[Tbear]

This is misinformation and is one reason why Pentax never will tweak the JPG or sharpening algorithm in firmware if possible.

Phil DID test these settings. The simple problem is type of sharpening Pentax permits us to have in-camera. It is only textural, with no edge sharpening option. Hence a user who needs sharp edges out of the camera for a specific instance can't have it, as Phil specifically tried to accomplish.

As you also remind us:




Even though it would completely eliminate the issue, Pentax won't or can't offer further sharpness options within a menu interface by firmware update that includes the choice of edge sharpening.

Of course, it would be better, profitwise, for them to fix this in the next model, and expect you to buy that if you are not satisfied with current K10D limited effect textural sharpening.

My apologies for the oversight. Yes, it looks like he did test the JPEGs with increased sharpening. I won't accuse you of being a misinformation evildoer, but you did conveniently leave out some of Phil's quotes regarding the JPEGs: "As we have seen on previous Pentax digital SLR's the default sharpness level is a little more conservative than other cameras, that's not a bad thing and simply means that if you want your images a little sharper out of the camera just select +1 or +2".

Also, I do not believe, (and if I am mistaken, it certainly is not motivated by the desire to spread misinformation) that Phil gave direct comparison JPEGs with the other camera manufacturers with Pentax's sharpness parameters increased. I believe, and yes, this is speculation, that had he done THIS comparison, that you nor I would be able to discern a difference. Meanwhile, I still have yet to see ANY evidence that the JPEGs of the K10D (in bright mode with +1 or +2 sharpening) are inferior to the JPEGs of comparable cameras. If you have access to such evidence, I and many others I am sure, would only be too glad for you to produce it.

I look forward to your reply,

Ted

---

Last edited by Tbear; 09-11-2007 at 12:07 PM.

[jeffkrol]

This is misinformation and is one reason why Pentax never will tweak the JPG or sharpening algorithm in firmware if possible.

Phil DID test these settings. The simple problem is type of sharpening Pentax permits us to have in-camera. It is only textural, with no edge sharpening option. Hence a user who needs sharp edges out of the camera for a specific instance can't have it, as Phil specifically tried to accomplish.

As you also remind us:




Even though it would completely eliminate the issue, Pentax won't or can't offer further sharpness options within a menu interface by firmware update that includes the choice of edge sharpening.

Of course, it would be better, profitwise, for them to fix this in the next model, and expect you to buy that if you are not satisfied with current K10D limited effect textural sharpening.

After some pixel level examinations of the Pentax vs Nikon examples on Phils site the only difference I see (at the pixel level) is Pentax has a 1 extra pixel "smear". 1 pixel difference in edge sharpening. Unfortunately it seems to be quite "visual". As to the reasoning for the "poor" jpg's I think Klaus'es findings shed some light on it. Pentax did something quite different by using a "unbalanced" AA filter (something no other camera company has done, kudos for the "mold breaking" attempt). This "feature" allows for an increase in resolution of the RAW files but needs some aggressive de-sharpening in the jpg in order to eliminate any (most) stairstepping and moire caused by the weak to non-existant AA filter in 1 direction.
Pentax K10D Review / Test Report
......."Now is this something bad ? Not necessarily. You may argue that this is a design decision because the potential resolution is roughly 10-15% higher compared to other Sony-based DSLRs (Nikon D200, Sony Alpha 100). That's assuming you use a capable RAW converter naturally - the Pentax PhotoLab or straight JPEGs do not qualify here. As we've seen the extra resolution doesn't come for free. This is probably also the reason why straight JPEGs as well as PhotoLab RAWs are comparatively soft because Pentax decided to apply an inferior (I'll add that it isn't inferior, just necessary, but that's just my take on it) software low-pass filter here"................
Bottom line: Design decision value (good or bad) are in the eye of the beholder. Pentax said they wanted (my paraphrase) to build a photographers camera, not a P&S. That they did. They increased resolution at the expense of in-camera jpg's. From someone who refused to even "think" about a camera (pre-pentax) that didn't have RAW capability was nothing short of buying a Polaroid it didn't bother me the least. MY only knock and what was important to me: The vertical pattern noise. I 'm too used to boosting and stretching my D images from either poor technique (no tripod, dark conditions, camera shake, thoughtless metering so underexpose to allow hand holding and then process the heck out of them, and the D can take it) or occasional camera oppsie..
If it's not broke, you can't fix it. BUT you can change it
YMMV

[Tbear]

Problem is you can throw all the facts you want at him but the opinion or his "conclusions" never change. This goes back to the D days and why he was banned from dpreview....
As an example:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/11670-where-pentax-whats-next-6.html
I, unfortunately, go back way too far w/ him and have seen the pattern for years and, even more unfortunately, cannot always keep it so civil when faced w/ such arrogance and pig headed determination to be "correct".
His name and posts come up way too high and too often in serch engines to be ignored. I suppose I have a bit to do with that itself. Maybe I'm a bit guilty of the same but his continual posts and rants really do impact the "reputation" of Pentax, though at times they themselves don't help matters. So I continue to offer a counterpoint to his "opinions". He won't go away, neither will I.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=37790811&postID=5257110237331737737

No worries, Jeff. My post wasn't intended as a criticism of you or anyone else. I certainly sympathize and completely agree with you that fallacious assertions about any camera (whether put forth by me or anyone else) should not be left to stand, unopposed, for the gullible viewer.

