Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Pentax K10D
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:37 pm    Post subject: Pentax K10D Reply with quote
Hello,

Here I found another K10D Pentax review :

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/dslr/pentax_k10d/index.html

I didn't knew this "... The shutter has a life-expectancy of 100.000 actuations..."

Nice Smile


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow this is what I call an excellent review!

The K10D surely is tempting for the price and qualities. But if I was looking for a crop camera I would wait for the upcoming 40D by Canon before taking a decision. The 30D is a dead horse, too expensive for the features. We'll see what the 40D brings, if more features at the same price, or same features at a lower price.

As a Canon camera owner there are little chances that I may buy a Pentax camera due to the unavoidable colour consistency issues between different sensor brands. But if I were about to buy my first digital reflex, I would take this Pentax in serious consideration, along with the 400D (a fantastic camera) and the latest Sigma model with it's Foveon sensor.

I think that for manual lens users, Canon, Pentax, Sigma and Olympus are really the brands to consider due to the favorable register distance. Unfortunately the high crop factor puts the Olympus cameras in a less favorable position compared to the others, I don't know why Olympus made this extreme choice, they probably want to narrow the possible offers of lenses to their own lenses. It's known that most companies make the real money from lenses not from cameras.


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Ist Ds and it sure can compete with other brands DSLR.

Love to have a K10D but keep on buying lenses LOL.

Guido


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm a great fan of the old Pentax film cameras, I have an ME Super and two Spotmatics, one absolutely mint.

I'm quite disappointed with the Canon build quality. The plastic body will never keep its looks like the old Spotties - already I am seeing shiny places where I hold the camera. In years to come a mint condition 400D will be impossible to find.

How is the build quality of the Pentax DSLRs? Better than Canon?


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Body Quality
Upon the first contact you can notice the high build quality of the camera. The construction is based on a metal frame with a very high quality plastic shell. The K10D has no less than 72 dust and weather seals. The grip and the thumb-rest on the back are well rubberized. The shutter has a life-expectancy of 100.000 actuations which is quite a bit above average for a camera of this price point. The K10D designers did a great job - the rounded body looks somehow feminine and snuggles into your hands. The high quality high comes at a price - the K10D is a fairly big and heavy (710g) camera but I'd say it is just right here. Lately the trend moved towards tiny, cheap plastic bodies and Pentax K10D sets a nice counterpoint here even though it may not be a perfect match for the super-compact Pentax Limited lenses.



They started this with all the DSLRs Steel frame with plastic arround it.
Composite type to have the best of both worlds.


Guido


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Unfortunately the high crop factor puts the Olympus cameras in a less favorable position compared to the others, I don't know why Olympus made this extreme choice...


Olympus has been one of the 4/3 group. This group wanted to optimize new lenses to the digital sensor. Since regular lenses cast light in a certain angle at the edges of film or a sensor the quality there is not as good as in the center. This is no problem on film, but sensors are really sensitive here.
The aim was to construct lenses that cast all the light (almost) parallely.
But this cannot be (at reasonable prices) achieved with full frame, nor even with 1.6crop sensors - they are just too big, lenses would have to be huge!
The 4/3 size seems to be best compromise between optimum performance and reasonable prices.
That's what I read somewhere...

Last edited by LucisPictor on Fri May 11, 2007 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

Olympus has been one of the 4/3 group. This group wanted to optimize new lenses to the digital sensor. Since regular lenses cast light in a certain angle at the edges of film or a sensor the quality there is not as good as in the center. This is no problem on film, but sensors are really sensitive here.
The aim was to construct lenses that cast all the light (almost) parallely.
But this cannot be (at reasonable prices) achieved with full frame, nor even with 1.6crop sensors - they are just to big, lenses would have to be huge!
The 4/3 size seems to be best compromise between optimum performance and reasonable prices.
That's what I read somewhere...


