[J.B.]

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. I have use the same lenses on both cameras with the k10 still coming out the winner. Did something happend when Pentax went to the cmos from the ccd? I'll never sell my k5 or k20. They each have their own personalities but the k10 images just look so much better right out of the gate. Can someone give a little insight sa to why this could be.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Hi JB. I expect you'll be getting some howls of outrage from those who refuse to believe that a ten-year-old K10D can still produce high quality results, so I want to get in-before and say that I agree with you -- at least at ISO100. I use the Samsung GX-10 branded version of the K10D, and, since I rarely shoot above ISO100 and tend not to print bigger than 12"x18", I haven't felt any need to move to a newer camera. If I regularly needed to shoot at high ISO settings in low light, I'm sure I'd have switched to a newer CMOS camera years ago.

Is the CCD sensor in the K10D "better" than the CMOS sensor in the K5 (at ISO100)? I don't know. The results from the two cameras are certainly very different, and I prefer the 10MP CCD sensor simply because it's better suited to my own personal taste. To put it simply, I feel that photographs with the CCD have a more analog look, while photos taken with CMOS sensors tend to look a lot more digital. And as a lifelong slide film shooter, it's inevitable that the analog look suits me best.

I do, however, feel that the Sony CMOS sensors in the latest generation of Pentax DSLRs are producing a much more natural and less digital look than the older CMOS sensors in the K5 generation. So my personal feeling is that the new camera that was recently announced might be the one that finally makes me move on from the CCD.

It would be fascinating to see some of your comparison shots with the K5 and K10D, so that we all have a chance to decide for ourselves which one we prefer at ISO100.

[JohnX]

As said, the sensor technology is different, and results in a different 'feel' to the output. I've seen a number of posts from 'togs who say they prefer the K10 images for certain subjects.

[Rondec]

Some people like the K10 better than newer CMOS sensored cameras. I guess I would say that at low iso the K10 was really good, but as an all around shooting tool, it really couldn't compare to the K5, particularly when pushing the iso over 400 the K10 just didn't do so well.

Some of the issue is probably just learning to process the K5 files. There is a lot of detail in the shadows of K5 files if you use it -- more than the k10 has.

[saladin]

Dartmoor,

I tend to agree that the new sensors seem more ccd like in results. I look at a lot of pics in the k3 sample thread and think they are more like the k10 than the k5 is. Part of it might be white balance, i have always found the k5 slightly cooler in output, the k10 a warmer feel.


And its fascinating that someone found and resurrected a 3 year old thread! It shows we are always looking for particular info.

[Rondec]

You definitely need to use different presets with different cameras. Even going from the K5 II to a K3, I had to back down on the sharpening because things got artifacty a lot quicker. Wonder if some of that is going on here. Colors should be tweakable to however you want them in post.

[normhead]

I suppose you have some example images that show us what you're talking about? The strong point for me was the dynamaic range of the K-5. At 100 ISO there was a lot more retrievable shadow detail. I didn't have a K10, but I had a K20D. After my wife , who was using a K-x started using my K-5 we bought a second one, based on side by side shooting. That is, we were both shooting the same sunsets and scenery, and the difference between the CCD and CMOS shadow detail was noticeable. So in terms of Dynamic Range I'm sure the CCD is inferior. For those images, which for some people is a very high percentage, if the whole histogram takes up less than the entire graph, meaning dynamic range falls within the capability of both sensors, then you can discuss rendition. But I'd still like a situation with both cameras shooting side by side and some comparison photos to try and pick out a difference.

We saw practically no difference in rendition, but a real difference in Dynamic Range.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-24-2015 at 08:52 AM.

[tvdtvdtvd]

On pretty much all quantifiable fronts (dynamic range, resolution, color reproduction, etc.), the K-5 is very clearly the superior camera. Any preference that you have therefore comes down to a personal taste about the particular tonal rendering of the sensor, possibly combined with differences in the RAW development images used in-camera if we are talking about jpeg output.

It's analogous to how some people prefer the sound of vinyl records sound to Compact Discs. Despite so-called "audiophiles'" protests to the contrary, CDs quantifiably have much much higher sound fidelity, and what makes vinyl sound "better" to them is a product of systematic degradation of the signal in the signal path that happens to appeal to certain listeners' aesthetic sense.

