[wtlwdwgn]

Some sunrise clouds with the DA* 50-135. Xpstd.

[rayallen]

I have just been going back through my images to look for an image to enter into a competition and when I saw the thumbnails of some of my older images I was blown away by the vibrancy of the K10D images when compared to those from the K-3.
The K10D ones do appear much more colourful and almost jump out of the screen. There's plenty more life left in the old K10D and its CCD sensor.

Anyway, the competition subject is "Architecture" and here is the second image I am entering:



Taken at University of Sydney on 4 December 2011. K10D, SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL.

[paulh]

I like it, Ray - nicely done. And with the kit lens, no less! Best of luck in the contest as well

Sigma 28-90:

[rayallen]

I like it, Ray - nicely done. And with the kit lens, no less! Best of luck in the contest as well

Sigma 28-90:

Thanks, Paul. And it is Version 1 of the kit lens. Before I got my WR version. The competition is just a Facebook group thing but they were begging for a few more entries. The one who gets the most points gets to choose the subject for the next month.

Gee, the bokeh from the Sigma 28-90 is a bit different! A bit like a mirror lens.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I have just been going back through my images to look for an image to enter into a competition and when I saw the thumbnails of some of my older images I was blown away by the vibrancy of the K10D images when compared to those from the K-3.The K10D ones do appear much more colourful and almost jump out of the screen. There's plenty more life left in the old K10D and its CCD sensor.

I think you're right, Ray. I've been astonished at how well the old 10mp CCD stands up against the 20mp CMOS in my little K-S1, and it sounds like you're seeing a similar thing with your K-3.

Of course, at higher ISO settings the new CMOS blows the old CCD away for noise performance. And, yes, there's a noticeable increase in sharpness with the AA filter-less design. But at ISO100 the overall rendering with the CCD is so much better. Colours are richer and deeper and truer-to-life, and there is a sense of luminosity from the CCD that the CMOS just can't match: light and shadows look like light and shadows.

The K-S1 is a great little camera for the price, and at higher ISOs it works wonderfully well. But my feeling at the moment is that my K10D clone is still the camera to reach for at ISO100.

[rayallen]

I think you're right, Ray. I've been astonished at how well the old 10mp CCD stands up against the 20mp CMOS in my little K-S1, and it sounds like you're seeing a similar thing with your K-3.

Of course, at higher ISO settings the new CMOS blows the old CCD away for noise performance. And, yes, there's a noticeable increase in sharpness with the AA filter-less design. But at ISO100 the overall rendering with the CCD is so much better. Colours are richer and deeper and truer-to-life, and there is a sense of luminosity from the CCD that the CMOS just can't match: light and shadows look like light and shadows.

The K-S1 is a great little camera for the price, and at higher ISOs it works wonderfully well. But my feeling at the moment is that my K10D clone is still the camera to reach for at ISO100.

I thought it would not be long before you commented, Dave. And I expected you would say something like you have said. We are definitely on the same wavelength.

In fact, tomorrow I am going out with a group of photogs for a festive season lunch but first we are going to the Mt. Penang Gardens to take flower shots and I have packed the K10D in my camera bag. An easy decision.
Expect to see some flower shots here soon.

[RussV]

I think you're right, Ray. I've been astonished at how well the old 10mp CCD stands up against the 20mp CMOS in my little K-S1, and it sounds like you're seeing a similar thing with your K-3.

That's an interesting observation. Makes me feel better about my old camera!

[paulh]

Gee, the bokeh from the Sigma 28-90 is a bit different! A bit like a mirror lens.

Yeah, it can get quite bubbly! I usually don't use the lens for those types of shots, but it's what was on the camera that morning . It's better as a general walkaround, and the rendering can be quite nice for a cheap lens.

That's an interesting observation. Makes me feel better about my old camera!

My "old" camera is my *ist D! The K10D is my "new" camera . Now, I did just pick up a Fuji X10 compact camera which is fairly modern - at least it has a CMOS sensor. A pretty capable and fun little cam, but I'll save those images for a more appropriate thread...

