minor rant: "K10D more detailed than 40D"

Started Oct 25, 2007 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Caer
Senior MemberPosts: 2,160
Like?
minor rant: "K10D more detailed than 40D"
Oct 25, 2007

Ok, so the K10D can in some instances produces images with marginally sharper details.

Or if you shoot JPEGs, the images come out slightly softer and perhaps a bit less detailed.

WHO CARES?!

Really, do these small differences have any effect on printed or web-sized images AT ALL?

And if you're not printing images or uploading them at screen-friendly sizes to the web, what ARE you doing with them?

I couldn't care less, to be honest. Much more important to me are colour and tonality, but of course these are hard to measure and are more a matter of opinion. I don't even care about colour ACCURACY, because I don't always want colour to look accurate. I want it to look nice! I like Pentax's JPEGs because the colours look nice, particularly greens. I use Bright mode, -1 saturation, 0 sharpening and +1 contrast and it looks nice to me. If I was a JPEG shooter I'd be perfectly happy; I only shoot raw for the much greater control and flexibility I have with my photos.

It just bothers me when I read about people being put off purchasing a perfectly good camera because of supposed flaws in its images, when in reality they'll almost never see these "flaws" in printed images.

People need to look at the WHOLE PICTURE, not fixate on the details to the exclusion of everything else. A photograph is much more than just an array of pixels!

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow