[Frank Fletcher]

First - the disclaimer. I cannot speak for Julie, but my intent in posting these photo's is to promote discussion on the K10 vs K20 topic. Some people are still standing on the fence. I do not intend that my edits to these photos should be used to "prove" anything. If they help to inform a buyer, I am happy. If they spark a decent discussion, I am happy.

A while back, I was lurking in various Pentax forums, as I often do, when I came across a blog entry by Yvon Bourque. It was a report on PMA 2008 and in it, he included some photographs from Julie Quarry. (Thank you Julie!) She had photographed the eye of a "Blue Man" with both a K10D and a K20D at ISO 1600. That article can be found here: Pentax DSLRs: The PMA 2008 show for Pentaxians

If you reference those photographs, you will note the color/contrast difference in the K10D version. Recently, I decided to roughly color match the K10D photograph to the K20D and then took it further to see what PP can do to even the playing field. This gave me a clearer picture of the strengths of the K20D, but also made it clear that the K10D should not be ruled out! Final output for the K10D was pretty decent, even at 1600.



Color correction was done from 8bit jpeg copies available on Yvon's blog. All edits were global and consisted of curve adjustment, noise suppression, and re-sharpening.

If you are pixel peeping, it's still obvious which is which. And if you are just casually viewing it, it's still noticeable but less so. The K20D version is _gorgeous_ but IMHO, the K10D held it's own.

Anyway, good luck! Thanks for looking!

Frank.

Fine print: All images are copyright 2008 Julie Quarry. Original and edited versions are reproduced here with kind permission. Travel Photograper Julie Smith - PhotoQuarry.com

[Tom M]

When these original discussion on these two images showed how whoever took the K10D shot, underexposed it. And by underexposing it, introduced more detail-robbing noise. Maybe a search for this discussion will turn up the original.