Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-24-2015, 12:01 PM   #16
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,642
As many here have stated the K-5 and newer cameras/sensors excel in dynamic range.They also win in low-light situations. However the K10D's ISO 100 shots are unbeatable. In my experience, 99% of my K10D photos are taken at ISO 100. I've had photos printed on interstate bulletin ads (billboards) and they look great at that size. I don't need more than 10MP for most of my work. I rarely crop. I have enough lights for most darker environments so I don't need to adjust ISO.

More specifically, outdoor photos I've taken with the K-5 IIs at ISO 100 and ISO 80 left me disappointed with the amount of noise in the blue skies, where the K10D is able to render beautiful, bright blue skies with little noise at its lowest ISO setting. The K10D is much more ergonomic and I prefer the button layout.

These cameras are tools. Use the best one for your shooting styles and preferences. If I shot more indoors and in lower-light environments I'd certainly take advantage of the newer CMOS sensors, but because the CCDs in my K10Ds give me better results, that's what I use.

01-24-2015, 12:09 PM   #17
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
QuoteOriginally posted by J.B. Quote
The photos that come from the k10 are far more superior than the images from the k5
There is indeed something about the rendering of CCD. I have a K100D, a K10D and a K5; pictures of a K5 are a little more clinical. If the K10D however is superior is very personal.

QuoteOriginally posted by arkav Quote
I think I'd like to try a K10 someday, because it has at least two of the features I like from my K30 that my K200d doesn't have.
Let's guess, top display and two dials
01-24-2015, 12:23 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 336
QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
Let's guess, top display and two dials
Nope, K200D has the top display, which is a "nice to have", but I don't think I've missed it that much ( K30 doesn't have it ).

For me, the two features are I miss on my K200D are two dials and Pentaprism viewfinder. There's probably some other advantages over the K200D in terms of button layout and menu options as well, but since I've never used a K10, I'm still blissfully
unaware of them.
01-24-2015, 01:18 PM   #19
Marketplace Reseller
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,112
While it's true that this might have applied to very early recordings, modern CD recording/mastering systems have much much lower phase distortion than analogue recording methods. And there is still no conclusive proof (i.e. double blind scientific tests) that phase distortion on this level is even detectable by human ears, including "audiophile" ones. On the other hand, all vinyl recordings have a 40hz low cut filter applied to them, since otherwise low frequency rumble causes the needle to jump out of the groove in the final recording. This eliminates a range that is conclusively detectable to the human ear.

QuoteOriginally posted by arkav Quote
It's been many years since I studied DSP, but I recall that this phase distortion would have to be present - it's all in the math. Could a discriminating listener HEAR this distortion? Hard to say.


01-24-2015, 01:35 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 336
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
While it's true that this might have applied to very early recordings, modern CD recording/mastering systems have much much lower phase distortion than analogue recording methods. And there is still no conclusive proof (i.e. double blind scientific tests) that phase distortion on this level is even detectable by human ears, including "audiophile" ones.
Agreed. I was talking about early days, back when I read some of the vinyl vs CD debate. I do not claim to have been able to hear a significant difference between the same recording on CD and Vinyl ( pops/clicks aside ), but I concede that there might
have been a technical basis for preferring analogue back then. As I said, this should all be solved with modern equipment, but I don't follow it anymore. I don't play vinyl anymore, and I rarely sit down to listen in such a way that I'd be able to hear a difference if there was one.

My fellow engineers and I used to amuse ourselves with the voodoo that some audiophiles would get up to in search of the perfect sound.

What baffles me is the recent resurgence in vinyl. I sure hope these records aren't being played on those cheap turntables with the USB outputs I've seen. Talk about the worst of all possible worlds....
01-24-2015, 01:51 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 756
Meanwhile, even in this digital era, many singers insist on recording their vocals with vintage valve (tube) microphones. And many guitarists are addicted to the musicality of the even ordered harmonics of valve amp distortion. Sometimes it's exactly the lack of technical perfection in the equipment that gets the creative juices flowing.


(Ironically, I feed my Linn amp and speakers with music stored on a hard disk, including digital room equalisation. I don't even own a turntable anymore.)

Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 01-24-2015 at 01:56 PM.
01-24-2015, 06:09 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia
Posts: 357
i think the whole discussion is entirely aesthetic and personal. The combination of sensor type, pixel density, processing algorithms, the noise reduction technology available at the time and the awb biases of each camera in my opinion all combine to give a particular "look". Example: Some people prefer some "grain" or "noise", some dont. Then of those that do, some "types" of noise will appeal and some wont.

There is no question in my mind that the k10 produces a different vibe in some shots than later camera's. My father bought a k20. We both think my k10 makes more appealing images. Neither of us can say why, its just there. My k5 produces a different vibe again, sometimes for better and sometimes not. It sounds arbitrary -probably because it is, lol- but the "mood" of the two camera's are different for whatever reason. Interestingly, the k3 invokes more k10 vibe for me when i view the shots, even though the nature of how ccd noise and cmos noise is handled within an image differs. Purely to my eye. Purely personal. Where some are claiming "worse" noise on the k3 than the k5, i think it adds lovely ambience to shots and is closer to the filmish grain of ccd. So really, i should probably get off my backside and buy one, lol.


