Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-05-2008, 02:30 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Humm, tough call. With the FA50 you won't need to have as high an ISO for normal indoor light but you will with any of the other lenses. The K10D will shoot high ISO's fairly well if you slightly over-expose the shot. I add 1/3-1/2 Ev comp to all my high ISO shooting with that camera and it does very well. The issue is mostly with under exposed images. The darker colours get very noisy at 1600.

The k100D will shoot high ISO better (I have both). So now it's up to to decide which suits you best.

04-05-2008, 04:05 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
I still recommend that the 1st generation should not be considered

QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
Lets leave out functionality (I know the K10D has easier access to functions) as I am mainly interested the IQ.

Which camera, if tweaked a bit, gives the best jpeg pictures (dynamic range, colours, sharpness, saturation,...) without telling me that RAW is the best.
I think K20D should be the best and K200D is better (than the K10D, at least)

QuoteQuote:
I know RAW is the max, but since I have a time consuming job, two young kids and alot of work around the house, I do not have the time to spend processing RAW images. I also have another hobby I like very much, RC buggy racing.
Me too.

QuoteQuote:
If I can get equal jpeg output (and only use occasionally RAW) should I choose the K100D solely for its ISO 3200 and better ISO 1600? Will I need iso 3200 with the FA50mm 1.4 lens in normal lit indoor enviroments ?

If not then the K10D will be better with its brighter viewfinder, RAW+jpeg and only then I can or will take into account its better functionality.

Does this make any sense?
But with the K10D and K100D, I don't think you will be satisfied with direct jpegs out of the cameras. The K10D's jpegs are too soft edged even for the finest compression setting and sharpening won't help but only will create more artifacts. The K100D's jpegs are sharper but its only at 6MP, plus you probably will end up to shoot RAW mostly owing to inaccurate exposure problem and metering inconsistency (well and unreliable Auto WB as well).

So, my recommendation is to consider only the K20 and K200 and to try out yourself if you have the chance. If not, do more research on the net to see how end-users complain or praise and to study the un-retouched posted images.

So far, my own research tells me that the K20D is the best but noise wise it is still considered to be noisy at ISO 800 and up, unless in-camera Noise Reduction is applied. (but then all APS-C DSLR with high pixel counts are like that anyway)
04-05-2008, 09:55 AM   #18
Veteran Member
simons-photography's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northamptonshire - England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 497
go for the K10D and use RAW+JPG best of both worlds
04-05-2008, 03:05 PM   #19
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
I wouldn't be relying on ISO 3200 on the K100D. The few shots I've taken at that ISO had come out less desirable than if I'd shot at ISO 1600 and tweaked the image afterwards.

ISO 1600 may be better on the K100D (or K200D) than the K10D, but ask yourself how often you would want to consistently shoot at that ISO (other than if you have a K20D)?

If I really wanted shots to come out sharp and well exposed indoors, I use bounced flash to complement the ambient light, whether on my K100D or K10D. The difference in high ISO performance between these cameras has not been significant enough for me to forsake my K10D (which I upgraded to from the K100D, mind you).

04-09-2008, 03:11 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Matjazz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EU/Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 774
QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
Hi Matjazz,

Is see you use your K100D Super in extreme conditions. I'm trying to make a decision between the K100D and the K10D.
Any suggestions or tips which can help me. I started a topic Dilemma...
I can tell you why I bought K100D Super rather than K10D - it is lighter, smaller, less noisy and uses AA batteries. The features I miss most is pentaprism (and perhaps sealing).

QuoteQuote:
I also see you use two flashes (one is just a manual flash I think). This means you can use multiple flashes on the K100D?
I ask this because I also have a Sunpak 383 Super which I'm planning to sell as I have bought a AF360. Should I keep the Sunpak?
I'm using radio triggers one can find on eBay. The two flashes on picture are auto and measure appropriate exposure with their own sensor. I don't know what your flash looks like or what it can do so I cant advise you no selling or keeping it.

04-09-2008, 09:49 AM   #21
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belgium - Antwerp
Posts: 17
Original Poster
Well I think its time to decide i

Now I can buy a new K100D Super + kitlens for 405 or a used K10D + kitlens (and extra battery) for 430 (around 6 months old).

But I just keep reading all this contradictory things about the K10D:
Cons : not crisp jpegs (non tweakable according to Phils dpreview)
bad high iso (some have vpn)
best to use only raw (yes I find this a negative thing - though I'm not familiar with RAW and think its time consuming)

Pros : viewfinder
customisable (though not for jpegs)

I'm going nuts here!!
04-09-2008, 09:51 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 270
QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
Lets leave out functionality (I know the K10D has easier access to functions) as I am mainly interested the IQ.