"Far more superior?" Eh, that's purely a matter of taste. I find the K10 images to have distractingly poor shadow detail and a weird tendency toward bluish rendering in highlights compared to the K-5.

Well said. As a confirmed, card-holding 'digital audiophile', I happily gave up my vinyl collection two
and half decades ago and never looked back. The only thing superior about vinyl was the large format's
ability to showcase album art. Artists like Akifumi Nakajima, Andrew McKenzie, Stephen Stapleton and
others have done much to elevate the possibilities of CD packaging, but I have yet to see any piece
of CD art that can compare to the majesty of a well done vinyl gatefold.

I upgraded from a K10D to a K-3. Subjectively, I find the K-3 superior in almost every fashion, though
I admit I have yet to do a side-by-side comparison of the two.

[reeftool]

I will agree that ISO 100 shots from the K10D are very hard to beat. Once you start to boost the ISO however, then my K5 really shows it's stuff. I have had very usable shots up to ISO 12800. I kept my K10D when I upgraded and used it until it broke. I'm now making up my mind whether buy another as my "second body/backup" or possible buying whatever is new in another year when my K5 hits that 5 year mark and keeping the K5 as my backup camera. I also preferred the K10D in regards to ergonomics.

There have been similar discussions about the 645D when the newest model switched from the CCD sensor to the new CMOS. Going back several years, there was a lot of discussion of this issue everywhere because ALL of the camera manufacturers at the time decided that CMOS sensors were the way to go. This has much more to do with manufacturing costs than image quality. Although I'm not an engineer and know for sure, the CMOS sensors turned up around the same time as video became an important feature so there may be a connection.

[Rupert]

Some of my favorite shots came from the K10D.....and I mostly agree that it was a wonderful camera and the photos were truly "different".

Once past ISO 400 it was hit or miss, and my K5 is far superior in low light...but I do miss the K10D rendering!

K10D


I also recall the thrill of the new SR! Shot this one at ISO 560 hand-held at 1/20 @ 500mm......it was a thrill to use the K10D with the SR!


Regards!

[arkav]

CDs quantifiably have much much higher sound fidelity

When CDs first came out, I believe this was false in one particular respect. Early digital recording equipment had low sampling rates ( AFAIK, it was about the same as that of the CDs themselves ). Therefore, the analogue anti-aliasing filters used in their front ends ( upstream of the A/D converters ) would introduce massive phase distortion in the audible range. This would apply to new recordings, and to older analogue recordings that were converted to digital format for issue on CDs.

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. Phase information is important for how we locate the sources of sound in 3 dimensions. Assuming that a recording is made very carefully in the analogue domain, such that all the pertinent phase information is preserved with minimal distortion, it could theoretically be superior in this respect to the same recording made with a analogue->digital->analogue conversion somewhere in the signal path.

Note that the complaint audiophiles had about CDs is that for some recordings, they lacked the perceived 3D effect found in the corresponding analogue recordings. The argument, as I recall, was that if everything was set up just right, you could pick out exactly where the original performers were located in 3 dimensional space. With the identical recording played off a CD, this audio image was not as clear.

But everything would have to be "just so" in the pure analogue case for this discrepancy to have a demonstrably negative effect on a recording's fidelity. This would not likely be the case in your average musical recording.

Nowadays, it should be possible to record digitally at a much higher sampling rate than what was achievable with first generation digital recording equipment, so you can process the signal differently such that there would be less ( or possibly even no ) phase distortion in the audible range. So in theory, you should be able to avoid this problem with more modern digital recording equipment. Are they currently using these faster sampling rates in modern recording studios? I don't know.

Bottom line - when you consider the digital recording equipment in use when CDs first came out, in theory, you could have made a better fidelity recording with pure analogue recording equipment ( if you believe that phase distortion can have a negative effect on the perceived quality of the recording ).

Many recordings were probably not made carefully enough for this difference to matter, and the average listener doesn't play recordings back on the kind of equipment/setup where you'd be able to tell the difference.

From a pragmatic perspective, for most listeners, it's no contest - CDs are better ( more convenient, more durable, better quality control, less expensive, etc. ). But that does not mean that there is not a kernel of truth in the argument given by the audiophile that an analogue recording can be superior.

