[Mark DeB]

Hi, thanks to all for this great resource: I have gotten so much good information from it. I have a *ist DS2 and am wondering whether, if I upgraded to a K-70, there would be a real difference in image quality. I understand that if you enlarge a small portion of a 6 MP image it's not going to look the same as from a 24 MP image. But let's just say you are looking at the whole image on your computer screen, one from the DS2 (6 MP), one from the K-70 (24 MP). Would you see a difference? (Of course, all else being equal. Same aperture, same shutter speed, etc.) Would you describe the difference as more than subtle?

I don't know if it makes any difference, but currently I am using manual-focus A series lenses with the DS2.


Perhaps there is some place I could look to see a comparison between those or similar cameras that could give me an idea?

Thanks,

Mark

Hi, thanks to all for this great resource: I have gotten so much good information from it. I have a *ist DS2 and am wondering whether, if I upgraded to a K-70, there would be a real difference in image quality. I understand that if you enlarge a small portion of a 6 MP image it's not going to look the same as from a 24 MP image. But let's just say you are looking at the whole image on your computer screen, one from the DS2 (6 MP), one from the K-70 (24 MP). Would you see a difference? (Of course, all else being equal. Same aperture, same shutter speed, etc.) Would you describe the difference as more than subtle?

I don't know if it makes any difference, but currently I am using manual-focus A series lenses with the DS2.


Perhaps there is some place I could look to see a comparison between those or similar cameras that could give me an idea?

Thanks,

Mark

Have a look at Flickr and search for images by both cameras.

[brianmquinn]

Hi, thanks to all for this great resource: I have gotten so much good information from it. I have a *ist DS2 and am wondering whether, if I upgraded to a K-70, there would be a real difference in image quality. I understand that if you enlarge a small portion of a 6 MP image it's not going to look the same as from a 24 MP image. But let's just say you are looking at the whole image on your computer screen, one from the DS2 (6 MP), one from the K-70 (24 MP). Would you see a difference? (Of course, all else being equal. Same aperture, same shutter speed, etc.) Would you describe the difference as more than subtle?

I don't know if it makes any difference, but currently I am using manual-focus A series lenses with the DS2.


Perhaps there is some place I could look to see a comparison between those or similar cameras that could give me an idea?

Thanks,

Mark

I have a *ist DS as well as a K-3 and K-1. If you don't need to enlarge the image it will look fine UNLESS you shoot at a high ISO. Then the newer cameras will have a cleaner looking image. But sometimes the digital "grain" from a high ISO setting will make a photo look "better" depending on the subject. There are may other points that are better with the K-70 like AF speed, being able to work with newer non screw drive lenses, better white balance, etc.

One other thing is if you are shooting JPEG images and having the camera develop them the DS image will look less sharp. That is due to the way the camera processes the RAW image to a JPEG in the camera. Pentax used to have a low level of sharpening built into their software. Today newer cameras sharpen more so they appear sharper but that is not always a good thing. Shoot RAW and you can pick you setting later.

Flickr searching is problematic as most images will be apple to orange comparisons with different lenses, lighting, subjects, etc.

[gatorguy]

Have a look at Flickr and search for images by both cameras.

Great advice!

I personally saw a tremendous quality improvement going from a 16mp K50 to the K70, and that was not as big a jump as you would be doing BUT that applied to my subjects, uses, how they're typically viewed, and MY personal expectations. You are not me.

[steephill]

Think about the resolution of your monitor, your next monitor might be much higher resolution than your current one. The 6Mp images may not look so good on a 4k screen (8Mp).

[bofh]

Have a look at Flickr and search for images by both cameras.

Imho explorecams is a bit more convenient.

Another notable difference between the images from both cameras are the colours due to the sensor technology: the *ist DS2 has a CCD sensor, the K-70 has a CMOS sensors.

E.

Imho explorecams is a bit more convenient.


E.

There is one photo for the K-70 and no *ist DS2.

Maybe try here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/samplesearch.php

[kypfer]

Hi, thanks to all for this great resource: I have gotten so much good information from it. I have a *ist DS2 and am wondering whether, if I upgraded to a K-70, there would be a real difference in image quality. I understand that if you enlarge a small portion of a 6 MP image it's not going to look the same as from a 24 MP image. But let's just say you are looking at the whole image on your computer screen, one from the DS2 (6 MP), one from the K-70 (24 MP). Would you see a difference? (Of course, all else being equal. Same aperture, same shutter speed, etc.) Would you describe the difference as more than subtle?
I don't know if it makes any difference, but currently I am using manual-focus A series lenses with the DS2.
Perhaps there is some place I could look to see a comparison between those or similar cameras that could give me an idea?
Thanks,
Mark

My first DSLR was a *istDS … excellent camera … but my K-70 is superior in almost every respect, which is, of course, only valid if you need the features the K-70 is better at … higher speed shutter, lower light sensitivity, weather resistance etc. etc.
Probably two criteria to consider :-
1) Are there photographic situations you encounter that your *istDS2 can't cope with (but the K-70 could)?
2) If you take a picture with the *istDS2 that you're perfectly happy with, then you take the same picture, using the same lens and settings with a K-70, you'd probably not notice the difference except under extremes of magnification.


