[RiceHigh]

This is NORMAL. The K10D do not produce sharp pictures as other 10MP+ DSLRs do, when it is compared. The in-camera jpegs are particularly soft, the Pentax Photo Lab RAW converted jpegs are more or less the same.

Although you will see various but similar excuses on why the K10D produces such images, mostly from the current K10D owners and/or brand "supporters", there have been various evidences as tested and found out by various famous and authorative reviewers on the net for it is just like that and/or why is so. I have summarised all those in my blog page, just look at yourself in details if interested:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: K10D

*****I should have titled this blurry and soft images. Of course, if they are blurry they are not sharp. Whoops.******

Hello,

I just got my Pentax K10D, moving over from a Sony DSC H5.

I have taken probably 500 pictures over the last couple of days with both of the lenses that I bought with it and the pictures are soft and I have yet to take a really sharp picture.

This is my first DSLR so maybe I just don't know what I am doing but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I figured I would have gotten a few good shots by now.

I also have the Magic Lantern guide and have been trying to use the advice there but in general my shots are blurred and soft. Even the ones that I think are sharp on the LCD are blurry when I view them in CS3. I have tried using different modes, hand holds and aperture and exposure settings, though I am not terribly familiar with photographic settings coming from a point and shoot world.

Does anyone have any recommendations for sharpening up my images?

My buddy just got a Nikon D80 and I shot his camera right out of the box and the pictures are very clear and sharp.

[stewart_photo]

This is NORMAL. The K10D do not produce sharp pictures as other 10MP+ DSLRs do, when it is compared. The in-camera jpegs are particularly soft, ... (snip)

I've read your silly blog, RiceHigh. It is filled with intentionally misleading, inaccurate, or exaggerated nonsense from a Canon user (mostly) who does not own a Pentax K10D camera, nor has ever used one for any length of time. For example, you mislead here when saying "in-camera jpegs are particularly soft" by intentionally failing to mention JPEG sharpness is fully adjustable. Lets see what some real experts, who have actually tested the K10D, have to say about image quality.


"Image quality is on a par with virtually anything else on the market, the camera is very feature rich, the price is right, and it therefore isn't a stretch to say that the K10D is probably the best value in a 10 Megapixel DSLR at this time." - Luminous Landscape, by Michael Reichmann.

"The printed results tell more of that story. The K10D's images really impressed us. We noticed the detail hold together far better, especially in the reds of our test target. Reds are almost always pumped excessively, but the K10D's more conservative approach preserves detail like few we've seen. And that holds true even at ISO 1600. The ISO 1600 still life shot looked amazing at 11x14. ISO 100 images from the K10D looked great at 16x20." - Imaging Resource, by Shawn Barnett with Siegfried Weidelich and Mike Tomkins.

"When we transferred our shots from the 2GB Lexar Professional SD card that we used with the K10D (Pentax doesn't include an SD card), we found tack-sharp images, even after we tightly cropped several photos (an advantage of the 10-megapixel CCD). And picture quality was excellent, even at ISO 1600, though a smidgeon of noise could be discerned at ISOs over 400 on some 13-by-19-inch blow-ups." - Mac Life, by Arthur Bleich.

"Overall image quality is Excellent throughout the ISO range. Color accuracy is Excellent. Noise is exceptionally well controlled all the way through, and Resolution is excellent at all ISOs." - PopPhoto.com, By Jack Howard and Dan Richards.

"For the most part, I was very pleased with the prints. RAW and JPEGs shot on a crisp winter day had a blue sky that mirrored reality with zero noise. Colors of other subjects such as evergreens and cars were accurate and lifelike. Outdoors with Auto ISO there was barely a hint of digital noise. The camera has an ISO range of 100-1600 and I didn’t see much noise in the prints until 800—and even that wasn’t too bad. The camera reacted very quickly, even when shooting big RAW files. Images taken indoors with the flash were also very good, not washed out by too much light. And you’ll really appreciate the Shake Reduction shooting indoors with available light." - Digital Trends, by Staff.