It makes sense.
Of course Olympus heads expect their cameras to be used with their new lenses, not with our beloved oldies Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It makes sense.
Of course Olympus heads expect their cameras to be used with their new lenses, not with our beloved oldies Wink


This shows that they do not know anything about "real" photography.
No character, no personality, just technical perfection!


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...and the K10D clone :

http://dcresource.com/reviews/samsung/gx10-review/index.shtml
http://pentaxlife.com/samsung-gx-10-vs-pentax-k10d

I like the clone's look but as I understood where are some differences in software (firmware), RAW processing/format and verical grip (are not compatible)...


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
montecarlo wrote:
.
I like the clone's look but as I understood where are some differences in software (firmware), RAW processing/format and verical grip (are not compatible)...


I don't know if I am a frigging snob (I hope not, maybe a bit yes), but the idea of going around to take pictures with a camera with "Samsung" written over it.... it would make me feel like handling a CD player. Evil or Very Mad


PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is another reason for a small sensor.

A 100mm gives a certain dof on a ful frame of a film.

on a 2x cropfactor camera like an olympus this becoms a 200mm with the same DOF as a 100mm.

Mostly this is a good thing specially in macro. But if you want the narrow dof its a problem.

Guido


PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio wrote:
Unfortunately the high crop factor puts the Olympus cameras in a less favorable position compared to the others, I don't know why Olympus made this extreme choice...


Olympus has been one of the 4/3 group. This group wanted to optimize new lenses to the digital sensor. Since regular lenses cast light in a certain angle at the edges of film or a sensor the quality there is not as good as in the center. This is no problem on film, but sensors are really sensitive here.
The aim was to construct lenses that cast all the light (almost) parallely.
But this cannot be (at reasonable prices) achieved with full frame, nor even with 1.6crop sensors - they are just too big, lenses would have to be huge!
The 4/3 size seems to be best compromise between optimum performance and reasonable prices.
That's what I read somewhere...


Very True. I'm not a fan of the 4/3 idea but that was the original and commendable idea behind it. Now we have the problem (mainly due to market demand) for more and still more pixels so a 2x crop sensor is useless. There are some very real probems to be solved before we see real quality improvements on digital.

As for the K10D. I have tried it. It is a lovely camera it feels good, is a pleasure to use and it is the best of the the 10million sensor DSLRs. And thats the problem real quality is far below what you can get with 6 million. the Sony 10 million sensor is rubbish (I also had the Sony Alpha for 4 months) and only produces good pictures at the expense of fine detail and shadow detail. I know many who will never see it and argue 10 million must be better as full frame must also be better. Pentax will do very well with the camera and it will gain them more market share and I am pleased about that.


PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:
Now we have the problem (mainly due to market demand) for more and still more pixels so a 2x crop sensor is useless.


I don't think that the main problem with the 2x crop sensor is the number of pixels, but the fact that in order to have the result of a 20mm wide angle, you practically have to use a 10mm lens. Which of course presents other problems, because the control of distortion in a 10mm lens is much more problematic than in a 20mm lens. So maybe you can shoot wide angle with a 10mm lens, but the pictures will never have the quality that a native good 20mm lens can have.


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's right, Orio. But then calculating a 10mm lens for a 4/3 sensor is easier than for a FF sensor or the like.
Still, manufacturers have to solve massive distortion problems. Olympus, obviously, is able to achieve that, the 7-14 zoom lens is said to be an excellent super-wide!


PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
That's right, Orio. But then calculating a 10mm lens for a 4/3 sensor is easier tOlympus, obviously, is able to achieve that, the 7-14 zoom lens is said to be an excellent super-wide!


Really? Then they have my congratulations. I have a Sigma 10-20 for my 400D and it's really a sharp lens but as far as distortion goes, impossible to shoot architecture without obtaining laughable results.

Yet, I can not sell the lens, because the Canon 10-22 is said to be even worse. Also, if I want to shoot superwide with the 400D, this lens is my only choice. So I have to keep it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1