Maybe this is a pedantic argument, but I believe there was ( and possibly still is ) a quantifiable discrepancy in recording fidelity in favour of analogue recordings vs CDs. Sure, for most people, it probably wasn't worth pursuing, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Returning to cameras, it may be that under ideal conditions ( bright light, etc. ), the CCD sensor has some subtle advantage over an equivalent CMOS sensor that doesn't show up in test results, but people can discern it. We can only quantify what we decide to measure. If we don't go to the trouble to measure something it doesn't mean it is not quantifiable. Is it possible that a different sensor technology responds differently to subtle shades of colour? I don't know. Does anyone ever test it?

But CMOS performs better under non-ideal conditions, so for the average user, even if CCD works better under some conditions, it's probably better to take the trade-off and get a camera with a CMOS sensor. It's going to be more versatile. That doesn't mean that someone can't make the argument that under certain conditions, the CCD sensor produces 'better' results - whatever 'better' means to their eyes.

I used a K200D for a long time ( same sensor as the K10 ). I think that it may produce better photos than my K30 under ideal conditions ( ignoring the difference in resolution - and I don't know if there is a resolution limitation inherent in the CCD technology ). But I prefer the brighter viewfinder, dual control dials, high ISO performance, TAv mode, etc. etc. of the K30.

I prefer using my K30, but I acknowledge that under certain circumstances, the K200D may produce subtly better images. Maybe. It could be my imagination, because I haven't tried to quantify it, or perform rigorous A/B comparisons. I'm not sure how I would go about doing so in any case.


---------- Post added 01-24-2015 at 01:19 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

I suppose you have some example images that show us what you're talking about? The strong point for me was the dynamaic range of the K-5. At 100 ISO there was a lot more retrievable shadow detail. I didn't have a K10, but I had a K20D. After my wife , who was using a K-x started using my K-5 we bought a second one, based on side by side shooting. That is, we were both shooting the same sunsets and scenery, and the difference between the CCD and CMOS shadow detail was noticeable. So in terms of Dynamic Range I'm sure the CCD is inferior. For those images, which for some people is a very high percentage, if the whole histogram takes up less than the entire graph, meaning dynamic range falls within the capability of both sensors, then you can discuss rendition. But I'd still like a situation with both cameras shooting side by side and some comparison photos to try and pick out a difference.

We saw practically no difference in rendition, but a real difference in Dynamic Range.

K20D, K-x, and K5 all have ( different ) CMOS sensors:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-cameras-compared/?c1=k20d&c2=kx&c3=k5

Only the K5 has a 14 bit D/A converter.

[lesmore49]

I have a K10D and a K-5...also for that matter a K-m. I shoot at 100 ISO a lot, outdoors in the summer, with all three cameras at events. I haven't done any 'scientific' comparisons, but when I examine the pics I've taken with all three cameras....I really can't tell a difference in quality.

How I do differentiate ...is more by the lens I have attached. I can spot which picture has been taken with say...my 10-17mm @ 17mm ...or my 12-24 @ 12....or my 21 prime...at a glance.

I generally find the K10D is at it's best between 100-400...the later model Km at 100 and still not too bad at 800 ISO. The K-5 has the widest range of usable ISO, but as it's the newest, that's not unexpected.

[arkav]

I haven't done any 'scientific' comparisons, but when I examine the pics I've taken with all three cameras....I really can't tell a difference in quality.

Tricky to do a scientific experiment. How do you account for the effect of the RAW converter and the particular settings you've entered ( and whatever voodoo goes on under the hood that you don't know about )?

What would be interesting would be to take a K5 with all it's up to date features, and stick a 'modern' 16MP CCD sensor in it, if such a thing even exists, and to then compare the output of each camera at ISO 100 ( and
somehow control for any variation introduced by the RAW conversion ).

Even if you could prove that the camera with a CCD sensor makes a 'better' image at ISO 100, most people will prefer slightly worse performance at ISO 100 if it gives them better performance at higher ISO, which
the CCD technology couldn't match.

Any given camera manufacturer has little choice but to use CMOS sensors because their competitors will get more market share if they use CMOS sensors, and the sensor manufacturers will stop producing newer,
higher resolution sensors based on the older technology.

All that said, 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. But for much of my shooting, I'd prefer the K30 for its better high ISO performance.

[builttospill]

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.

[sterretje]

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.

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