"All things considered, the Pentax K10D is an excellent midrange digital SLR. It offers a solid, well-designed body, rocket-fast performance, and superb photo quality if you get away from the default settings." - DCRP Review, by Jeff Keller, DCRP Founder/Editor.

"We were happy with the K10D's image quality. Our test images were consistently well exposed and had good color saturation. Sharpness at the K10D's normal setting was what you would expect of a dSLR, a bit on the soft side so that the image had some range for post processing." - Steve's Digicams, by Staff.

"Files produced from the camera in JPEG at the default setting are pleasant in colour without undue saturation and the settings can be configured through the menus to achieve any desired amount of correction of image tone, saturation, contrast or sharpness." - ePHOTOzine, by Staff.

"With so much excellent competition, the Pentax K10D distinguishes itself by an unequaled feature set. Even though image quality is on-par with its peers, the combination of stabilization, dust-reduction, weatherproofing and unique features is what makes this camera so appealing." - NeoCamera, by Staff.

"I was also quite impressed with the K10D's photo quality as well, from its broad dynamic range to first-rate color reproduction. Photos had an excellent noise profile up through ISO 800, and at its maximum of ISO 1600 still fared well for its price class." - C/Net Reviews, by Lori Grunin.

"Based on results with the three lenses I used for my tests, the K10D’s image quality is dependably pro quality, with very good detail capture in highlight areas, superior detail capture in shadow areas, and crisp edge transitions. Noise is virtually non-existent up to ISO 400, very well managed up to ISO 800, and visible but not objectionably so from ISO 1000 to ISO 1600." - DigitalCameraReview.com, by Howard Creech.

"Whether you shoot raw, DNG, or JPEG, the images the Pentax K10D produces are impressive." - Shutterbug Magazine, by Joe Farace.

(snip) ... the Pentax Photo Lab RAW converted jpegs are more or less the same.

And this is just patently false. Every professional reviewer commenting at all about image softness clearly said it could be handled easily by either adjusting the JPEG image settings or shooting in Raw format. Absolutely none talked about softness following the conversion of Raw files.


stewart

[mutley]

My buddy just got a Nikon D80 and I shot his camera right out of the box and the pictures are very clear and sharp.

So, in other words, even before you you were able to get sharp K10D shots in sunny light, in the comparable original dim situations, you tried your buddy's D80, and it just worked tack sharp on the first try?

The K10D only gave you sharp shots when it was sunny and bright, but the D80 didn't even need those conditions to come up perfect?

Boy, your buddy must be beaming that he chose the "better" camera.

What were his thoughts on the causes of the blurriness?

[SupremeMoFo]

I've read your silly blog, RiceHigh. It is filled with intentionally misleading, inaccurate, or exaggerated nonsense from a Canon user (mostly) who does not own a Pentax K10D camera, nor has ever used one for any length of time. For example, you mislead here when saying "in-camera jpegs are particularly soft" by intentionally failing to mention JPEG sharpness is fully adjustable. Lets see what some real experts, who have actually tested the K10D, have to say about image quality.

*ownage snip*

Someone give this man a beer.

[Snowcat]

I don't know where the shot right above was taken, but its really very nice...

Thanks, this was taken in Moscow, Russia, where i live, a few days ago. Not a bright sunny day as you can see. Not even close to it. And still the picture is sharp.

So what's all mumbo-jumbo is about? As you can see, in-camera JPEGs CAN be sharp. All you need to do is set a couple of sliders off their default position. Is that hard? Even more, K10D, after tweaking some settings, give you images sharper, then any other 10MP ACP-S DSLR, because it's AA filter is different from what others are using.

[mattdm]

And this is just patently false. Every professional reviewer commenting at all about image softness clearly said it could be handled easily by either adjusting the JPEG image settings or shooting in Raw format. Absolutely none talked about softness following the conversion of Raw files.

Actually, this part is quite true -- DPReview stresses using Adobe's RAW converter, for example. I can't find the example right now, but I'm certain that when I was researching for my purchasing decision that at least one other review site noted that Pentax's raw converter gave basically the same results as in-camera conversion. (Which makes sense given that this is apparently an intentional design decision.)

