[kamisu]

Hi all,

I have been checking different DSLR cameras for a few years, and instead I bought canon S95 last year, because I could not find sharpness that I like in any new DSLR with average lenses.

I have been reading reviews on K5 and D7000 for a few weeks, and despite all pros and cons, when I check samples available online, I can not find the sharpness that I expect in either. Indeed, this is the case for all other
cameras, T2i, NEX, kx, etc.

I did some search regarding this, and I think there are two reasons for this. First, on monitors (mine is a glossy 21.5") images larger than 10MP can not be shown well, since they should be changed in size to fit in the screen.
It looks like only in large prints the advantage of more MP can be seen. The other probable reason is CCD vs CMOS sensors.

I think both are true, since D40 images look much better (sharper) on my screen than those from D7000, the same for K10D vs kx or K5.

I do not have any lenses, so all brands will work for me, but after checking thousands of photos (mostly macro and close up) on flickr, I have reached the conclusion that no other camera than K10D delivers sharper and focused
results on my LCD monitor.

On the othert hand, it is a really old camera, not great in low light, no live view, small screen, kinda heavy and very expensive (new) and used ones are almost the same price as other new DSLRs.

So while I like results of K10D the most, I can not make my decision final to buy it (used).

Plese let me know your opinions and if there are any way that I can get same sharp results on my screen from other cameras.

Thanks a lot.

[Adam]

If the only reason you want to get a K10 is that you think it takes sharper photos, then don't get one because it isn't It all depends on what JPEG settings you apply or how you develop your RAW files. All in all, you can expect significantly better image quality from the K-5, thanks to its wider dynamic range and higher resolution. BTW, why are you browsing photos at full resolution? You should scale them to whatever resolution your monitor natively supports, or something below that. Scaling algorithms used by photo browsers don't always do a good job.


With that said, the K10 isn't a bad camera, but it is a little dated. Go for a K-5!

[Aegon]

The K10D is a fine camera if you don't need anything past ISO 400 or 10 megapickles, and if you don't need the fastest AF speeds or the best dynamic range.

I'm not being sarcastic either. In its sweet spot, the K10D delivers.

But the K-5 has a huge sweet spot in comparison.

[TaoMaas]

With that said, the K10 isn't a bad camera, but it is a little dated.

Very true. If you're looking to go cheap...and don't plan to use anything above 400 ASA...the K10D might be a good choice in "bang for the buck".

[kamisu]

Thansk for the replies. As I mentioned the only reason I thought K10D can be better, is image sharpness on my screen. I have read that changing image size in camera, only changes the size of JPEG and
RAW file is still of the same size and will not affect sharpness on screen.

So regarding scaling photos to the screen resolution, is it something that can be done by softwares or using in camera settings?

Thanks.

[kamisu]

I should also add that may be instead of sharpness, I should say focused, since in most of K5 (also D7000 or T2i) "macro" photos, on my screen, it looks like all the image is in "boke", while I see more focused-sharp-crisp regions in
K10D samples.

I do not mean that K10D is a better camera, definitely not, just wanna know how can I get same general sharpness, or may be I can say "better focused" results from K5 or other new DSLRs.

[luftfluss]

Thansk for the replies. As I mentioned the only reason I thought K10D can be better, is image sharpness on my screen. I have read that changing image size in camera, only changes the size of JPEG and
RAW file is still of the same size and will not affect sharpness on screen.

So regarding scaling photos to the screen resolution, is it something that can be done by softwares or using in camera settings?

Thanks.

RAW files are generally not "sharp" on screen. Sharpening is done either in the camera or via software.

Newer cameras have more image control parameters for jpeg files than older cameras.

You noted the Nikon D40 has better sharpness. That's because the D40 was very much designed for point-n-shoot users, who often have a different conception of "sharpness" compared with DSLR users. P&S cameras often pump up the contrast and "sharpness" to give the appearance of detailed images. What is actually occurring is the edges are being emphasized in the camera's processing in order to give the appearance of a high level of detail.

[Philoslothical]

I should also add that may be instead of sharpness, I should say focused, since in most of K5 (also D7000 or T2i) "macro" photos, on my screen, it looks like all the image is in "boke", while I see more focused-sharp-crisp regions in K10D samples.

Macro shots always have a very narrow depth of field, so anything but the subject (and sometimes part of the subject) is going to be out of focus. A K10 isn't going to change that at all, it will produce the same results. It comes down to the lens used, the aperture used, the magnification obtained.

Really, to address all your concerns, your opinion is being influenced by the glass used for the samples you look at, the exposure settings used, and the resolution of the final image. Looking at 1:1 crops (or full sized images) taken with a kit lens, you're not going to get tack sharp results, but scaled down to a usable size, or printed, they look entirely different. The benefit of a more modern body with a higher resolution sensor is you have a lot more leeway to crop and resize.

