[Branimir]

Lets see.
You want to have K10D and all you are asking here is an aliby for that purchase.

Well, I am suggesting that you go to you local camera store and try it out. If it feels good, go for it. K10D is better than K100D, and everyone must agree. How much $$ better, that is another question.

Let me put it blantly: the best camera for you is the one you are happy shooting with. Even if you do not have serious problems with your K100D, it seems that you would feel better shooting K10D, because it has no limitations that you believe are (or really) are hampering you.

If there is a problem with $$, then you can use old Aikido trick: decide that you are happy with K100D

[Zubati Kit]

well on pure IQ there should be more details in K10D pictures viewed on screen, and probalby 15-20% more useful data under normal circumstances left over from 28% pixel pitch increase. So for cropping it could be useful.

That is equivalent of a detail level of 230-240mm zoom as opposed to 200mm... but the question is are you finicky enough to appreciate that difference?

K10d with 200mm lens has no chance against K100D with 300mm etc, and that advantage I bet dissapears quickly with worsening light conditions... still it's not that it does not exist under normal conditions.

But I could bet that people owning the two would be using K10D more because of extra "ease of use" features like two wheels, more sophisticated white balance settings etc, and not because of better IQ. K100D would come into play only when it would be a clear choice to produce a better photo, and perhaps if someone appreciates the weight difference, on a hike/similar.

[trog100]

"well on pure IQ there should be more details in K10D pictures viewed on screen, and probalby 15-20% more useful data under normal circumstances left over from 28% pixel pitch increase. So for cropping it could be useful."

whoa.. should be.. aint is.. "should be" is pure theory.. reality will tell a different story.. a gain perhaps but nowhere near what the pure extra pixel count implies..

"should be" is why mega pixels sell cameras.. but what should be and what is can be miles apart..

trog

[jfdavis58]

Gosh, it's hard to find balanced comparisons between the K10D and its little brother, the K100D. Maybe they are out there (or here in this forum) but I've looked and I can't find them. So I'm posting this message.

Nope; balance is not possible unless you can choose participants and you employ at least a pseudo random selection method. The internet is made of mostly crackpots and malcontents--with too much time on their hands. You and I are possibly the only exceptions.

I have the K100D. I like it. I also have a little set of lenses now that I'm content with - mostly Tamrons (18-75; 18-200; 70-300).

Lens content/contentment-you'll get over that quick if you buy the K10

Nevertheless, I'm wondering what I would gain if I were to trade up to a K10D. I almost placed an order on Amazon tonight, but I decided to reflect on the matter a little more. If I were to move to the K10D, I know that I'd LOSE one thing that I like about the K100D - the ability to use rechargeable AA batteries. I'm not sure why this isn't found in all cameras. But batteries aside, what are the advantages of the K10D?

AA batteries are over-rated-grab-up a couple of extra np-400s and move on.

Here are the advantages of the K10D that I think would matter to me, at least a little:
MUCH better continuous mode shooting. This is my biggest disappointment with the K100D and this is undoubtedly the main reason I'm thinking about the K10D now. If the K10D weren't much better in this regard, I would not think twice about it.

A biggy for sure, but hardly significant in the general scheme of things unless you shoot still what should be shot motion. There is a surprising amount of distance traveled by a player between shots on even the fastest 'burst rate' cameras. Learn to anticipate climactic moments--it's a much more effective technique.

On-camera controls. I dislike the canned scene/shooting modes on the K100D (sports, flowers, etc.) and love the fact that the K10D dispenses with them. I gather that the K10D has some other rather cool control features, including the "hyper program" (which I only vaguely understand, but it sounds useful). I find the K100D's controls usable, but nothing to get excited about.

This is a smart observation-one I've claimed as the biggest selling point of Pentax over other brands for years. Hyper-program/manual is like having a smart assistent to dial-in the other control when you spin the first--all before the shutter trips---VERY COOL!

I gather that the K10D's pentaprism viewfinder is considered superior to the K100D's pentamirror viewfinder. I do not understand the difference, but the viewfinder of my K100D is one of the things that is radically superior to my old Canon compact superzoom, so I think I'd be even happier if the viewfinder were even better/brighter/clearer/bigger.

