Unless you are prepared to invest a little time in learning how to use your camera properly, you will always be disappointed in the results.

There is no quick fix. Experiment until the camera performs as you wish it to.

G

You're not alone! But persevere, and in the fullness of time we may, if we are lucky, and drop enough hints, have the Mattmatic Guide to Silkypix.

One thing I would say is that I almost always find I have to increase the contrast in Silkypix for K10D pictures.

G

I find I often don't need any sharpening with the K10D, especially when using it with a Limited lens.

I also find the general image quality significantly better than the *ist D. And I had two of those, and the results from both were identical. Both did around 50,000 images (I lost count).

I only shoot RAW.

G

Were you shooting RAW? And if so, with what converter?

G

[quote="MattMatic"]40p for a 10x8. You can't beat that. There really is no point in having your own printer.

G

Well, I would still like to see some large scans.

I personally achieved far better results using the *ist D than I ever did with film cameras, no doubt in part due to the fact that high-street film processors did such a bad job.

The K10D is another step up, and I really would be interested to see some good scans from a medium format camera (with a good lens) compared to the K10 (with a good lens).

I would expect the K10D to do better. Refutations should be in the form of photograhs taken with both.

Best wishes

G

Very nice, but the small size of the pictures doesn't allow one to see whether the "high resolution scans are better than anything digital cameras can offer".

There are now some ex-67 owners who feel that they can get better results from digital. Here's one:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

You may be surprised at the results of the tests this chap performed.

G

It does rather depend on what you want to do.

I personally seldom use image-editing software. Silkypix allows you to correct exposure, colour, contrast and sharpness. It also permits cropping.

As far as I am concerned, anything else is more to do with computer graphics than photography, and I just want to produce good photographs.

However, other people think differently.

G

I think you are forgetting the extra hard drive space. If you shoot a lot, as I do, then you have to factor in another couple of hundred quid for additional drive costs.

G

Looks quite good, but:

Does it support PEFs?
Does the cheap version permit batch processing?
Does it's RAW conversion come anywhere near the quality of Silkypix?

That's what enquiring minds need to know.

G