[rayallen]

This is something I originally shot back in 2010. At the time I didn't really like it. Over the years I have had a few different goes at developing the RAW file, and this is my favorite result.

Pentax K10D
SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4

An excellent shot. Easy on the eye and there are lots of things to look at and enjoy.

[paulh]

From last October with the kit lens:

[niceshot]

Here is a shot I took today

[paulh]

Here is a shot I took today

Nice one

Taken late December with an F35-70

[niceshot]

Nice one

Taken late December with an F35-70

I have the A version of that lens, very sharp. Also have the AF 35-70 2.8

[Dartmoor Dave]

Taken late December with an F35-70

Darn it Paul, I wish you'd stop taking beautiful photographs with lenses that I'm utterly hopeless with. It was bad enough when it was just the 18-55mm, but now this too. I had the F35-70mm for a while and all I got out of it wash mush. The composition of the path snaking away into the distance is wonderful.

[BigMackCam]

@niceshot and @paulh - lovely shots

How do we get by with only 10 megapickles?!

[E-man]

@niceshot and @paulh - lovely shots

How do we get by with only 10 megapickles?!

The flip side of that question is do we really need more than that? I recently got seduced by a good deal on a Samsung GX-20 (K20D's 'evil twin') and for my needs, the extra four megapixels really don't make that much difference in an otherwise almost identical camera. The GX-20 at 14 megapixels may have 40 percent more megapixels than the K10D at 10 megapixels, but that doesn't automatically translate into 40 percent better pictures.

Conversely, moving to the K10D (10 megapixels) actually felt like a big step up from my beloved blue Kx (12 megapixels), which I still have and use occasionally, because of the K10D's more advanced feature set. Greater user control easily canceled out the 20 percent reduction in megapixels.

[paulh]

@niceshot and @paulh - lovely shots

How do we get by with only 10 megapickles?!

Thanks Mike, Dave and niceshot 10 mpx is just fine, thank you. In fact I often make do with even less. I use my Takumars exclusively with my old 6 mpx *ist D. Basically the same lovely CCD rendering, but with lower resolution of course. For web viewing, it makes little difference, imo. I actually prefer the larger viewfinder for manual focusing on the *ist D. Obviously, framing is important, since you cannot do a lot a cropping!

I would love to use my MF lenses on my K10D, but the camera has a focusing issue I've mentioned before. AF lenses work fine. But when using MF lenses, the focused image seen thru the viewfinder doesn't coincide with the green hex focus confirmation. The image may appear sharp in the VF, but the green hex doesn't light up. Conversely, when the green hex does light up, the VF image appears OOF. Frustrating, since I'm uncomfortable just relying on the green hex for focus.

[ChristianRock]

The flip side of that question is do we really need more than that? I recently got seduced by a good deal on a Samsung GX-20 (K20D's 'evil twin') and for my needs, the extra four megapixels really don't make that much difference in an otherwise almost identical camera. The GX-20 at 14 megapixels may have 40 percent more megapixels than the K10D at 10 megapixels, but that doesn't automatically translate into 40 percent better pictures.

Conversely, moving to the K10D (10 megapixels) actually felt like a big step up from my beloved blue Kx (12 megapixels), which I still have and use occasionally, because of the K10D's more advanced feature set. Greater user control easily canceled out the 20 percent reduction in megapixels.

I had the K20D and I think the K10D gives me better images. I didn't like anything over ISO 640 in either of them so for me, ISO performance was similar. Still, I have fond memories of the K20D and it was capable of very good images.

I also had the K-r (which is what the K-x became when it grew up) and I do miss that camera. I think it was way ahead of the K20D in terms of its CMOS sensor, the images were nice and almost as good as the K10D's. I do miss that camera. Yesterday someone posted one basically for free in the Marketplace (it had the flappy shutter issue pretty badly, from the description, but for 20 dollars shipped, I would have given it a try). I replied an hour after it was posted, but it was already gone... alas.

The only other Pentax I know well is, of course, the K-S1. Fantastic IQ. And I'm going to win that K-S2, so I'll tell you later how it is

[niceshot]

Shot with my Pentax 35-70 2.8 AF

[noblepa]

The flip side of that question is do we really need more than that? I recently got seduced by a good deal on a Samsung GX-20 (K20D's 'evil twin') and for my needs, the extra four megapixels really don't make that much difference in an otherwise almost identical camera. The GX-20 at 14 megapixels may have 40 percent more megapixels than the K10D at 10 megapixels, but that doesn't automatically translate into 40 percent better pictures.

Conversely, moving to the K10D (10 megapixels) actually felt like a big step up from my beloved blue Kx (12 megapixels), which I still have and use occasionally, because of the K10D's more advanced feature set. Greater user control easily canceled out the 20 percent reduction in megapixels.

Indeed. I've printed 16 x 20 prints from my K10d images. If you get really, really close and use a magnifying glass, you can see some pixilation. But, a print that large is intended to be viewed from at least three feet. At that distance, it looks just fine. To be fair, the image is almost completely uncropped.

However, I have a few images that I would like to crop a small portion of and print. Once I crop it, so I don't have a print that is 80% blue sky, I am left with a 2 or 3 megapixel image. Now, THAT can't be enlarged to 16 x 20, or even 11 x 14. In those cases it would be nice to start with 20-24 Mp.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Anyone selling their K10D? Hahaha!

I had bid on a K10D a while ago, but it ended up going for far more than what I was willing to pay for it.

There is one on eBay right now with about 409 shutter actuations, but they're asking for $239. Still seems kind of steep for an older camera. I'd rather put that kind of money towards the Pentax 16-85mm lens instead.

There's another one for about $52, but has about 40,000 actuations. Seems like there's nothing decent out there.

[goatsNdonkey]

.....There's another one for about $52, but has about 40,000 actuations. Seems like there's nothing decent out there.

Is there anything wrong with 40K shutter actuations if the camera is working properly? I think some of the more-experienced-than-me K10D users would say GRAB IT while you can!

[The Squirrel Mafia]

^ I'm following it right now. The auction ends on Sunday. The only thing is the estimated high shutter count. It's already a few years old too. Who knows if it'll make or pass 100,000.