[ChristianRock]

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.

You're likely a better photographer and definitely more experienced than me - I've only had the K10D for some 3 years or so, only been shooting DSLRs for 6 1/2 years now.
So I guess for my less demanding needs, the full sun pictures have the necessary dynamic range for anything I want - as long as I expose properly (which is THE requirement to shoot with the K10D, as I find - but people who have shot slide film will have absolutely no problem with that). What do you shoot with now?

Having said all that - a K-5 or K-5II/K-5IIs are definitely great suggestions as well, if the OP can swing for one of them. I'd skip the K20D and K-7 though, the only practical advantage I find in them is the feature set and skin tones - if one shoots mostly portraits, the skin tones of the Samsung sensor in those two cameras are gorgeous. For everything else, I find the Sony sensors work much better.

[BigMackCam]

You're likely a better photographer and definitely more experienced than me - I've only had the K10D for some 3 years or so, only been shooting DSLRs for 6 1/2 years now.
So I guess for my less demanding needs, the full sun pictures have the necessary dynamic range for anything I want - as long as I expose properly (which is THE requirement to shoot with the K10D, as I find - but people who have shot slide film will have absolutely no problem with that). What do you shoot with now?

Having said all that - a K-5 or K-5II/K-5IIs are definitely great suggestions as well, if the OP can swing for one of them. I'd skip the K20D and K-7 though, the only practical advantage I find in them is the feature set and skin tones - if one shoots mostly portraits, the skin tones of the Samsung sensor in those two cameras are gorgeous. For everything else, I find the Sony sensors work much better.

I came from shooting the K-5 and later the K-3 / K-3II before buying my first GX-10 / K10D. I can definitely tell there's a difference in dynamic range, though it doesn't "feel" so pronounced as the dxomark scores suggest - and shadow recovery from the GX-10's raw files has been excellent at low ISO settings. In any case, regardless of the camera I'm using, I'll bracket when possible in high dynamic range situations so I can either choose the most useful exposure later, or combine them into one HDR image. I've not had any significant problems thus far... and the raw files are lovely

[WorksAsIntended]

[...]

as long as I expose properly (which is THE requirement to shoot with the K10D, as I find - but people who have shot slide film will have absolutely no problem with that). What do you shoot with now?

Having said all that - a K-5 or K-5II/K-5IIs are definitely great suggestions as well, if the OP can swing for one of them. I'd skip the K20D and K-7 though, the only practical advantage I find in them is the feature set and skin tones - if one shoots mostly portraits, the skin tones of the Samsung sensor in those two cameras are gorgeous. For everything else, I find the Sony sensors work much better.

I agree on the exposure part, also the slide film comparison. It is pretty much exactly like shooting slide film to me.

I went from the k10D (well, together with a k-x) to the k3-ii and just recently got a k1-ii as another body to finnaly get back the fullframe fealing I missed on digital cameras.

I never used the modells in between for more than a few shots, so I am not really able to tell a lot about them.

[tonyzoc]

I agree on the exposure part, also the slide film comparison. It is pretty much exactly like shooting slide film to me.

I went from the k10D (well, together with a k-x) to the k3-ii and just recently got a k1-ii as another body to finnaly get back the fullframe fealing I missed on digital cameras.

I never used the modells in between for more than a few shots, so I am not really able to tell a lot about them.

There a K10D on eBay right now for but-it-now $100 + $20 shipping...with 18-55, battery grip, 3 batteries and charger. I'm tempted...

[WorksAsIntended]

There a K10D on eBay right now for but-it-now $100 + $20 shipping...with 18-55, battery grip, 3 batteries and charger. I'm tempted...

I used to have the battery grip for the k10d too, it is a great addition.

You can look at it this way: if you are saving up for the k-new, k1 or something like this, $120 will propably put you less back than the time you had to wait to get them instead of using the k10d.

Personally I would propably get it.

[BigMackCam]

There a K10D on eBay right now for but-it-now $100 + $20 shipping...with 18-55, battery grip, 3 batteries and charger. I'm tempted...

I used to have the battery grip for the k10d too, it is a great addition.

You can look at it this way: if you are saving up for the k-new, k1 or something like this, $120 will propably put you less back than the time you had to wait to get them instead of using the k10d.

Personally I would propably get it.

I'd have to agree. All the money has gone out of these older bodies by now... For $120, assuming it's a good example, you'll get a lot of fun from it and some wonderful images - and it'll probably make you more considered and careful in your shooting generally, which is useful discipline. If, after a while, you decide you no longer want it or you need a small amount of extra funds for a K-1 or something else, you can sell it for not much less than you paid...