Regards,

Ted

[George Lama]

You make good points, but remember, Pentax (at least for the K10D) has left the user with plenty of options for fine tuning the JPEGs in-camera.

Ted

I agree with you 100%. You have to work the camera settings to suit your needs.

Still people expect the "Easy (Green) Mode" to be so-called-perfect out of the box.

[SpecialK]

This is a hot button issue that every reviewer has somehow mentioned--much ado about nothing--a lot of useless noise!

Yep. Reviewers say (I paraphase) "I don't like the image straight from the camera - but there are all sorts of easy adjustments to saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc , so you can make them look great BY JUST CHANGING THE SETTINGS TO HOW YOU LIKE IT.

Idiots.

One non-reviewer poster did not like that the K100D was set to "Bright" by default. Bed-wetter!

/rant

[bt*ist]

From the dpreview conclusion section on the K10D:

Pentax may well have been aiming for a smooth film-like appearance but I at least feel that the inability to tweak this out by increasing sharpness is a mistake. That said it's unlikely you'll see this difference in any print up to A3 size, it's a 100% view thing so you have to decide if that's important to you or not.

(emphasis mine)

So... unlikely to be noticeable in any print above A3 size! AND this criticism Not Applicable when shooting RAW and using Adobe Capture Raw to process, in which case the sharpness is not disputed. So, bottom line : if you're considering enlarging above A3 (AND THEN comparing the outcome to another DSLR), shoot raw rather than jpg.

If you can live with that, consider all the other 'bang for your buck' reasons to buy the K10D. If you can't... well... purchase accordingly.

I've had the K10D for about three months and regret the purchase not one bit.

[mutley]

So, bottom line : if you're considering enlarging above A3 (AND THEN comparing the outcome to another DSLR), shoot raw rather than jpg.

No, the bottom line is for Pentax to just improve jpg's in firmware as best they can in the current K10D.

These discussions are not just condemning the camera. Its a great camera. These discussions are pointing out a performance shortcoming with qualifying statements as to print sizes, where competing cameras with the same sensor have just eliminated what makes people say these things in the first place. Cameras like the D80 just don't get big debates on their in-camera jpg processing. Its at least good enough to not be an issue.

While the K10D is a better camera, the message to Pentax should be to improve this, rather than have people make excuses or workarounds.

Pentax mentioned the ADC's are accessible for substantial tweaking through firmware, yet so far they've decided not to do a single IQ tweak - possibly right up until the new model is introduced, and the K10D is officially abandoned.

As the new model won't be introduced possibly until next year, they must have come up with better jpg or IQ algorithms they can give us in firmware to at least improve things a little. Better quality isn't a bad update.

[and]

haha, my lord why did someone have to ask this question yet again... How about next time the moderators post in links to old threads featuring RiceHigh vs everyone, discussing this issue so the op can read and enjoy and then close down the thread before it all breaks loose again

[kenyee]

Yep. Reviewers say (I paraphase) "I don't like the image straight from the camera - but there are all sorts of easy adjustments to saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc , so you can make them look great BY JUST CHANGING THE SETTINGS TO HOW YOU LIKE IT.

From what I understand from Phil's review, setting the in-camera sharpness to +1 doesn't address the issue he found because it's some firmware/hardware sharpening issue, so that doesn't always work.

However, the caveat is that most people will *not* notice. You'll only notice if you pixel peep and know what to look for. I sure don't notice and I do pixel peep occasionally :-)

[Edvinas]

I wonder why everybody accepts Phil's findings as some kind fundamental truth? Don't you think he can either make mistakes or simply be biased? For example Jeff Keller (Welcome to the Digital Camera Resource Page) also didn't like default mode jpegs. However he easily managed to tweak jpeg settings to get excellent sharp jpegs.

I also find that setting K10D to bright mode and increasing sharpness indeed sharpens jpegs dramatically. Want an example? Here it is:

Whole picture:


Now 100% crops:
Default settings (Natural mode, Saturation 0, sharpness 0, Contrast 0):


Bright mode, Contrast 0, Sharpness 0, Saturation 0:


Bright mode, Contrast 0, Sharpness +1, Saturation 0:


Bright mode, Contrast 0, Sharpness +2, Saturation 0:


Bright mode, Contrast 0, Sharpness +3, Saturation 0:



Don't tell me that last crop isn't sharp (in fact it's over sharpened to my eyes) and it's just not sharp as the first crop

[Lee]

I bought my K10d at the beginning of August after reading everything I could find. The DPR article gave me reason to pause a little for the same reason as you. However, after playing with it for the last month and a half I am more than happy with my decision to go ahead and get it.

For the first couple weeks I left the sharpness, contrast and saturation at zero. Then I bumped up the sharpness by one for a week. I have to admit I prefer the neutral setting more. I grew up on film so maybe that's got something to do with it, but I feel my shots are tack sharp at zero and that my other settings have a far greater impact on the image.

The only thing that bothers me about the K10d is the lack of SDM glass. I'm drooling over the DA* 200 for the hockey rink, the DA* 50-135 may not have the reach I need, and was hoping it would be on schedule. Still a couple of weeks left in September I guess, but...