K10D -sharp or not?

Ok several of you now are the proud owners of K10Ds. So tell me does it produce sharp photos without the need for postprocessing or not? Are you really really in your heart of hearts happy with it and if not do you dare to say?

Several reviews I hve read have said it produces soft images, and not only with the kit lens. There is a heated debate raging on another forum about this, mostly between people who don't own the camera of course.
I have even seen two advertised secondhand as the owners were dissappointed in it!

I don't have the money for one now but need to know whether to continue saving for one or to blow the money on a holiday instead!

I've had my K10D for about two weeks - it's my first DSLR and I've been without an SLR for about 6 years (I had a trusty old Minolta X300 for about 15 years before that).

Currently I feel a bit like a pilot who's had a couple of lessons in a Cesna and finds himself flying the space shuttle. I'm sure I'll get to grips with it in time and it is easy to play about and change things, I'm just slightly overwhelmed by the options available.

Regarding sharpness - I have taken some amazingly detailed and sharp photos with it (I have the 16-45 F4 and 50-200 F3.5-5.6 lenses) and some murky, unsharp poor definition shots. I'm quite sure it's not the camera that's at fault. Also, I was hoping to get to use it over Christmas but it's been heavily overcast and miserable in the UK so I'm not surprised some of my results have not been all that good.

That said, I'm off skiing in 10 days where I hope to get some decent, sunny landscape and action shots. I have no worries about how sharp they'll be. I'll also be relying on two things - I hardly ever fall over and the K10D is built like a tank...

Oh and I bought the camera to take photos, not to pixel-peep or test it beyond reason.

Just ignore the pixel-peeping rants

I can't comment much on the in-camera JPGs, though the samples on Pentax's website are astonishing. I've been using Silkypix DS3.0.3 and PEF RAW from the beginning. There was absolutely no way I could get that resolution out of the *ist-D. Check out my ePhotozine gallery for some recent samples. "The Upholsterer's Cat" was taken with the K10D + 12-24 - I mistakenly labelled it as *ist-D

10Mp doesn't give you that much more compared to 6Mp. Remember that doubling the width of an image requires quadrupling the number of pixels - so 10 vs 6 is about 1.3x the length (ie 30% linear increase)...

BUT, the tonal quality of the K10D is astonishing compared to the *ist-D and I can eek out some absolutely incredible detail with SP-DS3. With the SMC-F 100mm/f2.8 it really, really shines like I've never seen! Did some portraits with a small studio lighting setup and the 100mm macro and the quality of the output is truly stunning.

I'd have no problem printing huge with this beast - just need the subject Should have some 10x8" pro prints done in the next week or two, and possibly some 18x12" - I know I'm not going to be disappointed!


What is also worth noting is you can shoot RAW, and process in-camera to get the JPGs - you then have some control over the settings and sharpness etc. It is much better to have slightly "soft" images rather than oversharpened images - you can quickly add Unsharp Mask (even with Irfanview in batch mode), but you cannot easily smooth out an over sharpened image

Also, like all things - when it comes to effort you only get out what you put in

HTH!
Matt

...now I'm just waiting for the others to comment... could be a lot of 's!!

I for one am perfectly happy with my K10D (apart from the no wireless flash)
As for sharpness, this is all a matter of preferance, I personally prefer to sharpen an image to how sharp I think it should be, not some program in the cameras electronics, though I generally use a very low setting in photoshop.
The K10D has the option to increase the sharpness in the custom settings, I've not tried this yet but maybe someone else has.

As for sharpness, most of the members of my camera club are Canon users, yet the number of judges who view members images and complain of oversharpening is unbelieveable, I have NEVER had any of my images criticised for that. So this begs the question, if Canon cameras are so good at producing sharper images than Pentax then why do so many Canon users oversharpen theirs?

I love the K10D but bought body only. I've attached a Tamron AF18-200 LD aspherical (IF) DiII (supposed to be a slow focus lens) but it is now like lightening. The pictures are sharp and well defined.
I'm not a pixel peeper and have been quite happy with the 6Mb iST DS but the added size does help with long distance wildlife photography in that if the optical zoom isn't quite enough I can zoom in about 30% closer on the PC and still get reproduction equivalent to the iST.
I also do a lot of work in Africa so the added seals are comming into their own when it comes to keeping the desert out.

Quite amazing bit of kit.

'cause they have to put up with Canon glassware

Thanks guys, I guess the holiday will have to wait

I read a study many years ago regarding lens sharpness which might have some bearing on this discussion. It emerged that images that seemed sharper often appear so due to relatively high contrast. This apparent sharpness sacrifices sublety of tone. When placed next to an image produced by a higher quality lens it may appear better until it becomes clear how much gradation of tone has been lost.

I get the feeling we are moving down the same path with the criticism of "soft" images produced by the K10D (and the *istD). I dislike any system that sharpens an image without giving me the option to decide first. If I've understood the debate correctly, this is not an option presented to users of some other camera marques.

I have been using the K10 almost exclusively in DNG (RAW) mode with Adobe RGB as the colour space. Opening the image in Photoshop gives a blizzard of options (including sharpening). Alternatively unsharp mask or Photoshop's smart sharpen gives additional scope. Even without Photoshop (as a previous post commented), you can apply sharpening to a jpeg in the camera. The significant point is that Pentax have given the photographer the choice of sharpening or not, rather than imposing it.

