[redcurl]

Hello to all !

I just returned from a huge family reunion and many pictures were taken. My eldest brother in law used his *istDL Sigma 18-200mm and I used my K100D DA 16-45mm.

I just will post this final question:

why did the *istDl deliver far sharper pictures than my K100D?

Is it the lens? the camera ?

Would appreciate any comments.

Redcurl.

[wade7060]

I have both of these cameras and can say both can produce very sharp pictures. The only thing I can think of is the lens and what settings were used for the shots. Rick

[raz]

both cameras have the exact same sensor, if you will shoot RAW there shouldn't be so many differences if you used the same lens. Maybe the difference may appear in image processing, metering, how and where the focus is achieved ?

Look here some samples between *istDL and 100D with the same lens, they look almost identical.
Pentax K100D Review: 20. Compared to...: Digital Photography Review

[FotoPete]

Redcurl, there should be no difference in the pictures. The K100D might be a tad sharper because the new processing algorithms.

Right now I'm not sure why because the 16-45 should be also benefiting sharpness. However, Pentax is not really known for its autofocus ability. If you rely on AF indoors, you may encounter softness from focus problems. Was your brother in law shooting AF or MF?

More information will be helpful.

[GaryML]

Hello to all !

I just returned from a huge family reunion and many pictures were taken. My eldest brother in law used his *istDL Sigma 18-200mm and I used my K100D DA 16-45mm.

I just will post this final question:

why did the *istDl deliver far sharper pictures than my K100D?

Is it the lens? the camera ?

Would appreciate any comments.

The two bodies are capable of delivering virtually the same image quality, and the K100D would normally have a slight edge. Also, the DA 16-45 should be capable of sharper images than the Sigma 18-200.

So, assuming that there is no defect in your equipment, the difference is in the technique. Either a difference in how the photographs were taken, or a difference in the post-processing.

[foxglove]

I sold my DL and got a K100. My unscientific impression is that the K100 sometimes delivers less sharp images than the DL would have if you use SR when it's not needed. I'm trying to train myself to only turn it on if I notice my shutter speeds slipping below the 1/FL rule of thumb. It hasn't happened a lot, but I have had a few where I figured I should've got sharper results, and didn't, and SR was on with a relatively high shutter speed. Maybe that was your problem?

Julie

[redcurl]

Thanks to all for your prompt replies. I will try to investigate further and take more pictures .

Miguel

[jeda]

I have been compairing the ist DL with the K100D myself. Then I sold the K100D and bought a K10D, I kept the DL.

This pretty much covers what I think of the K100D offering 'more' than the DL...

With SR on, I always had more blurry pictures. Only when shooting from a driving car, SR was usefull, but than again, results were not perfect.

So, I would think the main reason was that SR was on...

But there are other reasons why there was a difference :

- What aperture was used ? A large aperture results in less sharpness depth...
- How steady was the photographer ? Do you both have the same steady hand ?
- Did you both use flash te same way or did you shoot normally and use the flash as fill-in ?
- If focussing was not a problem, was the exposure-time longer on one ?
- Did one person take pictures of moving objects and the other from steady ones ?
- Was SR on where it should have been off ?
etc

I would like to hear from the results you had from getting deeper into it ;-)

[kmccanta]

post two examples with EXIF intact, and you will likely get much better speculation...

[SteveB]

With SR on, if you don't wait for the little green hand symbol plus a second IMHO then it won't work reliably and you may well be better with SR off. Sharpening has a huge effect as well, the K100D is undersharpened at default and if you want sharp results then it's either up it in-camera or use PP (better). With a few tweaks it's as sharp and detailed without artefacts as anything I've seen.

[rfortson]

I owned both (started with a DL, sold it to buy the K100D). Granted, I was a complete dSLR n00b when I had the DL, and have learned a lot with the K100D, but I have to say I didn't really notice a difference in the two cameras. If anything, the SR on the K100D means I get much better low light shots. Since the camera bodies and processing engines are very similar, I'd look at the other variables (lens, user, conditions).