[Pan Kleks]

So I really want the K1 but right now it's out of my price range, even a used one. I've bought and sold a lot of camera equipment over the years and actually made some money on medium format film cameras. I would buy them, use for couple years and sell for a profit. I recently sold my D700 and all Nikon lenses after setting my eyes on the K1.

I'm willing to wait a couple of years until the prices come down even more once the K1 mark iii comes out (or whatever the replacement will be).


I like the K10D because of the way it renders the photos, when I was browsing the flickr group the photos look like they were shot on film, after all it has a CCD sensor.

As far as lenses go I already picked up one of the Amigos (31) used at a 55% discount of what it sells for new. My only camera right now is the FUJI GW690 mark iii which is a 6x9 camera which I'll never sell.


So should I buy a K10D for around $100? What do you guys think? I know that it's only good for ISO 100-400.

[Paul the Sunman]

Wow, that's a long way short of the K1, or even the D700. How much more would a K5 or a K3 cost you?

The CCD/CMOS rendering difference can be pretty well mimicked in post processing with BigMackCam's LR preset. However, if CCD is really your thing, go for it.

[ChristianRock]

Sure, if you are going to be waiting, why not?
I love mine and you can try to mimic it with other cameras but there's something special about the way it renders - if you don't like it you can pass it on and not lose money.
It's a bit primitive in terms of speed and features but that makes you slow down, similar to shooting film in that way as well.
I for one recommend it but I'm sure others will disagree...

[Snapppy]

I would say if $100 is your budget, you're wanting to use Pentax with that sweet 31, and you aren't too upset about the poor ISO performance, and don't need more modern speed, then you'll have fun with the K10D. It pumps out pretty images, like I said if you can stay low on the ISO and don't need to pixel peep. Solid camera.

That being said, if you're on edge about that criteria, and if you can be patient for a deal, or could squeeze just a *little* more out, I see K-5's occasionally going for as low as $100-$150, especially if you do the trick to buy it with a lens you don't want and sell the lens. The K-5 is a far more capable camera in just about every way. I'm not bashing my K10D, I love the camera and think for the price it's awesome, but I could get frustrated if it was my only camera in some situations.

Just depends on the type of shooter you are. Sounds like you have a film background, so could be a good fit. Sometimes having to work a little harder to get the shot is actually enjoyable for some people. I know I like that challenge a lot

*Opinion based on owning a lot of Pentax gear over the years, and currently have a K10D along with my other gear.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Considering that the Fuji GW690 is your favourite camera and that you want a film-like look, I think you'd probably like the K10D. Raw files straight from the camera have a look that's very reminiscent of transparency film, and the available dynamic range is similar too. You can shoot with the K10D in almost exactly the same way that you would with transparencies ( I do anyway). You really need to use ISO 100 to get the best results from it, but as an experienced film shooter you'll be used to working with a fixed ISO.

Of course you're a bit limited with the size prints you can make with the 10 megapixels of the K10D, although personally I'm quite happy with prints interpolated up to 12"x18" and nobody has ever complained about any lack of detail in them.

People will suggest that you can reproduce the CCD rendering style with a CMOS on the computer, but you can't. You can get the colours similar, but you can't get really get that sense of luminosity -- that sense of light and shadow being actual light and shadows. CCD is like shooting slide film; CMOS is like shooting print film.

I'm going to throw a curve ball now. Since you're a GW690 shooter who wants a film-like look, I think you'd quite likely prefer a Pentax 645D with its CCD sensor over the K1 with its CMOS. In the meantime, the K10D is the best value for money option out there for photographers who want the CCD look.

[WorksAsIntended]

The K10D is way begind the D700 in mostly everything.
The noise and resolution are fine up to ISO 640, but the dynamic range is just that much smaller. It is indeed at the level of slides, less than print film.
With the k10D on a sunny day you wont have information in both shadow and light spots, this is different with modern cameras.
The k10d is the technical equvivalent to the Nikon D80 and was good back than.
Sure, you can make great pictures with it, but it is way down the d700 you are used to.

[krazny]

What exactly is your price range?

I've seen K-1 as low as 850 USD on Ebay and typically around 1000 USD if bought used from Japan.

And that's the K-1 Mark I. A four year old camera.

Obviously I do not know but I'd be surprised if it went much below 750 USD (on average) within the next two years.

[E-man]

As others have noted, the K10D is a fine camera if you can accept its limitations and it's certainly very affordable. I picked one up a little more than three years ago for about $80 with a kit lens, battery and charger. You can have some fun with it while you're saving up for the K1 and not feel like you've sunk a big chunk of your budget into an interim camera. The K200D also has the same CCD sensor but with a somewhat simplified user interface. I have both but find the K200D is a bit more intuitive for my shooting style, not to mention a little lighter weight, which I increasingly appreciate as I get older.