There really does appear to be difference in sharpening technique when using Bright mode -- it's very unfortunate that the manual doesn't mention this and just talks about the effect on the tone curve. (Because, really, how is anyone supposed to know that?)

My take-away is really: if you intend to use your JPEGs as-is or with a minimum of tweaking (and really, if you get the exposure correct, there's a lot of room), use Bright mode (with, as I've noted elsewhere, -1 saturation). I don't really see the point of Natural mode -- why not use RAW?

[RiceHigh]

So what's all mumbo-jumbo is about? As you can see, in-camera JPEGs CAN be sharp. All you need to do is set a couple of sliders off their default position. Is that hard? Even more, K10D, after tweaking some settings, give you images sharper, then any other 10MP ACP-S DSLR, because it's AA filter is different from what others are using.

Apply more *sharpening* on an original unsharp and blurry image will not give one a true highly resolved sharp image. Yes, it will surely look sharper when more sharpening is applied, but along with also more sharpening artifacts such as halos and color moires.

[codiac2600]

Snip:
"There isn't a single camera on the market which gains so much by shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera RAW to convert its images than the K10D. The difference is night and day and indeed the K10D in this comparison trumps the EOS 40D for detail which hints perhaps that Pentax are using a sensor with a lighter anti-alias filter (although if you look at some of the crops you can see some demosaicing artifacts)." -Phil Askey of DPReview.com

Even though Phil had to say it in the rudest of manors the K10D gives you sharper and more detailed images than the Canon 40D period. And the artifacts are from the 40D and I should know, I've shot the 40D in every which way and it's artifacts galore with the extreme sharpening engine.

[codiac2600]

Apply more *sharpening* on an original unsharp and blurry image will not give one a true highly resolved sharp image. Yes, it will surely look sharper when more sharpening is applied, but along with also more sharpening artifacts such as halos and color moires.

This is a false statement period!

ALL Canon cameras suffer from artifacts out of the camera unless you turn down the sharpening. The 40D, which is the closest competitor to the K10D, contains tons of artifacts especially in RAW images. I'd rather have a real camera that takes good pictures that contain little over-sharpening and realistic images. Don't need candy coating on my chocolate like some people.

Hmmm, and wait, the Canon 5D has soft Jpegs? Why aren't you complaining about that here RiceHigh? Oh thats right you brought that up on DPReview in there forum a long while back

[lol101]

Apply more *sharpening* on an original unsharp and blurry image will not give one a true highly resolved sharp image. Yes, it will surely look sharper when more sharpening is applied, but along with also more sharpening artifacts such as halos and color moires.

... but only partially though

If the original (raw or jpeg) image has no detail to begin with (ie if the camera lacks resolution or if excessive noise reduction has been previously applied) then no amount of PP can restore it.

However, as in the case of K10 raw or jpegs images, if original resolution is very high and details present, then it is simply a matter of taste and changing the settings, either in camera or PP to produce nice sharp prints.

Actually RiceHigh, I have already shown you straight jpeg output from the K10 and you didn't care to comment on their sharpness and details... would you like to see some more samples or do you still think that pictures are irrelevant to the discussion and that we'd better rely on carefully chosen excerpts from online reviews?

[Snowcat]

Actually RiceHigh, I have already shown you straight jpeg output from the K10 and you didn't care to comment on their sharpness and details... would you like to see some more samples or do you think that pictures are irrelevant to the discussion?

Same... I have posted a pic. I can post more, 100% crop if needed, shot of a cloth flower, where every cloth fiber is visible and no artifacts, or whatever.
Halos and moires are highly visible on D200. That's why i dont like it, and the absence of them is what i love in K10D.

[therightpic]

"Boy, your buddy must be beaming that he chose the "better" camera.

What were his thoughts on the causes of the blurriness?"

Yeah, he was gloating pretty bad. He is newer than I am at this, which is saying a lot, so I don't think he even noticed until I told him, then he definitely could see and point out the differences.

