[pev]

While I like my K10D it does have some limitations, however, like all camera gear, it has a learning curve, to get the best out of it. Most of the limitations come down to lens choices,and what you want to do.

The metering system, is good, but can be fooled in harsh contrasty lighting, and is poor with the flash, giving some very harsh pictures witht he built in unit. The AF is slow compared with some modern "PRO" cameras, but of an acceptable standard 3-5 years ago. Even this can be got around, with technique in most situations, unless your into fast sports photography.

I don't have the new lenses but presume these would improve, the generally adequate performace. Its low light capability is limitied by the lens preformace not the camera, an F4 zoom lens will never perfom in low light well so why bother trying. I suspect most of the low light critics have not tried using one of the faster prime lenses in low light to confirm the performace in these conditions.
White balance is good, but you must get the setting right as auto can be a tad unreliable.

I bought a K10 D due to the flexability, and performace for the price, It is strightforward to use with a number of semi automatic modes, that permit you to concentrate on your image making, but requires you to understand and use its setting correctly to get the best out of it. It is a balance between giving you creative freedom that some of the other brands do not at this price and usability.

[Ray Pulley]

Ray,

EXCELLENT post, and obviously based not only on real experience but on a balanced sense of real-world priorities -- in other words, it sounds as if you've got some common sense as well as technical know-how. Thanks for taking the time to sum that stuff up.


I have been sensing that this might be the case. I too have more folks blinking in photos than I think should be the case and I've wondered if it's not the P-TTL option. But what's a mother to do? I've got a K10D and a couple of 540 FGZ units. Old-world TTL isn't an option to me, is it? The convenience of P-TTL is worth a lot when I am shooting in a hurry, which is most of the time. Unless I missed it, I don't think that you mentioned what flash units/models you use yourself.

OK, I'll bite. What do you use when you have to shoot above 400 ISO? You got a prototype of a full-frame Pentax K1D? (Sigh.)

I feel privileged when I get to break the ISO barrier, which for me means shooting below 500 ISO.

Will

Thanks.

I too REALLY want P-TTL to work because the convenience of auto-zoom and ISO/Aperture communication between the camera and flash spoils one in a hurry.

I am 100% convinced that P-TTL is causing "blinkies" as I have tested for this. My son and granddaughter both seem to have droopy eyes or are in full blink in many photos using P-TTL, and I first noticed this when shooting film with my ZX-L, so it is not a digital issue.

I shot some images of a friend at work who seems to be in full blink in almost every P-TTL shot he is in. I then switched on red-eye pre-pre flash and shot more shots. No blinkies. The issue seems to be that some folks have a fast blink response and the Pentax P-TTL system has just a bit too much delay between the pre-flash and the main flash, so those that blink quickly are either just starting to blink, fully blinking, or just opening back up after a blink when the image is captured. The delay is a camera issue, I believe, as the flash does it's thing and synchronizes based upon commands from the camera. The camera has to wait for certain events to happen (mirror up, shutter open, and so on) in order to synchronize the flash. The mirror and shutter mechanisms timings are such that the pre-flash delay is too long. Nikon had this problem with the D70 and i-TTL but they seem to have addressed the problem. I am not sure if they reduced the delay or not, but they offer flash exposure lock, which allows you to manually trigger a flash and the camera will meter it and remember the exposure so you do not need the pre-flash next time. Not a perfect answer, but it would be a useful feature to have on the K10D.

I have a pair of Nikon SB-28's that I use as auto flashes when I am not using P-TTL. I de-soldered all pins from the feet except for the center pin so they work just like any other auto flash. They are powerful, have a pc socket so I can use them with pocket wizards, and they have an LCD on the back so making quick changes to the settings is pretty easy. No high speed sync and having to manually set ISO and zoom can be a pain, but within normal working distances I do not have to fiddle with them as much as I do P-TTL to get a good exposure. However, using any sort of diffuser seems to overwhelm the auto sensor as too much light gets directed down towards the sensor throwing off the reading.