On some more general points I have found the image stabiliser works more or less as advertised when used sensibly. The gradation of tone I can get from images with the K10D is superior to anything I have used before. Also, much to my surprise - and contradicting a point in an otherwise generally favourable review elsewhere - I can get about 3 frames per sec up to the capacity of the card. One reviewer said it delivered 3 fps until the buffer was full and then dropped to 1 fps. I get 3 fps at best jpeg quality continuously with a 2GB Extreme III card. Perhaps the reviewer's SD card wasn't up to it. It is worth keeping in mind that the camera can only be as fast as the card allows.

I have been using Pentax for almost thirty years from ME/MXs, LXs, *istD, and now the K10D. There have been times when I have wanted to shake Pentax by the lapels because of the way they seemed embarrassed whenever they produced another wonderful product beautifully designed and thought out and failed to promote it effectively. The fiasco over deliveries of the K10D has been another example of this. I hope the merger with Hoya does something to address these problems without sacrificing the unique and thoughtful design approach this company has taken during my last three decades with them.

I've had the K10D for two weeks now and use it with the SIGMA 17-70 mm F2.8-4.5 macro zoom lens. For the moment I have shot mostly JPEG images and I can say that the pictures I get are really sharp, with an enormous amount of detail, and that they definitely dont need any postprocessing.
Don't forget that most of the reviewers judge the quality of a camera (and the lens which is attached to it) on a screen, which can be very mistaking. When I say that I get very sharp pictures, I'm talking of the PRINTS I get with good photo paper and a good printer.
Don't forget also that many of these same reviewers tend to give a bad opinion of any camera that is not Canon or Nikon.

From what I have discovered sharpness, or lack of it, is evident on all forms of digital even when scanning hi-res film.

I have been working along side a fine artist who hires expensive equipment and the simple solution to getting the sharpest 'unprocessed' images is to use the best sensors.
I have been using a leaf 33 back over the last week and even that needs sharpening however it needs far less than a DSLr because the chip is so big and ultimately very good.

The winning solution the artist has discovered is to still use 10x8 positive and drum scan if needs be, this method requires the minimal amount of sharpening and therefore reduces the loss of tones in the final image.

I have a Ds (yet to afford a leaf back, even the K10d) and the sharpness is very poor especially when compared to any Canon DSLr for the simple reason that Canon's sensors are far better.
I have a range of Fa* and limited Pentax lenses and the results are still poor when matched with a Canon with a cheap kit zoom lens because their sensors are just that much better.
Hopefully when Pentax match Canon's sensors, Pentax's superior optics will ultimately give them the edge with quality.
I was hoping the K10d was this camera but I am not convinced from the reviews ive read and images I have seen, then again I have yet to play around with a raw file...

Sharpness has absolutely nothing to do with the sensor. Sharpness is influenced by the lens and the software.
Canon and Nikon over sharpen the images in their camera's which I think is a bad thing.

I've been arguing a similar point on another forum with a gentleman who was insisting that lens quality had nothing to do with things and a cheap lens was as good as any lens because of the low sensor resolution. He thought the Canon kit lens was as good as anything. This is demonstrably not true and, as you say, lenses and software do make a difference.

I made the prints to prove it, and it confirmed that the 16-45mm lens was well worth the money. Pentax leave the sharpening to the photographer, just as it should be.

I have owned and used a DS ( I now use a D) and never experienced lack of sharpness when the subject was correctly focussed and a half decent lens was used.

Many factors influence the sharpness of an image. A clean sensor affects sharpness to a much lesser degree (if any) than camera stability, and technique. If the camera is stable, an appropriate shutter speed is chosen and the subject is correctly focussed, you should be able to produce pin sharp images with your kit.

So, I have a few questions which might help to identify the cause of the problem. If the following brings granny and eggs to mind, I apologise. When presented with a problem it sometimes helps to get back to basics.

Are you focussing manually? Your dioptre adjustment might be wrong.
Do you get focus confirmation in the viewfinder?
Do you use a tripod and cable release? To eliminate camera shake.
Are you seeing 'poor sharpness' in printed images?
Is your camera's sensor clean and smudge free?
Are you shooting RAW or JPG?
What software are you using for sharpening?
Do you use a glass CRT monitor to view images or a flat panel? If glass, it may need adjustment.
How have you determined that Canon sensors are 'far better'?

A simple repeatable test:-
If you set your camera on a tripod, indoors, with a bowl of fruit (or similar still life object) as your subject (and fill the frame), fit a cable release, fit one of your Pentax Limited lenses, exposure mode to Tv or M, ISO 200, set a shutter speed of no less than 1/125 sec, set the correct aperture if exposure mode = M, set the focusing mode to centre spot, get positive focus confirmation from the camera . . . and take a shot with flash if necessary. Process it, DON'T crop it, sharpen it, print the full frame 10 X 8 (please, not A3) on a decent printer with photo paper and then tell us if it is sharp or not.

I for one will be surprised if it is not pin sharp.

Being a little on the mad side regarding photographic gear, I've owned SLR of many brands, such as Nikon D70 or Canon 300D, 350D, 20D, which I still use with their very good 60 mm F2.8 macro lens, and I can tell you that photos right out of the Nikon, or even more Canon do need a lot more postprocessing than the istDS or K10D to get a sharp picture! Especially Canon is reknowed to give very soft pictures right out of the camera.

[quote="golfdiesel"]Of courese sharpness depends on the sensor, and on the AA filter. As Nikon says (see link), sharpness depends on sensor, software and lens.

When I started using my Pentax K100D I found that he camera produces sharp images produces some moiré. The images produced by my Canon 300D were far less sharp and never showed any moiré. It has got everything to do with the AA filter.

When you shoot RAW you will see the difference immediately because they are unprocessed by he camera.

http://tinyurl.com/yyl4wp