If Low Light, High ISO is your "thing" then the K10 is Not your "thing" - that’s as honest an answer as I can give, anyone who says differently is lying to you.
Do you have the opportunity to take identical Photos with each Camera?. If you do then I would suggest you do and let the results make your decision for you.
The K10 is a great camera that just needs a little to much help for everyday PICS. I "Love / Loved" mine, but the more I use it the more I am thinking of getting rid of it.
Let me clear about what I mean. I love the way it handles, It's ergonomics, It's Customization, but in the End, What good is all the above if the Image quality suffers. The More I use it, under anything other then P&S conditions the less it meets the expectations I had for it. I know this sounds harsh but the proof is in the results.
If you are not 100% committed to RAW this cam is not for you. Landscape photos with the kit lens and JPEG look like Murky water colors. I had hopes a better lens would help this condition, but this has not been the case. It seems the culprit is the JPEG engine, In cam sharpening does not help, bright mode dose not help. Only shooting Raw with Very high levels of sharpening applied PP will add back some definition to the mush.
Obviously I am Not a Fan Of RAW, but when you buy a Mid Level DSLR, Regardless of popular opinion on Forums that say, you SHOULD use RAW and PP every PIC. If you MUST use RAW to get acceptable results then DON’T have the camera default to JPEG. In fact, why even offer JPEG!
My opinion is, if a 100$ P&S cam can give you better then Avg JPEGS, there is no reason the K10 Can't
The metering leaves a lot to be desired, even with the DA lenses, Try to use one of the great older manual lenses and you will wear out the shutter trying to get properly exposed PICS, especially in bright sunlight. Every F-stop with a manual lens can vary as much as 5 stops under exposed to 5 stops over exposed, depending on Lighting conditions ! What works one day, Wont the next, unless ALL conditions are Identical. If you Don’t shoot in a controlled lighting studio or shoot test charts all day The K10 and Manual Lenses will be an exorcize in futility. Which is infuriating, because the Manual Lens Comparability was one of the main reasons I chose the K10.
And let's not forget The White Balance, Whose accuracy is all over the map, even in full sunlight, And the archaic way to simply do a One touch White balance, which if you shoot in ever changing light conditions #and DON"T like RAW# is a pain in the ass to do.
Had I realized just how bad the JPEG engine is, or more to the point, Just how much PP all the online photos you see on forums and review sites actually had done to them, when all the usual suspects claimed none was added, I would have thought Long and hard about the K10.
Just today I stumbled across an ovscure review of the K10 that previously slipped unde rmy radar, and his findings are spot on and oddly enough match up with most of mine -
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slrs/pentax/PRD_385737_3127crx.aspx?TabID=2
Caveat Emptor!
Do you have the opportunity to take identical Photos with each Camera?. If you do then I would suggest you do and let the results make your decision for you.
The K10 is a great camera that just needs a little to much help for everyday PICS. I "Love / Loved" mine, but the more I use it the more I am thinking of getting rid of it.
Let me clear about what I mean. I love the way it handles, It's ergonomics, It's Customization, but in the End, What good is all the above if the Image quality suffers. The More I use it, under anything other then P&S conditions the less it meets the expectations I had for it. I know this sounds harsh but the proof is in the results.
If you are not 100% committed to RAW this cam is not for you. Landscape photos with the kit lens and JPEG look like Murky water colors. I had hopes a better lens would help this condition, but this has not been the case. It seems the culprit is the JPEG engine, In cam sharpening does not help, bright mode dose not help. Only shooting Raw with Very high levels of sharpening applied PP will add back some definition to the mush.
Obviously I am Not a Fan Of RAW, but when you buy a Mid Level DSLR, Regardless of popular opinion on Forums that say, you SHOULD use RAW and PP every PIC. If you MUST use RAW to get acceptable results then DON’T have the camera default to JPEG. In fact, why even offer JPEG!
My opinion is, if a 100$ P&S cam can give you better then Avg JPEGS, there is no reason the K10 Can't
The metering leaves a lot to be desired, even with the DA lenses, Try to use one of the great older manual lenses and you will wear out the shutter trying to get properly exposed PICS, especially in bright sunlight. Every F-stop with a manual lens can vary as much as 5 stops under exposed to 5 stops over exposed, depending on Lighting conditions ! What works one day, Wont the next, unless ALL conditions are Identical. If you Don’t shoot in a controlled lighting studio or shoot test charts all day The K10 and Manual Lenses will be an exorcize in futility. Which is infuriating, because the Manual Lens Comparability was one of the main reasons I chose the K10.
And let's not forget The White Balance, Whose accuracy is all over the map, even in full sunlight, And the archaic way to simply do a One touch White balance, which if you shoot in ever changing light conditions #and DON"T like RAW# is a pain in the ass to do.
Had I realized just how bad the JPEG engine is, or more to the point, Just how much PP all the online photos you see on forums and review sites actually had done to them, when all the usual suspects claimed none was added, I would have thought Long and hard about the K10.
Just today I stumbled across an ovscure review of the K10 that previously slipped unde rmy radar, and his findings are spot on and oddly enough match up with most of mine -
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slrs/pentax/PRD_385737_3127crx.aspx?TabID=2
Caveat Emptor!
But light is light, and artificial light is more controlled, so it should be a more reproducible test. I'll have a go in due course anyway.