Otherwise, I have a pair of Quantum X2's with Lumedyne power supplies that I use that are really nice. Powerful enough to bounce from even very high ceilings, almost 360 degree swivel, and a great auto mode with a programmable sensor limit. The down side is that the setup is large (I have been told I look like the Unibomber with this rig on my shoulder). I already had Lumedyne power supplies otherwise I would have opted for the Quantum power packs for the Quantum flashes, which are more compact. I have a remote auto sensor that goes in the camera hot shoe so it always meters what the camera sees. I run the flash head on a flip bracket.

If I need to shoot higher ISO, I shoot with the DS or more recently, the K100D. The K100D is cleaner than 35mm film at the same ISO ratings, and I can make as good or better enlargements from the K100D as I ever did from high ISO 35mm film.

Ray

[WMBP]

I will add my $0.02 worth:

Gary,

Thank you very much for that detailed and thoughtful comparison. I've experienced the advantages of the Pentax system that you mention and I could mention more. The ergonomics and solid build of the K10D remain for me a very significant plus of the camera. On the other hand, I've also run into the problems you mentioned. I'm sorry that some here think that telling the truth as you perceive it constitutes trashing Pentax.

I am quite sure that no system is perfect, especially when you consider costs. I am also pretty sure that the Pentax system, while capable of being used very effectively for almost any kind of photography, is not the best choice for every kind of photography. Not sure why that should be such a scandalous thought.

Will

[Ray Pulley]

I will add my $0.02 worth:

I owned a K10D for about 7 months, and a *ist DL for a year before that. The K10D produced some wonderful images, but it had some shortcomings that caused me to look elsewhere:

Positives:

1. No problem with soft images at all. I fiddled with the camera .jpeg settings a bit and the out-of-camera image quality was excellent for casual use (family photos and the like). I use RAW for critical work, and got excellent results with both the Pentax Photo Lab and Adobe Lightroom RAW processing programs.

2. No problem with metering at all. Almost always use matrix metering and check the back LCD for blown highlights or lost detail in dark areas.

Negatives:

1. Poor AF performance for sports/action and low-light. It was not a few tenths of a second difference - it was several seconds of hunting and still failing to get focus in moderately poor indoor lighting. Many blurred shots of the kids's indoor events (awards ceremonies, band concerts, etc.). Yes I can manually focus, but I didn't spend thousands of dollars for a fancy new digital SLR system for this. Sports/action use was even worse: predictive focus performance is terrible with uo to 50% of fast action shots out of focus. In this area, the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 greatly improved the performance over the screw-drive Pentax and Sigma lenses, but it still was not as good as the competition. And, of course, there is no SDM lens longer than 135mm and no word when such a product may be released. I have used many lenses with the K10D in this situation, including the FA 77 f1.8 Ltd, FA 135mm f2.8, Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 DX EG, Pentax F 70-210mm f4-5.6, and the DA* 50-135mm f2.8.

2. Poor noise performance at ISO 1600. Some low-light shots at ISO 1600 were usable, but many were not with lots of noise, visible patterns in some areas (both light and dark), and just poor picture quality.

3. Irregular flash performance. Sometimes the flash system worked great (using a Pentax AF-360 FGZ both in the hot shoe and wireless), and sometimes the exposures were way off. Usually, bouncing off the ceiling worked great, but in a room with a dark ceiling the direct flash performance was sometimes worse than most cheap point and shoots.

4. Poor selection of lenses and inconsistent lens performance. In addition to the afore-mentioned total lack of any long, fast Pentax lenses, the performance of some of the lenses was disappointing. I used both the DA 14mm f2.8 and later a DA 12-24mm f4. The DA 14 needed to be stopped well down for any kind of sharpness and showed a fair amount of CA. The DA 12-24 showed good sharpness even at wider apertures and has fairly low barrel distortion, but the CA is severe! Even the FA 77 Limited needed to be stopped down pretty far to eliminate green color fringing.

I ended up replacing the Pentax K10D system with a Nikon D80 and four Nikkor lenses. The Nikon system is better in some ways than the K10D system and worse in others. The AF performance is a dramatic improvement. In situations in which the K10D will not focus, the Nikon will hit the correct focus most of the time. This is not "measurbating tenths of a second;" this is the real difference between a focused shot that is usable versus a blurred, unusable shot. At a school award ceremony a few weeks ago, I got 4 out of 5 perfect shots of my son getting his award, using the D80 with a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR lens. Last spring, in the very same room in the very same light and distance, I got 0 out of 5 shots that were usable with the Pentax K10D and the FA 135mm f2.8. That is a very real benefit for me; not just "measurbating."

