set your cameras at for general photography (scenic, landscape, nature) OR do you leave it at the default settings?

Is the Tamron lens a culprit in my imaging woes? Would I be better advised to spend money on a different lens covering a similar range?

I understand that I will need to do some post processing of my images, but I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time. My feeling is that the images I shoot should be, more or less, close to what I want to show to others.

For your information: I seldom shoot in RAW, preferring fine JPEG. I'm not very accomplished with post processing techniques (we have Photoshop Elements 8) and would hope that my images in camera would at least be close to acceptable for viewing. Right now... they're dead-looking.

[Uluru]

My wife and I purchased k10d's when they first became available a few years back. We were particularly attracted to the weather-proofing, living as we do in a wet area of the country, as well as the Pentax name. We also purchased Tamron zooms (18-250mm) along with the 50mm lens (and of course the kit lens).

In the intervening years I've been generally displeased with the results. I knew beforehand that the designer of this camera had programed in algorithms that would make the images have a more natural, film-like quality and lack that punch that some camera makers opt for.

So, obviously I must be doing something wrong. That's why I've decided to ask here before making my final decision....

Are you a self-taught photographer?
Have you ever attended some photography course / photo expedition / workshop organised by a professional photographer?
Are you self-taught when it comes to post processing?

These are important questions, so I hope you don't mind those. Ta.

[brecklundin]

Uluru?

Why would being self-taught matter? Just curious is all, as I find self taught to be the best way to go...of course one always builds the basics on the shoulders of others, but after the fundamentals are firmly in hand is there any other way to go, unless of course one is thinking there is a way around practical experience?

[Uluru]

Uluru?

Why would being self-taught matter? Just curious is all, as I find self taught to be the best way to go...of course one always builds the basics on the shoulders of others, but after the fundamentals are firmly in hand is there any other way to go, unless of course one is thinking there is a way around practical experience?

When one is self-taught, one often lacks "whys, dos and ahas" and skips over many fundamentals, which as a consequence echo negatively over the total experience of art or trade. Art becomes frustration, becomes pain.

In OP's case, the manufacturer who does better tweaking of JPEG results right in the camera wins hands down -- thus he says "frustrated with Pentax", but actually he does not realise he's frustrated with himself.

Digital photography is very technical because PP is left to the user, which was almost unheard of in the days of film -- everyday people had labs to do the dirty work for them.
Plus, not everyone is tech savvy.

This is not meant to be offence. This is normal. Today we need more education on even simple things than ever before in history.

[brecklundin]

thanks....not sure I totally agree but I see what you are saying, which is what I assumed, but wanted to be sure. Something to remember is not all instruction is equal and an intelligent person can teach themselves anything. few reverences and the dedication to practice and experiment...some do not need to be led around by their "member" with vice grips to learn.

I fast read of the manual then off to shooting, look at what you don't like and then research why it sucks, or if you are luck you get to try and remember what the heck you did to get the shot right...hahahaha...I have a really nice moon shot I took with a Sigma 70-300 APO years ago and found a great tutorial on PP..somewhere I deleted the RAW file, lost the link and now have ZERO clue what I did to get the shot processed in a way that made me happy, D'OH!! hehehehehe...

I guess my point is a good mentor/teacher is great, but to be honest matching the instructor/mentor style to a learning type is very challenging as only the best of the best teachers can adjust their teaching style to the student and instead demand students adapt to the instructor's limitations in their ability to teach. Plus I am one who has to be left to my own devices to learn anything. So remember there are many different types of "learners" which means not everyone must have formal instruction inf act such instruction can ruin or discourage someone with potential, and this is true in ANY hobby or line of work.

The best part though is it is all worth a try, especially when one hits a wall and can't seem to improve further, so good point for the OP to consider!