K10D sharpness issue!

[distudio]

Exactly, and it simply does produce softer jpegs compared to the
way its Raw files are converted than comparative cameras.

If Pentax addressed the issue, and by nor overprocessing the jpeg
output, but just improving the processing to resemble the RAW file
more accurately (or at least offer a menu option for better
acutance insted of only a wimpy bit of texture), this whole
stumbline block would become a non-issue. Obviously whatever anyone
says blindly defending the jpg IQ at this current point is just not
getting through to people who want to decide on which camera to
spend $1000 on, and look at the same image from each and see that
one camera's jpg looks more like its RAW than the K10d's jpg.

This ridiculous filmlike excuse cr*p from Pentax should stop just
like the "stay the course" stupidity of Bush that is finally being
realized.

Pentax continously trying to put this line of BS across is almost
as bad as the letter Zeiss wrote to Luminouis Landscape about their
new soft 50mm lens here:

It really isn't an issue, they don't need to fix the sharpness and anyone who has actually tested the camera should be aware and should appreciate that Phils assessment was fair in context (the context being in the case of extreme pixel peeping).

--
Rob

 

[tapir]

a pretty straight forward assessment of comparative sharpness.

Exactly, and it simply does produce softer jpegs compared to the
way its Raw files are converted than comparative cameras.

Noticeable when viewing 100% crop or allegedly if you print A3 and up. And even that if you lazy/dumb enough to refuse to change default on-camera parameters not speaking of doing basic PP. Btw, I wanna see somebody who's so prefectionist as to be concerned about slight comparative loss of sharpness on a 100% crop but then trying to print 10MP JPEG file as big as A3 without any PP (not even shrpening, just smart upsampling).

If Pentax addressed the issue, and by nor overprocessing the jpeg
output, but just improving the processing to resemble the RAW file
more accurately (or at least offer a menu option for better
acutance insted of only a wimpy bit of texture),

Which RAW output? If you mean PPL on default "As Shot" params then you'll get same thing as in-camera JPEG. There're many RAW "outputs", you know. Each is distinctively different and depends upon particular RAW converter and image processing parameters set in it.

this whole stumbline block would become a non-issue.

Here I have to agree. Pentax has a pure PR issue here with people incapable to project true but hardcore pixel peeping findings from a review on how and if this affects their own usage.

Obviously whatever anyone
says blindly defending the jpg IQ at this current point is just not
getting through to people who want to decide on which camera to
spend $1000 on, and look at the same image from each and see that
one camera's jpg looks more like its RAW than the K10d's jpg.

So you're saying that people who refuse to shoot or even known about RAW are somehow reassured by the fact that their fully default JPEGs will resemble that same RAW? Seems more like "people" problem to me.

This ridiculous filmlike excuse cr*p from Pentax should stop just
like the "stay the course" stupidity of Bush that is finally being
realized.

Pentax continously trying to put this line of BS across is almost
as bad as the letter Zeiss wrote to Luminouis Landscape about their
new soft 50mm lens here:

Iraq war, global warming, Darfur genocide, Pentax sharpness issue, Zeiss lens softness...

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

 

[Andy828]

Guys before telling anything just check the full review of K10D in
this site itself and compare the samples with other 10MP camrera
and especially read the conclusion-cons it clearly states my point.

TROLL!
--
Andy Anderson
K10D

 

[solarider]

Cool price awo, if still available at that rate please share your camera store.

thanks!

Nic

awo425 wrote:
If I wanted to spend $2K+ on a camera, I would probably procees
with a different one, but for $830 that I payed, I am happy.

Although, what do I know, I am mot measurbating, I am just
photographing.

 

[mutleybird]

It really isn't an issue, they don't need to fix the sharpness

Uh, it is an issue hence all these posts, and the hundreds in the threads before this. Whether the few outspoken just happen to decide it isn't an issue doesn't really matter. Pentax would obviously be wise to include a menu option for jpg processing closer to raw conversion (if an acutance edge sharpening algorithm will do this, then fine), to make all these posts stop already. With menu options to give the control of better jpg processing to more accurately be like the RAW conversion - that can be turned off for those liking the way it is now - those needing these more accurate jpg's because of a time constraint or workflow situation would be satiated.

An c'mon already, its really enough of those posts about not buying a dslr if you're going to shoot jpg's. That's nonsensical. Its a thousand dollar camera. It has the feature of doing jpg files. They should be at their best. The sharpness and processing should be as close to the converted RAW file as other 10mp cameras figured out how to produce with the same sensor. PERIOD. For the price of this camera, this very real issue should just be addressed by Pentax, and disappear already.

Same with the color pattern noise at ISO 800-1600 normally exposed photo's shadow parts. Just solve it, get rid of it, and this issue disappears. Incessant posting showing that it is real accomplishes nothing if Pentax won't acknowledge that they know about it and are working on a solution.

So Pentax, please:

1) Menu option for acutance sharpening/more accurate jpg processing that can be turned OFF if desired.

2) Fix the color pattern noise.

Larry

 

[mutleybird]

Iraq war, global warming, Darfur genocide, Pentax sharpness issue, Zeiss lens softness..

Never said anything about global warming. for me here in Long Island, its just made the winters shorter and warmer.

Never said anything about Darfur. What can be said?