Bigger, brighter, clearer--maybe. You know that carnival warped mirror house 'ride'? Remember how the image swam and wiggled and twisted? Be very objective with your K100-keep both eyes open, and pan the camera. See the same wiggle on a smaller scale? K10 doesn't do THAT!

I understand that the K10D's auto-focus is better than the K100D's. That sounds valuable, especially when I'm shooting moving targets like birds.

Auto focus is as good as the users skill and power of observation. Bring the camera to the eye in the same manner every shot. Locate and memorize where the auto-focus sensor sits in the viewfinder. Recall the limits of both the meter and the AF system as listed in the manual. Shoot! Everything---and I MEAN EVERYTHING else about auto focus comes from the exit end of a donkey!

Weatherproofing. Not sure how reliable this is - nobody seems to be very willing to test it by taking it out for a shoot in the rain - but it sounds to me like A Good Thing, especially as I do shoot outdoors, go camping, etc.[/LIST]Here are the advantages that I don't think will matter too much to me.

Beth and I both tried this in our storm of the century (14 inches of snow-wet snow-in 12 hours--normal total rainfall is 2-3 inches per year in Albuquerque. we were in ti about 90 minutes.); it works. I still have and use a rain cover.

Ability to shoot in DNG Raw format. I like this, but it's not a big deal, as I have found it quite easy to convert PEF to DNG in Lightroom. And there's something surprising about this. I gather that the DNG files produced by the K10D are LARGER than the PEF files, by a good bit. I find this odd, because when I convert my K100D's PEF files to DNG in Lightroom, they shrink to about half their original size.

Size doen't matter-much. RAW rocks. The end.

10 megapixels versus 6. On the plus side, I might be able to use megapixels as a form of digital zoom, retaining more detail when I crop my bird pictures. On the minus side, more MP = fewer photos on a card. I don't print photos much, certainly not at very large sizes. So while I wouldn't mind having the 10 MP, I would not spend $500 extra for it.

Accented portion: You WILL!

Compatibility with the new lenses coming out next month.

No aperture ring; nuff said!

The dust reduction system. I have gotten used to changing lenses VERY carefully and using my little air bulb to blow out dust. Has not been a big problem so far.[/LIST]Am I missing something here - some really sweet feature of the K10D? And the big question: is there something about the K10D that helps it take better pictures (even if only marginally better) than the K100D, other things being equal?

On dust: Arctic butterfly! Is it better? Are You?

John

[WMBP]

IMO if you use it always/most of the time below ISO400 and are happy with that, than K10D will give you more usable pixels to work with. It might even have better DR in the shadows, but I am not fully convinced about that.

If on the other hand you find ISO 400 and above useful more frequently, than K100D should stay with you. I think this is about it, unless you have other functionality reasons to move up.

I've been unclear about ISO in digital cameras for a long time. Why doesn't the K100D have an ISO 100 setting, for example?

And would the K10D and K100D be equally/identically sensitive at the same ISO, other things being equal? In other words, if you put both cameras in the same place and took a controlled picture, if ISO 200, f/11, 1/400s was the perfect exposure for one camera, would it be perfect for the other?

Will

[WMBP]

I said I had a collection of lenses for my K100D that I'm fairly content with, and you replied,

Lens content/contentment-you'll get over that quick if you buy the K10

Don't understand. Will the lenses I find to work pretty well with my K100D not work equally well (or better) with the K10D?


I mentioned compatibility with the forthcoming lenses as a plus in the K10D's column, and you replied:

No aperture ring; nuff said!

Maybe not, because I don't understand. Are you saying that the new lenses don't have aperture rings? Why would that matter to me as I compare the K100D to the K10D? Are you saying that they don't have aperture rings and you don't like lenses that don't have aperture rings and therefore the new lenses are nothing to get excited about?

By the way, I don't get the deal about aperture rings. A number of people here think they're the bees knees, apparently. Why? I put the ring on A and leave it there forever. If there were no ring, and the lens worked as if it were set on A, I can't see how it would make a bit of difference to me.