[Pan Kleks]

Another member mentioned the Pentax 645D because it has the same sensor as the K10D, although from what I understand it is four times bigger?

I could possibly buy a used 645D over the K1 but I was looking at the lenses and wow do they cost a lot! For those of you that own the 645D, what are some good cheap lenses that don't cost four figures?

[Dartmoor Dave]

The 645D hasn't got the same sensor as the K10D, but it does use the same CCD technology so there are similar rendering characteristics. I suppose when I made that suggestion I was really just thinking aloud about what I'd do myself -- if I wanted a bigger sensor than the K10D then I'd personally go for the 645D rather than the K1. As you say, modern autofocus lenses for the 645 are very expensive, but there are plenty of excellent vintage manual lenses available priced in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

But it was really just me dreaming aloud about what I'd do myself, so probably not very helpful as an answer to your question.

[mickey]

Solid camera.
Have had mine from new.
It still gets a run out now and again.
I also have a K5.

The K5 is the better camera, so to speak.
However, the K10 has an appeal and without question still produces great images.
I think these days we are spoilt for choice so will always be looking at something "better".
It was a good camera when released and that hasn't changed...unless one starts comparing camera features.

[MotoMind]

The K10D is an objectively obsolete camera. It does not do anything that cannot be done by more modern cameras with postprocessing to get the feel you want if necessary. The color information is there to work with.

What the K10D does provide that more modern cameras sometimes do not provide is exceptional ergonomics in terms of size and shape, durability and water resistance, shoulder display, minimal LCD use, efficient always-on/sleep, and very fast power-on to shoot times for maximum battery conservation.

This amounts to functionality appropriate for a top of the line professional camera for its time, and the physical shooting experience even today reflects that superiority over low and and mid range cameras and even many prosumer cameras that cost 10x more.

Aside from that, one must accept and embrace its limitations. Yes, it looks best at low ISO, but you will fight dynamic range issues. You will adjust EV to preserve highlight detail, and your photos will be dark. You will need to use prime lenses with a fast aperture, like the 50mm DA. You will sometimes use a high ISO and accept the noise. You will have blurred photos. You will shoot RAW to avoid turning sensor noise into JPG grease. You may use flash indoors. These are things forced on you when you want to simply take a shot in bad conditions.

It is also fine. Limitations display what we sometimes see as character, and which, if embraced and worked artfully, can demonstrate a style. Perhaps as ungraceful and anachronistic as using straight skis in the age of side-cut, but if that is what you enjoy, that is what you should do.

[ChristianRock]

The K10D is an objectively obsolete camera. It does not do anything that cannot be done by more modern cameras with postprocessing to get the feel you want if necessary. The color information is there to work with.

From Merrian-Webster:
ob·​so·​lete | \ ˌäb-sə-ˈlēt , ˈäb-sə-ˌlēt \
Definition of obsolete (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: no longer in use or no longer useful
an obsolete word
b: of a kind or style no longer current : OLD-FASHIONED
an obsolete technology
farming methods that are now obsolete

I personally don't like when people use the word obsolete because they mean something that needs to be replaced - or that it can't be used anymore. When in fact it's just no longer current. The K10D is as obsolete as the K-5. It's not the current model.
Film is even more obsolete in that sense, but it still has its uses. It still brings in the money for Andreas Gursky... so how can it actually be "obsolete"?
Manual transmission cars have been "obsolete" for decades but still have about half the world market.
Cars were invented by bicycle manufacturers in the late 1800s and were supposed to replace them and make them obsolete. But let's look at this statistic from Worldometer - real time world statistics "As recently as 1965, world production of cars and bikes was essentially the same, with each at nearly 20 million, but as of 2003 bike production had climbed to over 100 million per year compared with 42 million cars."
I would argue that something is not obsolete as long as it is preferred by someone. If you come by the K10D Club thread, you will see it is still preferred by a few people out there. Including me. Is it the best "jack of all trades"? No, but is that the definition of a non-obsolete product? I don't think so.

What the K10D does provide that more modern cameras sometimes do not provide is exceptional ergonomics in terms of size and shape, durability and water resistance, shoulder display, minimal LCD use, efficient always-on/sleep, and very fast power-on to shoot times for maximum battery conservation.

This amounts to functionality appropriate for a top of the line professional camera for its time, and the physical shooting experience even today reflects that superiority over low and and mid range cameras and even many prosumer cameras that cost 10x more.

No arguing there...