[mikesbike]

Wow, that's a long way short of the K1, or even the D700. How much more would a K5 or a K3 cost you?

The CCD/CMOS rendering difference can be pretty well mimicked in post processing with BigMackCam's LR preset. However, if CCD is really your thing, go for it.

I agree. Look into a K-5 IIs or a K-3. And I agree about the K200D- it has a few advancements over the K10D, such as controls for highlight protection, and if you should be in need of some quick out-of-camera JPEGs, its processing engine is a lot better than the K10D, just be sure to engage "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menus, which is true even of current models.

The K200D also has the convenience of using AA batteries, either rechargeable or lithium throw-aways. Unusual for anon-flagship model, there was a Battery grip available for it as well, which used AA batteries.

---------- Post added 01-12-20 at 12:45 PM ----------

Wow, that's a long way short of the K1, or even the D700. How much more would a K5 or a K3 cost you?

The CCD/CMOS rendering difference can be pretty well mimicked in post processing with BigMackCam's LR preset. However, if CCD is really your thing, go for it.

I agree. Look into a K-5 II or IIs or a K-3. And I agree about the K200D- it has a few advancements over the K10D, such as controls for highlight protection, and if you should be in need of some quick out-of-camera JPEGs, its processing engine is a lot better than the K10D, just be sure to engage "Fine Sharpening" in the Custom Image menus, which is true even of current models.

The K200D also has the convenience of using AA batteries, either rechargeable or lithium throw-aways. Unusual for anon-flagship model, there was a Battery grip available for it as well, which used AA batteries.

[BigMackCam]

My favourite camera is the Samsung GX-10, the K10D's re-badged cousin... I like it so much, I have three (plus one K10D)

BUT...

I'm not sure I would recommend it as someone's only DSLR these days. Compared to more recent cameras like the K-5 and K-3 series (both of which I own), it's rather limited in terms of dynamic range, higher ISO performance, resolution, general performance, no AF fine tune for multiple lenses, and lack of live view. I can typically work with or around these limitations, and I'm happy to do so for the results I achieve and the enjoyment I get. But for all-round general use, I think you'd be better off going with something more recent like a K-5...

[paulh]

What Mike said ^^. The K10D is also my favorite camera - I have two, and one is a dedicated m42 shooter. I love the way it renders with my beloved Takumars. Just know there are limitations, esp. compared to newer offerings. I also have a K-5 for more demanding situations, but the K10D is what I reach for first.

Take a look here if you haven't already : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242738-k10d-club.html

[ChristianRock]

With the k10D on a sunny day you wont have information in both shadow and light spots, this is different with modern cameras.

Do you speak from actual experience? Or just hearsay and "seeing numbers on the internet"?

I am asking because I have a K10D (and more modern cameras like the K-S1 and K-50) and it has enough information on a sunny day for shadows and light spots at ISO 100. First the dynamic range capture is not linear as with CMOS cameras - you already start with you shadows a bit lifted up. (I know this is a somewhat interesting topic where not a lot of data is available to us final users - and due to *all* sensors being non-linear to an extent, including CMOS - but I speak from experience, having shot CMOS and CCD cameras in similar conditions with the same lenses for years now).

On top of the CCD being more non-linear than CMOS and having more details in shadows without any adjustment to the RAW files, there's at least 2 stops of lifting that can be done easily from the shadows with CMOS. I get 3+ from my K-S1 and about 4 from my K-50, but on a sunny day I don't need all that.
The K10D was such an improvement to my lunch photo walks over the K20D that it replaced. With the K20D, lifting 1 stop of shadows on a sunny day made the shades fall apart. More than 1 stop was totally useless.

The only times when the CCD will not be able to lift as much as you'd need is on sunsets and sunrises when you do need those 3-4 stops to lift up the scene against the brighter sky.

Shooting at night is not a problem if you have fast lenses.

Here is a shot that gave me that "a-ha!" moment when I realized that I had more shadow detail out of the K10D out of the box. I didn't have to lift the shadows much. In fact I had at least another step of lifting available should I need it.



That kind of shot used to frustrate me with the K20D. Now with the K10D and with the K-S1/K-50 I don't have any issues. But with the latter two cameras I'd have to lift at least 2 stops from the shadows to get these same results.

Finally, as for print size, again, most people throwing numbers around don't speak from experience. These people (like Thom Hogan) who say you need *at least* 42mp to make a medium size print - I wonder if they ever print anything in their own lives. I researched the subject a while back and found some interesting comments from people like this one:

"I have large prints on my walls from 6mp, 12mp, 16mp, and 24mp DX and full-frame cameras. You would be hard-pressed to tell which is which. But 24mp full frame files definitely take up more storage space." - source: comment section of How Many Megapixels Do You Need? | Fstoppers

I remember seeing another comment - which I can't find now - by someone who worked at a print shop and they had several poster-sized prints on the wall, and *nobody* could tell the 6MP files apart from the 24MP and so forth. They all looked just as sharp unless you took a magnifying glass to them. So, any of you who walk around with a magnifying glass in your pocket to look at other people's prints, I'm sorry to say this but, you really need to get a life

[WorksAsIntended]

Do you speak from actual experience? Or just hearsay and "seeing numbers on the internet"?

