K10/K100 image quality

I/m well aware of the advanatges and diffrerent features of these two cameras but purely looking at image quality and nothing else, is the K10 really a huge jump from the K100 (or DS)? I have the latter and some while ago borrowed a friend's K10 for the day, trying it with my kit lens, my DA50-200 and his Vivitar 100 Macro, fully expecting to be seriously impressed with the results, but I wasn't, which is why I'd been pondering the K100 instead with its IS.

Jpegs from the K10 were dull and lifeless and with an inordinate amount of fine noise even at ISO400 - I was shooting flowers etc in slightly overcast and windy conditions, hence the higher ISO settings. When the sun emerged and the wind died down I tried lower ISO and adjusting various in-camera settings but still the shots were mundane at best. So I switched to RAW and P/Pd using both CS2 and RSE but still there was something fundamentally amiss with most of the shots. I wondered if it was a duff model as I tried comparison shots with my DS and the latter's results were much better overall.

Having read so many glowing reports about the K10 and seen so many examples posted here of really sharp and vibrant images I really hoped the K10 would be my next purchase and simply couldn't understand what, if anything, I was doing wrong. I like tro think I;m reasonably competent but achieving similar quality shots was eluding my best efforts. I appreciate a day isn't long to get to grips with any new model but some of the friend's shots, to be honest, looked equally lifeless to me although he seemed content with the results.

Assuming this could have been a Friday afternoon assembly line job and most K10s are excellent, should I be seeing a huge difference in image quality over my DS or am I expecting too much?

I'm really unsure what to do next as I'd like to upgrade from my DS and the K10 did seem the logical choice until this disappointing experience. Any guidance or thoughts would be appreciated. Sadly none of the images survived a recent computer upgrade (lesson learned there - my other stuff was backed up on CD) or I would post examples.
--

Member said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

As you have said yourself, there are countless examples of great image quality on here (and other sites).

If you are unable to achieve the result you want I would suggest either it is your tecnique that is at fault or the version you tried is a dud.

Dont forget the standard setting on the DS is a very bright and saturated image, that of the K10 is not. Could this be the difference you are experiencing.

--
Peter Schluter

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_schluter/

Please post some examples with complete EXIF info.

What I suggest is the following:

Set up for a certain picture, and make the same shot both with the k10d and the ds using raw-mode. Then try and see from which raw-file you can extract the most pleasing picture. See if 10 MP vs 6 MP gives you more detail you like, and if you're able to get nice colors.

I am more happy with my K10d then with my K100d, but I must admit I too find the K10d intrusively noisy @400 iso, whereas the K100d only has such noise @800 iso.

I hope it helps, and if all fails, just buy another brand

luc0815 said:

Please post some examples with complete EXIF info.

Click to expand...

As I said at the end of my post:

"Sadly none of the images survived a recent computer upgrade (lesson learned there - my other stuff was backed up on CD) or I would post examples."

--

luc0815 said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

pschlute said:

Dont forget the standard setting on the DS is a very bright and
saturated image, that of the K10 is not. Could this be the difference
you are experiencing.

--
Peter Schluter

Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

I've had my DS for 4 years now and favour natural setting, don't use bright mode at all and always set it up for the most realistic, rather than saturated image possible. I don't want punchy or overly high contrast shots, just natural looking ones.
I tried to match this settig with the K10 and came unstuck.

--

pschlute said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

Rodelion said:

I am more happy with my K10d then with my K100d, but I must admit I
too find the K10d intrusively noisy @400 iso, whereas the K100d only
has such noise @800 iso.

Click to expand...

Having had good results from my DS at ISO800, I was surprised at the noise levels at ISO400 on the K10, which rather put me off. I'd hoped not to be limited to low ISO settings alone as that defeats the point of digital over film for me. It's al;so why I ruled out prosumers many moons ago for the same reason.

In what ways are you happier with your K10 over the K100?
--

Rodelion said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

"Straight out of the box" JPEG's are dull and lifeless on the K10D, because K10D has natural image ton set by default. The *ist DS has bright image tone set by default. Set the *ist DS to natural image tone and it's image will have similar character as the images from the K10D, or set the K10D to bright image tone

I have both and in terms of character there's very little difference between them when they are set to the same image tone. I do see a small difference with both set to bright image tone, the K10D are less likely to blow out the red channel so it is a little more conservative here but still "over the top" IMHO.

As for noise levels at high ISO, both uses a Sony CCD but the Sony in the K10D has more pixels at the same sensor size which means the pixels are smaller and this also means less impressive noise ratio. Still, the K10D is much better than film and I see no problems up to ISO 800. ISO 1600 is noiser, so I usually avoid using it in all but good light.

The 10Mp gives more details - higher resolution - than the 6Mp in the *ist DS, but you need good glass to show it. With the DA 18-55 kit lens, there is not much difference to talk about. Lenses are very important!

