You're welcome, Boris. More discussion follows... >> 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.
My large "-half" size renderings are only 1000 pixels on the vertical dimension at best. That is insufficient to image at the quality I desire for A3 size prints. And prints are a different media than a monitor screen ... while this size images nicely on the Apple Cinema Display 23" and I can see the tonal qualities rendered very nearly identical to what comes out of the printer, there is still a substantial difference in the perceptual resolution and imaging quality. I print to A3 and A3 Super mostly with the *ist DS output. I don't think anyone has commented on a lack of resolution or quality, several folks on the PDML have seen the prints so they are welcome to chime in. 10 Mpixel accounts for a theoretical gain of about 28% percent in linear resolution ... that will afford better detailing for wide field or highly detailed scenes, but it's not an earth shattering difference for other than large prints. It also allows more flexibility in cropping, and since I often print 11x14 inch image area, it means I have a real 8Mpixel to work with rather than just 4-5. (I wish for a 4:3 proportion sensor ... ;-) >> 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. It's more "I knew this was going to be the next step ... since I bought it, I better teach my fingers how to work the controls and learn what the controls do, and understand it in context to the camera I was using before". Luckily, the model of operation is quite similar to the D/DS models so most of that I have to learn is what the new features are, how they are useful, and where the controls and settings live. > 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. I think its simply calibrated better for the class of users that Pentax expected to be interested in it, and that user group is more inclined to use RAW and higher-end fine tuning of JPEGs destined for post processing rather than prints direct from the capture. The DS/DL/K100, etc, are targeted more at the consumer user who wants to snap a picture and print it without further ado. >> - 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? With the K10D, you can set an exposure auto-bracket for 3 or 5 steps, select the order of the sequence, and the step size between exposures. In addition, the EV scale on the top mounted LCD indicates the range and steps as well as displays the bias shift when you use the EV compensation control in addition to the autobracket. What this means is that, if I know that the meter would normally want to expose at EV' and what I want as a bracket range is EV'-.3, EV', EV'+.3, EV'+.7 and EV'+1.0, I can set my steps to 5, step size to .3EV, and bias the center point with +.3EV compensation to get the exact range I want. The display also shows which exposure is next if you happen to let go of the shutter release before the sequence finishes. This is almost exactly what I've been missing in previous cameras that had auto exposure bracketing: a way to easily set the camera to produce the range of exposures I want along with a feedback mechanism that easily and quickly showed me exactly what it was doing. I don't use bracketing too much for a lot of my photography, but for some kinds of subject matter I find it essential and have always before this had to do it manually to get what I wanted. >> - 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? - more pixel resolution - more dynamic range - more bias on resolution rather than smoothing - more controls for image processing finesse in-camera >> 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 ... > > 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 use RAW format capture as it gives me the dynamic range, tonal and color control that I find essential to produce prints at the quality level I desire. There's no completely automated way to do this, imo. And, just as important, personally I love working my photographs into what my eye intended. Once upon a time I did this in the darkroom and enjoyed it immensely. Now I can do it sans chemical stink and hit-or- miss trial and error, with its attendant waste and expense. Which is not to say that I want to spend my life in tedious, repetitious processing tasks. That's why the tools I use are vitally important ... so that I can put my time into the creative process of capturing and then rendering to a print or web image what I had in mind without the drudgery of doing mechanical things over and over again. I can't answer to how this influences your desire to 'minimize this stage as much as possible'. If you want to capture in RAW format, then it is up to you to find the balance that nets the advantages it can offer and balance that against how you want to spend your time. At least with the K10D's new control capabilities on color, bracketing and exposure, you could do a lot more of your work in- camera and walk away with JPEG files that print at a very high quality level, depending upon your subject matter and your desired degree of quality in a print. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
