Trying out my K10

[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/philstaff/IMGP5119.jpg[/IMG]

I traded my K10 against the Kr 2 years ago and have regreted it so recently I managed to pick another one up from the forum and gave it a whirl today.

Nice going Ian. What was it about the K10 that you missed?

I just love the feel of it in the hand and the build quality its a solid well made bit of kit. I just also some how prefer the photos I get from the camera hard to put a finger on that realy may be its down to the different sensor.

Ian

[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b399/philstaff/IMGP5121oo.jpg[/IMG]

My K10D is still used in rotation with my K5 - it's odd but I often prefer the output of the K10 but of course the K5 also has many advantages so I tend to try to choose when to use the k10 a bit more carefully

The K10 is certainly better in hand than the K5 but that is only my preference

There was some technical explanation as to why the K10 produces a different images quality to it's successors. I can't remember what it was. I'm sure someone could enlighten us?

It took me a while to get used to the smaller K5. At first I had to use it gripped, to replace the bulk.

Is it the 22 bit A/D conversion as opposed to 12 or 14?

Not usre it is as what ends up on the card is probably only 12 or 14 bit anyway - I never was able to have that question answered

The K10 had a CCD sensor whereas current models use CMOS sensors. The switch to CMOS technology allowed much higher ISOs, which was necessary to compete in the market, but many prefer the base ISO performance of the CCD.

I'd love another K10D. But I wouldn't give up my K-5ii either!

My Kr is also better for high iso settings.

Iam

When I bought a K7 I thought of selling my K10, but didn't, thankfully. I still use it regularly and the quality of the images, particulalry colour, is generally better than my K7.

Regards

Curiously enough I was enquiring about the K7 this Saturday over in Watford (SRS)and the consensus of web (and in-house)opinion was that the K7 was a definite improvement over my K10D Super. I looked at two examples and noticed that the casing of one of them was somewhat battered and scarred. This damage was of course reflected in the price difference between each, and I was about to ask if the previous owner had perhaps used it as a hammer when not taking photographs when one of the sales guys volunteered that it had been used by a pro tog' on three tours of Afghanistan. I muttered something like 'Nuff said' and looked at it thereafter with due respect.
Aside from the misguided politics of such a piss-begotten conflict, I nonetheless thought back to the movie 'We were soldiers' and the Journalist who landed himself (allowing for Hollywood hype) in the thick of an unfolding hell. I'd like to know who the Journalist was but then oddly enough, part of me wouldn't actually like to know...if that makes any sense.
I went away and sat down with a Latte nearby in order to deliberate over the camera and whether to purchase it as a usable piece of modern history, or as a static piece of modern photo-journalistic history?
I decided -by the end of my Latte- that if the pro-Journo' could put it up for sale in a camera shop in Watford without any apparent sentimental attachment, then I as a civilian should look at it from a consumers point of view, as in battered, jarred and suffering from condensed user abuse and in all probability with over half of its shutter life already expired.
I suspect that the psychology behind this sale would prove interesting to say the least, but from a simple photographic perspective somebody with a sense of history should purchase this camera soon.