Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-04-2007, 08:37 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
i own a k100.. i was interested to see the improved image quality produced by the theoretically superior K10.. i shoot jpegs..

my approach was a fairly simple one.. i searched the web for same place same time as identcal as posible shot type comparison images..

i was more concerned as to how the k10 compared to my k100 not some canon or alternative offering..

i looked on the dpreview forum.. the odd comparison that did pop up received no comment and soon disappeared off the front page into oblivion land.. it seemd no one wanted to see what i wanted to see..

i did find some comparison images.. all i can say is that none of them made me want to rush out and "upgrade" to a k10..

which to be honest being as i dont like the mega pixel race did kinda please me..

trog

02-05-2007, 12:55 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
I'm on the same boat with you. When I purchased my K100D, I had planned to upgrade to the K10D which should arrive just later. However, now I think my K100D will be with me for much longer.

Actually, my K100D is my third Pentax DSLR model I have owned (which are all 6MP) and I really want to have a 10M model now but nothing by now can drive me to act (as there is no ideal choice). So, I will wait. Let's see what will come out in PMA by Pentax!

QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
i own a k100.. i was interested to see the improved image quality produced by the theoretically superior K10.. i shoot jpegs..

my approach was a fairly simple one.. i searched the web for same place same time as identcal as posible shot type comparison images..

i was more concerned as to how the k10 compared to my k100 not some canon or alternative offering..

i looked on the dpreview forum.. the odd comparison that did pop up received no comment and soon disappeared off the front page into oblivion land.. it seemd no one wanted to see what i wanted to see..

i did find some comparison images.. all i can say is that none of them made me want to rush out and "upgrade" to a k10..

which to be honest being as i dont like the mega pixel race did kinda please me..

trog
02-05-2007, 07:30 AM   #33
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
smoke and mirrors

Just for fun I downloaded 2 images from Phil (K10d and D80) On a pixel level I see very little difference, except the D80 seems to blur the overall texture more. I suppose tht could lead some to the conclusion that one is sharper edge-wise than the other. I just consider it an illusion.
People should actually look for themselves before they take anyones' word for any of this, and judge for yourself.

Last edited by jeffkrol; 02-05-2007 at 07:37 AM.
02-06-2007, 12:31 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Just for fun I downloaded 2 images from Phil (K10d and D80) On a pixel level I see very little difference, except the D80 seems to blur the overall texture more. I suppose tht could lead some to the conclusion that one is sharper edge-wise than the other. I just consider it an illusion.
I think we would better concentrate on Bart's simple but clever test experiment on the resolution charts and his analysis (and conclusion made based on that) is actually direct and objective.

Well, I must thank you again for letting me know about the stuff!

QuoteQuote:
People should actually look for themselves before they take anyones' word for any of this, and judge for yourself.
Yes, so not to believe anyone who claims things without good presentation of data before they are coming up with any conclusion, just subjectively, I'm afraid.

But Phil Askey and Bart are just the minority, against the typical users that, they conducted their tests, presented the results clearly and with good conclusions which are quite factual and indeed not with much subjective inputs on those, which are based on something scentific and factual (but not nothing, but just impressions and personal preference).

02-06-2007, 04:26 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
I think we would better concentrate on Bart's simple but clever test experiment on the resolution charts and his analysis (and conclusion made based on that) is actually direct and objective... Yes, so not to believe anyone who claims things without good presentation of data before they are coming up with any conclusion, just subjectively, I'm afraid... But Phil Askey and Bart are just the minority, against the typical users that, they conducted their tests, presented the results clearly and with good conclusions which are quite factual and indeed not with much subjective inputs on those, which are based on something scentific and factual (but not nothing, but just impressions and personal preference).
I am not commenting here on the results, but on the methods. While scientific comparison can be interesting, here it is difficult or impossible to interpret those results in a meaningful way.

A camera which can reproduce a printed test chart as well as a photocopier may be an awful camera, unable to represent a real-life scene in a pleasing way, producing too much contrast, no subtlety of tone... While we can measure the camera's capability (or lack of it) to reproduce such a chart, the only way to test the real-life performance of a camera is to take real-life photographs of real-life subjects, and possibly to compare the results with similar results from other cameras, though the results of that comparison might be very subjective (is edge sharpness or texture more important, detail or lack of noise...?).

Askey provides some examples of this sort of thing in his review of the K10D and it seems to come off quite favourably (though most of the images are still not what I would call useful), but as I said I am not commenting on the results, just the assumption that accurate reproduction of unnatural subjects implies quality in the reproduction of natural ones. This comment would apply to any camera judged in this way. Certainly the camera magazine I read never uses test charts in its camera reviews - they are based on a real photographer living with the camera for a few days on a real assignment (they are yet to review the K10D).

My conclusion is that "we would better concentrate on" taking and judging real photographs than spending hours trying to analyse the results of scientific, but in practice near valueless tests.