I know this is not going to make me popular in this forum but I am sending my K10D back, which makes me pretty sad. I feel like it is a feature-rich camera but the 'buddy' I keep mentioning and I are going to start doing some portrait and wedding work with a pro in the area (which is a new development or I would have waited to buy a camera) and we want to have the same equipment. I couldn't convince him to go Pentax based on the results we both could muster.

Anyway, thanks for all of your help everyone, I just know I am going to get slammed but I also have been reading a lot in-between-the-lines on these forums and obviously finding lenses is an issue for Pentax that isn't there for Nikon. Also, there is nowhere for me to go as a step up with Pentax right now. If my side-work takes off I can upgrade to 3 different cameras in the Nikon line and use my lenses. With Pentax I would be left waiting until they come out with their next camera.

Regretfully, I am turning to Nikon. Good luck to everyone here. I probably won't be here much but will try to monitor this post for a few days so I can take my share of the beating that will be coming.

[lol101]

"Boy, your buddy must be beaming that he chose the "better" camera.

What were his thoughts on the causes of the blurriness?"

Yeah, he was gloating pretty bad. He is newer than I am at this, which is saying a lot, so I don't think he even noticed until I told him, then he definitely could see and point out the differences.

I know this is not going to make me popular in this forum but I am sending my K10D back, which makes me pretty sad. I feel like it is a feature-rich camera but the 'buddy' I keep mentioning and I are going to start doing some portrait and wedding work with a pro in the area (which is a new development or I would have waited to buy a camera) and we want to have the same equipment. I couldn't convince him to go Pentax based on the results we both could muster.

Anyway, thanks for all of your help everyone, I just know I am going to get slammed but I also have been reading a lot in-between-the-lines on these forums and obviously finding lenses is an issue for Pentax that isn't there for Nikon. Also, there is nowhere for me to go as a step up with Pentax right now. If my side-work takes off I can upgrade to 3 different cameras in the Nikon line and use my lenses. With Pentax I would be left waiting until they come out with their next camera.

Regretfully, I am turning to Nikon. Good luck to everyone here. I probably won't be here much but will try to monitor this post for a few days so I can take my share of the beating that will be coming.

Errrh...

No, I can't find any fault with your reasoning...

Sorry, can't really insult you as much as you'd probably deserve...

Try coming back in a few weeks touting how much better is your Nikon system, see if it helps!


Good luck with your purchase!

[Peter Zack]

Well you have to suit your own needs and I hope that the new system does what you need. I certainly don't think you'll get flamed here very much. You have to be comfortable with the gear you own and it needs to do what you want.

For the type of shooting (weddings, portraits) that you just indicated, glass is not an issue. The new DA*50-135mm and 16-50 would cover anything you'll need at a wedding. For darker church (no flash) shooting a fast 43mm Limited and maybe a 31mm would be all you need to carry at a wedding. Too many lenses at a wedding are a pain anyway. The only other lens worthy of note for this type of shooting would be the FA 50mm 1.4 as it is fast and good wide open. All of these are easily available and at competitive prices to the other brands.

Yes long fast glass is an issue, no denying it. We all assume that from both Pentax and the 3rd party suppliers that will start to clear up over the next 6 months.

Honestly, I don't think you understood the gear and what it was capable of. There are a number of pros that do very well with this gear and can compare with any brand available.

Good luck with the new system and drop in once in awhile.

BTW, you mentioned earlier that you don't like the idea of post processing your shots. Now for personal stuff that may not be necessary. When it comes to work that you are going to sell or get paid for. You need to make the time and learn how to do it. I would expect you'll have to do even some minor PP work on every shot you take no matter what the system you choose. It's just part of the deal. Frankly that hasn't changed for a 100 years. I had a darkroom years ago and many times I was dodging and burning a shot to get exactly what I wanted. We're just lucky today that there are so many more options and the time involved is so much shorter

[stewart_photo]

Someone give this man a beer.

Since that text was prepared some time ago for another discussion and saved, it is all simple cut & paste now. However, I will still happily accept any good quality beer coming this way.

stewart