[*isteve]

We all know that C*non and N*kon seem to take the cake on other forums. Regarding the K10d, I have come across feeling that I made the wrong choice. Here is why: Edge softness, noise at higher ISO, slow focus, etc. - how much of this do you believe to be factual? The softness and sharpness issues concern me, noise at higher ISO I care less about right now, and slow focus - pixel sharpness, etc also concern me.

People have a habit of comparing the K10D with cameras that cost twice as much, and yes, some of them have better low light AF performance but accuracy is no better. A lot of the supposed superiority of other cameras is myth and superstition and not based on hard facts. I have used most of them and all I can say its it depends a lot on what lens you stick on them. High ISO performance is not in the Canon CMOS league but its as good as any other CCD based camera.

JPEG sharpness is not something you notice in prints and you can always switch to bright mode if you want a bit more punch in the JPEGs. They respond well to post processing too.

[JamesD]

Hopefully you will find that feeling of peace whether you choose to stay with Pentax or change systems.

And "that" is the crux of the matter in a nutshell. If any of us cruise the camera forums, read those camera mags and pays attention to all the hype surrounding "other" brands, we're bound to begin wondering ourselves. As Will mentioned that he is bored with hardware and only thinks of it when he has to... it seems to me that this is a reasonably good course of action to follow. We all should focus more on the images we produce and learn more about how to take full advantage of our cameras. The only way to really do this is to get out and practice what we have read in the manual. And practice... and shoot some more... and study the results and stop cruising to other sites and worrying about past decisions. I can almost guarantee that if you sold your gear, jumped over to another brand, the same questions would continue to haunt you... particularly if you are "not" shooting enough but reading the opinions of others.

Spend more time looking at the incredible images being produced right here on this forum by folks who love photography, know their gear and take the time to make great images.

[RiceHigh]

We all know that C*non and N*kon seem to take the cake on other forums. Regarding the K10d, I have come across feeling that I made the wrong choice. Here is why: Edge softness, noise at higher ISO, slow focus, etc. - how much of this do you believe to be factual? The softness and sharpness issues concern me, noise at higher ISO I care less about right now, and slow focus - pixel sharpness, etc also concern me.

You might not have made the wrong choice, you just get what you paid. Especially when you get more features as listed on paper for the K10D, the actual performance inside the camera must have some compromises. Pentax have to sell their cameras with some profit margins and as such they have to cut corners which are not so obvious, haven't they? Enough said.

Well, a direct answer to your question is just: YES. I'm afraid all the issues you have mentioned are existent when it is compared to other cameras (or even including the K100D regarding noise and jpeg sharpness). Here are some of the documented evidence for other end-users have reported or what some reviewers found, for the issues and reported problems of the K10D:

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: K10D

[stewart_photo]

We all know that C*non and N*kon seem to take the cake on other forums. Regarding the K10d, I have come across feeling that I made the wrong choice. Here is why: Edge softness, noise at higher ISO, slow focus, etc. - how much of this do you believe to be factual? The softness and sharpness issues concern me, noise at higher ISO I care less about right now, and slow focus - pixel sharpness, etc also concern me.

I don't believe any of the things you raised are truly "issues." The complaints about softness, for example, only refer to the jpeg presets chosen by Pentax. If you don't like Pentax's choices, the sharpness/contrast levels can easily be adjusted using the menus. A moment or two of adjusting things to your tastes and the "issue" is gone entirely. However, I think the presets chosen by Pentax result in truly outstanding prints, and prints in some manner are what most of my clients (private and commercial) ultimately want.

As for image noise at higher ISO settings, the K10D beats just about any ten megapixel camera in it's price range and more on par with cameras costing hundreds more. Regardless, since software (Neat Image and Noise Ninja, for examples) is widely available to reduce or eliminate image noise, I would not consider this an "issue" in any case.

And I simply don't understand complaints about focusing speed. My K10D focuses quicker than any previous camera owned. I've even shot sports using cameras focusing much slower. Skill (knowledge of the game, anticipation, prefocusing, etc) rather than technology seems to be the limiting factor here. And, since sports moves so quickly, I suspect that same skill would be needed with even the very fastest camera. So, while I'm sure there are cameras out there which might focus quicker, this has never been an "issue" with the K10D for me.

stewart

[Hannican]

Are the underexposure issues really as pronounced as RiceHigh makes them seem on his blog? I just read a post on his blog that is making me seriously reconsider purchasing a K10d, but again, this is something I haven't read about ANYWHERE else...

Is it simply his settings, or the way he's shooting the camera, that is causing such dramatic underexposure???