[RussV]

My 'old' camera is a K100ds. I have a Panasonic compact which looks better on paper, a lot more pixels etc, but the K100ds easily out shoots it in picture quality. The Panasonic is handy for video and a lot smaller though.

[tromboads]

I can't help but feel we are all just commenting on the default tone curve, or the base curve from these cameras. I certinaly have noticed the cmos curve to be a little under-saturated and washed out compared to the ccd, But I cant help but feel that is just more to do with the colour fashion at the time then a hardware limitation / decision.

Still, all observations I agree with. Colour in my K10 raw files was be default, brighter, and arguably better looking, but that all comes back by the time it's been processed.

[rayallen]

I promised that I would soon post some flower pics. Well, here they are. It was a very hot and bright sunny day. A group of us went to Mt Penang Gardens and my main aim was to see the water lilies in flower.
I was not disappointed. The K10D performed well and the images were processed in Lightroom.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I can't help but feel we are all just commenting on the default tone curve, or the base curve from these cameras. I certinaly have noticed the cmos curve to be a little under-saturated and washed out compared to the ccd, But I cant help but feel that is just more to do with the colour fashion at the time then a hardware limitation / decision.

Still, all observations I agree with. Colour in my K10 raw files was be default, brighter, and arguably better looking, but that all comes back by the time it's been processed.

I'm still in my early days of learning how to get the best out of CMOS raw files, and so far I'm finding it a challenge to get the look I really want out of them. Meanwhile the old CCD gives me the look I want with very little post-processing needed.

If you're right, and it's a software rather than a hardware problem, I guess I'm going to have to learn to do more post-processing than I'm used to. And perhaps I just have to get used to the fact that newer cameras are designed to give a different look.

My theory is that the K10D was designed at a time when camera manufacturers were still trying to lure people away from film, so the camera was designed to give the film-like look that we all love here. Meanwhile, new cameras are designed to different aesthetic criteria that gives them a much more "digital" rather than "film-like" look. I'm sure I'll get used to the modern CMOS look given enough time, but for now I'm glad that I've held on to my K10D clone.

[tromboads]

Makes sense, and yeah, software is powerful.

I'm certainly glad I got to break my digital teeth on a K10

[GlennG]

I have just been going back through my images to look for an image to enter into a competition and when I saw the thumbnails of some of my older images I was blown away by the vibrancy of the K10D images when compared to those from the K-3.The K10D ones do appear much more colourful and almost jump out of the screen. There's plenty more life left in the old K10D and its CCD sensor. Anyway, the competition subject is "Architecture" and here is the second image I am entering:

Nice stairway! I hope that will be given good consideration by the judges. I have enjoyed many K10 CCD photos posted here and elsewhere. Of course I don't know how much processing was done, but very many of the photos have the vibrancy you mention. The kit lens - I think it still does pretty well.

But at ISO100 the overall rendering with the CCD is so much better. Colours are richer and deeper and truer-to-life, and there is a sense of luminosity from the CCD that the CMOS just can't match: light and shadows look like light and shadows.

I agree. Though I have only the k100dS as my only CCD camera, I find that true for that also. In fact, at low ISO, I believe I prefer the photos to those from the K5.

My 'old' camera is a K100ds

Mine also. Still have it, use it, and like it just as much as when I first got it in 2009.

A group of us went to Mt Penang Gardens and my main aim was to see the water lilies in flower.I was not disappointed. The K10D performed well and the images were processed in Lightroom.

Very nice! Very, VERY, nice!

[rayallen]

Nice stairway! I hope that will be given good consideration by the judges. I have enjoyed many K10 CCD photos posted here and elsewhere. Of course I don't know how much processing was done, but very many of the photos have the vibrancy you mention. The kit lens - I think it still does pretty well.

Very nice! Very, VERY, nice!

Thank you for your kind words. You have made my day.