Time for a new DSLR sensor??

I have a Ds and am thoroughly disappointed by the level of softness produced from the camera.

I have gone to great efforts to get the most sharpness out of the camera by using FA* pro and fixed focal A lenses and even the 43mm ltd which in Amateur Photographer tests is rated as the sharpest lens to date.
While these lenses give far superior results to that of the rubbish 18-55mm that was supplied with the camera the results are still poor when compared to results from Nikon or Canon DSLRs.

The big downfall of Pentax in the DSLR market is they are not putting their efforts where it matters, producing a good sensor in the camera.
They have released 3 DSLRs in the space of almost 2 years and another (Ist DS2) is on the way and yet they all use the same image softening 6.1mp sensor that has let down every camera it been used with. Instead of changing badges and shaving a few grams off the weight why don’t Pentax concentrate on making a camera that takes big, crisp and importantly sharp images?

With respect, the *ist-D series of cameras use exactly the same sensor as the Nikon D100, the Minolta 7D, and probably a multitude of other too - the sensor is actually made by Sony and is a very fine one.

If you shoot JPG you probably need to do one of the following:
1) Increase the settings in camera
2) Sharpen on the PC (preferred) with something like Unsharp Mask.

If you shoot RAW you will get the best out of the camera, by far, but it takes time and effort to master.

Pentax take a conservative view of in-camera sharpening with JPG - one I whole heartedly agree with. Once you agressively sharpen in camera you have effectively introduced artifacts that are a complete pain to remove. Leaving the image softer in JPG and allowing the sharpening to take place on the PC provides much greater control, and means you are not corrupting the image as much.

I have the *ist-D and the JPGs always need a sharpen on the PC. However, I shoot RAW mode always now and produce consistently high resolution results (even without FA* lenses, which I wish I could afford!!).


Check out the other threads here for more info.
Hope that helps,
Matt

Although Matt usues RAW capture and I use JPEG, we are both getting good sharp results from our Pentax DSLRs.

It's probably better to describe the results straight out of cameras as "unsharpened" rather than "soft", because judicious application of USM in Photoshop crisps the images up beautifully, without creating masses of artifacts.

If you prefer the results out of camera to be sharper, then you can adjust the settings for sharpness and contrast and this should make a difference. The camera will do what you tell it to if you make alterations to the way it is set up.

In general, I use less sharpening than I did, and many of my friends have taken the same view. Too much USM results in halos and other artifacts, regardless of camera marque, and we are all much more moderate these days.

I have no complaints about the sharpness of my *istDS.

It's been said a million times before, and will no doubt have to be said a million times again, that DSLRs do not produce a finished image. You HAVE to do some post-processing, and if you are not prepared to do that, and go through the necessary learning curve (it's not THAT difficult), then you should sell the camera and buy a point and shoot.

G

I really should have mentioned in my original post that I do go through the process of USM in photoshop (as you need to with all DSLRs).

However my main point of distress comes because Pentax is seriously lagging behind when compared to the current top DSLR from likes of Canon and Nikon. Comparing images I've taken using Canon's 20D and EOS-1D the results are far sharper even when using the cheap bundled zoom lens. Not to mention I’ve given my Pentax the advantage of FA* and Limited lenses.

Also I need to make large prints for my work generally A3-A2 and that is not possible with a 6.1mp sensor that produces un-sharp images which always need saving in PS. It is for this reason I still use 6x7 or 5x4 film to get required sharpness.

What amazes me is that the Pentax compacts now have reached 7mp and after the 4th model the DSLR range is still using 6mp, a barrier Nikon and Canon broke through almost 2 years ago.
I understand having a budget DSLR for the happy snaps but when are we going to see a professional Pentax DSLR.

I’m sure most will find this site pretty useful, it compares images straight from the camera of all DSLRs and all film formats.

http://www.gnyman.com/Digital%20Cameras%20comparison%20with%20Film.htm

It seems to compare some DSLRs, certainly not any Pentax ones that I could see...I was surprised by how poor the result was from the EOS 1D MkII.

I've done plenty of tests on various DSLRs combined with various lenses, and it is very much more complicated than this particular set of pictures might suggest. Not only do we have the CCD or CMOS resolution, but also the lens resolution, and, critically, how the two work in combination. Then testing needs to be done at different apertures, different focusing distances and different focal lengths in tha case of zooms.

All on a sturdy tripod of course and under controlled lighting, certainly not returning the next day for some more daylight shots....

