Hope it was sweet... not sharp
Matt

Pete,
Here are a couple of images that, when I took them, blew me away - showing the detail in the K10D and the excellent Pentax 100mm/2.8 macro lens.

http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/81593292/original
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/81593303/original

These were shot in RAW, processed in Silkypix, and further sharpened in PS2. (Sensor dust spot in there for free )

FYI, "sharpness" requires a few things:
* Good lighting. Flat lighting will result in a flat image that lacks sufficient contrast.
* Direction of light. Side lighting will increase the contrast in the image - creating the effect of a sharper image
* Good optics and CCD. Yes, these are important. However, because of the nature of CCDs in particular, the initial RAW image will be softer than it could be.
* Good post-processing. To make an image "pop" you need some practice and skill. www.thelightsrightstudio.com is probably the biggest resource for sharpening skills out there.... but even then there's more to know!

EDIT: For those of you who hate flash intros on websites -
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/learning.htm
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-pdf.htm

To sum up... Pete, you've probably just been comparing post-processing skills and taking this as "Image Quality". You've been tricked
(You can only really compare huge prints. Believe me, my 18x12" prints are sharp. Really sharp )

Matt

Pete,
Glad you can see the resemblance, because...

These two images were:
* Straight out of camera
* Sharpened in IrfanView
* Resized to 1048 pixels in the longest direction
* Sharpened twice more in IrfanView
* Saved

Guess what camera?
Pentax Optio S40



And yes, I agree they were oversharpened. I pushed them to the limit to make the point.

Can you see what I mean about comparing "IQ" on the web???! You just can't do it!!!

Many of the pros will use products like Nik Sharpener - and the output results, especially for web will look razor sharp and stunning. But they're processed and don't truly represent the IQ of the original equipment.

The bottom line is: Stop Worrying about Sharpness!!!
Learn how to sharpen for web and print properly - it requires skill and experience to do properly (TBH I haven't got it completely sussed).

I'll post a couple of K10D images that I consider "pin sharp" in a little while

Matt

Thanks for the replies on my two images so far...

I'm waiting for Pete's comments before putting up some more details and more images

Matt

Ok Pete,
Let's do a little experiment here
How would you classify the following two images, in terms of IQ:
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/81559388/original
http://www.pbase.com/mattmatic/image/81559423/original

I know the subjects are not up to the lion cub, but judging by your value of "IQ" alone, please rate these out of 100%. When you've done that I'll post some more (tomorrow...)

EDIT: Interested to have some opinions about these images... all will be revealed tomorrow...


Matt

And that image has been properly (and hard) sharpened after resize.

You cannot determine IQ of the camera from a tiny little image that has been post-processed.

Given the same situation I could make a Pentax shot look the same - at that resolution

EDIT: For one thing - most of the pros shoot C&N. And they have the skill, or people with the skill, to sharpen and resize properly. It's an art in itself. If you see the RAW file from those shots you'd probably be surprised...

You've a lot to learn Pete
TBH, this is a bit of a "non-thread"...
Matt

I've never bought a camera book, and don't think I ever will

If there's something you want to know... just ask (we don't bite!)
Matt

Sharpened Very much so.

Knowing how to sharpen images, and especially for web view is an art in itself. From that image you cannot really tell the sharpness of the lens.
Matt

I had the Tokina AF 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 for quite a while.
Used on the Pentax Z1 it was a great lens - sharp, contrasty, and well built.

I used it on the *ist-D for quite a while, but by then I also had lenses like the SMC-DA 16-45 and SMC-FA 24-90 which outperform it by a mile. I kept giving it the benefit of the doubt, but in the end I sold it for a pittance on ebay (think I got £40!!). I reckon the image isn't well collimated - which becomes an issue on digital.

Matt

And the converse (as Chris was hinting at)... if you were to crop and enlarge so they were both the same size in print, you'd have had to enlarge the film by 1.5x more than the digital.

But it's not as simple as saying the blur factor was the same... because there are different circles of confusion, plus grain vs pixel etc etc.

TBH, don't worry about it. With digital - you check your preview (at x20 on the LCD) and hope that it's showing you roughly what you want. If not, you change the shutter speed and try again. At least with digital (and especially the K10D) you can continuously adjust your ISO rating to balance the shutter speed.

Matt