K10D image quality v.s. istD
Posted 22/01/2007 - 20:36
Link
It would be very interesting to test both using a good, solid tripod. Or sand bags.
I tend to set up on a tripod and use the self timer if the subject allows.
Anything to aviod touching the camera.
Even a cable release (which I always forget) somehow transmits.
I'm always amazed that I forget that my handheld zooms go to 200mm or more from my last shot at 28mm and I wonder why they don't look as sharp as my wide angle shots. Duh!!!!!
Cheers
I tend to set up on a tripod and use the self timer if the subject allows.
Anything to aviod touching the camera.
Even a cable release (which I always forget) somehow transmits.
I'm always amazed that I forget that my handheld zooms go to 200mm or more from my last shot at 28mm and I wonder why they don't look as sharp as my wide angle shots. Duh!!!!!
Cheers
Mac from Montreal
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
Posted 22/01/2007 - 23:53
Link
Yeah, had on tripod with cable release and 2 second delay.
No shake reduction, of course. I am really surprised at the difference even when taken straight as jpeg and not as RAW.
Been hearing so much about how the K10D's jpeg engine is poor, but RAW is quite comparable if not better than competitors.
If jpeg is poor, I'll have to play with some RAW conversions and see how those stand up.
And all this time I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong and why I could not get sharp photos. It ends up that my istD is just much more soft than I realized.
[edit]
I have a couple of good examples from the two cameras. I'll have to find a good place to post them.
No shake reduction, of course. I am really surprised at the difference even when taken straight as jpeg and not as RAW.
Been hearing so much about how the K10D's jpeg engine is poor, but RAW is quite comparable if not better than competitors.
If jpeg is poor, I'll have to play with some RAW conversions and see how those stand up.
And all this time I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong and why I could not get sharp photos. It ends up that my istD is just much more soft than I realized.
[edit]
I have a couple of good examples from the two cameras. I'll have to find a good place to post them.
Posted 23/01/2007 - 07:59
Link
Best regards, John
Posted 23/01/2007 - 11:22
Link
That would work.. I actually do have a quick and dirty test posted there.
http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=805423
The K10D obviously is slightly larger due to higher resolution, but shrinking it down to fit the istD size still shows a lot more detail. I am rather surprised at how much nicer the K10D image is.
[/url]
http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=805423
The K10D obviously is slightly larger due to higher resolution, but shrinking it down to fit the istD size still shows a lot more detail. I am rather surprised at how much nicer the K10D image is.
[/url]
Posted 23/01/2007 - 13:02
Link
I have posted a reply on epz as well, but looking at your test shot either there is a problem with your *istD or it was not in focus.
I carried out a few comparrison shots when my K10D arrived just before Christmas and the difference between shots taken on the two was no where near that pronounced.
(For the record, I carried out my tests using a FA 50mm F1.4, FA 80-320mm and the DA 16-45mm)
I would try again using Manual focus and a tripod to rule out any AF problems on the *istD.
The K10D is a stunning camera, but the *istD was not as bad as your shot seems to suggest in my experience.
I carried out a few comparrison shots when my K10D arrived just before Christmas and the difference between shots taken on the two was no where near that pronounced.
(For the record, I carried out my tests using a FA 50mm F1.4, FA 80-320mm and the DA 16-45mm)
I would try again using Manual focus and a tripod to rule out any AF problems on the *istD.
The K10D is a stunning camera, but the *istD was not as bad as your shot seems to suggest in my experience.
Posted 23/01/2007 - 13:50
Link
I have A3 size prints from the D, so as far as I'm concerned the image quality is sufficient for most purposes. If I'm making a huge print, like 16x20 or 20x24, then the K10D probably would show a difference.
probably.
probably.
42 
Posted 23/01/2007 - 14:15
Link
Arthur,
I have a stunning photo at 75 x 50 cm (30 x 20 " on my wall, taken with the *istD and an old MF Kiron 70-210. Ok, I did blow it up in PS to match the print resolution (and did some post processing on the shot itself), but that doesn't add information to the picture.
I bet it would even be more impressive now that I convert my RAWs with SilkyPix. I wouldn't hesitate to enlarge any good shot from the *istD to that size (but wall size can become a commodity...).
Apparently there is some problem with your *istD. But, of course, I do think that the image quality of the K10D is better than that of the *istD.
Prieni
P.S.: Can't link the shot directly. It can be found at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/cat/571/display/3148860
I have a stunning photo at 75 x 50 cm (30 x 20 " on my wall, taken with the *istD and an old MF Kiron 70-210. Ok, I did blow it up in PS to match the print resolution (and did some post processing on the shot itself), but that doesn't add information to the picture.
