[snofox]

This is just an excellent thread. I don't have a K10D but I have thoroughly enjoyed these photos. They make me appreciate all the more the "old" and "outdated" gear that I have, and they have increased my resolve to keep and use it more. Thanks, everyone, and especially to the OP.

I missed the K10, but at least I have the K200D, and it never ceases to please me.

[rayallen]

Can someone shoot some subjects side by side from each camera? :P

Sorry, I can't. The only DSLR I have is my K10D.

---------- Post added 04-15-2014 at 08:03 PM ----------

Here are three shots taken over the last couple of days. Each one is taken with a different lens.

DA 18-55mm WR


DA 50-200mm ED


Tamron AF70-300mm Di LD

[Mike Gezing]

Sorry, I can't. The only DSLR I have is my K10D.

---------- Post added 04-15-2014 at 08:03 PM ----------

Here are three shots taken over the last couple of days. Each one is taken with a different lens.

DA 18-55mm WR


DA 50-200mm ED


Tamron AF70-300mm Di LD

Great pictures Ray Allen, It will be many weeks before I can go out and take pictures like that. Snow in the Chicago area yesterday, 22 F ( -5.5 C ) this morning. I have both a K10D and K200D, I can compare them to my newly aquired K5IIs when the weather improves.

[paulh]

great shots, Ray.

Taken last Fall while driving thru a local park (xposted)
K10D, DA18-55 kit lens:

[freerider]

Sorry, I can't. The only DSLR I have is my K10D.

---------- Post added 04-15-2014 at 08:03 PM ----------

Here are three shots taken over the last couple of days. Each one is taken with a different lens.

DA 18-55mm WR


DA 50-200mm ED


Tamron AF70-300mm Di LD

Beautiful shots!

[rayallen]

Great pictures Ray Allen, It will be many weeks before I can go out and take pictures like that. Snow in the Chicago area yesterday, 22 F ( -5.5 C ) this morning. I have both a K10D and K200D, I can compare them to my newly aquired K5IIs when the weather improves.

Thank you, Mike. I feel for you in those temps. That is very cold.

Oh, I would really like to see comparative images from those three cameras. The K5IIS appeals to me but I have never used one.

---------- Post added 04-16-2014 at 07:46 AM ----------

Beautiful shots!

Thanks, freerider.

[tromboads]

well i may have answered my own questinos re colours of the CCD sensor

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vankarsten/7704979190/in/set-72157630885393460/

Posts a few images from the K10 and K5. hardly science, but a start. If we are talking about colour.. I confess to be enjoying the saturation in the K5, and look at the detail in the tree on the 2nd example. K10 is hardly there whilst the k5 shows texture. ..

But this is about colour...

[freerider]

well i may have answered my own questinos re colours of the CCD sensor

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vankarsten/7704979190/in/set-72157630885393460/

Posts a few images from the K10 and K5. hardly science, but a start. If we are talking about colour.. I confess to be enjoying the saturation in the K5, and look at the detail in the tree on the 2nd example. K10 is hardly there whilst the k5 shows texture. ..

But this is about colour...

The magazine pictures were taken at different apertures, focal lengths, and perhaps with different lenses. I think the tree in the K10D picture is in a shadow. If so, that would explain the lack of detail.

[tromboads]

His post explaining the images;

https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxk10d/discuss/72157630885410228/

But surely someone owns both and can do some science. Thus vindicating the colour belief I to naturally hold :P

[Dartmoor Dave]

well i may have answered my own questinos re colours of the CCD sensor

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vankarsten/7704979190/in/set-72157630885393460/

Posts a few images from the K10 and K5. hardly science, but a start. If we are talking about colour.. I confess to be enjoying the saturation in the K5, and look at the detail in the tree on the 2nd example. K10 is hardly there whilst the k5 shows texture. ..

But this is about colour...

Fascinating comparison, particularly the second shot of the street. No doubt people who think that photography is about sharpness at all costs will prefer the K5 shot, while those who believe that it's all about light and shade and colour will think the K10D easily wins. For me, the K10D shot is more aesthetically appealing in its richer colours and more dramatic contrast between light and dark. The K5 has got too much of the video freeze-frame look that happens all too often with digital cameras, and to me it just seems bland.

I only wish it had been economically viable for the evolution of CCD sensors to continue. Imagine the results we might be seeing today from a 24MP CCD sensor with no anti-aliasing filter.