I also find the K10D to render skin tones better (less red) and has a better auto white balance (less warm, more neutral). But the advantages in colours really needs Pentax own PhotoLab to shine through. I am not impressed by the general K10D profile in Adobe's software, it simply lets the camera down. It can be adjusted, thank god for those that like sticking with Adobes products. Adobes poor understanding of the K10D colours and contrast has lead me to trash Adobes software and I now uses other solutions.

The K100D is a fine camera, but I wouldn't by it as an "upgrade" for the *ist DS, simply because it is a) much slower and b) has smaller viewfinder. I like the extra flexibility the K10D gives, and that was my main reason for buying the camera.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

Can't comment on upgrade from DS as I didn't have one, but I did upgrade from the K100.

My thoughts are that K100 is superb value for money camera and capable of turning out some fantastic shots. 6mp is more than enough for most people (including me, to be honest). High ISO performance is great.

But I don't regret upgrading to the K10D at all! My thoughts so far are:

(1) if you fiddle around with K10 setting you can get fantastic JPEGs (look at the review on DC Resource as a starting point)

(2) white balance performs a little better indoors, and the way that one can customise it is fantastic compared to K100 (although of little interest to RAW shooters)

(3) being able to set almost everything through buttons rather than menus is a major improvement (including ISO with firmware upgrade). I very rarely need to dig into the menus now, and much prefer things that way. The RAW button is also great for those of us who tend to use JPEG often but would like RAW on special occasions

(4) I have no problems with ISO noise at least up to 640. I haven't experienced "intrusive" noise at ISO 400 and find 800 quite usable. Noise would not put me off buying K10 (although shutter noise would put me off another K100). At the other end of the spectrum, for some shots with longer shutter speeds it's nice to get down to ISO 100 - and for some people this would be more than worth sacrificing the high ISO performance for

(5) The whole feel/size/weight/solidity suits me better - I find the K10 easier to hold steady and it just fits my hand better

(6) K10 viewfinder better (although hardly a reason not to buy the K100 - it was fine in that too)

(7) K100 buffer is woeful, but then we all know that!

Given the price the K10 can now be bought for, I'd argue that it's probably a more persuasive upgrade from DS - in my view it's a bargain at the prices it's selling at now (at least in England)

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

Maybe I should try another K10D to see if things improve. I have a friendly retailer who will permit me to play in and out of his shop. I'll take my lenses and cards to record some images that I can bring home and inspect in greater detail.
--

Jon Schick said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

Martyn Welch said:

In what ways are you happier with your K10 over the K100?

Click to expand...

Maybe most important: my hands are happier! The K100d cramps my hand when out for extended shooting. I use the K10d with the grip, and my hands can't be happier.

Also: Extended battery life with grip, superior focusing speed, iso hotbutton, much bigger viewfinder with better visibility when wearing glasses, bigger buffer, hotbuttons for metering-mode and autofocus, and wireless flash control from camera. These are the most obvious things that I am willing to pay extra for

The noise is why I am waiting for the K20D using the new 12 MP sensor. No I do not need 12 MP but the noise is much more controlled on the new sensor and I think it has even a higher dynamic range.

Hi Martyn,

I had also the same experience with a K10D last weekend. I can't comment on the jpegs since I 99% of the time shoot raw. I was kind of freaked out by the visible noise at ISO 400, not to mention 800 in dim lightening. I did also have a really hard time to get sharp photos at the same shutter speeds that my DS captured nicely. There might have been some focusing issues or a "user issue"

Anyway, I returned the cam in question but still feel like getting another one. There were also other reasons for returning the cam, but that's another story...
--
J-A

• Photography records life

On the subject of noise vs. detail, I figure it's easier to see noise than to see lost detail.

I don't have any experience with the DS but I used a D40 for 6 months before I got my K10d. In Nikonland it is considered the best high ISO body, so I assume it is at least competitive with the DS. After trying some indoor shots at ISO 800 (with the D40) I was a bit disappointed by the loss of detail. Maybe my expectation was set too high, because everybody raved about its high ISO performance. But I limit myself to ISO400 on the D40; on the K10d my limit is ISO500, with some allowance for lower shutter speeds because of SR. Beyond that I'll take out a flash or tripod.

I forgot to add that I didn't have a P-TTL flash at my disposal and hence was forced to use higher ISO settings in order to get fast enough shutter speeds. When testing I used the DA16-45/4.0 and the FA50/1.4.
--
J-A

• Photography records life

Apart from the noise issue, which I feel is significant, I recently experienced problems with my DS after it had received a replacement chip. I photographed assorted flowers using my DA50-200 and was happy with the overall results except where there was strong contrast between light and shade.

Given the DS by default tends to underexpose to protect highlights - and I thoroughly approve of this and wish other manufacturers would take heed - I fully expect to adjust levels with maybe a bit of highlight/midtone/shadow in CS2 or PSProX in order to slightly lift the darker areas whilst protecting the highlights. Trouble is that when I do this now, a faint but obvious speckled grid pattern appears in these darker areas and I then have to spend some time using the blur or softening tool to mask these - not always successfully, I might add.