Aside from that, one must accept and embrace its limitations. Yes, it looks best at low ISO, but you will fight dynamic range issues. You will adjust EV to preserve highlight detail, and your photos will be dark. You will need to use prime lenses with a fast aperture, like the 50mm DA. You will sometimes use a high ISO and accept the noise. You will have blurred photos. You will shoot RAW to avoid turning sensor noise into JPG grease. You may use flash indoors. These are things forced on you when you want to simply take a shot in bad conditions.

Again, no it's not a jack of all trades, but no Pentax is. If you want a camera that has the highest resolution, the fastest autofocus, shoots the most frames per second, has the most compatible lenses that are sharpest edge-to-edge wide open, and the absolutely best sensor in existence, you will be shooting with other brands - and even then you might struggle to be best in class in every single aspect.
And most people don't need best in class in all these things at once, if at all.
The question should always be, what is the requirement for the photographer, and does this camera do it well?

It is also fine. Limitations display what we sometimes see as character, and which, if embraced and worked artfully, can demonstrate a style. Perhaps as ungraceful and anachronistic as using straight skis in the age of side-cut, but if that is what you enjoy, that is what you should do.

In other words: be a luddite if you want to

By the way, anyone wanting to get rid of all those obsolete Limited lenses that still use screw drive autofocus (I mean, really, who still sells that????), send them to me and I'll properly dispose of them

[WorksAsIntended]

I just sold a da 70, it was really hard to sell, I got only 200€ for it.
Demand seems to not be high at the moment.
You wont get my Fa77 though.

[MotoMind]

"
I would argue that something is not obsolete as long as it is preferred by someone. If you come by the K10D Club thread, you will see it is still preferred by a few people out there. Including me. Is it the best "jack of all trades"? No, but is that the definition of a non-obsolete product? I don't think so.

I mean obsolete simply in the sense that it is no longer current, and where all of its features and capabilities have been superceded in subsequent cameras. You can definitely get a lot of use out of it, but with a K1 budget you can get a lot of cameras better in literally every respect. It is obsolete in the sense that no one rationally unnostalgically chooses to buy a Corvair when they can have a Corolla.

In other words: be a luddite if you want to

Pretty much. I am a Luddite myself. I have owned a K10D since 2009 and only recently bought a KP. I hated the KP because the shooting experience and battery management were crippled in comparison. It only gained appeal when I put a 40mm pancake lens on it and made it a my everyday carry, where the dynamic range and better sensor means more keepers.

The experience also showed me how good the K10D still is when shooting raw, when fitted with a fast prime, and when I fixed some mild back-focusing issues that it apparently had for a long time (and all along I thought it was just due to being old). But I don't fool myself, most of the photos I take with it are flawed under difficult conditions. But people use Instagram filters that make scientifically perfect photos look grainy or washed out, and some people take photos with disposable cameras or instant cameras and like the feel or character. I happen to be happy with the limitations and the low cost, and apparently you are too. But being happy with an old weak product takes a lot of introspection, or delusion.

[ChristianRock]

I mean obsolete simply in the sense that it is no longer current, and where all of its features and capabilities have been superceded in subsequent cameras. You can definitely get a lot of use out of it, but with a K1 budget you can get a lot of cameras better in literally every respect. It is obsolete in the sense that no one rationally unnostalgically chooses to buy a Corvair when they can have a Corolla.

I'd say the K10D is more like a 67' Mustang, thank you very much

(...) But being happy with an old weak product takes a lot of introspection, or delusion.

I'd say for a lot of uses it's as weak as the person behind the viewfinder...

[Dartmoor Dave]

I mean obsolete simply in the sense that it is no longer current, and where all of its features and capabilities have been superceded in subsequent cameras.

I don't feel that it has yet been superceded in regard to the characteristics that I care about most, which is why I choose to keep using it as my main camera. When the time comes that a more recent camera can match it for beauty of rendering, believe me I'll happily switch to it. (And yes, I've put a lot of work into trying to recreate the CCD look in post processing and concluded that you just can't.)

It is obsolete in the sense that no one rationally unnostalgically chooses to buy a Corvair when they can have a Corolla.

I'm not sure in which ways my preference for the 10 megapixel CCD sensor could be considered irrational. I've put a lot of effort into trying to get results that I like from more recent cameras, but the end result of all that effort has always been less satisfying than what I'm already getting. So in what way can it be described as irrational to just stick with what I know works for me?

But being happy with an old weak product takes a lot of introspection, or delusion.

Introspective, yes. Delusional, no. To say that my personal aesthetic preferences are delusional implies that you've got some sort of an objective standard to test my preferences against, and if you really have got that then you've solved one of the central problems that western thinkers have been struggling with for the past 2500 years or so.