Steve'sDigicams

pboerger · Feb 20, 2008, 5:03 AM

I have decided on the K10D as my first DSLR, having used Canons and Nikons also at work. The bang for the buck can't be ignored. The white balance issue keeps cropping up in reviews. Is it as bad as some say with even the presets not working? Thanks for your input.

bigdawg · Feb 20, 2008, 8:07 AM

pboerger wrote:

Quote:

I have decided on the K10D as my first DSLR, having used Canons and Nikons also at work. The bang for the buck can't be ignored. The white balance issue keeps cropping up in reviews. Is it as bad as some say with even the presets not working? Thanks for your input.

I've had no problemo myself. All cameras require setting the white balance for the best photos....Saying that I use Auto WB most of the time and just don't worry about it!

Dawg

pboerger · Feb 20, 2008, 10:31 AM

Thanks bigdawg. A couple more replies like this and I'm off to B&H.

robar · Feb 20, 2008, 11:04 AM

shoot in raw and it just doesn't matter. actually PSCS3 will open jpg images in ACRand you can adjust them almost as good as a raw file.. i haven't seen anyone complaining about WB with the k10..

roy
hurry!!! B&H closes at 5

bahadir · Feb 20, 2008, 11:50 AM

You may decide tocheck outthe following link to see mycomperative shotsat Nikon DSLR forum ; )

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=58

snostorm · Feb 20, 2008, 12:19 PM

Hi pboerger,

The K10's WB presets are "tweakable" -- you can adjust them to your own personal taste -- anyone who says that they are "bad" has probably not owned one, or is too lazy or photographically unaware to take their evaluation of this seriously.

The most often seen criticism of Pentax Auto WB is that it does not correct well for Tungsten lighting. The specs that Pentax publishes clearly shows that the Color Temp range that AWB covers does not even come close to correcting for the Tungsten range. The AWB was apparently designed this way, and IMO, Pentax's AWB gives better results in "golden hour" shots just after dawn and during sunsets, capturing the colors much more faithfully -- I don't hear the same reviewers criticizing other mfgs for bleaching out these shots though.

With color cast so easy to correct for in PP, I think that color saturation and rendition in-camera is overemphasized anyway. With film, especially slides, this was very important since you couldn't take it back, but with digital, any emphasis on this seems kind of nitpicky.

Scott

pboerger · Feb 20, 2008, 1:48 PM

Thanks folks. Off to B&H.

mtngal · Feb 20, 2008, 10:15 PM

I'm another one who is somewhat mystified by the white balance comments - for the most part I prefer the K10's choices for auto white balance over that of the K100 (at least with my own cameras). I do shoot raw, so don't particularly worry about it (except I find it easier to get it right in-camera than I do using a post processing method). It's so easy to set a custom white balance, if you are in a situation where the camera struggles.

bigdawg · Feb 21, 2008, 12:16 AM

bahadir wrote:

Quote:

You may decide tocheck outthe following link to see mycomperative shotsat Nikon DSLR forum ; )

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=58

I've found that the Nikon lenses tend towards a slightly pinkish to red tint in some photos with a lot of white. I've also noticed a lot of canon lenses tend towards a more bluish tint . Not the camera but the lens. The coating makes a difference when there is a bright light and the CA could show up. Some lens makers use a tint that gives the reddish to pinkish tint because it is less noticable in the photo than the Green CA or the purple CA which by the way Canon's have been notorious for! Folks used to call them the purple fringe monsters! May be What was going on with your D40 Bahadir! Just could be that! Pentax lenses and the famous SMC coatings give a more natural color in the photo and the CA is almost totally controlled! Thus the K10D's good shots as noted in the comparison!

Dawg

bahadir · Feb 22, 2008, 3:28 PM

@Dawg: I guess there's much truth in your explanation, since I remember noticing the slight tone difference looking through the viewfinder ofeither camera! The lens attached to my K10D at the time of comparison wasthe sigma 17-70, though, with which Iwas able toacquirebetter WB performance than the Nikkor (18-55 kit lens)attached D40x each time!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Feb 20, 2008, 5:03 AM	#1
pboerger Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Mount Shasta, California Posts: 1,525	I have decided on the K10D as my first DSLR, having used Canons and Nikons also at work. The bang for the buck can't be ignored. The white balance issue keeps cropping up in reviews. Is it as bad as some say with even the presets not working? Thanks for your input.

Feb 20, 2008, 10:31 AM	#3
pboerger Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Mount Shasta, California Posts: 1,525	Thanks bigdawg. A couple more replies like this and I'm off to B&H.

Feb 20, 2008, 11:04 AM	#4
robar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: D/FW area Texas Posts: 7,590	shoot in raw and it just doesn't matter. actually PSCS3 will open jpg images in ACRand you can adjust them almost as good as a raw file.. i haven't seen anyone complaining about WB with the k10.. roy hurry!!! B&H closes at 5

Feb 20, 2008, 11:50 AM	#5
bahadir Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Izmir, Turkey Posts: 6,263	You may decide tocheck outthe following link to see mycomperative shotsat Nikon DSLR forum ; ) http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=58

Feb 20, 2008, 12:19 PM	#6
snostorm Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA Posts: 2,770	Hi pboerger, The K10's WB presets are "tweakable" -- you can adjust them to your own personal taste -- anyone who says that they are "bad" has probably not owned one, or is too lazy or photographically unaware to take their evaluation of this seriously. The most often seen criticism of Pentax Auto WB is that it does not correct well for Tungsten lighting. The specs that Pentax publishes clearly shows that the Color Temp range that AWB covers does not even come close to correcting for the Tungsten range. The AWB was apparently designed this way, and IMO, Pentax's AWB gives better results in "golden hour" shots just after dawn and during sunsets, capturing the colors much more faithfully -- I don't hear the same reviewers criticizing other mfgs for bleaching out these shots though. With color cast so easy to correct for in PP, I think that color saturation and rendition in-camera is overemphasized anyway. With film, especially slides, this was very important since you couldn't take it back, but with digital, any emphasis on this seems kind of nitpicky. Scott

Feb 20, 2008, 1:48 PM	#7
pboerger Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Mount Shasta, California Posts: 1,525	Thanks folks. Off to B&H.

Feb 20, 2008, 10:15 PM	#8
mtngal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Frazier Park, CA Posts: 16,177	I'm another one who is somewhat mystified by the white balance comments - for the most part I prefer the K10's choices for auto white balance over that of the K100 (at least with my own cameras). I do shoot raw, so don't particularly worry about it (except I find it easier to get it right in-camera than I do using a post processing method). It's so easy to set a custom white balance, if you are in a situation where the camera struggles.

Feb 22, 2008, 3:28 PM	#10
bahadir Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Izmir, Turkey Posts: 6,263	@Dawg: I guess there's much truth in your explanation, since I remember noticing the slight tone difference looking through the viewfinder ofeither camera! The lens attached to my K10D at the time of comparison wasthe sigma 17-70, though, with which Iwas able toacquirebetter WB performance than the Nikkor (18-55 kit lens)attached D40x each time!