So, does PRIME live up to expectations?

[Prognathous]

Is there any visible benefit to this image processor or is it only a bunch of gobbledygook meant to seduce would be buyers?

Prog.

 

[Joe Barnhart]

From your post and your profile, it seems that you expect the PRIME processor might not live up to its hype. Skepticism is a healthy attitude toward marketing claims, so I'm not condemning yours.

I find the images from my K10D are much more pleasing to my eye than from other cameras I have owned. They have a richer appearance, but I can't easily quantify it and say exactly what it is about the images that is different.

So, the answer to your question is "yes." It provides better pictures -- or it is marketing hype.

Here is one example "snapshot" I was impressed with. The K10D dealt with artificial light, daylight (backlight), and fill flash. The resulting picture was exactly what I wanted, and it was a thoughtless "point the camera and grab" kind of shot.

 

[Don Allison]

Hmmm....hilites burnt out in the background. And what is the purpose of this image, once again? Was it fill flash? I don't understand.

--



'Nothing could-be-finah-than-to-be-in-Carolina-in-the-morninnnnnn...'

 

[Prognathous]

What would I find persuasive? I think that a low-ISO comparison between the K10D and other cameras with the same sensor should be able to bring persuasive evidence (assuming that PRIME offers a real improvement). Do you expect the camera to be visibly better than its competitors once high-ISO issues are taken out of the equation?

Prog.

 

[D TONG]

Is there any visible benefit to this image processor or is it only
a bunch of gobbledygook meant to seduce would be buyers?

Prog.

--

Your subject heading was " So, does PRIME live up to expectations?"
And you talked about visible benefit to this (?) image processor (which?).
Joe's reply was even more cryptic
I am at a loss

Daniel, Toronto
http://www.pbase.com/danieltong

 

[Joe Barnhart]

Actually -- you sometimes want to burn the highlights in the background, as in this case. I didn't want the detail of the cars and trees n the parking lot competing with my subject. To me, the default processing of the K10D did an excellent job of maintaining detail, color, and image quality in the part of the image that I cared about, in spite of the overwhelming background light which I wanted "burned". And, yes, it did a better job than I expected integrating the fill from the tiny on-camera flash.

 

[David Kieltyka]

What sort(s) of visual benefit(s) are you looking for?

I tend to ignore marketing talk when evaluating products. So PRIME doesn't mean anything to me. What I do hope to see from the K10D is finer tonal gradation, maybe not in JPEGs but at least in the RAW data, due to the 22-bit A/D converter. This is the sort of thing that's not gonna whack anyone over the head. It'll show up as improved realism in skin tones (not necessarily the same thing as "greater accuracy") and other areas with subtle tonal transitions.

IMO we're past the point of dramatic improvements in D-SLR image quality. Changes will be incremental and subtle from now on ('til the next image technology sea change, that is).

-Dave-

 

[distudio]

Is there any visible benefit to this image processor or is it only
a bunch of gobbledygook meant to seduce would be buyers?

You got some obscure answers to what I read as a very simple question

At the moment I can't comment conclusively but I have just finished calibrating my K10D for a range of light sources. So now I intend to compare its performance with my calibrated *ist D in relatively controlled circumstances to see if all the fuss was justified. I'll post my findings when I'm done.

--
Rob

 

[*isteve]

JPEGs from the K10D are almost identical to the processed PEFs, which in itself is pretty impressive and a new departure for Pentax.

Subjectively the colour, tonal gradations and shadow depth are very impressive and the images manage to have impact, sharpness and 3d quality without any heavy processing and without looking oversaturated or over the top.

A lot of others have made similar observations, even users who also shoot with Canon 5Ds and Nikons, so I think its generally accepted that the results look about as good as anything out there right now stright out of the camera.

Of course Pentax needed something to compete with DIGIC and VENUS and all the other blather. Cant blame them for trying.

Is there any visible benefit to this image processor or is it only
a bunch of gobbledygook meant to seduce would be buyers?

Prog.

--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

 

[Quietly Confident]

Actually -- you sometimes want to burn the highlights in the
background, as in this case. I didn't want the detail of the cars
and trees n the parking lot competing with my subject. To me, the
default processing of the K10D did an excellent job of maintaining
detail, color, and image quality in the part of the image that I
cared about, in spite of the overwhelming background light which I
wanted "burned". And, yes, it did a better job than I expected
integrating the fill from the tiny on-camera flash.

Joe, far, far, far, be it from me to critique anyone's photo's (and i quite understand that you wanted to obliterate the car park outside the window)

However, many of the images that I've seen from the K10 have had blown highlights - right from the first Pentax sample shots.

To me, many of them look over-exposed - and ironic contrast to previous models which under-expose at every opportunity.

