[Frosty66]

I'm just curious how people thing the K100D Super stands up against newer models such as the K-50, K-S2 etc, in particular not only is it only 6 megapixels against the newer ones with several multiples of that, but it is also a CCD against the newer CMOS so how big a jump does the combination result in picture quality wise?

[Adam]

It's a pretty crazy jump IMO, especially if you look at low low light performance, or detailed scenes with lots of small objects.

[BigMackCam]

I'm sure you'll get some responses from people who own or have owned the K100D. I haven't, but I do have a K10D clone (the 10 megapixel Samsung GX-10) as well as a K-5, K-3 and K-3II, so I have some idea at least...

The CCD sensor in the K100D and its siblings is renowned for producing a more film-like rendering than CMOS sensors. Personally, I think a lot of that difference can be normalised or re-created with colour management and effective use of tone curves in post-processing, but the differences are there, no doubt.

However, compared with more recent higher-resolution models, you won't be able to print as large or to crop unwanted areas of a photo as much without finding the limitation of the lower resolution. Luminance and colour noise will be more noticeable at higher ISO settings (and lower dynamic range may be apparent), significantly limiting the realistic ISO range you can shoot at. Auto-focus performance isn't as good (with fewer AF points, if I remember correctly), and you can't fine tune AF on a lens-by-lens basis. The rate of continuous and bracketed shooting is considerably lower. The shake reduction is less effective. The LCD screen is smaller and of much lower resolution and therefore provides less detailed previews. There is no live view facility - all composition is done through the viewfinder - and no video recording... it's stills only. General operation of the camera is slower.

Despite all of the above, you can still take great photos with the K100D or any other older DSLR. If you shoot within ISO 100 - 400, take due care with your framing and exposure, and limit the physical size of prints / on-screen JPEGs, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between a well-taken photo captured with the K100D versus the same photo captured with, say, a K-50

[wsteffey]

I'm sure you'll get some responses from people who own or have owned the K100D. I haven't, but I do have a K10D clone (the 10 megapixel Samsung GX-10) as well as a K-5, K-3 and K-3II, so I have some idea at least...

The CCD sensor in the K100D and its siblings is renowned for producing a more film-like rendering than CMOS sensors. Personally, I think a lot of that difference can be normalised or re-created with colour management and effective use of tone curves in post-processing, but there differences are there, no doubt.

However, compared with more recent higher-resolution models, you won't be able to print as large or to crop unwanted areas of a photo without finding the limitation of the lower resolution. Luminance and colour noise will be more noticeable at higher ISO settings (and lower dynamic range may be apparent), significantly limiting the realistic ISO range you can shoot at. Auto-focus performance isn't as good (with fewer AF points, if I remember correctly), and you can't fine tune AF on a lens-by-lens basis. The rate of continuous and bracketed shooting is considerably lower. The shake reduction is less effective. The LCD screen is smaller and of much lower resolution and therefore provides less detailed previews. There is no live view facility - all composition is done through the viewfinder. General operation of the camera is slower.

Despite all of the above, you can still take great photos with the K100D or any other older DSLR. If you shoot within ISO 100 - 400, take due care with your framing and exposure, and limit the physical size of prints / on-screen JPEGs, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between a well-taken photo captured with the K100D versus the same photo captured with, say, a K-50

My first Pentax DSLR was a K100d, my second a K-x, The K100d has a badly scratched viewfinder, but otherwise works fine. My K-x has a stuck shutter and is being replaced. When both were functioning I preferred the K100d, it just felt better in my hands. I truthfully like the images from the K100d better. Don't know why, just did, and I used the K100d until I could no longer see through the viewfinder. As long as I kept cropping to a minimum I found the K100d images to be great.

[BigMackCam]

My first Pentax DSLR was a K100d, my second a K-x,
...
... I truthfully like the images from the K100d better. Don't know why, just did

There is definitely a "look" to the CCD images. Difficult to pin down exactly why it's different. As I say, I believe it can be replicated on newer cameras to some extent through colour management, contrast and tone curves in post-processing. However, straight-out-of-camera, photos from the older CCD sensor cameras look great to me.

I only bought my Samsung GX-10 a couple of months ago, having never owned a CCD-sensor DSLR before. I love the output from it

[jlstrawman]

Despite all of the above, you can still take great photos with the K100D or any other older DSLR. If you shoot within ISO 100 - 400, take due care with your framing and exposure, and limit the physical size of prints / on-screen JPEGs, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between a well-taken photo captured with the K100D versus the same photo captured with, say, a K-50

^
^
^
^
^

What Mike said.