I bet it would even be more impressive now that I convert my RAWs with SilkyPix. I wouldn't hesitate to enlarge any good shot from the *istD to that size (but wall size can become a commodity...).
Apparently there is some problem with your *istD. But, of course, I do think that the image quality of the K10D is better than that of the *istD.
Prieni
P.S.: Can't link the shot directly. It can be found at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/cat/571/display/3148860
Posted 23/01/2007 - 15:01
Link
Prieni,
That is some shot! Wow!
I too have found the *ist-D give excellent results, especially with Silkypix set to "Pure Detail" and a touch of noise reduction. However, the K10D easily outperforms my *ist-D on resolution, and when it comes to dynamic range there is no match! (The K10D gives wonderful histograms that are a cinch to tweak in PS) The K10D + SMC-F 100mm/f2.8 is astonishing! (Might upload another watermarked pic to PBase to show what I mean )
EDIT: Couple more K10D full res shots here:
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/73451147 and
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/73451148
Enjoy
Matt
That is some shot! Wow!
I too have found the *ist-D give excellent results, especially with Silkypix set to "Pure Detail" and a touch of noise reduction. However, the K10D easily outperforms my *ist-D on resolution, and when it comes to dynamic range there is no match! (The K10D gives wonderful histograms that are a cinch to tweak in PS) The K10D + SMC-F 100mm/f2.8 is astonishing! (Might upload another watermarked pic to PBase to show what I mean )
EDIT: Couple more K10D full res shots here:
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/73451147 and
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/73451148
Enjoy
Matt
Posted 23/01/2007 - 16:02
Link
If that is the case, the I suspect the camera has always been a little bit off.
For most images I get acceptable results, it is just those with closer up shots with fine detail that always seemed somewhat disappointing.
Guess I just never knew what to expect. Most photos are still better than the point and shoots so I was ignorantly blissful.
I have two months left on the warranty, so away it goes for re-focusing I guess. Now that I have a 'backup' I don't mind loosing the SLR for a few weeks.
Thanks for the comments.
For most images I get acceptable results, it is just those with closer up shots with fine detail that always seemed somewhat disappointing.
Guess I just never knew what to expect. Most photos are still better than the point and shoots so I was ignorantly blissful.
I have two months left on the warranty, so away it goes for re-focusing I guess. Now that I have a 'backup' I don't mind loosing the SLR for a few weeks.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted 23/01/2007 - 16:26
Link
Superb shots Prieni and Matt!
Let's not just praise the DSLRs... that Kiron zoom lens is pretty special. Kiron have quite a cult following and with images like that it's very easy to see why
BTW I've also done my 1.10 update and taken the K10D for a spin, it just gets better and better.
All the best
Simon
Let's not just praise the DSLRs... that Kiron zoom lens is pretty special. Kiron have quite a cult following and with images like that it's very easy to see why
BTW I've also done my 1.10 update and taken the K10D for a spin, it just gets better and better.
All the best
Simon
Posted 30/03/2007 - 00:21
Link
OK its been a while but I finally got my istD back from repair.
It was noted in an earlier post that the difference between the istD and the K10D should not be so vast.
Well, they were right. The K10D still makes a better image than the istD, but not by as much as I had demonstrated in my prior posting. In fact, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference once an image had been converted to JPEG or printed.
On today's images, I shot in RAW and converted using SilkyPix. (nice program, I may have to buy it once the demo runs out... takes a little getting used to though)
Oddly the K10D seemed to be quite a bit darker and had a bit of a green color cast. Had to adjust that a bit.
You can see the old comparison and new comparisons here.
Originals:
Today's with a fixed istD:
It was noted in an earlier post that the difference between the istD and the K10D should not be so vast.
Well, they were right. The K10D still makes a better image than the istD, but not by as much as I had demonstrated in my prior posting. In fact, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference once an image had been converted to JPEG or printed.
On today's images, I shot in RAW and converted using SilkyPix. (nice program, I may have to buy it once the demo runs out... takes a little getting used to though)
Oddly the K10D seemed to be quite a bit darker and had a bit of a green color cast. Had to adjust that a bit.
You can see the old comparison and new comparisons here.
Originals:
Today's with a fixed istD:
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
967 posts
20 years
Virginia,
USA
In fact, using the same lens, lighting and similar settings, the K10D shows so much more detail than the istD.
I always thought it was merely my cheap lenses (Sigma 18-200) that was causing some unsharp photos. But even with my f1.4 50mm Pentax lens, I never really saw much difference in image quality from the Sigma 18-200.
Well, now I see a huge difference! The Sigma is OK, but no where near as sharp as with the 50mm prime. Of course I only see this difference when used on the K10D.
Is the K10D that much better, or do you think I need to have the istD serviced in some way? I would not think going to 10MP would make the difference.