Which camera, if tweaked a bit, gives the best jpeg pictures (dynamic range, colours, sharpness, saturation,...) without telling me that RAW is the best.

I know RAW is the max, but since I have a time consuming job, two young kids and alot of work around the house, I do not have the time to spend processing RAW images. I also have another hobby I like very much, RC buggy racing.

If I can get equal jpeg output (and only use occasionally RAW) should I choose the K100D solely for its ISO 3200 and better ISO 1600? Will I need iso 3200 with the FA50mm 1.4 lens in normal lit indoor enviroments ?

If not then the K10D will be better with its brighter viewfinder, RAW+jpeg and only then I can or will take into account its better functionality.

Does this make any sense?

look at the photo galleries to see the output of the K10D, it is amazing. but hey there are return policies too. If you don't like one you can exchange it.
04-09-2008, 10:00 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,546
QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
Well I think its time to decide i

Now I can buy a new K100D Super + kitlens for 405€ or a used K10D + kitlens (and extra battery) for 430€ (around 6 months old).

But I just keep reading all this contradictory things about the K10D:
Cons : not crisp jpegs (non tweakable according to Phils dpreview)
bad high iso (some have vpn)
best to use only raw (yes I find this a negative thing - though I'm not familiar with RAW and think its time consuming)

Pros : viewfinder
customisable (though not for jpegs)

I'm going nuts here!!
I don't know where this Phil person comes off with his "not tweakable jpegs." That is just plain false.

In the [Rec. Mode] menu, you can set:

[Image Tone] Natural, Bright
[Saturation] -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3
[Sharpness] -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3
[Contrast] -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3

Check my Flickr site for noise level. It is not as bad as people make out. All you have to do to keep the noise down is to keep away from any hint of underexposure.

It is best to use RAW with any dSLR. JPEG processing throws away data that you might need to make an image print correctly and/or display correctly. However, if you are happy with the jpegs your camera puts out (after tweaking <G>) that's fine also. The point of RAW is to keep the absolute maximum possible information. You can batch process into jpegs and only work on those that don't come out as you want. I spend very little time with the post processing, and I shoot only RAW. Batch processing takes little personal time.

You can even bracket these settings using [Extended Bracket] in the [Rec. Mode] menu.


Last edited by Canada_Rockies; 04-09-2008 at 10:54 AM.
04-09-2008, 10:34 AM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belgium - Antwerp
Posts: 17
Original Poster
Well it's not that this review on dpreview says there no options to tweak, but that they are inaffective.

Dcresource on the other hands says the tweaking helps to get sharper and crisper jpegs.
04-09-2008, 11:07 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,546
QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
Well it's not that this review on dpreview says there no options to tweak, but that they are inaffective.

Dcresource on the other hands says the tweaking helps to get sharper and crisper jpegs.
The dpreview reviewer is entitled to his opinion, but I find that I can convert a jpeg to garish with those options on my K10D. I am perfectly happy with the camera's output. The LCD display which is a jpeg conversion, looks just fine to me. My settings are Natural and 0 for the rest. I have not yet pushed the colours even for printing.
04-09-2008, 11:45 AM   #26
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
Now I can buy a new K100D Super + kitlens for 405 or a used K10D + kitlens (and extra battery) for 430 (around 6 months old).
I sympathise with this dilemma, having gone through it a few months ago. I bought the K100D since the smaller size, use of AA batteries and better low-light handling won me over. But for me the price difference was 280. I think for the small premium (and extra battery!) the K10D is by far the better deal here. It is a more solid build and has all sorts of great features over the K100D. Wish it took AA but you can't have everything.

As for JPGs... forget them. Processing RAW is not difficult -- in fact it can be trivial. I use the free FastStone Image Viewer for browsing PEF files. If I find an image I like I can simply Save As JPG. Quick, no fuss. If I want to do more I can tweak in a RAW editor.

How many photos are really keepers in a session? I rarely need to convert more than 1 in 10. But by shooting RAW you save time when taking the photo. No more worrying about white balance, appropriate sharpness, etc. Fool around with this at your liberty later, and only for the shots you care about. I find RAW shooting is not time consuming, but rather time saving.

Then again I am a tweaker and don't mind spending the PP time when needed. Heck, it's easier (and cleaner) than a darkroom!
04-09-2008, 01:04 PM   #27
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
K10D shooting in RAW with Camera RAW = Awesome.
Workflow is eeeeasy, and the saved JPEGs come out brilliantly. But be sure you're using the right colourspace for your monitor and printer (as I've found out the hard way...)

K100D is fine too, but I don't see its JPEGs out of the box being any better than those from the K10D.

In my mind, K10D is a better camera overall, and once you've learnt RAW workflow with a capable software package, you'll find it quick to do and get significantly better pictures.