[mcnicko]

Wonderful shots from everybody! I really liked the comparison between the K5 and the K10, it does make a good point. I'm still not willing to upgrade from my K10.
Here are a couple of shots from my last shoot:

[wkraus]

I tend to think that most of what we are discussing as sensor characteristics really results from raw processing. Comparisons do not make much sense if we don't know what we are comparing: sensors, or jpeg engines, or raw converter settings... Today I did my own test (K10D vs. K-5II, both with FA31 Limited, f/8), and while there are subtle differences, I can get results than are very similar with appropriate settings in ACR:

K10D:


K-5II:


Of course, if you don't want to worry with raw conversion it makes sense to take the sensor + in-camera processing as given, but then we are discussing much more than just sensors or sensor technologies.

[rayallen]

I tend to think that most of what we are discussing as sensor characteristics really results from raw processing. Comparisons do not make much sense if we don't know what we are comparing: sensors, or jpeg engines, or raw converter settings... Today I did my own test (K10D vs. K-5II, both with FA31 Limited, f/8), and while there are subtle differences, I can get results that are very similar with appropriate settings in ACR:

Of course, if you don't want to worry with raw conversion it makes sense to take the sensor + in-camera processing as given, but then we are discussing much more than just sensors or sensor technologies.

Thank you for that very good real life comparison. I agree with your thoughts. There are other variables apart from the sensors. When reviewing your two images, there are some very subtle differences but as far as I am concerned (and some will most likely disagree with me) there is not enough difference to worry about. If you had swapped the labels indicating which camera took which image I am sure nobody would have known!

[tromboads]

Thank you for the direct comparison wkraus! So it seems this richer colour we all claim to love from the K10 is really a true figment of group think! :P

Either way, as the examples show, there is a lot of life left in this "old technology"

VIVE LA RECYCLAGE :P

[BobD2]

I tend to think that most of what we are discussing as sensor characteristics really results from raw processing. Comparisons do not make much sense if we don't know what we are comparing: sensors, or jpeg engines, or raw converter settings... Today I did my own test (K10D vs. K-5II, both with FA31 Limited, f/8), and while there are subtle differences, I can get results than are very similar with appropriate settings in ACR:

Nice comparison shots - thanks for doing this test. I'm one of folks flapping their gums about CCD sensors giving punchier, more film-like results. I've owned a bunch of Pentax DSLR bodies, but never a CCD and CMOS body at the same time (I currently own an *ist DS2 and a K10D, but have also owned a K100D, K200D, K-x, K20D, and K-5). I had progressed through to the K-5, and then decided to back down to the K10D to get the CCD results I loved so much out of the older models I'd owned. So I'm going to now play devils advocate about the comparison you present.

First thing is from your description of doing the test, it sounds like you set out with the intent of making the images look the same ("I can get results that are very similar with appropriate settings in ACR"). I'm not saying that's a bad approach - it's a worthy comparison strategy, but if you set out to see if you could get the images to look the same, then you might be subduing the punchier color we claim the CCD sensor is capable of.

The second thing is that you scaled both images down to a smaller equal size, so differences other than color may be equalized. For example, I'm convinced that by packing 16 million pixels versus 10 onto the same size sensor and also working hard to keep noise levels low at high ISO settings makes for softer images at low ISO settings with the K-5 or K-5II. But if you scale both images down to 1000 pixels or less, however, the possibly softer image from the K-5II may tighten up and look very similar to the K10D image. I'm willing to bet if you did a 100% crop out of the middle of both test images, while the K-5II crop would show details at a larger size, it would also appear softer. From personally owning both cameras, I'm still convinced that what you gain in mega pixels you lose in sharpness, and that when pixel peeping, it's only when you scale down a K-5 image to the size of a K10D image do you see similar sharpness at 1:1 pixel ratio.

Lastly there's my own claim that CCD images from the K10D are more "film-like", which I love because I still love and still shoot film. My thinking there is that as noise does creep in with the K10D sensor, as long as you remove the color noise in ACR or equivalent, the luminance noise that's left is what's giving the images a more film-like look. I definitely know this is subjective, and I know some people would rather see less noise - period - regardless of the nature of that noise. But personally, I sometimes shoot at ISO 800 on the K10D in broad daylight because I like the film-like noise it will give my images.

Again, this is all subjective and just my opinions. The K-5 or K-5II are fantastic cameras capable of amazing images - better in some way, different in other ways.