[WMBP]

Are the underexposure issues really as pronounced as RiceHigh makes them seem on his blog? I just read a post on his blog that is making me seriously reconsider purchasing a K10d, but again, this is something I haven't read about ANYWHERE else...

I don't read RH's blog so I won't comment on what he says. I have heard the claim that the K10D has an underexposure problem. I think the claim is generally not well founded.

Exposure is a tricky thing. Slight differences in the quality of light, the reflectivity of the subjects, etc., can cause scenes that seem quite similar to be metered differently. I personally spend no time at all shooting at gray cards or test patterns. My experience shooting going on 10,000 actual photos of Life as We Actually Know It gives me confidence in the K10D's meter as a tool to help me take good photographs. I am more interested in the histogram and the blown highlights than in whether the meter's idea of a perfect exposure (EV +/- 0) is the same as MY idea of a perfect exposure.

Will

[Falcons]

No offence Takman - If you think the jpegs are soft, the AF is to slow, high ISO is to noisy etc etc etc then it is the wrong camera for you - sell it move on a and be happy.

Seriously why do you want the opinions of others when yours is the only one that matters when it comes to what makes you happy.

There are quite a few professional photographers making money with Pentax equipment - just check out photos by Benjikan (a contributor to this forum); high end fashion photography with a Pentax K10D.

Just remember that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence but if reviews of 100% crops of jpegs - that actually do state that you could not see the difference between the shots when printed - are important to you and you simply need the comfort of being in the majority then jumping the fence may be your best option.

Maybe look at the review of the canon 40D on DPR - K10D in RAW produces (in Phil Askeys opinion) better images than the 40D - The canon 40D is Canons brand new flagship camera in non FF digital format and really in some aspects it has only just caught up to the one year old K10D.
Very strong rumours of a new Pentax early next year may see Pentax absolutely blow the 40D away and give the Nikon D300 a run for its money.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) the actual performance inside the camera must have some compromises. Pentax have to sell their cameras with some profit margins and as such they have to cut corners which are not so obvious, haven't they? Enough said. (snip)

No, not enough said at all, RiceHigh. You've repeatedly implied or said Pentax has "cut corners," so please now tell us where the company has done so in this regard. For example, since the K10D's image sensor is (based on RAW image results) clearly capable of extremely sharp images, tell us how the company "cut corners" in their software algorithms by simply chosing softer jpeg image results to produce finer prints. That seems to be a choice, not a cost-cutting measure. However, since you obviously see things differently, please explain yourself.

And please don't respond with your typical beat-around-the-bush nonsense. You've consistently made this very specific accusation against Pentax and I'd now like to see a very specific explination of that accusation - what screw, nut, bolt, or whatever the company has left out to "cut corners." If you cannot do so, then please stop making these types of unsupported accusations.

stewart

[rvannatta]

People have a habit of comparing the K10D with cameras that cost twice as much, and yes, some of them have better low light AF performance but accuracy is no better. A lot of the supposed superiority of other cameras is myth and superstition and not based on hard facts. I have used most of them and all I can say its it depends a lot on what lens you stick on them. High ISO performance is not in the Canon CMOS league but its as good as any other CCD based camera.

JPEG sharpness is not something you notice in prints and you can always switch to bright mode if you want a bit more punch in the JPEGs. They respond well to post processing too.

don't forget that Pentax has ADDRESSED the focus speed issue with the SDM series lenses which most folks don't have. Initially, I was sort of concerned that my 16-50 SDM was screwing up the focus more than it should, However I''ve turned a few knobs and now believe it is performing to expectations and clearly faster than the conventional (now obsolete) focus systems you are described as slow.

[stewart_photo]

Are the underexposure issues really as pronounced as RiceHigh makes them seem on his blog? I just read a post on his blog that is making me seriously reconsider purchasing a K10d, but again, this is something I haven't read about ANYWHERE else...

Look at the images posted elsewhere in this website. Do any of them look underexposed? Many thousands are using the Pentax K10D, with only a relative handful reporting any exposure issues at all. In most cases, those cameras were repaired by Pentax, with the user moving on to continue taking images.

Is it simply his settings, or the way he's shooting the camera, that is causing such dramatic underexposure???

By his own admission, RiceHigh does not own a K10D, nor has he ever used a K10D for any length of time. His current camera is a Canon EOS 5D. He once owned a Pentax K100D, but I've seen nothing to even suggest he still owns that camera. The content on his blog are tidbits picked up here and there from various internet forums, selectively chosen to support his own negative opinions of Pentax and the K10D.

stewart

[Falcons]

Hannican, please do some research on ricehigh and draw your own conclusions on his integrity and his credibility on anything to do with Pentax.