PS. I know how you feel - the full time job (not photography), the family, etc. You find that spending any time on the computer at all is a luxury. So make it quality time, not quantity time (leave the quantity time for the family! )
04-11-2008, 04:02 AM   #28
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belgium - Antwerp
Posts: 17
Original Poster
Thanks for all your responses.

I have made up my mind and I'm going with the K10D.

Some other questions :
1. Will it harm IQ when shooting at 8mp instead of 10mp?
2. Does anybody have experience with an Expocap versus Expodisk for white balance ?
3. What do you suggest for memory ? And how much memory ? Maybe also what brand not to buy? I've been looking at Sandisk Extreme III 4gb and Kingston.


I'll try to post my first pic as soons as I can.
04-11-2008, 04:28 AM   #29
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Bronco Quote
3. What do you suggest for memory ? And how much memory ? Maybe also what brand not to buy? I've been looking at Sandisk Extreme III 4gb and Kingston.
I don't think you really need the Extreme III, which are 133x speed. The 66x Ultra II should be fine, but if the premium isn't too much then sure, go for the faster card. But make sure you do get at least 66x and not something slower. If the card description doesn't say, assume it is too slow.

Everyone has their own opinions of makes and all will/might fail. Sandisk are a good standard but not generally considered the ultimate. Be very wary buying eBay memory as there are lots of bad clone sellers out there. I last bought OCZ Technology 150x cards and they work fine. They were cheaper even than much slower Sandisk and OCZ is a known maker of motherboard memory.

As for capacity I like 2GB, which holds 200 RAW images on my 6MP camera. That's a good amount to have on board at once, even with bracketing. It would have been way more expensive to jump to a 4GB SDHC card and then you've got more eggs in that one very tiny basket.

Figure out how many shots you take on an outing, divide by 200 (or whatever your capacity is) and buy that many cards. I bought only two cards three months back, since I knew that before I'd be going on an extended holiday when I'd need more, prices would have come down. Sure enough, the same card is already 20% cheaper.

One last thing. Do not buy SD cards in capacities higher than 2GB. For 4GB and up, be sure they are SDHC.
04-11-2008, 05:02 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Rparmar has the SD card issue well covered. The only thing I'd add to that is the faster cards will download to a computer faster so if an Extreme III is about the same price as an Ultra II then go with the Extreme III. At the camera end you won't see a difference since both are much faster than the buffer in the camera.

Next question. Why would you shoot at a smaller sized Jpeg with this camera? To save space on the card? It wouldn't make much sense. Some seem to think that shooting a smaller size will lessen noise at higher ISO's but that's not the case. All the pixels are still taking the picture so if there is going to be noise in a shot, then it would be the same either way. Of course there would be a loss in picture quality if you enlarge the shot. Less data to work with.

But once you've learned how to use the camera, I'd recommend you shoot RAW all the time. The only time I ever shoot Jpegs is for a quick 'product shot' for Ebay. Quality is not and issue and I can crop/resize a picture more quickly for that purpose. To me RAW is like shooting 35mm film with negatives Vs Jpeg like a Polaroid with the single print coming out of the camera. You can do so much more with adjustments in RAW than you can with a Jpeg and you have a lot more data there in a lossless format (Jpeg is lossy so every save or adjustment done cause picture quality drops). Since you brought up White Balance, RAW shots are much easier to WB in the computer if there is an error.

WB card/disk. No need to spend all that money on one of these disks. I tried one out in a store (Expodisk) and although it is cool, you can do the same thing for next to nothing at home. I took 2 coffee filters and 2 large old UV filters the same size and removed the glass from them. I put the filter paper between the rings and screwed them bacj together. I have an Expodisk! Cost nothing and if you have no filters around as spares then get the cheapest thing you can find on Ebay and you are set.

That all being said see the comments on RAW above. I don't use these much and took a course recently on lighting and portrait shooting. We used something similar to this:EXPOSURE TARGET - LARGE (18% GRAY WHITE BALANCE) - eBay (item 360032550551 end time Apr-11-08 09:50:55 PDT)
But the one we used was from Booth Photographic: TheStudioCoach's store>>
These are accurate as can be. Just put the camera in matrix-multi metering and point the lens at the center spot. then do a manual WB. Works perfectly.

But get to know your camera first before spending a ton of money on little accessories that you may never use. Shoot in RAW and correct WB later.

Enjoy the new camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
brand, camera, dilemma, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dilemma of what I should get/keep... chaude Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 11-02-2010 03:15 PM
K7 Again! Should go for it now? Dilemma! jpzk Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 11-30-2009 07:44 PM
Dilemma Substitute Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 08-25-2008 06:51 PM
My dilemma... jmdeegan Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 08-01-2008 04:27 AM
I have a dilemma... drevilsmom Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 05-26-2008 06:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top