Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 7, 2007, 7:31 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Here's my take/personalopinionon the issue. It's not an all-inclusive list, since some things just aren't important to me but could be vital to others:

Size/Weight: I'm small so find the K10 the absolutemaximum I can manage, and some times I'm not comfortable with it.
Advantage: K100

Features: I like having the controls for changing the metering and focusing modes on the camera body, much quicker to change. I'm using these controls much more effectively than I had with the K100 (used to just leave everything centered, what I was used to from my ME/ME Super days because I had to go into the menus to change them). I don't tend to use the camera's histogram (played with it for a while but decided there's such a thing as information overload) and now use the blinking indicators for blown highlights, which is available on both cameras. Besides, I snowshoe (when we have snow) and live near a desert, so the weather sealing is an advantage.
Advantage: K10

Noise: When I first got the K10 the noise was worse at 1600. However, since I've updated to the latest firmware I've changed my mind. I just shot a bunch of pictures at an indoors horse show at 1600 and was surprised to see that the noise wasn't as bad as it had been. While I still think that the K100 is better in low light, it isn't as big of an advantage as it had been.
Advantage: K100

Modes: Before I got the K10, I couldn't see needing anything other than P, Av, Tv, M and B. I never thought I would use the Sv mode but have found it very convenient. I keep the ISO settings to auto with a range of 100-800. Now that I've discovered that 1600 is useable, I'll leave it that way and use Sv to change to 1600 when I need it, I'm less likely to find myself unexpectedly using 1600 because I forgot to change it in the menu.
Advantage: K10

Image Quality: That's really what photography is all about. Which camera takes pictures that look better? I shoot raw pretty much exclusively and when I look at the full frame pictures printed out to 8x10 or resized to screen size, I can't automatically tell the difference (especially if they were taken with the same lens).
Advantage: K100 (based on price)

Image Quality/Lenses: I have two sharp lenses, the A*300 and the lowly Phoenix 100mm macro. If you look at 100% crops taken with these lenses, the image quality is the same (and sharp) -with the K10 covering less area because of its larger pixel count. However, I've found that with the DA 50-200 and (to a lesser extent) kit lens the 100% crops on the K10 don't look as good - they don't quite hold together as well (can't really explain it). I end up not seriously cropping pictures taken with these lenses. I think this is probably a function of the lens, not the camera and I've often thought that there's something wrong with my DA 50-200. It's also possible that the K10 has better resolving power than these two lenses. If you don't have money for better quality lenses, then the extra mp of the K10 isn't as big of an advantage as it would be with sharper lenses.
Advantage: K100 if price is an issue, otherwise K10

Dynamic Range: Just my personal experience, I don't think the K10 has better dynamic range at all. In fact, I had expected it to have less dynamic range due to the more mp on the same sized sensor, but haven't found that to be true either. They seem about the same to me.
Advantage: K100 based on price, otherwise a wash

Viewfinder: When I first got the K10, I thought the viewfinder was much easier to use for manual focusing. However, recently I haven't noticed a difference when I've been going back and forth between the two. I think that's more a reflection of my familiarity with both cameras now.
Advantage: K10

The K100's SR works very well for me, I don't haven't noticed where the K10 is any better.

Final conclusion - Choose based on these factors (in this order):

1. Budget (if applicable)
2. Which feels better in your hands (ergonomics)
3. Features

For some people the K10 will be the right choice, for others the K100 would be better. I can't say that the K10 is a "better" camera or that the K100 should take a back seat.Buy the K10 because it has features you want that the K100 doesn't have or becauseitfits your hands better. Otherwise the K100 is an outstanding camera anda great buy.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2007, 1:48 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

mongrelchild wrote:
Quote:
-Apparently the shake does nothing to remove dust
Well that is plain BS, IMHO.

I have yet to physically clean my sensor and have successfully shaken it off a few times now.

It may not work for sticky dust likely, but dry dust it definately does.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2007, 2:09 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
For some people the K10 will be the right choice, for others the K100 would be better. I can't say that the K10 is a "better" camera or that the K100 should take a back seat.Buy the K10 because it has features you want that the K100 doesn't have or becauseitfits your hands better. Otherwise the K100 is an outstanding camera anda great buy.
Yeah that is what it really boils down to... the 10D offers a lot of things the 100D doesn't (Though many who barely get beyond AUTO mode may never even notice)

For instance in manual/B mode the DUAL (front and rear) control dials allow setting shutter and aperture simultaniously and instantly without holding some other button.

Same for versatile and quick funtionality in other modes... for instance in P one dial can be program shift (equal exposure different S/A's) and the other dial EC EV variation... covering a lot of bases all at once. Their use/designation is also user configurable for each mode, and the 1st firmware update added several new options as to how they can be configured.

10D is a much more flexable and versatile tool over the 100D besides features/options that just don't exist on 100D.



Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2007, 3:02 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

I think Mtngal broke it down very well, and from the research I've done (first hand with the K100, reading reviews and personal experience on the K10) I believe that she's pretty accurate on all points except possibly dynamic range.

