My test results are in (Canon E400 V Pentax K10D)

OK here goes.

This is only basic testing remember with KIT lenses 18-55mm. I have tried to pick the best shots both cameras produced under the conditions.

TEST 1

We tested both cameras first shooting some flowers outside on a tripod. Apature priority at F5.6 There was no difference that I could see in sharpness in fact I think the K10d may have had the edge. The K10 however was set to bright which gave stronger colour which i prefered. I thought the colour on the canon looked a bit washed out in this example. ISO was between 100 and 400. Looking at the plant pot rim at the bottom of the penatx picture shows more detail. PS..the wind was blowing a little which did not help this particular test.

PENTAX




CANON




TEST 2 SHOT AT F 5 CANON 37MM USING KIT LENS / AND PENATX F5.6 55MM USING KIT LENS Indoors on a tripod near the bay window.

Pentax ISO 400 55MM F5.6




Canon ISO 400 37MM F5



This was difficult to form an opinion on with reagrds sharpness difference. They only thing I can say here is in my opinion the Pentax lens produces far more realistic natural looking colour when set to normal (not bright) Plus the focus is working on different areas of the flower.

TEST 3 WITHOUT TRIPOD

Pentax F 50mm 1.7 £79 EV +1 shot at ISO 400 F8 anti shake




Canon 83mm 1.8 £259 shot ISO 400 F8




Hard to judge as these two images as they were using different lens focal lengths I do think the camera shake facility on the k10D came into its own making the image very stable. Sharpness yet again not much difference. I did think the colour won again on the K10D

My opinion overall on this small test is I think the Pentax won but this was not very well controlled testing. But at least it shows some of the differences between these two camera. My cousin had to admit he likes the K10D very much and seeing these results has surprised him.

One big I have noticed with the K10 over the canon is camera shake. We took many other shots and the difference in picture quality with anti shake is quite unbelievable.
I also think colour tones are much better from what I have seen today and other pictures. As for sharpness well set the K10 to +2 and bright and the shots are very very sharp even without a tripod but of course with camera shake activated.

Summery. I suppose you all going to say we knew this already.
Whats new. I am not knocking the canon and perhaps its's wrong to test against each other but of all the photos we took which were many there were quite noticable differences. I can't say anymore but I know where my loyalty is especially after today

For me It was interesting anyway and nice to do some of my own testing instead of reading reviews. Please enjoy and post your thoughts and comments

Pete[/img]

It's not conclusive because, as you say yourself, it's not a very well controlled test. You need to use a tripod and ensure that the pictures taken are under identical conditions in every respect. That would also mean ensuring that the cameras are set up with similar parameters, nit one set on bright and one on standard, or whatever.

A detailed static subject under controlled lighting is best, and a flat subject too if you want to see if there is any fall off in performance towards the edge of the frame.

Thanks John

I agree its is not a true test but a very basic one. The bright mode was only set on the first image. The others were camera basic settings out of the box.

However we took many shots and reviewed them all and in my eyes (unbiased) I have to say the Pentax really shone.

Pete

Pete if you're going to make meaningful points in comparing two cameras you have to use the same lens on both or AT LEAST the same focal length.

If you really want to properly directly compare the output from these two cameras, here is what I would do


1. Buy yourself a Pentax Takumar 50mm prime in M42 mount, plus suitable adaptors to use it with both Pentax K and Canon EOS mounts. This way you can use the same lens on both bodies.

2. Set up a nice solid tripod in front of a sensible scene containing some fine detail, preferably under controled lighting conditions.

3. Set each camera in turn on the tripod and take the photo, checking histograms and focus etc to make sure you get the best possible picture out of each, and making sure you are focusing on the same spot with each.


You would then have two pictures which should in an ideal world be identical, and any differences will be a result of the camera body used since everything else was the same.

I agree with Mongoose entirely.

Pete, it was perfectly reasonable for you to perform your own test and it's given you an opportunity to compare the two cameras side by side, with regard to handling and ease of use etc.
In terms of performance, your test is by no means conclusive and we all know that both cameras are very capable. Under most conditions, it would be nigh on impossible to tell which camera took which image and so a more controlled and demanding set of tests is required.
How well does each camera cope with tricky lighting conditions, moving subjects and using flash etc. etc.

For optical performance, using the same lens is an excellent idea because that would eliminate the biggest potential variable. A good alternative to the Takumar lens would be a Tamron adaptall 2 lens, they are generally very good and will only cost you a few pounds plus whatever mounts you require.
The two kit lenses that you tested might be similar in terms of focal length etc. but the glass/coating and the construction (groups/elements) might be very different.

Despite the lack of any really useful result, I quite liked your test and if you are satisfied that it has proven to you that the K10 is as good, if not better than the E400, then it's served it's purpose - well done!

unbiased my @$$

I bet Pete goes out at night with a hunting rifle looking for Canon users
Where else would he get a Canon camera

Seriously tho' John's spot on, the test wasn't controlled enough, the plant pot was about the nearest comparison, and dare I say the Pentax shot seems to have more depth of field?

Dare I say that looking at these pics I would be happy with EITHER camera

Thanks Guys

I realise the results are not conclusive and I did not know you can get lenses to fit different cameras.

We tried to take as many shots in the same situation using the same focal lengths with the two kit lenses. This included the same ISO, F range and focal length etc.. My opionions have been based on the overall shots we took and not just the ones I have posted here.

Having looked at is all the images took today and from the results there are a lot of noticable differences whether using different lenses or not. For example the 50mm old pentax lens produced super results as good as if not better in my view than the 85mm canon. Thats not saying the canon or the lens are bad it just means I am going on what I have seen today in this example. I agree I would like to to test one lens on both cameras. Maybe in the future.

Finally I can't form a conclusive opinion based on todays results,I realise that but if I were and based on what I have seen I would say the K10D did extremely well and came out on top.

PETE

LOL

I prefer a shot gun

I agree again both are super cameras, but I just love the K10D. I handled the canon a fare bit today and for sure there is no comparison. Features are far better to.

What I should of said is its a canon V pentax one off shoot out to see which one comes out on top for today only at least
Pete

I agree with all the points above - but there are so many other points to consider

What are they like outdoors with moving subjects
Metering differences - centre, spot etc...
Digital artifacts
Colour aberration
Coulour accuracy - what colour should the door be :
etc...

But as for sharpness (where I think we started off) I can't see a problem with either - both show the scratches on the door know very clearly

Hi Roger

I see your point.

Just to mention the door is on my landing at home and the pentax shot is very very accurate to the colour of paintwork

Cheers Pete

Door frame needs some filler.

ducks and runs....

Its always helpful to see someone putting cameras to the test in this way, especially for those of us who don't have access to one of the other brands. I suspect we are not really going to lay this argument to rest until some scientific testing is done along the lines of the work done by the French magazine "Chasseur D'Images" mentioned by forum member Ben. The methodology they appear to use (if I have read the comments correctly) is quite strict and, interestingly, goes against the wisdom of the reviewers who base their scores on how an image looks on a computer monitor.

David Kirlady - a Scottish engineer who tested materials to destruction in order to get hard data on them (calm down, I'm not advocating anyone tests their K10D to destruction) - liked to use the phrase "Facts not opinions". Some of the methodology used by reviewers is a bit suspect and we will never get to the bottom of this problem until the methodology is sorted out. At present there are too many opinions and too few verifiable facts. If anyone finds an English translation of the "Chasseur D'Images" test results I think we would all benefit from seeing it.