It was suggested when I posted about this previously that it might be some form of interference nearby from mobile phones or similar that caused this but I was alone. I've taken others since then with the same grid pattern quite prominent.

One shot was notable in that I'd inadvertently left the camera at ISO800 from an earlier indoor shot and it was still thus set for the next in bright sunlight - hence a noise issue but even so, the grid pattern was far in excess of that which I'd expect under such circumstances and I really don't recall any of this patterning prior to the replacement sensor being fitted.

Assuming the sensor was of recent manufacture, would this same grid-like effect be typical of later Pentax bodies and thus be similarly evident in the K10 - could this be the cause of so much comment regarding odd lines or patterns appearing with some folks' K10s? I know the sensors are used by other comapnies but don't seem to have seen any threads querying this on other camera forums.
--

jabroo said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

Can't comment on the K10D, but as a DS and K100D owner, I'd say don't bother sidegrading to the K100D unless (a) you need SR, or (b) you shoot JPEG (the K100D's JPEG's engine is better).

In most other respects, the DS is the more appealing camera (faster operation, bigger buffer, better viewfinder, and better grip). I'm not disappointed with the K100D because I needed SR, but it's not quite the camera that DS owners wishing to have the benefits of SR had hoped for.

Mike

Thanks for that - all these opinions do help me with my deliberations.

Model Mike said:

Can't comment on the K10D, but as a DS and K100D owner, I'd say don't
bother sidegrading to the K100D unless (a) you need SR, or (b) you
shoot JPEG (the K100D's JPEG's engine is better).

In most other respects, the DS is the more appealing camera (faster
operation, bigger buffer, better viewfinder, and better grip). I'm
not disappointed with the K100D because I needed SR, but it's not
quite the camera that DS owners wishing to have the benefits of SR
had hoped for.

Mike

Click to expand...

--

Model Mike said:

The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.

Click to expand...

There's a few factors at work here:

Due to the K100D's larger pixels:

Pixel for pixel, the K100D has better image quality.
The K100D has better noise characteristics.

As well, the K100D's jpeg engine is better than is the K10D's. K10D results will improve more if you switch both cameras to RAW.

Also, the higher sensor resolution of the K10D makes lens quality critical. At the 6MP resolution of the K100D lenses need only be good; to maximize the K10D's IQ they must be excellent.

Overall, the K100D lacks many things (of which many the K10D has), but IQ simply isn't one of them. To me the K10D proves that at this sensor size, 6MP is enough (and 10 is purely worse unless you are looking for really large prints).
--
Pentax K100D w/DA18-55 & 50-200, FA50-1.4, and Tamron 70-300Di; Panny LZ3
http://s90223656.onlinehome.us/

Steve_ said:

There's a few factors at work here:

Due to the K100D's larger pixels:

Pixel for pixel, the K100D has better image quality.
The K100D has better noise characteristics.

As well, the K100D's jpeg engine is better than is the K10D's. K10D
results will improve more if you switch both cameras to RAW.

Click to expand...

As many on the forums have pointed out, this is simply not true. The K10D's JPEG engine works wonderfully if you bother to calibrate it correctly. In bright mode it looks very much like the K100D, and in natural mode, it's deliberately under-processed with the assumption you'll handle the rest in post. I've found that if calibrated well (bright, -2sat, -1 contrast, +2 sharp) the results are fairly similar "out-of-the-box" to an image somewhere slightly better than my default ACR settings, and slightly worse than my default Bibble settings on raw. (That, of course, excludes the fact that in Bibble/ACR I tweak each image to it's own attributes, I'm talking out-of-the-box only.) The K10D also has a much faster processor to do this more quickly (the thing's partially running PC hardware after all...) I still always prefer raw to JPEG, though I've taken to switching to jpeg for if I want a few snapshots of things that won't make for great photos along the way.)

Steve_ said:

Also, the higher sensor resolution of the K10D makes lens quality
critical. At the 6MP resolution of the K100D lenses need only be
good; to maximize the K10D's IQ they must be excellent.

Click to expand...

The 18-55 kit lens looks no worse on my K10D than on the DS to me. The FA43 f1.9 ltd can't fully show it's capabilities on the 6mp, but I don't think the 10mp harms existing lenses (at least not in a noticable way.)

More is the only big down-side of the K10 I've found (which can be a big down-side), but that's (sadly) not lens specific

Steve_ said:

Overall, the K100D lacks many things (of which many the K10D has),
but IQ simply isn't one of them. To me the K10D proves that at this
sensor size, 6MP is enough (and 10 is purely worse unless you are
looking for really large prints).

Click to expand...

10 is definitely worse than 6 in terms of noise, but not in terms of resolving detail.
10 is better at resolving detail on great lenses. Par on average lenses.

Steve_ said:

--
Pentax K100D w/DA18-55 & 50-200, FA50-1.4, and Tamron 70-300Di; Panny
LZ3
http://s90223656.onlinehome.us/

Click to expand...