I am fortunate in that I have both a K100D and a K100D Super. Both are dead mint condition and both have well under 6000 clicks each. The color ouput is pleasing to me.
For me it's fun to spend some time using mt experience to make interesting photos.

[LensBeginner]

mind-boggling difference in low-light performance.
video mode missing/present
resolution
some bells & whistles

that's about it ;-)

[pres589]

When did Live View come to Pentax? I don't think my K100D had that feature. Can make some shooting situations a lot easier.

I will say that in-the-hand feel of the K100D was really great. The few times I held a K-30 or K-50 didn't seem so nice. Like it wasn't as solid and the grip was a bit small.

If my K5-II blew up today I would go in search of another one. Or figure out a way to rationalize the purchase of a K-1.

[pasorro]

k100dsuper dando ca

Some years ago I opened a thread in Spanish forum k100d super outperforming my k5.

When properly fine tuned with debug mode k100d super CCD is a excellent camera with few noise in 800 1600 range.

[pathdoc]

When did Live View come to Pentax? I don't think my K100D had that feature. Can make some shooting situations a lot easier.

I will say that in-the-hand feel of the K100D was really great. The few times I held a K-30 or K-50 didn't seem so nice. Like it wasn't as solid and the grip was a bit small.

If my K5-II blew up today I would go in search of another one. Or figure out a way to rationalize the purchase of a K-1.

I went from an *istDL to a K-5, a huge jump in capability. I've since gone back part-time to an *istDS, because that camera can fire TTL flashes with the full analogue protocol that the LX and Super Program film bodies enjoyed. The pics are much, MUCH smaller in size, and are easily big enough for any online work I might want to do. On the occasions where I pick the K-5 up again, I'm once more impressed by the things I can do (e.g. raw/jpeg developing and minor editing changes) in camera, shake reduction, etc.

When I get the exposure right, I'm impressed by the colours the *istDS provides and feel no need to edit. The K-5 possibly takes the technically better pictures, all else being equal.

If my K-5 blows up tomorrow I'm wading straight into K-1 territory. I decided that the minute the specs were released.

[Saltwater Images]

I went from a K-100D Super to a K-5II a couple of years ago. Big jump in detail. Huge leap in AF performance - especially in low light. That being said - I recently took a friend's K-3II out for a spin - noticeable improvement in AF over the K-5II. The K-100D Super was...super! I especially loved it with the FA 50 f/1.4 and FA 35 f/2. The film-like feel the CCD sensor produced along with the warm rendering of the FA's was a dynamite combination. With the K-5II I also swapped out my FA's for HD DA Ltd's. Love the new lenses (the rendering is neutral and must be adjusted in post)...miss the warmth of FA glass (treasure a D FA 100 Macro though and won't ever part with it). If you are considering upgrading - you won't regret it.

[pasorro]

One of the best uses for k100d super is taking pictures stitching to make a panoramic wiew. With a takumar 50 or 35 setting to hiperfocal, detail is superb and file size is perfect.
with more mp cameras is a pain to do with some computers and the final file size is huge.

[Frosty66]

Good points made about the cropping, I have a K100D Super and can't honestly say I've found the lower resolution a problem about I don't have anything to compare it to I suppose since my other one is a K100D. I am interested in the comparison however partly due to the change in technology, Of course one can't compare directly when the 100D resoluytion is lower but am I right in thinking that given a CCD and a CMOS of the same resolution, that the CCD technology is superior as it records all pixels simultaneously rather than in a raster with the CMOS?

[BigMackCam]

am I right in thinking that given a CCD and a CMOS of the same resolution, that the CCD technology is superior as it records all pixels simultaneously rather than in a raster with the CMOS?

That very much depends on your criteria, but - generally speaking - no... CCD isn't superior, it's just different. In the same way that one type of film has a different character to another, CCD sensors can have a different character to CMOS sensors. Post-processing can make those CCD-sensor camera images look very much like the CMOS-sensor camera images, and vice versa. Plus, CMOS sensor technology has been advanced to the point where it generally offers much better performance at high ISOs. But both technologies have their place.

You might want to read the following short article: CMOS Is Winning the Camera Sensor Battle, and Here's Why | TechHive

[UncleVanya]

I own a k100d, a k100d super, and a k-3. I used to have the k-50, it was my jump from the super. The plain k100d was added later.

I find the newer cameras much more capable. The k100 series is pentamirror based so darker with the same lenses. The ISO performance is modest. Reds are pretty good on the k100 vs k50.

You can make good images with them but they are way behind. Also don't forget the k100d is screw drive only so many DC lenses would not work in autofocus mode.