I think we are best doing our own testing wherever possible, other people can only offer guidance to a certain extent. For what it's worth, I have found that high quality pro film lenses and digital lenses both give excellent results on Pentax DSLRs, but primes are better....

However, even the humble 18-55mm SMC Pentax-DA is actually a very good lens.

Get the lens cleaner out John and sort out your glasses. There are two shots taken with a 'DS' and the kit lens.

Agreed, the 'DS' shot of the First National Bank on the above comparison page simply looks out of focus to me and not necessarily a fault of the camera or lens.

Get the lens cleaner out John and sort out your glasses. There are two shots taken with a 'DS' and the kit lens.

Agreed, the 'DS' shot of the First National Bank on the above comparison page simply looks out of focus to me and not necessarily a fault of the camera or lens.

There is the DS about half way and another 4th from the bottom. It compares it with the budget DSLRs like the D70 etc...

I suppose that considering my previous (and still the best) cameras are a Sinar, Pentax 67 and LX I may be expecting too much from the DS.

However unless Pentax catches up it wouldn’t surprise me to see future phone cameras with higher mp than the top Pentax DSLR!
I don’t mean to be cynical I am just eager to have a high mp DSLR that can produce a print bigger than A4 without the need for resampling!

You're just not listening, are you?

For a start, the only fair test of different camera bodies is a controlled test where the only variable is the camera body itself.

This means using the same lens on all bodies. This can be achieved using a Tamron lens with an Adaptall mount. Any other approach is null and void. Your friend "Doctor" Neiman no doubt got his PhD in knitting.

Second, the same subject has to be used, and third, the same lighting has to be used. That means studio lighting, not daylight, which will vary with time and atmospheric conditions.

Finally, the camera should be on a good tripod, on concrete, mirror-up and with a remote release.

Having established a level playing field, there is then the the matter of in-camera sharpening to consider. This varies from make to make and model to model. You CANNOT (and I repeat this, as you appear a little hard of reading), you CANNOT just take the image straight out of the camera, you have to post-process it.

I can obtain results from my two Pentax DSLRs which are as sharp as anything I've seen from any digital camera save for full-frame and medium format.

Now kindly go away and do some research before peddling any more ignorant nonsense. For your information, Ken Rockwell is a laughing stock amongst serious photographers. Have a look at his site and you'll soon see why.

G

I must agree with everything John said. I have seen seen many shots from many DSLRs, and my Pentax has never let me down.

And I also wish I had the money to buy FA*s and Limiteds... my "humble" 18-55, wich, incidentaly, I also found to be a pretty good lens, and better than some "other" kit lenses, surprised me for it's quality. And my fifties (an M 1.4 and an A 1.7) are very sharp indeed, and the standard by wich I "measure" all the others.

As for the link you gave, I found most of the closeups to be lousy in terms of sharpness. Most have horrible halos and artifacts.

I love the way Pentax chooses to treat their photos lightly in terms of processing, leaving the options to the photographer, not the engineers.

If you like other brands' looks, oversharpned and artificial, then Pentax does not seem to be your cup of tea. It sure is mine.

I think Offutter that you should just get rid of the camera as you are never going to be happy no matter what evidence or logic is placed before you.

To compare ist Ds with 20D is not valid and it's not all about numbers of pixels. That's only one of the main variables in the equation for image quality.

I am very happy with my Ds, even at way beyond A4 size. Even here it depends on the subject matter, the style and the viewing distance. I have had no issue with the kit lens. It is added at a fabulous discount off the retail price. I have replaced that lens but not for reasons of quality. I just wanted a general walkaround lens with a close up option.

Also, The Pentax digital SLRs are not aimed at the Pro market. If you want a Ferrari, buy a Ferrari. Don't buy a BMW and complain that it's no Ferrari.

Well I can't get everything right! (Sue says "Something would be a help....")

Actually, the truth of the matter is that it took so long to load I eventually got fed up and may not have seen all the images....Well, that's my snivelling excuse anyway.....

I would be very interested to see 'sharp' images produced from a pentax DSLR. Do you have and website?

I understand sharpening is necessary for digital images, however sharpening simply increases contrast between pixels and indoing so causes degradation in image quality. So my argument is that a camera which gives sharper images out of the camera requires less sharpening and therefore gives higher results.

Out of interest do you know of a test which have been carried out to meet your high standards?

I am hoping for a 67 Digital to be released to use my film lenses.
I dont fancy buying all the lenses again to accomodate the 645 digital

Ps If Pentax released a Ferrari camera I would definately trade in my BMW Ds for it!