Simon

Last edited by Simon; 02-06-2007 at 04:27 AM. Reason: Correction
02-06-2007, 06:38 AM   #36
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Facts are one thing, conclusions another

My big problem is when I look at images, like the crop below, I see no issues that would actually bother me. One's a K10 crop, the other D80. Except for blowing up and cropping nothing else was done to them. Personally I like the K10 one better. Feel free to guess which is which
02-06-2007, 06:55 AM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
My big problem is when I look at images, like the crop below, I see no issues that would actually bother me.
I agree. While they are unquestionably different, we probably wouldn't notice if they weren't side-by-side, and if we did, there really wouldn't be any way of saying which was better.

Since they are side-by-side, maybe I "prefer" the one on the right for a little more contrast in the light and shade on the left, but then I'd need to know more about how this affects the entire image, and indeed a little more about the subject, to feel entirely happy with this view. You could say that the more subtle effect in the image on the left is just what you might use a softbox to achieve - if that was the intention then that is the most successful.

Simon
02-06-2007, 07:28 AM   #38
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
These are crops of Phils jpgs of the watch crayon motif. Left one is a K10 Right is D80. K10 HAS more texture here. Nikon NR and sharpening MAY be knocking out the subtle pattern differences in the watchband.... Point is there really isn't that much of a difference AFAIKT.........
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD80/Samples/Parameters/Presets/DSC_0001.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK10D/Samples/Parameters/ImageTone/IMGP0944.jpg


Last edited by jeffkrol; 02-06-2007 at 07:33 AM.
02-06-2007, 07:37 AM   #39
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
K10 HAS more texture here. Nikon NR and sharpening MAY be knocking out the subtle pattern differences in the watchband.
Yes, indeed. If I turn the gamma up to reveal the detail across the whole width of the watchband it is much clearer in the image on the left. The one on the right is fuzzy and indistinct.

To reuse a concept previously expressed in this thread; I think I could arrive at the image on the right from the one on the left, but not vice versa.

Simon
02-06-2007, 09:26 AM   #40
Forum Member
klopus's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 56
QuoteOriginally posted by Simon Quote
My conclusion is that "we would better concentrate on" taking and judging real photographs than spending hours trying to analyse the results of scientific, but in practice near valueless tests.Simon
Very well said, Simon!
02-07-2007, 07:55 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
I tried to inspect twice to guess which was which. And, I guessed correctly indeed for the answer you've given.

It's actually very easy to look at these pics for the edge sharpness which K10's images are particularly soft. However, I do agree that the Pentax pics are usually having more details in the texture, e.g., the the leather part. But I do believe it is a lens characteristic difference instead of something related to the digital image processing as traditional Pentax lenses do have superior micro-contrast and Nikon lenses are renowned as being too sharp and harsh, which means that their micro-contrast renditions are not very good as far as micro-contrast is concerned (but macro contrast is impressive for N lenses).

The lens used by Phil Askey is mostly the FA 50/1.4 for those test shots, right? I will have no big surprise if this lens has a superior micro-contrast behaviour than the Nikon standard lens..

It is always a big and good reason for "why Pentax?". It's all that *real* Pentax lenses' superior and favourable optical charateristics that count (which latest digital lenses of "Pentax" lack!) plus the unsurpassed flare control (fortunately is stil valid for the latest P lenses).

QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
These are crops of Phils jpgs of the watch crayon motif. Left one is a K10 Right is D80. K10 HAS more texture here. Nikon NR and sharpening MAY be knocking out the subtle pattern differences in the watchband.... Point is there really isn't that much of a difference AFAIKT.........
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD80/Samples/Parameters/Presets/DSC_0001.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK10D/Samples/Parameters/ImageTone/IMGP0944.jpg
02-07-2007, 08:45 PM   #42
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Illusion based on texture

Here's another example. If you take a cursory look at the watch face the pentax one is perceived as "soft". My take on this is it's an illusion based on the increase in texture in the Pentax image. When I look at the edges of this image, both look almost identical. BUT the Pentax 6 is not filled w/ all black (effects of the overshoot in jpg, example attached), thus creating the ilusion: Sorry, that's just how I see it. Maybe a 1 pixel extra in the edge. Now there are differences, but more so in other places then the edge. Maybe I'm just blind

02-07-2007, 10:23 PM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Original Poster
The black and white halos (or over/under shoots and whatever we call them) are actually digital artifacts which are not desirable afterall.
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!
camera, dslr, ipu, k10d, photography, secrets
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K10D for part (US/CAN) dvdman45 Sold Items 2 08-17-2010 08:05 AM
6 Pro Photographers Share Their Most Guarded Digital Secrets lukevega Photographic Technique 33 11-10-2009 12:52 PM
You tube - Professional Photography Secrets Peacekeeper General Talk 2 08-31-2008 11:00 PM
Secrets of K10D (Part 2 of 3) - The Bridge: A to D Convertor RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 12-09-2006 07:14 AM
The Secrets of K10D - Part 1 of 3: The CCD imager RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 12-05-2006 04:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:28 PM. | 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