[klopus]

DCRP Review: Pentax K10D

[SupremeMoFo]

Pfft, kit lenses are crap anyway and battery life is relative, and from what I've come from it's great

[Ole]

DCRP Review: Pentax K10D

Finally a reviewer who took the time to explain and explore the various image quality settings to find a setting to his liking .

[MJS]

Now if only Pentax would listen to virtually EVERY major reviewer and reprogram the image processor with the next firmware update so that the following is addressed,

"Photo quality varies greatly depending on the settings you're using. If you pull the K10D out of the box, attach the kit lens, and start shooting JPEGs then you might say "wow, my old point-and-shoot took better pictures". However, if you tweak the settings a bit, or shoot in RAW mode then you'll see that the K10D can produce photos of exceptional quality. For whatever reason, the K10D's image processor produces soft images with dull colors, which aren't terribly pleasing to the eye. If you don't want to fuss with RAW, you can change the image tone option to vivid or adjust the in-camera sharpening, contrast, and saturation to your liking. Whatever you end up doing, once you've found that sweet spot, the K10D's photo quality ranks up there with the best of them.

Why not have STARTED with a sweet spot???

[klopus]

Why not have STARTED with a sweet spot???

Sweet spot by whose measure? People (and not only reviewers) have different tastes. Heck, every scene requires different settings depending upon light, subject matter, intentions, etc. So Pentax did the right choice - let people dance from neutral settings.

[Dana G]

He may have found a setting he likes, but he neglected to mention that there's a sharpness setting in the menu in addition to the brightness settings.

[FotoPete]

That 70mm...ltd....especially when he had that attached plus the battery grip. The setup looked so pro.

[MJS]

So Pentax did the right choice - let people dance from neutral settings.

Wrong, silly, foolish, nonsense…

Only a sock puppet would think that when all virtually reviewers (pop photo, DC review, DP review ect…) describe the default jpegs as FLAT or DULL or LACKING EDGE SHARPNESS, that this is a good thing.

Askey’s review likely resulted in 10,000 or more LOST sales…

Smooth film like my butt… my RAW pics are great, and my jpegs properly tweaked, are great too, but… producing a camera whose default settings are FLAT or DULL or LACKING EDGE SHARPNESS, was just plain dumb.

[Rolly]

Judging by the worldwide delay in delivery to stores, it would seem that the greatest contibution to any lack of sales would be the lack of production capacity.

[mutley]

He may have found a setting he likes, but he neglected to mention that there's a sharpness setting in the menu in addition to the brightness settings.

Yeah...whatever. Its the wrong type of sharpening for the way the jpegs are soft.

Its undershoot darkening, definitely not the best. The K10D needs a USM/acutance sharpening option like everyone else offers. You set it where you want, so you don't get halos.

A firmware update with an algorithm for better quality jpeg processing (in the first place) would really be what the reviewers will continue to realize the K10D needs. On and On and On. Make the jpegs just closer to RAW.

Even if Pentax slips in a better jpeg processing algorithm, and ignores the edge sharpening menu options - That would be a step in the direction along the lines of "listening to their customers". It could be one of the unmentioned "unofficial" features of a new firmware update.

Larry

[benjikan]

Finally a reviewer who took the time to explain and explore the various image quality settings to find a setting to his liking .

I found the review to be balanced, illuminating and quite objective. He highlighted the fact that the K10D's native JPEG's are soft and we all now know the rational given by Pentax for doing so. Those not shooting in RAW need more latitude in PP, just in case of evident problems that crop up under less than perfect shooting conditions. I won't go into a major diatribe about the pro's and con's of JPEG vs RAW as I believe there is no comparison in any platform between RAW and JPEG in i.e. Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc. RAW is the purest capture one can achieve, why degrade it. None the less the fact that he was aware of this and explained in very clear terms that the JPEG's could easily be adjusted was good news for potential users of the K10D. I also appreciate the fact that he did not use the term "JUST" after he classified the K10D as excellent.

[mutley]

Judging by the worldwide delay in delivery to stores, it would seem that the greatest contibution to any lack of sales would be the lack of production capacity.

Which doesn't negate the other contributions to lost sales. Pentax may have increased demand from what they're used to, and that can make them ignore the effect of buyers on the fence going for another brand.

When many professional industry reviews point out the same thing as a negative, they can't fall back on the excuse that DPreview is the only one. When these jpg judgements keep coming and coming and coming, Pentax can't keep assuming they're all blind or just peacefully disagreeing with the Pentax philosophy, along with hundreds of posts on various forums seeing the same thing in front of their eyes. The relatively tiny amount of loud diehards saying the jpegs are "fine" or "turn up the sharpening" from those imperceptive of what that sharpening is actually doing - at this point can't negate the need for a tweaked jpg processor through firmware as I mentioned above.

The suggestion of an edge/USM sharpening menu option as a choice instead of current textural undershoot sharpening is purely a response to the possibility that Pentax might think it would be against their "filmlike" quality philosophy. Of course it wouldn't since the RAW files are so sharp. Like yet another reviewer says, the jpeg processing itself should be more accurate to RAW, and Pentax said they put a lot of tweaking room in the Prime & ADC's.

Larry

[Rolly]

Larry,

I'm not entering into the debate about what Pentax should, or should not, do.
There's been plenty said about that.
I merely commented that, in effect, no one can sell what they can't supply.
While Pentax can't even keep up with the present buying frenzy, which looks like continuing well into the foreseeable future, no amount of "improvements" is going to make a skerrick of difference to their sales figures.
They are 'flat strap' just treading water.
The company will, no doubt, take on as much purchaser input as suits their sales objectives. No more, no less.
If anybody is under the illusion that any commercial enterprise, Pentax included, is structured solely to best serve their consumers, he/she/it is living in the proverbial "cloud cuckoo land" and needs to wise up to the reality of the underpinning avarice of our industrialised societies.

[arbutusq]

Pfft, kit lenses are crap anyway and battery life is relative, and from what I've come from it's great

I dissagree somewhat with this. It's all in how you use it. I quite enjoy my kitlens, it is a small cheap convenient lens that gives good results, especially when stopped down a bit (f7.1) and is on par quality wise with the much more expensive Nikon 18-70DX.

A good review as stated by others.

[Rolly]

Steve,
I just love your sig. It carries a wealth of feeling.