Full Pentax K10D review at DPreview
Phil Askey have posted full 26 page in-depth review of the Pentax K10D digital SLR. Now it’s takes far less time than in case of K100D. Well, may be the next Pentax’s camera will be reviewed as quickly as Canon’s and Nikon’s are.
While Phil enjoyed the camera and gave it “Highly Recommended” rating, he complained on poor edge sharpness in out of camera JPEGs and put 7.5 mark on K10D’s image quality (even worse than Sony A100!). But who will take $1k DSLR to shoot JPEGs only?
December 16th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I hold Phil Askey’s work in very high esteem, I think most of the times he does a terrific job, and for me dpreview is the benchmark for camera sites. A review here can make a break sales of a camera, many magazines dont really carry tests worthy of being called so, they look at dpreview’s results. Which makes it even worse: that (nearly) that Phil felt the need to add posthumously to the rating could end up sealing the fate of what essentially is a very good camera from a manufacturer that has dared making something a bit different and challenge the big shots. Things like a pro-grade built quality -with seals!- at a price point of $899 seem to get taken for granted, a viewfinder that from what I’ve seen is the best in class becomes simply a large and bright viewfinder, SR as standard, with any lens, offers “some advantage”. You can put a lens from the ’70s on the camera and use it with SR!
Digital preview, a totally new feature, is “occasionally useful”, iso is not displayed (it is if you are in the right mode, its just a different way of going about it).
Then there is the question of the jpeg softness, the result of which is that many, many people will consider the K10D a camera that delivers bad pictures. I think its safe to say that the K10D jpegs are very good looking, just aesthetically biased in one direction rather than another. When Phil found the D200 jpegs to be on the soft side, he immediately added that they sharpen beautifully in Photoshop. So do the Pentax’s, I’ve just tried: they sharpen beautifully, should you feel the need to sharpen them. So what is going on here? I dont think at all that Phil is biased, he’s a serious pro.
But could it be that the gravitas of the big brands has an a certain psychological impact ? Make one see the glass half full rather than half empty?
December 16th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Andreas, I agree with you on this. All today’s digital SLR cameras are of so high quality those “laboratory tests” are always at risk of showing flaws of either no practical importance, or errors in their own testing procedures or camera operation, perhaps even including variances in cameras and lenses testes!
For example, noted difference in JPEG quality can be seen only on screen with 100% magnification. I don’t know anyone who owns 5000×4000 40″ monitor and views photographs leaving nose prints on the glass, nor anyone who would print wall-sized posters and use magnifying glass to scrutinize them. So for any on-screen viewing and any print size viewed regularly there would be no practical difference between compared cameras. They are simply all excellent.
It always reminds me of HI-FI era of 70’s and 80’s, and reviews juggling with parameters such as amplifier power (without reference speakers), frequency range and total harmonic distortion (THD). Similar to today’s DSLR tests, reviewers were often labeling compared amplifiers as good and bad based on a parameter far exceeding practical significance. In one of these, reviewer had pointed out that THD of 0.0063% is better than THD of 0.05% (I believe that was Sony vs. Marantz test). The catch is: most ears would fail to notice THD of less than 1%, trained ear would have problems noticing THD under 0.5%. They can measure it, but can we hear it in a general case? The same applies to DSLRs: they can measure it, but can we see the differences on screen or printed on paper? I do not understand why reviewers are wasting their time trying to measure and compare distances in inches using foot long sticks?
December 17th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
The Pentax SLR forum at DPReview, as you probably know, has been crazy with the arrival (almost) of the K10D. Anyone in Madagascar got theirs yet? Just got mine and see a green stripe at 1600 iso, etc. And Pentax totally unprepared for the biggest pre-order in their (or anyone’s) history! Wow!
People have been anxiously analyzing every pic put up on the web.
It has been quite a photography education.
Don’t know what Bokeh is all about? Got to the forum and check out anyone who put a 77Ltd. on their K10D and you’ll see. I have never seen so many beautiful photos taken with lenses almost wide open. Bokeh paradise.
I had never even heard of front-focus and back-focus (let alone where to download test charts to check out your own camera) until I went to this site. Although this is informative, it makes me wonder. Don’t Canon or Nikon owners have FF and BF problems? No one in their forums agonizes over focussing like that .
Are these Pentax fans just whinier or does Pentax really have quality control problems?
December 18th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Actually I thought the FF and BF stupidity came from the Canon and Nikon forums.. It was always discussed there, but seems to have grown in the Pentax area since the influx of new users (I assumed converts from the other brands)… maybe I am mistaken?
As for the review.. Well a lot of people have accused Phil on Bias, and I think in a way he is, as we all are.. But there is nothing malicious about it.. We all have personal preferences on how things should be done, and his just seem to coincide with the Canon approach. Pentax to me seems to intentionally prefer not to edge sharpen too much, they did the same on the D. And as Phil himself said all the texture detail is there, they just chose to let us use USM ourselves after we had resized the picture to our final output (if infact we choose to print over A3)..
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
While Phil can’t be blamed for not publishing the BRIGHT JPEG processing mode, he should have at least mentioned it. Pentax’s own manual indicates that the NORMAL JPEG mode emphasise natural looks with room left to post process, while the BRIGHT JPEG mode emphasise on (edge) sharpness, and “bright” looks.
Some in dpreview have posted images that show k10d is very capable of taking JPEG pictures with exceptional edge sharpness in the BRIGHT mode. Some have even compared k10d (BRIGHT mode) with much more expensive DSLRs on JPEG sharpness. There is a debate as to why Pentax made the NORMAL mode the default. Some think the BRIGHT mode should have been the default mode since it is more comparable to high end N* and C* JPEG images. Yet others believe the NORMAL mode is preferable since it has more natural look and can be sharpened up with post processing if desired.
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I own a K10d & for what it cost me, its an awsome camera but it is far from perfect. Oddly the things that bug me have little to do with jpeg picture quality (this is easy to fix in camera, just choose the alternative jpeg profile in camera or fine tune your own settings of contrast/brightness/sharpness), it takes 10seconds. The DPREVIEW is acurate for the default jpeg profile, what more can i say, it is & the reviewer made a lot out of it, but if he had of chosen the second profile the results would have been different as it would have produced a quality jpeg that he praised in the k100d review. Pentax was right in not making this the defualt though IMO.
The K10d can be improved, especialy if they give the firmware an overhall but as they went with a printed manual i guess thats a fat chance. Some things cant be fixed like not having a seperate focus light & hardwired 1/180th pttl flash speed (my sister swore at me as the camera tried to focus in low light using the preflashing to focus, not good at all!!!! & 1/180 is blink heaven still)….
Things that can be fixed in firmware (besides obvious bugs like the auto range iso bug) are to display the iso setting in camera (it can be called up with 1 button press though, not a deal breaker IMO), DNG’s option to lossless compressed, RAW button to jepg>your pref of RAW & back in stead of RAW+Jpeg defualt & better light metering algorithum!
No camera is perfect but this one has more ticks than crosses for me, i gave up sweet Nikon gear for this beast, it was worth it (logic, 18-200 IS lens was only $200 cheaper than the K10d & sigma 18-200 after tax back in AU, with a new Nikon body it was twice the price!), just wish they gave the manual on a CD and updated firmware/online manual to reflect changes…
I emailed Phil to ask if he would reshoot on the seconf jpeg profile & then add to the review his findings. Happy to live with whatever he reports, the K10d rocks…
December 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
gynecologist speculum exam enema speculum stories