On 2005-09-19 07:46, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:16 AM, Martin Trautmann wrote: > > I feel, this is very justified, too. Systems should be at a reasonable > > default setup. ... > > The defaults Pentax set work very well for whom they targeted them to > be useful.
Hm - I feel that the result is reasonable. However, a DSLR is IMHO aimed at higher precision than ordinary P&S - so the default setup could be expected to offer high quality. At least ISO and resolution defaults are high, too. > The use the word "Bright", not "Vivid" ... sorry. Page 108 in the > *ist DS manual, the Color Tone option describes the setting. Thanks - So I don't have to look for vivid. But then I do understand your critique even less: Is it correct that the default setup (which is a fixed default for picture modes) will produce images that are significantly worse than those from other DSLRs? Your suggested solutions were - change the setp (which can be done for non-picture-modes only) - use RAW (which is double size compared to other companies) > *ist DS PEF files are 9.7-10.8 Mbytes in size apiece. Canon 10D CRW > files are 6.5-7.8 Mbytes apiece. While the Pentax files are larger, I > see little reason to disparage them as being "huge". I don't know how fast compression is: saving double sized raw images could be slower. On the other hand compression + compressed saving might take longer than saving uncompressed. So I don't know whether there's a speed penalty. However, there's a storage penalty when your memory device can take half the images only. > For the users for whom the program presets were created, those who > normally want to make modest sized prints directly out of the camera, > the settings are excellent: they do a better job than the program > presets on my Canon 10D, for instance. Agreed - maybe they print directly from the camera. > For enthusiasts who want to > get the most out of the camera, they use P, Tv, Av, M and B settings. Hm - 'enthusiasts' refused P or AF (and probably some time ago Tv and Av, too). Maybe the refuse to use auto-ISO, too. However, I'n mot sure whether auto picture modes is NOT a default setup for many enthusiasts who expect reasonably best results. > > Do you know any other comparison documented online, comparing the jpeg > > quality of different cameras, which is of better quality than > > dpreview looks like? > > I don't personally search for all possible review sites. I look at > DPReview, Imaging-Resource, Steve's and a couple others as people > mention them. I did not check all of them - but the logical questions would be: - what's the optimum JPEG setup for best quality - how does this compare to other cameras' optimum setup - is there a choice (e.g. via firmware updates or optios) to make this setup the new default Maybe this was answered before? I feel that your answer did not correct the info that Pentax' JPEG output is of inferior quality, but confirmed it. > Normally, I just go to the store and look at a camera > I'm interested in myself, shoot my own test images, and make my > judgments from that. That's a good idea how the camera feels. But it's not exactly true, how well the camera performs compared to others. If you just want the look and feel of the camera - and its test shots - that's sufficient. But the digital area offers better options to compare picture quality directly. It's what should be expected from camera comparisons: where does one perform better than the other. Personally, I don't have the equipment to do those tests. That's why external verifications appear so valuable - and why I'd like to understand what should be wrong about them.
