[mchud]

I know I"m going to be one of those annoying people that have like a billion posts! Well, I hope not. Anyway, I started out with the ist ds. I bought the k10d and ended up returning it because I didn't feel it did any better than my ist. In fact, my pictures seemed sharper than those with the k10d. I now have the k20d and am feeling a little the same way. I feel like my pictures are no better with the k20d than with my ist. In fact, I feel like I get away with lower exposure and less blur on my ist than on the k20d. Am I missing something? I have the exact same lenses and same iso, aperature and speed, so shouldn't they come out the same, or better on the k20d? I know there are all kinds of factory settings that can be changed. Anyone notice there not being much difference between the cameras IQ, or is it that you just don't notice it until you print? Even in PHotoshop, when I put them at the same print size, I see no difference. I'm going crazy!!! Help me understand please. Thanks.
Michelle

[ariahspam]

Mount both on tripod, disable SR and test again.

I have noticed that if I have SR on (on a k20d), not half-pressing the shutter button until the SR icon appears results in a ugly blurred photo.

The other possibility is the resolution outresolving the lens.

[Kerrowdown]

If your shooting raw, most images will benefit from some degree of sharpening or tweaking call it what you will, in post production with the likes of CS3 or similar.

My images need a helping hand after leaving the camera to look their best.

[audiobomber]

What you're saying about being able to hold lower shutter speeds with the ist doesn't make any sense. Clearly something is wrong. Maybe if you post some examples it would help to troubleshoot.

Judging better IQ, that's a tricky question, especially given the myriad ways to set tone, sharpness, contrast and saturation. I have a K100DS and a K20D. On artistic type of photos, I don't see any difference in IQ either, especially if I don't pixel peep. But I crop a lot, and then the differences are very clear. Printing larger than 8x10 will show up the differences too. If I were taking a photo of a flower with the K100 and K20, I wouldn't have a preference, even though I may be able to tell them apart. But if I were to photograph some small writing, then I can tell the cameras apart with no trouble.

[newtmaker]

I'm not being funny but you might consider having your eyes examined. It happened to me whe I turned 40. That was 26 years ago!

Walt

[Das Boot]

Well, I have just upgraded to a K200d and have had a similar experience. Over the past 3 months, I've had the joy of taking my 2 year old son to see 2 Wiggles concerts. The first one I had my K110d and a SMC M 200 f-4.0. We sat about 50 yards away and I shot mostly at ISO1600. NeatImage cleaned them up great and I would say about 4-5% of the shots I took were blurred. Now last week, we sat seven rows back center stage and I had my fancy new K200d. Although the lenses were different - I used a Tamron 28-200 XR - I figured I would get just as good results since I wouldn't be extending the lens all the way out. Even with SR on and ISO at 800-1600 and the average shot around 70mm about 30% were pure garbage. I'm really perplexed. To make things worse, the first concert with the good shots, I was pretty loaded (for some reason they were selling beer there & momma was driving so I didn't see what it would hurt) and not too steady a hand. Oh well, I'm still happy with the upgrade - just having little trouble getting use to it.

-Brian

[flyer]

To "MCHUD" and "the int21h":

You have to wait for the SR symbol to appear in the viewfinder if you want SR to be effective. Maybe on some of your shots, the SR didn't have time to activate. The EXIF on the pictures that seem blurred/out of focus/soft would tell you if SR was active when the picture was taken.

[Marc Sabatella]

Although the lenses were different

Meaning you are likely comparing lenses more than cameras.

about 30% were pure garbage.

In what way? Samples would help. Usually motion blur is pretty obvious, as is softness that comes from a relatively poor quality lens (as the 28-200 almost certainly is).

[Marc Sabatella]

I feel like my pictures are no better with the k20d than with my ist. In fact, I feel like I get away with lower exposure and less blur on my ist than on the k20d. Am I missing something?

Not necessarily. The quality of your pictures is going to be affected at least as much by the lens as by the camera. If you want better pictures, you generally want better lenses.

Anyone notice there not being much difference between the cameras IQ, or is it that you just don't notice it until you print? Even in PHotoshop, when I put them at the same print size, I see no difference.

Not sure why'd you'd expect a difference when viewing images made by the same lenses at the same print size, unless tha print size is something big enough to really take advantage of the extra pixels. That is, at anything up to 12x18" or so, the difference wouldn't be noticeable. Bigger than that and it would.

Now, the SR of the K20D should also yield sharper pictures at lower shutter speeds - that's about the only difference you'd expect to see normally. certainly you shouldn't expect that more pixels by itself means better images.

[PentaxistDS]

Because the photograph is what photographer can do.Thats just the shortest way to explain.I felt the same when I got my ist ds.My previous was a film slr "Z20" and still here with me.To be honest I like the colors of Z20 film slr with a quality film.But as you know digital is cheaper and easier at storing and printing also.So Thats why I dont want to buy a new digital at least in 5 years.

[mchud]

I'm not expecting the picture to be better so much as when I zoom in on my computer, I want to see a difference, otherwise, why spend the extra money? So what you're saying, Marc, is that you won't notice a difference until you print over an 8x12. Up to that point it's going to look the same, but after that size I would?
Flyer- I didn't realize you had to wait for a symbol to show up. I'll try that. Thanks to all of you for helping me with this.

[mithrandir]

6 megapixels will allow you to print a nice 8 x 12. It won't allow you to do a big crop and still print a nice 8 x 12. So unless you can nail it right in camera, you are going to limit the size of high quality prints with the smaller megapixel cameras.

[Marc Sabatella]

I want to see a difference, otherwise, why spend the extra money?

The money is going toward lots of things, not all of them directly related to IQ in small prints:

- more pixels to allow for larger prints and/or more cropping
- weather sealed body
- more controls on the body (two control wheels, more buttons, etc)
- more customizability of camera operation via menus
- shake reduction
- support for SDM lenses
- ability to work with a battery grip
- possibly better high ISO performance
- more external flash capabilities (although TTL is removed; that's one step backwards)

That's off the top of my head; I'm sure others could point out more. Lots of things that make the K20D the better camera, but not in ways that would directly affect small prints if you weren't needing to take advantage of those features.

So what you're saying, Marc, is that you won't notice a difference until you print over an 8x12. Up to that point it's going to look the same, but after that size I would?

As a rough generalization, sure. You'd also notice in smaller prints if you were taking advantage of SR, of course, or shooting with an SDM the DS wouldn't have worked with, or shooting at ISO 3200, etc. But mostly, it's better lenses and better technique that will make better pictures.

[GeneV]

I don't know how long some of the folks here had their new bodies before having the disappointing experiences, but I've noticed that I've been disappointed with every new autofocus camera I've owned until I got used to its quirks. That's why it would be useful to see photos so that one could tell if the problem is motion blur, lens blur or focus error.