I am asking because I have a K10D (and more modern cameras like the K-S1 and K-50) and it has enough information on a sunny day for shadows and light spots at ISO 100. First the dynamic range capture is not linear as with CMOS cameras - you already start with you shadows a bit lifted up. (I know this is a somewhat interesting topic where not a lot of data is available to us final users - and due to *all* sensors being non-linear to an extent, including CMOS - but I speak from experience, having shot CMOS and CCD cameras in similar conditions with the same lenses for years now).

On top of the CCD being more non-linear than CMOS and having more details in shadows without any adjustment to the RAW files, there's at least 2 stops of lifting that can be done easily from the shadows with CMOS. I get 3+ from my K-S1 and about 4 from my K-50, but on a sunny day I don't need all that.
The K10D was such an improvement to my lunch photo walks over the K20D that it replaced. With the K20D, lifting 1 stop of shadows on a sunny day made the shades fall apart. More than 1 stop was totally useless.

The only times when the CCD will not be able to lift as much as you'd need is on sunsets and sunrises when you do need those 3-4 stops to lift up the scene against the brighter sky.

Shooting at night is not a problem if you have fast lenses.

Here is a shot that gave me that "a-ha!" moment when I realized that I had more shadow detail out of the K10D out of the box. I didn't have to lift the shadows much. In fact I had at least another step of lifting available should I need it.



That kind of shot used to frustrate me with the K20D. Now with the K10D and with the K-S1/K-50 I don't have any issues. But with the latter two cameras I'd have to lift at least 2 stops from the shadows to get these same results.

Finally, as for print size, again, most people throwing numbers around don't speak from experience. These people (like Thom Hogan) who say you need *at least* 42mp to make a medium size print - I wonder if they ever print anything in their own lives. I researched the subject a while back and found some interesting comments from people like this one:

"I have large prints on my walls from 6mp, 12mp, 16mp, and 24mp DX and full-frame cameras. You would be hard-pressed to tell which is which. But 24mp full frame files definitely take up more storage space." - source: comment section of How Many Megapixels Do You Need? | Fstoppers

I remember seeing another comment - which I can't find now - by someone who worked at a print shop and they had several poster-sized prints on the wall, and *nobody* could tell the 6MP files apart from the 24MP and so forth. They all looked just as sharp unless you took a magnifying glass to them. So, any of you who walk around with a magnifying glass in your pocket to look at other people's prints, I'm sorry to say this but, you really need to get a life

I did over 100k shots with my k10d, it propably is the one camera I know best. It was my main camera up until two years ago.
I do like the k10d, in term of ergonomics I even prefer it over the k3ii and k1ii.
I never had the k20d to compare to, but compared to my "modern" ones, the difference is like night and day.
Btw, 10mpx is totally fine imho.

---------- Post added 01-13-20 at 08:59 AM ----------

Btw, I did measure linearity of the k10d. I used another body to measure some diffraction with it and therefore calibrated to output to be linear for different wave lenghts.
It is very far from linear, very far.

---------- Post added 01-13-20 at 09:12 AM ----------

I remeber one time, where I tried to shoot pictures of two dark dogs sitting under a tree on a very sunny day. Either the shadow parts were too dark or the light parts just white.
I am pretty sure, both the k3ii and k1ii would have managed that, even a film camera would have been great help.

[ChristianRock]

[/COLOR]I remeber one time, where I tried to shoot pictures of two dark dogs sitting under a tree on a very sunny day. Either the shadow parts were too dark or the light parts just white.
I am pretty sure, both the k3ii and k1ii would have managed that, even a film camera would have been great help.

Were you shooting JPEG? I find that the JPEG files are mostly useless if the dynamic range is high, but have not had that problem with RAW files. In fact, I've even pulled more detail from the highlights with RAW than I thought should be possible... not comparable with new CMOS camerras of course, but for the use case (bright sunny noon pictures), perfectly adequate.
Of course what's perfectly adequate for me might not be for you.

[WorksAsIntended]

I did use raw, the jpg engine of the k10d was not exactly the best. I knew that before buying it and decided to use raw instead which I never stopped doing, at least the great majority of time.
I switched from a Nikon D1 to the Pentax and really loved it. The fact, that I used it intensivly for 10 years should show, that it was camera I was thinking very highly of and I had a lot of technical very good shots with it.