Using the Nikon D80 with the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR for sports/action shots (daytime soccer games), I now get 95%+ shots in perfect focus, compared to maybe 50% with the K10D + Sigma 100-300 f4 (using AF-C mode -- I get more in focus with AF-S but the shutter won't release sometimes at the decisive moment). With the K10D and the DA* 50-135mm f2.8, I could get maybe up to 90% in focus, but that lens is just too short for this application. And it still misses focus when the subject is running directly towards the camera. Where are the long SDM lenses? How many years are we going to wait for Pentax to catch up to the competition?

Flash performance with the Nikon has been very consistent. Using an SB-800 Speedlight, every flash exposure has been perfect. However, I've only used the flash on maybe two occasions.

High ISO on the D80 is better than the K10D, and about equal to the *ist DL. Noise is well-controlled, but the images are definitely softer above ISO 800. I'm sure that there are other cameras with better high ISO performance, but the D80 (and the *ist DL) are good enough for me. Out of the box, without a lot of PP, the D80 beats the K10D.

The D80 is slightly more expensive than the K10D. And the Nikon lenses I bought are significantly more expensive than the Pentax lenses that they replaced (but I choose the more expensive "professional" Nikon lenses so this represents an upgrade). The Nikkor 12-24mm f4 DX out-performs the Pentax DA 12-24mm f4 by a wide margin with significantly less CA. And I can get a 200mm f2.8 autofocus AF-S lens for the Nikon, which is simply not available for the Pentax system at any price.

On the flip side, for travel and landscape photography the Pentax system worked great. Except for some extra effort to address the CA in PP, it was a great performing system. The smaller, lighter lenses are more pleasant to carry all day as compared to the heavier Nikon equipment. For outdoor use with static subjects, I was pretty well satisfied with the Pentax gear. And I still have my Pentax film gear for such applications and it works great.

So, to respond to the initial question, I have experienced some of the problems that the O.P. expressed concern about, and ultimately it was enough to compel me to look elsewhere. But it depends on the type of photographs you are interested in creating, and whether these specific shortcomings are a serious obstacle for that type of photography.

Gary, I cannot argue with much of your post, especially with regards to action AF performance and low light AF. I think your experience is probably representative of the differences between the Nikon system and the Pentax system (albeit using Nikon lenses that are considerably more expensive than the current Pentax offerings).

I cannot say that I have experienced as many problems with CA as you note, but frankly, I do not spend too much time looking for it either. If I do not see it right away when I am working on the image in PP or cannot easily see it in a print, I do not worry about it. I REALLY do not worry about it if I have to search for it at 100% in trees against the sky in the background, or tiny window frames in the background. For reference, here's my lens lineup:

DA 14mm, DA 40mm pancake, 31 ltd, 43 ltd, 77 ltd, FA 50 F1.4, F 50 F1.7, DA 16-45, DA 50-200, Tamrom 28-70 f2.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 70-210 F2.8, Sigma 135-400, DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135.

I rarely shoot my 24-90 or the 28-70 f4 and some other older stuff I own, but I cannot say that I had lots of problems with CA on these lenses either.

As for the K10D noise versus the D80, from what I have seen, Nikon is far more heavy-handed with the noise reduction than Pentax, but that comes at the expense of lost detail, and you cannot turn off the Nikon NR even in RAW. Personally, I would rather make the choice of how much NR to apply, and with Pentax, I have that choice. Frankly, I would not choose to shoot either camera at ISO 1600 for anything but very small prints or web images, but to each his or her own as the saying goes.

I understand your decision, and for your uses you probably made the right decision, but it might come across a bit more balanced if you were to detail how much money the "improved" Nikon system cost you. After all, you did specifically lament how much you paid for your Pentax system and the 25% you lost on the deal....

Ray

[Ray Pulley]

I made the right choice...