*ist DS2 : Digital SLR Cameras | RICOH IMAGING and Features1 | PENTAX K-70 | RICOH IMAGING may help your decision making


One thing the *istDS2 will be better at - infra-red imaging. Possibly not something you're interested in, but worth mentioning, just in case

[bofh]

There is one photo for the K-70 and no *ist DS2.

That is strange.
My search for the *ist DS2 shows 93 results an my search for the K-70 shows 2580 results.

Maybe try here Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com

Thank you - didn't know that great resource yet.

E.

That is strange.
My search for the *ist DS2 shows 93 results an my search for the K-70 shows 2580 results.


Thank you - didn't know that great resource yet.

E.

Ahhh...I just looked in the list and didn't search! Anyway, I think we have all given the OP enough to be getting on with!

[Des]

My first DSLR was a *istDS … excellent camera … but my K-70 is superior in almost every respect

I'd say the same having gone from 6mp CCD sensor K100D Super to 16mp CMOS sensor K-30. Each subsequent jump (K-S2, K-3, KP) has also produced a notable improvement in images, but not as much as the first jump.

The big distinguishing features in image quality between the 6mp camera and recent-model 24mp cameras (assuming shooting RAW and post-processing with each) are:
- Much greater scope for cropping. With, say, a 300mm lens, I often need to crop a bird photo to a quarter of the size. If I want to crop from 24mp to one-quarter the size, I've still got 6mp, which is viable for an image with plenty of detail. With a 6mp sensor, I crop to one-quarter and I have 1.5mp. It might be OK, but it's unlikely to be comparable. Even 6mp to 16mp was a revelation. 24mp is great.
- No AA filter - noticeable increase in sharpness.
- Much better in low light. This is a paradigm shift, accompanied by big improvements in PP software. You can stop obsessing about keeping ISO below 400. 1600, 3200 or even more are viable options, as required. With the K100D Super, 800 was the outer limit and that was a big compromise. My default limit now (KP) is 3200. 6400 with the KP is like 800 with the K100D. There's three stops for you to "spend" on faster shutter or narrower aperture or both. It's a whole other world of shooting.

For nature photography, which is my main interest, there is no comparison.

And that is to say nothing of the features, like vastly superior AF, much better exposure metering, much better white balance, the convenience of two (or three) control wheels, LiveView (great for tripod images and manual focusing), quiet shutter (with flagship models and the KP anyway), much better Shake Reduction, better viewfinder, weather resistance, articulating or tilting screen, better dust removal. Plus access to better PP software (DxO Photolab, for example, doesn't support the *ist models) and the ability to use the latest KAF4 lenses like the lightning fast DA 55-300 PLM. For me the whole experience has been transformed.

I used the K100D Super for 6 years, almost always jpg only. I look back on those thousands of shots now as a wasted opportunity. So many great scenes, great places, great wildlife - not a single great image. There are many I was quite pleased with at the time I would just delete now. There aren't many that I would post on Flickr. Sure, I've got better lenses now, and I'm shooting RAW and I have excellent processing software. And yes my skills have improved. But the cameras themselves are a major factor. I know that because I saw the change immediately when I started using the K-30, and I've seen it with each camera upgrade since.

Don't hold back. Get a K-70 or KP. You won't regret it.

[ramseybuckeye]

For nature photography, which is my main interest, there is no comparison.

I agree totally with Des, so I won't quote all of what he said, even though I went from the K20D to K-30, K-50 to the KP, the improvements are very real. I'm also primarily a nature shooter, and not only the larger sensor letting you crop and get more details, more shadow detail, etc. make a difference, but the features like the improved low light capabilities, more accurate autofocus, better live view, focus peaking, etc improve your ability to capture what you see. The image is the product, but the tools or features of the newer cameras give you better ways to produce that final product. I'm not saying you can't get some spectacular photos from your *ist DS2, but the K-70 will allow you to get some photos that would be very difficult with the *ist.

[K2 to K50]

I went from a K50 to a KP, and noticed a significant difference - especially when cropping. (My main subjects - birds, insects,flowers).
So a jump from the 1stDS to either a K70 or a KP would be worthwhile, in my opinion.

If you can find a 2nd hand KP from a reliable source, go for it, otherwise, a new K70 would still be very rewarding.

Of course, if you have the budget, the K3 iii would be the ultimate jump. (I have the KP and the K3 iii).

[Password1234]

I used to have an IST DL then kx, then k70 and now k3iii. I kind of feel like changing digital camera is like changing film stock and camera at the same time. If I could go back in time I would have kept the DL and the kx, picture quality is not just better it's also different. Its true that for printing a 24x36 I prefer the k3iii or k70 but for smaller print even the DL was good. I'm having a hard time understanding 40mpix apsc but it's happening. Construction wise it will be an upgrade, the k70 is well made and easy to use, articulated screen, good viewfinder, image quality is excellent, the screen is not top notch but it's totally doing the job.

[UncleVanya]

K100D super (6mp ccd) -> K50 (16mp cmos) -> K3 (24mp cmos) -> KP (24mp cmos + accelerator chip)

Each step brought something useful, but the initial jump from 6 mp to 16 was quite easily seen. The ISO performance was where this was seen more than the image quality in great lighting.

A 4k TV/ monitor displays about 8MP of data. That's only slightly more than your 6mp sensor produces. A lower resolution FHD monitor displays more like 2MP. So the display itself may limit any resolution differences you can see as long as you don't crop or enlarge the images. This assumes both are shot in good light keeping ISO near base levels to keep noise low.