Have a look at the many K10 pics now floating around, and you might see what I mean - washed out photo's with burned out skies. Not all, of course - but enough to make me wonder whether this is a camera characteristic, rather than an operational choice.

As the question was 'Is PRIME valid?', I would say no - and that the associated hopes of an extended dynamic range have not materialised. It was stated on this forum that IQ from the K10 would 'be better than any other competing camera' I, for one, don't see that. It might not be worse – but it's certainly not significantly better , from the images I've seen (including full resolution ones)

One interesting comparison will be the Samsung GX-10. As far as I know this does not have PRIME (hooray?) and many of the shots I've seen from that camera have, imo, surpassed those from the K10. When it becomes more widely available the differences might become more obvious

With respect, I really do feel that claims of 'greater nuance, and tonality', etc, etc, are the result of people wishfully seeing things that are not really there.

 

[distudio]

One interesting comparison will be the Samsung GX-10. As far as I
know this does not have PRIME (hooray?) and many of the shots I've
seen from that camera have, imo, surpassed those from the K10.
When it becomes more widely available the differences might become
more obvious

Only because PRIME is a Pentax centric acronym, you can be pretty much assured that it will contain the same piece of hardware and be programmed to behave in a similar way.

--
Rob

 

[Quietly Confident]

One interesting comparison will be the Samsung GX-10. As far as I
know this does not have PRIME (hooray?) and many of the shots I've
seen from that camera have, imo, surpassed those from the K10.
When it becomes more widely available the differences might become
more obvious

Only because PRIME is a Pentax centric acronym, you can be pretty
much assured that it will contain the same piece of hardware and be
programmed to behave in a similar way.

I'm not so sure about that. The GX-10 doesn't have .pef files (only .dng) and it could well have a different image processing engine n it. After all, Samsung have made plenty of cameras prior to the GX and PRIME might have been something that Pentax wished to keep for thesmselves.

The differences between the models might be more than a few cosmetic details.

From waht I've seen so far, if the Samsung didn't have PRIME, that could be a point in its favour.

 

[distudio]

I'm not so sure about that. The GX-10 doesn't have .pef files
(only .dng) and it could well have a different image processing
engine n it. After all, Samsung have made plenty of cameras prior
to the GX and PRIME might have been something that Pentax wished to
keep for thesmselves.

The differences between the models might be more than a few
cosmetic details.

Granted the reality remains to be seen however I would be surprised it they didn't share everything but firmware and a few body panels. PEF is also a Pentax centric file type. Samsung have it seems committed to DNG, therefore I suspect that's one of the main reasons that Pentax users also reap the benefit of having DNG available in the K20D

From waht I've seen so far, if the Samsung didn't have PRIME,
that could be a point in its favor.

Possibly but the camera has to contain some in camera processing system, PRIME is just a name and marketing tool in the end. The camera has to have in camera processing but in this point (like other digcam makers) they've named it and made it a marketing tool.

--
Rob

 

[kristian2000]

Normally I always shoot RAW, but with this ballyhooed PRIME thingy, I decided to give jpeg shooting a try, also my poor old laptop will choke on 16meg DNG files. But my initial observations are very positive, below is a re-post (sorry, I've been too busy at work to get out and shoot much) but I was happy with the output of the jpeg, 'very RAW like?'.
I'm ready to line up for the Kool-Aid©



--



Kristian Farren
http://kf3.nett

 

[Quietly Confident]

I'm not so sure about that. The GX-10 doesn't have .pef files
(only .dng) and it could well have a different image processing
engine n it. After all, Samsung have made plenty of cameras prior
to the GX and PRIME might have been something that Pentax wished to
keep for thesmselves.

The differences between the models might be more than a few
cosmetic details.

Granted the reality remains to be seen however I would be surprised
it they didn't share everything but firmware and a few body panels.
PEF is also a Pentax centric file type. Samsung have it seems
committed to DNG, therefore I suspect that's one of the main
reasons that Pentax users also reap the benefit of having DNG
available in the K20D

From waht I've seen so far, if the Samsung didn't have PRIME,
that could be a point in its favor.

Possibly but the camera has to contain some in camera processing
system, PRIME is just a name and marketing tool in the end. The
camera has to have in camera processing but in this point (like
other digcam makers) they've named it and made it a marketing tool.

I could easily be wrong - but I don't recall Samsung mentioning 22 bit A/D conversion.