From what I can tell, the K10 lost about a half stop of effective brightness by raising the MP level, perhaps a bit more, since at ISO 1200 it has similar noise to the K100 at 1600, but it also added ISO 100. Unless that darker image is somehow faked, I'd have to believe that an ISO 100 image from the K10 would have about a half stop of extra DR than the K100 at 200 when shooting raw. I have yet to see anyone test this though.

As far as value for the money, I think the K100 is a somewhat better value, but the K10 is still a great value when compared directly to it's competition. And if you shoot in conditions that are dusty or wet or anything where the camera may get damaged without weather sealing, the K10 would probably be a much better value than anything out there. If you're doing model photography on a windy beach, the K10 is the only one worth considering.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2007, 1:10 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

In the first place, I'd like to thank mongrelchildfor starting this informative threat...and of course the ones who contributed!!

Ifound the high ISO samples of 1600and even 3200 with k100d @ http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k100d-review/very encouracing!The 1600almost asgood asfrom that oftheCMOS sensornotable for its low noise/ high detail ratio.

I'm not sureto what extendISO 3200capability isimportant for many. But for someone (like myself:-)) who seriosly consider capturing wall paintings or frescoesin poorly illuminated places like monastries or rock cut churches, itcould even be vital!!
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2007, 5:22 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

One of the main features that I am looking to get in the K10 is a better burst mode. I posted some of the pics I got at the Sebring races. With my K100 I could generally get a four shot burst before things slowed down while I panned with the car. This was plenty for THAT car, but I had to wait for the bufferto clear to pick up the next one. I found myself missing opportunities for more dramatic shots because I had filled the buffer already.

The in camera HDR mode that Tom (ennacac) demonstrated is also a feature driving me towards the K10.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 1:30 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

NonEntity1 wrote:
Quote:
One of the main features that I am looking to get in the K10 is a better burst mode. I posted some of the pics I got at the Sebring races. With my K100 I could generally get a four shot burst before things slowed down while I panned with the car. This was plenty for THAT car, but I had to wait for the buffer the clear to pick up the next one. I found myself missing opportunities for more dramatic shots because I had filled the buffer already.

The in camera HDR mode that Tom (ennacac) demonstrated is also a feature driving me towards the K10.

Tim
Haven't used the in-camera HDR mode yet, but the burst mode feels fantastic.

Shooting in JPG and following the bird at a display means being able to get several good shots and a couple of outstanding shots, using maybe a 10/12 shot burst, then being ready for the next swoop and dive without ever waiting for the buffer to clear.


Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2007, 1:44 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

You pretty much can't out shoot JPG even at highest res on the K10D until you run out of memory... and even RAW is on the order of 9 frames burst before you are still only like I think still under 1 sec buffer shuffling orjust take a few sec break.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 12:47 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Gazander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
Default

Can someone chime in as to what exactly "in-camera HDR" refers to for the k10d? And whether it works? Which thread is it that demonstrates the capability?

As for the dust reduction, someone mentionned that the hungarian review that tested the four camera models, http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/ is flawed.

For example, the minolta/sony has dust shake every time you turn on the cam. However, it also has a very violent, manual cleaning feature that apparently works very well that they didn't test. Can anyone comment on similar functionality in the k10d and whether the dust reduction does *anything* ?


Gazander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2007, 7:01 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Gazander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
Default

asfHere's an informative post, an amazing listserve I just found that seems to be a virtual unknown in the forums of the major review sites. This list gets as much traffic, all Pentax-centric as EVERY SECTION of stevesforums gets combined!
But it is horifically difficult to follow threads...

I don't know if the assessment is accurate or if it's a case of the new owner being excited at having a new camera...

K10D image quality jkmess at tpg.com.au jkmess at tpg.com.au
Thu Nov 30 18:26:42 EST 2006 [/*]
[line]
Code:
There may be wailing and gnashing of teeth over on DPReview about perceived problems 
with the K10D, but my initial impressions with my new K10D are that this camera delivers 
astonishing image quality! Images are much sharper right out of the camera (even with 
the same lens) than my istDL. The colour balance and rendition are vastly superior to 
the istDL and the tonal gradations and shadow detail (in fact dynamic range in general) 
are also vastly superior to the DL.

Every shot from the DL had to be quite drastically tweaked in levels to get rid of the red 
cast in every shot. Levels, curves, selective colour and slight selective saturation 
adjustments are part of my regular workflow for images from the DL.

Last night, I found that a very quick and subtle tweak of levels and curves were all I 
needed to get more than satisfactory results from my K10D files. 

They really do POP! I also did an experiment with the same lens, same settings on the 
tripod, etc between the two cameras. I shot RAW and converted to JPEG with no 
adjustments whatsoever. Unfortunately, I resized them a little too small, so I'll redo it 
with larger files, but the difference between the two was staggering.

In isolation the istDL shot looks okay. When compared to the K10D shot, the istDL shot 
is unacceptably soft, muddy, underexposed and red. The difference really did blow me 
away.

Long story short...even though I had built the K10D up a huge amount, it has certainly 
met my expectations.

The only issue I've had is the shake reduction appears to be a little intermittant. 
Sometimes it works (you can hear it during exposure) and sometimes it doesn't. 

Cheeers
James
Gazander is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 AM.