Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:14:29 GMT, Clive <clive.DeleteThis@cs.com> wrote:

>Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
>> Over a year ago there were some posts on here about the top of the
>> Pentax line then, I think it was the "iST" or something similar. It
>> was stated that the 'in camera' software was rather poor in creating
>> sharp .JPG files, but their RAW files could be converted to excellent
>> .JPG files.
>>
>> Recently, I just bought the latest in the Pentax line, their K10D, and
>> I'm finding the .JPG pics it produces are really no sharper than I've
>> been getting for years from my various CoolPix cameras, the 995 to be
>> specific. Then belatedly I read the dpreview.com summary of their
>> tests on this K10D, and much to my dismay, they said essentially the
>> same thing the story of a year ago said about the "iST" model. Also,
>> dpreview said the software that Pentax furnishes for converting their
>> RAW files did equally poorly. They recommended using something else,
>> like Adobe Camera RAW to do the converting.
>>
>> This distresses me greatly, especially since the information was out
>> there well over a year ago, and apparently Pentax has ignored these
>> reports and just continued with the same poor quality software both
>> in the camera and for the user to do the conversion. They've even
>> issued 4 upgrades to their firmware for the K10D, and nothing there
>> seems to address this issue.
>>
>> Anyone care to share their facts or opinions?
>>
>> Olin McDaniel
>>
>Have a read at this review
>http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k10d-review/
>
>Better than the Dpreview one (imo). Mentions the 'softness' of jpegs
>when using default settings (as you mentioned you do).
>
>Clive
>


Thanks, Clive. Glad to check them out also. Actually, they say
virtually the same unkind things Dpreview said about their in camera
software and the package included on their CD for conversions. This
also suggested using Adobe Camera RAW. I hate to say it, but anyone
who has read either of these reviews, and doesn't recognize the
reviewer's criticism of Pentax's quality of its JPEGs, is in serious
denial.

Now, I did spot their suggestions for doing some changes from the
default settings, which I will check out.

As to the other responders that suggest the lens was the problem, I
must state I don't have the "kit lens". Instead I bought what is
known as their "pancake lens", as recommended to me by several owners
from abroad and also the US. Further, I've tested this camera with
several alternative lenses, none of which are specifically for this
camera, and the poor sharpness pervades them all, in JPEGs. As stated
in my original post, I can repeatedly get sharper images out of either
of my CP-995 cameras than with any JPEG taken with this Pentax DSLR -
"in its default settings", admittedly.

My next step will be to obtain the Adobe conversion software and run
some tests with it. That will not be immediate, too many things gotta
come first. But thanks again.

Olin
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

Olin K. McDaniel <omcdaniel.abcd.DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Clive. Glad to check them out also. Actually, they say virtually
> the same unkind things Dpreview said about their in camera software and
> the package included on their CD for conversions. This also suggested
> using Adobe Camera RAW. I hate to say it, but anyone who has read either
> of these reviews, and doesn't recognize the reviewer's criticism of
> Pentax's quality of its JPEGs, is in serious denial.
>
> Now, I did spot their suggestions for doing some changes from the default
> settings, which I will check out. [..]

What I don't get is that someone could buy the camera, complain about
JPEGs, and then accuse *others* of being in denial for not seeing that
very same complaint in two different online reviews.

--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:36:11 +1000, "Pete D" <Doug.DeleteThis@is.a.moron.com>
wrote:

>
>You either have a faulty camera or are doing something else very wrong. Here
>is a shot that I took using default settings, the first just resized for
>here and the second a 100%crop from that shot, if you can do better with
>your 3MP camera then post them.
>
>http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/948892577_363216eaf4_o.jpg
>
>http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1335/948892609_3d292340ee_o.jpg
>
>
>
OK, I looked at them and they are quite good. So, you say this was
taken with "default settings". Was it taken as RAW or JPEG? What
lens did you use?