As far as sharpness itself goes, it's ALL in the glass. Any DSLR of any brand is capable of producing very sharp images, provided there's a decent piece of glass focusing the light. There is no advantage to selecting an aging camera body over a K-r or K-5, but there's a big advantage to be had putting a good lens on it instead of the kit zoom. There is also a great advantage to be had by taking care in your post processing, applying sharpening in post, rather than the quick and dirty (by comparison, remember it has to be fast and not processor intensive) methods used in-camera.

[Adam]

So regarding scaling photos to the screen resolution, is it something that can be done by softwares or using in camera settings?

You have to do this via post processing for proper results (i.e. using Photoshop, Lightroom, GIMP, etc). You can have these programs automate the process, but if you simply rely on JPEG previews to judge the sharpness of your photos, you won't get very far

[sterretje]

Usually images on the web are not full size; are you sure the ones you viewed are on full resolution (e.g 4928x3264 for the K5)? They are reduced in size from the native resolution to something like 960x640. If next, you blow them up to fit your screen, you will indeed will see a poor quality image.

Not sure if that is what you are doing. I recently made the mistake viewing images that I resized to web format on a higher 'resolution' on my computer. The effect was awful.

I'm busy uploading the original 10MByte version of the below image that was taken with a K5 (at full resolution; jpeg from camera), so you can compare. I will post the link when the upload is finished (see end of this post).



Done: http://44galena.org.za/M120/20111124_140921_IMGP1620.jpg
Warning: it's close to 10MB

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree with other posters that you are a bit confused as to the nature of what you are perceiving as sharpness. Viewed at a size that fits your screen, or printed small (say, 4x6"), there is going to be essentially zero difference between any camera of 6MP or more in how sharp the images are capable of appearing. Any difference you see at that size won't be due to the camera but to the way the image was shot - where it was focused, how large the DOF was, whether a faster enough shutter speed was used, etc - or perhaps how the image was processed. The only way you will see a real difference that can be attributed to the hardware itself is by making large pronts or viewing at sizes too big to fit on your monitor. And then, the most important factors will be the resolution of the camera (10MP is more than 6MP and hence can be blown up larger and still appear acceptably sharp) and the lens used.

With that in mind, sure, the K10D is a fine choice - not especiall good or especially bad. It will be pretty much exactly as every other 10MP camera, which is to say, when viewing images that fit on your computer screen, it will be as sharp as any modern camera can ever be, but when blowing images up larger, it will be sharper than 6MP camera and less sharp than 16MP cameras. All assuming you are comparing using similar lenses, of course.

[sterretje]

To get back to the original question if it's a good decision. I doubt it's a good decision for the reason you give. I have the K10D, K100D and K5 and all images look very good (full size 1920xsomething pixels) on my 24" screen without resizing them

The K10D is a very good camera. It lacks autofocus fine adjustment which was my major gripe with it after I bought the FA31Ltd and the main reason to upgrade to the K5. It's indeed heavy and big, specially compared to the K5.

[vonBaloney]

Frankly, what you are saying (original poster) makes very little sense -- ALL of the cameras you mentioned are quite capable of displaying a sharp image on any monitor. If that is not what you are seeing with the average image from (say) Flickr, then something is wrong. (Are you by chance on a weird internet connection that automatically compresses images? Some mobile carriers do that to keep the bandwidth down, and the quality looks terrible on anything bigger than a phone -- is this actually a laptop screen we are talking about?) Are you satisfied with the S95 images? That's a nice camera, but any DSLR will make images just as nice, and probably better. And is that all you are concerned with? Is the sole purpose of your images going to be monitor display? It sounds like you need a bit of education before you buy anything, because what you are saying doesn't make sense.

[TER-OR]

I have both K10 and K5 and the difference is dramatic.
The K-10 is still great on a good bright day and for many uses. Sometimes my wife and I will use both cameras with different lenses when visiting a park or garden. The K10 still works fine, but it's showing its age.

I bought it in '08 for $350. If you can get it for under $200, it may be worth getting.

Otherwise, save your pennies and get the more modern camera, you'll be happy with it.

[spade111]

I think if you can get one for a reasonable price ($300) - the K10D is still a very good camera, that is difficult to compare directly to new competition.

10mpx very nice low iso performance - in the grand scheme of things - you recognize that mpx is not everything. Agreed - high iso is not perfect... but it goes to 1600. So does film.
Weathersealed
Shake reduction
Very sturdy body - with a rock solid construction

I doubt very much that you'll be able to find anything with all of those features (maybe some that are not very important to you) - for the same money.

The K5 is a very good camera - and may be worth the extra money. For your needs - both out resolve your monitor.