 

[sperger]

I'm not so sure about that. The GX-10 doesn't have .pef files
(only .dng) and it could well have a different image processing
engine n it. After all, Samsung have made plenty of cameras prior
to the GX and PRIME might have been something that Pentax wished to

The Samsung does have .pef files and from what I have read in the manual it is the same camera as the k10d with only a few cosmetic differences on the back. I will be loaning a GX10 next week for a couple of weeks so I downloaded both manuals to see what the differences are and I think even the manual is mostly lifted from Pentax-certain parts word for word. The GX10 manual doesn't mention 'prime' but as has been said it is a Pentax acronym and they also call their antishake OPS as in the compacts that have it. Their lenses also appear to be clones of Pentax lenses but with a different coloured ring and a different name. Interestingly Jessops are advertising the GX10 with 18-55 lens for £599 and the K10d with 18-55 for £849.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bottesini

 

[*isteve]

Actually -- you sometimes want to burn the highlights in the
background, as in this case. I didn't want the detail of the cars
and trees n the parking lot competing with my subject. To me, the
default processing of the K10D did an excellent job of maintaining
detail, color, and image quality in the part of the image that I
cared about, in spite of the overwhelming background light which I
wanted "burned". And, yes, it did a better job than I expected
integrating the fill from the tiny on-camera flash.

Joe, far, far, far, be it from me to critique anyone's photo's (and
i quite understand that you wanted to obliterate the car park
outside the window)

However, many of the images that I've seen from the K10 have had
blown highlights - right from the first Pentax sample shots.

And in every case these were shots with high dynamic range and were correctly exposed despite the blown highlights. Most cameras would have done a similar job I suspect.

To me, many of them look over-exposed - and ironic contrast to
previous models which under-expose at every opportunity.

Have a look at the many K10 pics now floating around, and you might
see what I mean - washed out photo's with burned out skies. Not
all, of course - but enough to make me wonder whether this is a
camera characteristic, rather than an operational choice.

It has less tendency to underexpsose and can be corrected just as easily if it blows highlights. Thats what EV compensation is for whcih means its entirely the photograpers choice. However it does appear to have more shadow range which means you can afford to underexpose slightly without losing shadow detail. Most of the photos I am seeing are pretty good on the whole.

As the question was 'Is PRIME valid?', I would say no - and that
the associated hopes of an extended dynamic range have not
materialised. It was stated on this forum that IQ from the K10
would 'be better than any other competing camera' I, for one,
don't see that. It might not be worse – but it's certainly not
significantly better , from the images I've seen (including full
resolution ones)

What were you expecting might I ask?

One interesting comparison will be the Samsung GX-10. As far as I
know this does not have PRIME (hooray?) and many of the shots I've
seen from that camera have, imo, surpassed those from the K10.

Since we have seen no comparison (back to back) shots and very few from the GX10 altogether I entirely fail to see how anyone could reach a useful conclusion.

When it becomes more widely available the differences might become
more obvious

Or not, as the case may be.

With respect, I really do feel that claims of 'greater nuance, and
tonality', etc, etc, are the result of people wishfully seeing
things that are not really there.

George I must thank you on behalf of all fanboys for helping us see the errors of our ways. How blessed we are to have the benefit of your wisdom and eloquent delivery to let us see how cr*p everything really is. What would we do without you, eh?

--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

 

[Quietly Confident]

I'm not so sure about that. The GX-10 doesn't have .pef files
(only .dng) and it could well have a different image processing
engine n it. After all, Samsung have made plenty of cameras prior
to the GX and PRIME might have been something that Pentax wished to

The Samsung does have .pef

No, it doesn't.

 

[*isteve]

I'm not so sure about that. The GX-10 doesn't have .pef files
(only .dng) and it could well have a different image processing
engine n it. After all, Samsung have made plenty of cameras prior
to the GX and PRIME might have been something that Pentax wished to

The Samsung does have .pef files and from what I have read in the
manual it is the same camera as the k10d with only a few cosmetic
differences on the back. I will be loaning a GX10 next week for a
couple of weeks so I downloaded both manuals to see what the
differences are and I think even the manual is mostly lifted from
Pentax-certain parts word for word. The GX10 manual doesn't mention
'prime' but as has been said it is a Pentax acronym and they also
call their antishake OPS as in the compacts that have it. Their
lenses also appear to be clones of Pentax lenses but with a
different coloured ring and a different name. Interestingly Jessops
are advertising the GX10 with 18-55 lens for £599 and the K10d with
18-55 for £849.

Sometimes I wonder if Jessops are deliberately trying to destroy the Pentax brand in the UK. From the responses of their salesmen and the (non) promotion of Pentax in their main store in London, not to mention their extreme pricing of all Pentax gear, one has to wonder.

Its a real problem because Jessops, sadly, sell more cameras in the UK than all other retailers put together, having bought most of them out. The monopolies commission failed to register any interest. But sadly they are also largely responsible for inflated high street pricing as well.

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

--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

 

[vortout]

Hi, may be you will be interested to check out my post about K10 vs DS perofrmance
--
Never Say Never