The lens I selected and bought with my K10D was their so-called
"pancake" lens, their DA 40mm f2.8 Limited model, at a cost of approx.
$200. There was a very critical reason I selected this specific
lens, and except for this not sharp JPEG problem out of the camera, it
appears to do what I bought it for very well.
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

"Steve B" <sbradsPUTTWENTYFOURHERE RemoveThis @ukfsn.org> wrote in message
news:f8vibr$gld$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:46b2396b.6097664@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> Over a year ago there were some posts on here about the top of the
>> Pentax line then, I think it was the "iST" or something similar. It
>> was stated that the 'in camera' software was rather poor in creating
>> sharp .JPG files, but their RAW files could be converted to excellent
>> .JPG files.
>>
>> Recently, I just bought the latest in the Pentax line, their K10D, and
>> I'm finding the .JPG pics it produces are really no sharper than I've
>> been getting for years from my various CoolPix cameras, the 995 to be
>> specific. Then belatedly I read the dpreview.com summary of their
>> tests on this K10D, and much to my dismay, they said essentially the
>> same thing the story of a year ago said about the "iST" model. Also,
>> dpreview said the software that Pentax furnishes for converting their
>> RAW files did equally poorly. They recommended using something else,
>> like Adobe Camera RAW to do the converting.
>>
>> This distresses me greatly, especially since the information was out
>> there well over a year ago, and apparently Pentax has ignored these
>> reports and just continued with the same poor quality software both
>> in the camera and for the user to do the conversion. They've even
>> issued 4 upgrades to their firmware for the K10D, and nothing there
>> seems to address this issue.
>>
>> Anyone care to share their facts or opinions?
>>
>> Olin McDaniel
>
> Pentax left the images soft on purpose, it's been documented by them many
> times. You can do a lot more with a relatively unprocessed image than one
> that's been half destroyed by clumsy in-camera sharpening.
>
> My K100D is much the same as the K10D, despite the DPR review that says
> it's excellent with jpgs. The jpgs are soft compared with almost any P&S.
> However, take it from me, if you have the in-camera sharpening right down
> so they're really soft then they sharpen up amazingly well on the computer
> and look miles better than any P&S jpg output. Use RAW and it's even
> better. Use RAW and Silkypix and it's especially good for colours and DR.
> Use Silkypix for producing 2 different exposures from the same RAW image
> and combine them in PhotoMatix and the resultant higher DR image is so
> amazingly natural and dynamic and as sharp as you want to make it that it
> leaves any P&S for dead and not just by a little bit either.

It is interesting that he complained here rather than on one of the
specialist Pentax forums including the excellent DP Review Pentax forum
where I am sure they would have told him that all he needs to do to get
extra sharp in camera results is to adjust the capture settings to "bright"
and +1 on the sharpness.

Also interesting that while Phil said he though the JPEGs were "soft" he
also said that you would not notice that unless printing above A3 size, why
is this poster then having a problem when he does not print above A4.
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW 

"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:46b35a48.6024282@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:36:11 +1000, "Pete D" <Doug RemoveThis @is.a.moron.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>You either have a faulty camera or are doing something else very wrong.
>>Here
>>is a shot that I took using default settings, the first just resized for
>>here and the second a 100%crop from that shot, if you can do better with
>>your 3MP camera then post them.
>>
>>http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/948892577_363216eaf4_o.jpg
>>
>>http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1335/948892609_3d292340ee_o.jpg
>>
>>
>>
> OK, I looked at them and they are quite good. So, you say this was
> taken with "default settings". Was it taken as RAW or JPEG? What
> lens did you use?
>
> The lens I selected and bought with my K10D was their so-called
> "pancake" lens, their DA 40mm f2.8 Limited model, at a cost of approx.
> $200. There was a very critical reason I selected this specific
> lens, and except for this not sharp JPEG problem out of the camera, it
> appears to do what I bought it for very well.


JPEG. I have used a friends DA40mm and taken just as sharp shots, if you
have this lens then you have no excuse for taking poor shots. How are you
testing sharpness by the way, what printer are you using?
 >> Stay informed about: Pentax K10D DSLR jpg vs RAW