Hi! Godfrey, thank you for such a well detailed and thought out response. My reply is between your lines.
> That's an unrealistic expectation. Both the *ist D and *ist DS are > very competent cameras. You will not see major improvements at web > resolution rendering between them and the K10D if you are exploiting > their capabilities to the fullest. Well, I am not trying to make my decision based on web resolution samples. However, unlike many others, for example, you, Godfrey, provide bigger images as well. This makes it more interesting. I will need to draw a conclusion that will be as close as possible to making A3 prints from both *istD and K10D and comparing them. I realize this is difficult task, but unlike *istD that was virtually given to me, I have to shell out considerable chunk of money for K10D. Although I can afford it, I cannot do so lightly. I hope it makes sense. > I've been completely unconcerned with the expected advantages of the > K10D regarding image quality: I knew in advance that it would have > improved resolution for large prints, that the upper bound of noise > and sensitivity would not be a problem for me, etc. That's why all > the picayune whinging about it has been nonsense as far as I'm > concerned. Pentax has built a very fine camera in the D, DS and other > siblings ... the K10D continues in that tradition with new > capabilities regards color balance adjustability, better capture > handling, speed and responsiveness, etc. That goes without questions. > In these preliminary snapshots, I'm testing more the camera's > dynamics in use and new features. I'm still in the "getting to know > you" stage of K10D ownership ... I find the *ist DS to be a very very > competent camera and I'm looking for what the K10D offers that > improves upon it, for my use. So far: Thus, in other words, and correct me if I am wrong, you were testing this time mostly usability and/or ergonomics. It's like getting a new car for the very first ride - to see if all controls are in place, if new features are logical and easily accessible. This is like testing a new car for whether you and the new car can become friends, so to say. > - The overall speed and responsiveness of the K10D, both AF and IO > systems, is an huge plus and worth the additional bulk and weight. Indeed. > - The metering system seems to be more consistent and closer to the > corrent calibration for RAW capture. That's quite significant. I often found that *istD exposes for JPEG so to say. Either I have to correct it on the spot by dialing in some exposure correction, or I have to neutralize this in RAW processing. From what you're saying it would appear that K10D does more thorough and exact work in camera thereby decreasing the processing time necessary afterwards. > - The color balance control system is extremely good ... I'm still > learning it, but it's the first camera I've used where i might want > to use in-camera JPEG capture intentionally. Fascinating, but I would wait for your further verdict here. > - I like the fact that nearly all the features of the DS I never > used ... the program presets ... are gone and replaced with features > that I likely *will* use. I did not care for these "toy" features either. I am kind of frustrated that instead of this excellent green button in manual mode my MZ-6 is having all these "toy" features. > - The Shake Reduction system will extend some of my hand-held > capabilities. Indeed. > - The exposure bracketing options and feedback are the *best* I've > seen in any camera ... this is the first camera since I've had the > feature available that I consider it actually useful. Can you please elaborate? > - The K10D offers nuance beyond what the *ist DS offers. Image > quality seems right up to par, meets my expectations for improvement > over the DS. Noise is well controlled, and the bias to resolution and > detailing vs smoothness is what I prefer: I can always smooth things > myself, but I can't add detail. Indeed, you cannot produce information if it wasn't really captured. Though you can hmmm hide or smooth out information if you have it and see that it is redundant. Can you please elaborate further about the "improvement over the DS" part? > Because a complete first impression should include what I don't like ... That would be fair, I think ;-). > Well, the only thing I can think of is that if I were designing the > two-wheel control system, I would have placed the front wheel more to > the inside of the grip and maybe at a slight angle to make it easier > to use. And I might have used a different lever design on the focus > mode switch to allow it to be operated without looking at it more > easily. Both of these things seem to be mostly a matter of ergonomic > accommodation at this point in time: I'll adapt as I get my > musculature trained for the new control positions and movements. Well, if you decide you want to sell it... ;-) > One of the things I was testing in this first set of photos was not > the camera itself at all ... It was how well using Adobe Camera Raw > with the in-camera DNG format RAW files would work, since Adobe has > not yet released a version of Camera Raw or Lightroom that supports > K10D PEF files. There's been some debate on this topic between myself > and a couple of friends who's opinions I usually find credible. We > disagree about Camera Raw ... They prefer Silkypix, which I find near > to unusable due to its UI although it produces very good quality RAW > conversions. So one of my goals in this first exploration was to see > whether I could get the kind of results I would be satisfied with > using Camera Raw or whether I needed to move to a different RAW > processing application and workflow to get my work done. I'm happy so > far that I can get what I want out of my current tool set, I'm not > yet finished convincing myself that I can get the same or better > quality than the others produce. Here you loose me. Simply because I don't have as much expertise in RAW processing as you do. What I would like is actually to minimize this stage as much as possible. I want to shoot or take a picture if you will, and be done with it. I don't want to spend much time if possible no time at all doing the RAW processing. For example if K10D is consistent (which *istD does not seem to be) enough so that I can process just the first image from the series and then apply my processing parameters to all other images getting consistently correct and good result, that would be a big plus for my way of doing things. I await more good news from you, Godfrey. Thanks again for your detailed response. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