In my opinion if you are basing a purchasing decision based on what ricehigh has written you are making a grave error in judgement.

NB: Ricehigh fanboys, please note that I have stated it is my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you say he is entitled to his (although I find it strange that he puts it forward as scientifically proven facts then you all come in and say it is only his opinion).

[Mallee Boy]

Are the underexposure issues really as pronounced as RiceHigh makes them seem on his blog? I just read a post on his blog that is making me seriously reconsider purchasing a K10d, but again, this is something I haven't read about ANYWHERE else...

Is it simply his settings, or the way he's shooting the camera, that is causing such dramatic underexposure???

RH has some issues with Pentax over time that he is unable to resolve and therefore never misses a chance to have a dig at the brand.

Similar things were said about the DS by RH, I bought one 2.5 years ago and could not be happier with the camera.

In any research you do you will always get at least one opinion that is strongly negative and one that is strongly positive.....I suggest you look at the bulk in the middle and draw your own conclusion.

I do not have a K10D (yet) but our family has a DS and two DL's, one DL has recently died but that camera spent a lot of its time in very tough conditions eg) backpack & snowboard.......
Cheers.

[lol101]

You might not have made the wrong choice, you just get what you paid. Especially when you get more features as listed on paper for the K10D, the actual performance inside the camera must have some compromises. Pentax have to sell their cameras with some profit margins and as such they have to cut corners which are not so obvious, haven't they? Enough said.

Well, a direct answer to your question is just: YES. I'm afraid all the issues you have mentioned are existent when it is compared to other cameras (or even including the K100D regarding noise and jpeg sharpness). Here are some of the documented evidence for other end-users have reported or what some reviewers found, for the issues and reported problems of the K10D:

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: K10D

Do you need publicity for your blog so bad that you must link to it every time? Not enough hits?

You should actually put some disclaimer somewhere on the front page that your blog does not reflect your own use of the cameras and lenses you mention but is just a collection of negative internet posts and your comments and guesses as to what are the problems with Pentax.

Anyway, a blog on photography equipment without any actual pictures should look VERY suspicious to any curious onlooker.

I also use a Canon 30D which is the equivalent camera of the K10 in the Canon lineup, the 30D has some better features (high iso noise and AF tracking being the most prominent), the K10 has some better features (controls and SR are the first that comes to my mind) but even these are pretty minor and their importance in REAL use should be related to their original objective: taking pictures.

It's what your blog lacks: perspective, what separates trash-tabloids from information.

I posted a straight jpeg somewhere in this thread. Maybe it's not a very good picture (a snapshot of one of my loved ones) but I believe it's pretty sharp, the AF was FAST and precise under the relatively dim tungsten light with a f5.6 max aperture lens and it's ISO 800 without objectionable noise. But why should I even care?

It's a picture. It's what cameras are for.

The picture suits me: I keep the camera, if not, I sell the camera and get some other model.

Ask yourself: how do people manage to get acceptable pictures from such a flawed gear?

But don't worry, continue promoting your little blog here and there, you might succeed in turning one or two unexperienced photographer from Pentax but it's really pretty ridiculous.

I would advise you to take some pictures (with whatever gear) and share them with us so that we could engage in more constructive discussions about our common(?) passion/hobby but I have the feeling it's no use.

You don't really care about pictures, only gear and, somehow, I feel sad for you.

[lol101]

Are the underexposure issues really as pronounced as RiceHigh makes them seem on his blog? I just read a post on his blog that is making me seriously reconsider purchasing a K10d, but again, this is something I haven't read about ANYWHERE else...

Is it simply his settings, or the way he's shooting the camera, that is causing such dramatic underexposure???

... Like he would say: "Enough said".

[lol101]

lol 101 - the photos above are taken in ISO 800? WHOA! You call that noise? Nice photos!

You guys are doing a good job in convincing me. I think I developed a mental block after taking in information overload from a bunch of sites and forums.

The noise in this picture is low but it was taken with a flash and so is properly lit. Noise is more visible in underexposed parts of pictures.

Really, I find it not objectionable up to 800-1000, but everybody has his own threshold on this. The level of details, even at those ISO is excellent.

On a side note, I am not trying to convince you because I don't know if the K10 is the right camera for you. I am just trying to help you get some perspective on what you might read over the internet.

Unfortunately, no amount of reading or looking at someone else's pictures can assure you of a perfect buy.

Only practice.

Good luck with your decision.