Ben

Ben, no offense, but I would have no complaints about the K10D in a studio setting either as I would not be shooting P-TTL and usually also would not be pushing the ability of the camera to AF on fast moving subjects. It is also likely that I would be smart enough to have enough light such that I did not have to use high ISO settings.

I would, however, be very interested in your experiences using the K10D outside of a studio setting, especially with the Pentax flash system or in low available light, or in capturing fast action shots.

If you do not often shoot in such situations due to the type of work you do, I understand.

Thanks,

Ray

[SupremeMoFo]

Ray - why is it so important to have 95% of photos in focus? I'd say about 70% of the motorsport photos I take are in focus, nearly 80% of the shots I took yesterday at a downhill MTB race were in focus and nearly all that I've taken at football games (in daylight) are in focus. You need to modify your technique and not focus on the moving subject but predict where the subject will be, focus there and the results are much better.

[GaryML]

I cannot say that I have experienced as many problems with CA as you note, but frankly, I do not spend too much time looking for it either. If I do not see it right away when I am working on the image in PP or cannot easily see it in a print, I do not worry about it. I REALLY do not worry about it if I have to search for it at 100% in trees against the sky in the background, or tiny window frames in the background.

As for the K10D noise versus the D80, from what I have seen, Nikon is far more heavy-handed with the noise reduction than Pentax, but that comes at the expense of lost detail, and you cannot turn off the Nikon NR even in RAW. Personally, I would rather make the choice of how much NR to apply, and with Pentax, I have that choice. Frankly, I would not choose to shoot either camera at ISO 1600 for anything but very small prints or web images, but to each his or her own as the saying goes.

I understand your decision, and for your uses you probably made the right decision, but it might come across a bit more balanced if you were to detail how much money the "improved" Nikon system cost you. After all, you did specifically lament how much you paid for your Pentax system and the 25% you lost on the deal....

The CA was the worst with the DA 12-24mm f4 at the wide end. It was most noticable with tree branches against the sky, which (of course) are very high contrast. On those occasions when I thought it might be noticable in the final print or file, I could correct it for the most part with Pentax Photo Lab, Lightroom or PT Lens. It was not a deal-breaker and I still liked the DA 12-24mm better than the DA 14mm due to the convenience of the zoom. I was just pointing out that the Nikon 12-24mm f4 DX has less CA and is otherwise comparable to the Pentax DA 12-24mm in performance. I should also add that the Nikon 12-24mm costs 30% more.

You are right about the Nikon D80 noise reduction at ISO 1600. There are three settings in the camera which are low noise reduction, normal noise reduction, and extra noise reduction. It is never "off" even at low and with RAW files. And it does noticably reduce the sharpness of the image. I am happy with the balance at normal, but others may prefer more control. As I said in another post, I never really expended a lot of effort into stand-alone noise reduction software and my comments were based on the "out of box" experience with little PP.

My Pentax kit when I sold it consisted of the K10D, DA 12-24mm, D FA 50mm f2.8 Macro, the DA* 50-135mm f2.8, the Sigma APO 100-300mm f4 EX DG, a Sigma APO 1.4X EX DG converter, and a AF-360 FGZ flash. The total cost of that was about $4250.

My current Nikon kit cost about $5300, which is a hefty amount above the cost of the Pentax kit. It is all Nikon and includes the D80, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, the 17-55mm f2.8 DX, the 12-24mm f4 DX, the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8 AF-D, a TC-14e II teleconverter, and an SB-800 flash. It is different than the Pentax kit and reflects my best attempt to cover my current needs with the best available lenses from Nikon. The Nikon kit also weighs more than the Pentax kit, but I don't carry everything at the same time.

I think I got a fair return on the sale of the used Pentax gear, and I could have probably gotten a better price on a few items if I had the time to market them a bit more aggressively. I would say that the recent Pentax gear holds its value quite well.

[GaryML]

Gary,

Thank you very much for that detailed and thoughtful comparison. I've experienced the advantages of the Pentax system that you mention and I could mention more. The ergonomics and solid build of the K10D remain for me a very significant plus of the camera. On the other hand, I've also run into the problems you mentioned. I'm sorry that some here think that telling the truth as you perceive it constitutes trashing Pentax.