On dust: Arctic butterfly! Is it better? Are You?

Sorry, lost me again....

Thanks,

Will

[codiac2600]

OK, I'm still trying to sort a couple of things out.


1. I asked in my original post if the K10D takes better pictures than the K100D. Of course, I mean other things being equal - same lighting, same subject, same photographer, same lenses, same or equivalent settings. codiac pretty clearly answers this question yes. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the K10D's images might be (even) better than the K100D's. But if they are, I have a couple of questions. First, a LOT better or just a little bit better? codiac says it's pretty noticeable. And if the K10D produces better images, WHY? Don't the cameras have the same sensor? Info on Pentax's web site seems to say that they do. (By the way, let's assume for the sake of this question that lighting is good and that the ISO for the photo is under 400 on both cameras. I don't need to hear about the K10D's high-ISO problem.)


2. Possibly related to the previous question: would 10MP matter to me? I DO NOT make large prints of my photos, nor do I make high-res prints like on the cover of magazines. Often, I hear it said that these are the only places where a higher res image matters. But that's not true, is it? Someone in this thread also mentioned that higher MP count means that you can crop a little closer and still have a usable image. If I understand that correctly, then taking a 10MP photo of a bird using a 300mm lens would, in effect, get me closer to the bird with an equal amount of detail. Does that make sense? Now THAT would also be useful to me.


These are possibly touchy issues. The K10D owners, being decent folks, don't want to say "Nah nah, our camera takes better photos than yours!", and the K100D owners, being human, don't want to hear that. Let me stipulate - in other words, it does not need to be said again - that the K100D can take GREAT photos, and the K10D can take terrible photos if you use it wrong. Not what I'm looking to be told, as I know that already. What I want to know is, are the guts and brains of the K10D the same as the guts and brains of the K100D? And if they're not, does it make a difference?


Will

Will, the only thing that the K10d has to make a better image is the PRIME image processor which handles the information differently than in the K100.

Now to the one person who says the images look exactly the same is wrong, very wrong. Now, hopefully you are taking that same image in RAW because in JPEG you'll never really tell a difference because you lose too much detail so yes there won't be too much difference there, but where the K10 excels is in RAW so try that next time. Oh and hopefully using the Pentax Photo Lab product vs. Adobe Raw you'll see an image difference (camera raw does a much better job).

I would say both cameras take great pictures and can you tell which will take better pictures, yes, but sometimes things don't jump out at people and I'll take some time out to grab some photos and point out distinct properties of each so it's easier to tell because again, what you see through a computer monitor looks differently depending how you use it. One easy way to test my statement is take the same picture with both cameras and use camera raws shadow/highlight boxes to bring out the lost detail in the same image and compare the sizes because you'll see a noticeable difference in lost pixels on the same image if there are extremes of bright light and dark shadows.

Now RiceHigh I don't understand why you had to be a major jerk about your post against mine because I wasn't going against you at all, just covering the topics that come up in a lot of threads about the K10 so next time you feel like being stupid take it to your bad blog site or something. LOL

[trog100]

this thread proves a couple of things.. there is subjectivity and there is subjectivity and then again there is subjectively..

the second is that Will likes asking very well worded but essentially dumb questions..

trog

[mutley]

can be improved with Firmware updates if need be. I.e. 50-3200 iso for example. Noise performance etc.

Ben

Need definitely be.

I didn't even think of a possible extended ISO range. Anything they said lead you to believe they might be working on this?

Larry

[Timbuctoo]

I have the KM/Sony take on this topic, it is relevant because the KM7D and Pentax K100D share the same sensor also the Alpha 100 and K10D share the same sensor. From what I have seen it is definitely a small difference in image quality up to A3 size. If you use a magnifying glass you might be able to see the difference between the 10mp and 6mp photo. If you however print at A2 then you will see a difference between the 10mm & 6mp cameras. The 10mp camera will provide the better photo, I Have tested this!! If it wasn't for the weather sealing and ISO100 I'd probably get the K100D but instead I know that for what I do weather seals would be great. If you only print to A3 and don't need ISO100 or weather seals I'd go the K100D. If you need the occasional A2 print I'd get the K10D.

