Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

A2 prints fromK7 vs K10D

alanwm406
Posted 03/05/2010 - 22:24 Link
I have owned a k10d for a few years and really love the camera. I do quite a bit of landscape printing at A2 size and the books are always on about 14 mega pixels being the right file size for A2. If I were to go a K7 would i see any appreciable difference in a print of this size as i have been more than pleased with the results at 10 mega pixels?
davidtrout
Posted 03/05/2010 - 22:51 Link
The experts often get it wrong. I read in a photo mag a few years ago that for A3 prints you should have at least an 8-10 mega pixel camera.
My earliest digital pictures were on a 6mp *ist DS and I got perfectly sharp A3 prints with that.
From my 10mp K10 I've had A3 prints accepted in an international exhibition - one was a heavily cropped image so that in effect it was 2.8mp.
Some of my camera club colleagues had massive A1 prints done for an exhibition at The Sage in Gateshead. The cameras used were mainly in the 8-10mp range and included earlier Pentax, Canon and Nikon models.
So yes, a 10mp K10 can well be used to produce A2 size prints.
david
johnriley
Posted 03/05/2010 - 22:54 Link
Yes it can, but I have to add that the 14.6 MP cameras do show a significant improvement in image quality.

It's not something that's noticed in isolation, but if you printed from both cameras and looked at the prints side by side the difference would be obvious.
Best regards, John
Anvh
Posted 03/05/2010 - 23:18 Link
When comparing the K7 with the K10D it's just not pixels but two completely different sensors.
One is CCD and the other is CMOS so it depends on your shooting style which would be best.

For low iso shots the K10D might be better because it gives you a cleaner photo and has more dynamic range, for long exposures of high iso shots the K7 would be better.
Who is better for large prints... it depends I think the extra pixels of the K7 helps but the pixels of the k10D would look better then the K7 at low ISO.
So is the quality of the K10D good enough to beat the quantity of the k7... I don't know
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
simonkit
Posted 04/05/2010 - 10:44 Link
Having moved from the GX10 to the K20D I've definitely seen the benefits of the increased image detail the new sensor provides..I frequently print 18x12 and honestly believe that my prints now contain more detail.

Another advantage of the larger sensor is the "cropability"...large, detailed prints are still easily possible even on images which have relatively heavy cropping

simon
alanwm406
Posted 05/05/2010 - 23:05 Link
Thanks for your replies. Im a great admirer of your work Simon so if the K20D chip is good enough for you im sure it will be fine by me. Its effectively the same chip as the K7 or am i wrong?
Your comments of quality vs quantity worries me a bit Stephan. My camera never comes out of ASA 100 so possibly the K10D is better for my purposes.
Why is life full of such difficult decisions. And i dont mean what's happening tomorrow.
Anvh
Posted 05/05/2010 - 23:38 Link
The chip in the K7 is an upgrade of the K20D chip and from what i understand Pentax did it mostly themselves but I could be wrong.

Don't get me wrong the K7 has a good sensor and you very possibly can see the merits of the higher pixel count in your large prints.

Maybe someone can offer you a RAW file to print out, you can then see if you notice a difference or not.

Btw the K7 has some great features that you might like though.
- Better handling
- Auto levelling sensor
- 100% viewfinder
- liveview
- quieter shutter
Just to name few things
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
hefty1
Posted 05/05/2010 - 23:43 Link
If you're doing landscape work on a tripod at ISO100 then I'd stick with the K10D - I still think the CCD sensor looks better at base ISO than the later CMOS-sensored cameras do. I also happen to think the later cameras (K20D, K-7, K-x) look better at higher (200+) ISO values though.

You said yourself that you've been pleased with your results so far, so treat yourself to a new lens instead.
Joining the Q
alanwm406
Posted 05/05/2010 - 23:46 Link
Just spent a happy hour reading peoples comments on low iso comparison between the 2 cameras I think i will hang onto my K10D a while longer and see if K8 or whatever it will be called will have a chip more suited to my needs. After all i cant see anything wrong with my A2 prints. So i will have to spend the money on some new glass. Thats for another thread.

Great mind think alike Hefty you beat me to the same conclusion!
Edited by alanwm406: 05/05/2010 - 23:48
Anvh
Posted 05/05/2010 - 23:55 Link
Alan, 645D would of course be perfect for you, weathersealed, 645 format CCD sensor with 40 megapixels. Can it get any better?
You could think about printing A1 size instead
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
alanwm406
Posted 06/05/2010 - 00:13 Link
Thats an idea Stefan. However it would involve selling my car , buying a pushbike and riding up these rather steep Welsh mountains to get my landscape shots. Ok for you in Holland though.
Pentaxophile
Posted 06/05/2010 - 00:20 Link
A1 size? More like the size of the side of a house.

Actually there's a theory that the pixel count doesn't matter once you pass a certain point, say 5 mega pix. The reason is that the larger the print, the further back you stand - so while you peer at a 6x4 inch print, you stand several feet away from a wall mounted A2.

But the theory doesn't hold water for me, because whenever I see a digital print, I am not interested in the composition, lighting or artistic merit. I just press my face against the image and see if I can see the pixels.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Anvh
Posted 06/05/2010 - 00:35 Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
But the theory doesn't hold water for me, because whenever I see a digital print, I am not interested in the composition, lighting or artistic merit. I just press my face against the image and see if I can see the pixels.

Pixels on paper, don't you mean inkt drops?

Btw you can see this clearly with billboards, they look great at a distance but close up they are just dots.
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
thoughton
Posted 06/05/2010 - 00:35 Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
But the theory doesn't hold water for me, because whenever I see a digital print, I am not interested in the composition, lighting or artistic merit. I just press my face against the image and see if I can see the pixels.

LOL! Too true!
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
FlickrFluidrPPGStreetPortfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
snappychappy
Posted 06/05/2010 - 13:45 Link
I have both the K10 and K20d and the K20 is better at high ISO around the 800 mark, cleaner less noisy shots.

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.