I am quite sure that no system is perfect, especially when you consider costs. I am also pretty sure that the Pentax system, while capable of being used very effectively for almost any kind of photography, is not the best choice for every kind of photography. Not sure why that should be such a scandalous thought.

Will

Thanks.

Yes, the build quality of the K10D is better in many ways than the Nikon D80. The ergonomics are pretty close, but one thing that drives me nuts is that changing the ISO on the D80 requires pressing a button, turning a control knob, and looking at the top LCD panel of the camera. Being able to change the ISO in the K10D while looking through the viewfinder is a lot better. There are a lot of little things like that: some better on the D80 and some better on the K10D.

Edit: I should add that you can display the ISO setting in the viewfinder by setting the "Func" button to display the ISO value. But to change the ISO value, you have to release the Func button (and the ISO setting display disappears), press the ISO button and hold while turning the rear command dial to change the setting, then release the ISO button and press the Func button to see what setting you have. It's very cumbersome compared to the Pentax K10D (with updated firmware) that allows to to see and change the ISO with the OK button and command dial.

Nikon builds some better bodies than the D80, but the price is way up there and these digital bodies are going to have a limited useful life span. I'd rather sink the money into lenses that will last through multiple bodies and use the cheapest body that gets the needed performance.

I personally ended up going to mostly zooms, but the Pentax Limited lenses do not have any peers in either the Nikon or Canon systems, if you look at the balance of performance, price, size/weight and build quality. There are a lot of good things in the Pentax system. And there are things that I'm not totally thrilled with in the Nikon system. It is not easy to balance all the factors. I think I did the right thing for my situation, but the equation will balance differently for others. And with a bunch of new SDM lenses (including some long, fast glass) and an improved AF system, the balance could shift to Pentax in the next year or two (although I'm not going to switch systems again for a while).

[lol101]

I don't have the new lenses but presume these would improve, the generally adequate performace. Its low light capability is limitied by the lens preformace not the camera, an F4 zoom lens will never perfom in low light well so why bother trying. I suspect most of the low light critics have not tried using one of the faster prime lenses in low light to confirm the performace in these conditions.

Hi pev,

I'm afraid you're wrong on your asumption that the AF speed is in the lens, not the camera.

It's actually in both but for the most part resides in the AF algorithms that calculate how far the lens should move to get proper focus.

I use the DA18-50 as well as the FA 50 f1.4 and 31 f1.8 and the DA @50mm (f5.6 max aperture) is not really slower to focus than the other ones.

There is clearly a light threshold in the Pentax AF programing where AF time slows down considerably. In good to sub-normal light, it's as fast as any other system, but when the light drops even further, it will get the proper focus... but takes its sweet time guessing and correcting, guessing and correcting. To me, it is quite OK as I do not need the fastest AF in low light and the Canon 30D I use from time to time is faster but also has issues and sometimes refuses to focus on subjects the K10 has no problems with but still, it certainly could be improved upon in future cameras or firmware(?).

An other (distinct) area where the Pentax AF system struggles is in predictive AF: I am not actually sure they have implemented predictive AF at all and for moving targets, you'll get far more keepers with a Canon (or Nikon I guess but I didn't try).


Now there are techniques that can be used to get over these weaknesses (how did sports photographers do when they had no AF, or even 10 years ago when the AF performances were a lot less impressive than now?) but since other brands have succeeded in implementing better algorithms, it's only natural that Pentax users should expect these to find their way into Pentax cameras.

[PaulAndAPentax]

While we are on auto focus, I went to an air show yesterday. I used the SMC F 100-300 and the Sigma 50-500mm. I noticed the Pentax lens was faster and the Bigma is a lot slower on target, but I love the lack of CA in the Sigma. I averaged about 65-75% in (true clear) focus using panning methods. Some were way off focus, and others more 'soft'.



Shot this the day before:



And shot this. You can get the AF to work. But I find timing has to be really good:

[patrickt]

Before I bought my first digital DSLR I read, obsessed, the reviews, user comments, and the forums. I worried quite a bit about the "softness" issue and the "flimsy card door" issue and the problem getting the memory card out of the camera. For a variety of reasons I went ahead and bought the IstD. Getting the memory card out was a pain. The rest of it wasn't an issue for me. Getting a focus lock does sometimes irritate me, especially in low light, but I manage.