Larry

 

[tapir]

Iraq war, global warming, Darfur genocide, Pentax sharpness issue, Zeiss lens softness..

Never said anything about global warming. for me here in Long
Island, its just made the winters shorter and warmer.

Never said anything about Darfur. What can be said?

It just seemed to me funny how you managed to pull together Bush's Iraq war issue and Pentax sharpness issue. So I decided to extrapolate and put other same caliber issues in a same line

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

 

[tapir]

So Pentax, please:

1) Menu option for acutance sharpening/more accurate jpg processing
that can be turned OFF if desired.

2) Fix the color pattern noise.

Or else what?

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

 

[distudio]

It really isn't an issue, they don't need to fix the sharpness

Uh, it is an issue hence all these posts, and the hundreds in the
threads before this.

I'm very sure that if Phil hadn't made the claim it then it wouldn't have been an issue, that's the bottom line.

I hope they fix the banding for sure, that's likely to actually affect my experience with the K10D.

--
Rob

 

[sung nee]

For your information, top-class professional printers are introducing blurriness to the images so that they look sharper in print!

Go to the Leica camera user forum and search for David Adams.

The whole purpose of defaulting to "Natural" mode in the K10D is because it is "suitable for post-processing" (quoting from the manual). That means it is NOT suitable for outputting yet. The one distinguishing feature between professional and amateur cameras is the degree of control left to the photographer. The full professional cameras leave the fullest possible control to the photographer. So even in the case of jpg's, the camera will try to preserve as much of the original "signals" as possible so that you can post-process without losing too much information.

A jpg saved in "Bright" mode would have lost too much information already to withstand rigorous post-processing.

 

[ChrisDM]

Those are beautiful images, Umbra, thanks for sharing them . However, small JPGs posted on the web don't reveal the K10D's sharpness issue. Make a 24x36 print though, and the issue wil be glaring. Fortunately though, the K10D's RAW mode is capable of fantastic image quality at any resolution.

Note I called it an issue instead of a problem, because it doesn't seem to bother some people. In my own tests however, the K10D's JPG output is far too soft for professional output, especially at more significant print sizes. But for web images, snapshots, etc, the JPGs are adequate.

Sorry tell you that .. but K10D is ok as far as Sharpness is
concerned..

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

 

[chrswggl]

Do you own the camera? If yes, then you would know that it's easily fixed. If not, then you have no reason to come to these assumptions. I'll provide you with a link to a few crops I made when testing JPEG sharpness on my own camera. Come to your own conclusions, but the bright completely negates this "problem"

http://picasaweb.google.com/chrswggl/K10dSharpTest
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/chrswggl

Pentax k10d, Pentax 50-200, Sigma 18-50 Macro soon...

 

[Robert Chow]

So Pentax, please:

1) Menu option for acutance sharpening/more accurate jpg processing
that can be turned OFF if desired.

2) Fix the color pattern noise.

Or else what?

I am holding my breath as I type this posting. In addition, I will set my camera to 'B', depress the shutter button and hold it down until Pentax finally comes to its senses.

--
rc

 

[Robert Chow]

Iraq war, global warming, Darfur genocide, Pentax sharpness issue, Zeiss lens softness..

Never said anything about global warming. for me here in Long
Island, its just made the winters shorter and warmer.

Never said anything about Darfur. What can be said?

It just seemed to me funny how you managed to pull together Bush's
Iraq war issue and Pentax sharpness issue. So I decided to
extrapolate and put other same caliber issues in a same line

I empathize with mutleybird's confusion. Yes, I am irony-proof.

--
rc

 

[awo425]

It is a price for body, did't need lens. I boght it from gary_camera on EBAY. He is official dealer and have a camera store. Look like a nice honest guy, shipped same day.

thanks!

Nic

awo425 wrote:
If I wanted to spend $2K+ on a camera, I would probably procees
with a different one, but for $830 that I payed, I am happy.

Although, what do I know, I am mot measurbating, I am just
photographing.

 

[Harry Phillips]

The only reviewer I am aware of who thinks that K10D image
sharpness/detail in default JPEG (without using Bright or
sharpening) isn't up to other 10mp models is Phil Askey of this
site and he says that is indistinguishable difference up to A3
prints.

I had exactly that thought last night, if he is the only one that has said that then that just shows you what a large influence DPReview has on potential purchasers.

--
Regards,
Harry Phillips

See my portfolio here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hazza96/

 

[Harry Phillips]

And despite people talking about front focus and back focus (seems
mainly new to the brand people) I have never had an SLR/DSLR which
is as accurate as my K10D

I have no idea what FF and BF even mean. Is it an issue on kit lens or the new ones you buy or is it just an issue on older lenses?

--
Regards,
Harry Phillips

See my portfolio here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hazza96/

 

[Brett St Pierre]

.

The Sigma 17-70 is much faster and more accurate than the 50-200.
It's also much quieter, you'll be pleased.

That's a novelty for a Sigma lens -- my Sigma EX lenses are noisy and clunky compared to my Pentax lenses (not even the IF lenses)...

--
Brett
http://www.pbase.com/shreder



The Journey is the Thing

 

[mutleybird]

Or else what?

I said please...

 

[mutleybird]

Yes, I am irony-proof.

Uh..I got the irony. I just deadpanned the response.

Larry