[Lucky Sky]

Timbuctoo-

You said-
"If it wasn't for the weather sealing and ISO100 I'd probably get the K100D but instead I know that for what I do weather seals would be great. If you only print to A3 and don't need ISO100 or weather seals I'd go the K100D. "

I still don't get the weather seal aspect to the K10D. What does it matter if the body is sealed, but the lenses are not?

[NaClH2O]

Timbuctoo-

You said-
"If it wasn't for the weather sealing and ISO100 I'd probably get the K100D but instead I know that for what I do weather seals would be great. If you only print to A3 and don't need ISO100 or weather seals I'd go the K100D. "

I still don't get the weather seal aspect to the K10D. What does it matter if the body is sealed, but the lenses are not?

Several points.
Lenses just becaus of their construction (especially primes) are more "weather resistant" than camera bodies. There are less openings, and what openings there are, are usually tighter.

It's also easier to protect a lens from weather with plastic bag and still be able to use the lens thru the bag. Not as easy as using it w/o the bag, but it can be done. Much more difficult to operate a camera that way.

The new weather resistant will soon be on the market.

NaCl(note: "weather resistant" does NOT equal "weather proof")H2O

[-=JoN=-]

And would the K10D and K100D be equally/identically sensitive at the same ISO, other things being equal? In other words, if you put both cameras in the same place and took a controlled picture, if ISO 200, f/11, 1/400s was the perfect exposure for one camera, would it be perfect for the other?

Will

Will

ISO speeds have long been a film standard, and it's used on digital format so it will be easier for the rest of us to do shot calculations or what not.

having said that, if you pick up and shoot with an actual ISO 800 film, you'll get the noise or grain we might get when we shoot on ISO 800 on a dslr

and as far as your controlled picture question..
it should look the same if shot in raw, but as far is the jpg output, it could be different. each camera processes jpg's differently, but exposure wise it should be the same between the k100, k10, *ist film...thats the photography standard, not a digital, specific make model, whatever else. like i said before, the body is the least part of the equipment we should worry about....lens and user has a bigger impact on the shot than the body..

[trog100]

so for arguments sake lets assume the ten mega pixel k10 produces slightly more image detail at ISO 100 than the k100 does at ISO 200.. not exactly a fair comparison in some ways but the only one that can be done..

noise destroys image detail.. a current ten mega pixel sensor produces more noise than a current six mega pixel senor at the same iso setting.. so how does the more detail factor pan out if both cameras are set at say ISO 400.. or ISO 800 or even 1600..

if the K100 has a 1 f-stop better ISO performance than the K10.. simply in glass terms this is worth a lot of money..

if u throw in the pentax SR into the equation.. the k100 will probably take pictures handheld in circumstance that no other camers will..

something simple like a cheap 70 x 300 at f 5.6.. too slow for most cameras.. becomes very usable on the k100.. just an example.. the tamron 18 x 200 is a lot more usable on the k100 than on any other camera..

all in all the k100 has more going for it than its given credit for.. give the poor thing a decent buffer and it would be the perfect general purpose (do anything) camera.. as it is its still pretty good..

trog

[benjikan]

Will

ISO speeds have long been a film standard, and it's used on digital format so it will be easier for the rest of us to do shot calculations or what not.

having said that, if you pick up and shoot with an actual ISO 800 film, you'll get the noise or grain we might get when we shoot on ISO 800 on a dslr

and as far as your controlled picture question..
it should look the same if shot in raw, but as far is the jpg output, it could be different. each camera processes jpg's differently, but exposure wise it should be the same between the k100, k10, *ist film...thats the photography standard, not a digital, specific make model, whatever else. like i said before, the body is the least part of the equipment we should worry about....lens and user has a bigger impact on the shot than the body..

I beg to differ. The quality of the K10D at 800 iso is the same as 200 iso negative Kodak Gold film grain. In fact in scanning Provia 100 iso, the grain was more dominant when scanned at 3200 pixels than that of the K10D at 640 iso. I only gave up film about three years ago and gave up shooting 35 mm for many reasons, one of which was grain, resolution and economy.