Just on ccd's in general, Leica still use one in certain models. It may not be coincidence that they chose the 18mp ccd for the Monochrom rather than the 20 or 24 mp cmos. There might be a hint there that tonal differences do indeed exist in the rendering abilities of the two.

But its all so subjective and really, who cares? We all love Pentax. Use whichever model(s) makes us happy. I love all three of mine for different reasons. And will likely add a fourth.

Last edited by saladin; 01-24-2015 at 08:16 PM.
01-24-2015, 09:04 PM   #23
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
QuoteOriginally posted by arkav Quote
Nope, K200D has the top display, which is a "nice to have", but I don't think I've missed it that much ( K30 doesn't have it ).
OOPS, I mixed it up.

01-24-2015, 09:19 PM   #24
Pentaxian
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Meanwhile, even in this digital era, many singers insist on recording their vocals with vintage valve (tube) microphones. And many guitarists are addicted to the musicality of the even ordered harmonics of valve amp distortion. Sometimes it's exactly the lack of technical perfection in the equipment that gets the creative juices flowing.
Now you're talking about something completely different. Tube amplifiers are capable of overdriving in a way that solid state amplifiers are just not capable of. For one, tubes can stand higher than nominal voltages for quite a while, so it's possible to push the amp past its limits without damaging it; attempting the same with a solid-state amp can destroy it. As a consequence, tube amps don't need strict voltage regulators, which means the sound doesn't have to be clipped as it does for solid-state amplifiers. The hard clipping of solid state amps means that distortion is harsh and abrupt. Tube amps don't require hard clipping because a few short bursts of overdrive won't hurt them. Too much will obviously fry it, but a burst here or there is no issue.

Musicians can use that sound in their music for creative effect. It's not even a preference like vinyl vs. CD. It's more like an extra instrument that the creator can use to add to the composition.
01-25-2015, 02:30 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 756
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
It's more like an extra instrument that the creator can use to add to the composition.

That was really the point of the analogy. Sometimes the technical limitations of a particular camera can be exactly the creative point of choosing to use it. For example, at the moment I'm looking for a good low-mileage K100D. Mine died last year, and since then I've often encountered scenes that would be easy to photograph in exactly the way I want with the K100D, but that would require heavy post processing to look the way I want with a newer camera.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the K100D is a better camera than the K-3. Of course it isn't. But sometimes it's a better way of getting the particular look I want.
01-26-2015, 04:47 PM - 2 Likes   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,342
The K10D and K200D family are really good at ISO100-800. There's an X factor that I really like about it. I can even get good results at 1600 and above.

K200D (same sensor at ISO400)

Bald Eagle
by John Rudolph Photography, on Flickr


K200D at ISO 800

Fishermen's Terminal
by John Rudolph Photography, on Flickr

K200D ISO1100

Chihuly Glass
by John Rudolph Photography, on Flickr
01-27-2015, 11:44 AM   #27
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,187
QuoteOriginally posted by J.B. Quote
I own the k10, K20 and the k5. The photos that come from the k10 are far more superior than the images from the k5. There is more of a natural 3D effect to the images.
More of a natural 3D effect? I shot with my K10D for seven years and never experienced that particular quality. That being said, there is nothing wrong with the images from the K10D and even after replacing it with the K-3, I still feel that it was a great camera and probably the most trouble-free of all the models Pentax has put out since 2007.


Steve
01-27-2015, 12:10 PM   #28
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,466
I had a K10d (recently gave to my father), still have a K5, and recently a K3. Focussing on the K10 vs K5, I never felt that I could say one was better than the other under the ideal conditions for the K10d.

Like others, I have some fantastic photos with the K10d, even up to its limit of 1600 ISO. But, there are obvious caveats. I don't feel like my images from the K5 are any worse than my K10d. I won't say that I couldn't tell that there might have been some differences, but I always felt they came out in the wash through PP. The one thing the K5 did was allow me to move beyond shooting as low as ISO as possible. What I mean there is that I didn't feel that I had to get a tripod out for everything. I could shoot at ISO 1600 without worries. With the K10d, I would only shoot at ISO 1600 when there was no other choice. I could make it work, but the K5 has definitely excelled.

Anyway, there are lots of variables that can come into play. The K10d may in fact be equal or excel over a K5 under limited conditions, but under all possible conditions, I'll take my K5 any day.
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!
analogue, camera, ccd, cds, cmos, distortion, dslr, equipment, images, k10, k10 vs k5, k20, k5, phase, photography, range, sensor, vs k5 images
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K10D vs K5 image quality rayhf1485 Pentax DSLR Discussion 41 01-26-2015 03:21 PM
Moon-K5 vs K10 Boker Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 12-01-2012 12:18 PM
How good is the K5 image quality vs a 5D MKII pjtn Pentax K-5 128 04-22-2011 01:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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