I now have the K10D and it works fine for me. If it doesn't work for you, go hunting for something that does.

[WMBP]

Nikon builds some better bodies than the D80, but the price is way up there and these digital bodies are going to have a limited useful life span. I'd rather sink the money into lenses that will last through multiple bodies and use the cheapest body that gets the needed performance.

Gary,

I've wondered about this myself. It's possible that the K10D is better built than I need it to be. I don't really care about the weather sealing, at least not 99% of the time.

Will

[GaryML]

Gary,

I've wondered about this myself. It's possible that the K10D is better built than I need it to be. I don't really care about the weather sealing, at least not 99% of the time.

I suspect that for the next few years at least, the digital bodies that I use will become obsolete before I would wear them out. I seldom use a camera in severe conditions so the weather sealing probably doesn't matter to me, but it can't hurt. The K10D has some nice design features that are missing on the Nikon D80 that add to the user experience, even if they are not essential. Some examples:

-Locking door for the memory card
-Better feel & sturdier build quality, especially around the lens mount and lens release button.
-TAv mode and HyperProgram mode
-Dedicated button for AF sensor mode
-Easier to change ISO setting
-AF modes and AF-manual focus control on one switch. For some reason, this is split into two switches on the D80 (but not the better Nikons)
-No scene modes on the mode dial. I hate those stupid p&s style features
-The D80 (and all Nikons) use soft rubber covers on some locations on the body (e.g., covering the USB and video out connections). I much prefer the little door used on the K10D.

Clearly, a lot of though went into the K10D styling and ergonomics and it shows. I think it is the best in its class in this regard. But the one design feature that the D80 has that I really like in terms of design is the rigid plastic cover that snaps over the rear LCD. It gives excellent protection without any interference in viewing the LCD, and can be quickly and cheaply replaced if damaged. Every digital SLR should have that.

[Ray Pulley]

Ray - why is it so important to have 95% of photos in focus? I'd say about 70% of the motorsport photos I take are in focus, nearly 80% of the shots I took yesterday at a downhill MTB race were in focus and nearly all that I've taken at football games (in daylight) are in focus. You need to modify your technique and not focus on the moving subject but predict where the subject will be, focus there and the results are much better.

If I were shooting action and getting 70% that would probably be ok with me as well.

However, I am getting too many soft images of static landscapes and other objects that have plenty of contrast and should be easy for the camera to lock onto.

I do have an early observation (no measurebating involved) of the focus performance of my two DA* lenses on the K10D, and I find that I am getting a higher percentage of sharper images than with any screw drive AF lens I own. Interestingly, it seems that the SDM focusing algorithms give up completely a bit more often than the screwdriver AF lenses, even when it seems that focusing should be easy (bright light, plenty of contrast). I suspect that with screwdriver AF lenses mounted in the same situation, the AF system would call it close enough and give me AF lock when things are not really crisply focused.

My theory is that the screwdriver AF lenses have various "gear ratios" and different total lock to lock focus travel which means that with any given lens and focus distance you have some compromise as to how close you can really get to the correct focus. Given the same drive motor, some lenses would have more speed while others would have better AF resolution but less speed. This is probably the price we pay for backwards compatibility.

I have to say that I am less than happy with the edge sharpness of my DA* 16-50, and the engineer that decided to make the focus ring on the DA* lenses very wide while the zoom ring is so small should be shot (it is very difficult to cradle the lens in a normal manner without touching the focus ring and moving it, arrgghhhh!), but those are subjects for another thread.

Ray

[WMBP]

If I were shooting action and getting 70% that would probably be ok with me as well.

However, I am getting too many soft images of static landscapes and other objects that have plenty of contrast and should be easy for the camera to lock onto.

Ray,

Have you tried shooting outside Northern California? Here in Texas, I do fine with landscapes, but of course the ground isn't moving under my feet as I shoot. ;-)

Will
(trying to lighten things up, even when I can't shed any light on the subject)