Pentax K10D Pro Review Is Live!

[Photo-John]

Our Pentax K10D pro review is complete and live.

Pentax K10D Digital SLR Pro Review >>

I think it's one of our best reviews yet. It's very detailed, it's got great pictures, the photographer reallys knows the camera, and it's fair and honest. Let me know what you think.

I have ratings to go with the review but this will be the first pro review that we've used them so I'm still try to figure out where to put them. So you guys are getting a sort of preview

The overall rating is 4.25 out of a possible 5.

[benjikan]

Hello John;

I found the review very insightful except for an issue or two. As a past sponsor of Canon and now Pentax, I found the issue of the K10D compared to the XTi/D400 not quite accurate in my own usage. In fact one of the most credible photo magazines in Europe, "Chasseur D'Images" in there most up to date testing methodology, had to downgrade the resolution results of the Canon and Nikon and in their test rated the K10D number one at 6.2, followed by the Canon 400D at 5.6, the Sony Alpha at 5.4, Nikon D80 at 5.3 and Olympus E400 at 5.2. This is a very rigorous test found on page 145 in the Jan-Feb 2007 Issue. In the printing of my images on A3+ for my portfolio, the images are stunning. In fact the Pentax beat all of the contenders at all ISO's.

Regards
Ben

[Photo-John]

I found the review very insightful except for an issue or two. As a past sponsor of Canon and now Pentax, I found the issue of the K10D compared to the XTi/D400 not quite accurate in my own usage. In fact one of the most credible photo magazines in Europe, "Chasseur D'Images" in there most up to date testing methodology, had to downgrade the resolution results of the Canon and Nikon and in their test rated the K10D number one at 6.2, followed by the Canon 400D at 5.6, the Sony Alpha at 5.4, Nikon D80 at 5.3 and Olympus E400 at 5.2.

It's uncomfortable to have to say something not good about a camera like this. Especially if it disagrees with other people and publications. It's Larry's review, but in the case of image quality, I agree with him. It's mostly a sharpness issue. I found both the Sony and the XTi to deliver sharper images. And as a longtime SLR user, I'm not expecting razor sharp photos right out of the camera. The K10D images require considerably more sharpening to get a usable image. On the other hand, I can get them sharp enough to make me happy. So it's a bit hard to know exactly how to evaluate this issue.

The purple fringing is also an obvious problem that can't be overlooked. And Larry and I both saw it in our two separate cameras. This is not something that I usually encounter with digital SLRs. It's usually a compact camera issue.

As for resolution, I haven't scientifically measured it. Because of the softness, it appears low. But that doesn't mean it actually is. Appearance and fact aren't necessarily the same thing with image quality - especially resolution. At high ISOs I think the K10D;s noise levels are wonderful. In this area, it may indeed be the best.

In the end, I agree with Larry's evaluation. I plan to do a little more follow-up with my studio tests. I will make test prints and compare them to test prints of studio tests I have from other cameras. For me, that's one of the most valuable tests I can do. He pointed out that using RAW makes a big difference, something I haven't tried yet. But I still have the camera and I have some RAW files to play with, too.

Keep in mind that we do think ithe K10D is a great camera - but more for design reasons than image quality. And at this time, I think the value of image quality in digital SLRs is a overrated. There isn't a current digital SLR out there that doesn't actually have very good image quality. It's only in comparison to other comparable cameras that we can give any kind of fair image quality valuation.

[LRY]

Hi Ben,

I'm glad you're on here to voice your experiences, particularly since you *disagree*. And since I own the K10D, I want to know how you're getting images better than Canon's XTi (400D)! Or the old XT(300D) for that matter, since my testing shows the XT to best the K10D as well. Who needs to measure it when you can see it like night and day at 100% onscreen?

All that said, if someone would kindly instruct or demonstrate to me and/or John that we messed up somehow, I will be the first to publicly say "I was wrong" and retract any misinformation or erroneous commentary. That's just expected, right? So, it would be great to reproduce that magazine's results myself, I'll look for it at the foreign newsstand. As I mentioned, the lens appears to be the weak point here.

Just so you know, I have no particular axe to grind, I'm not a Canon or Nikon or Leica fanboy, and I'm not hoping Canon or Pentax or anyone sponsors me someday. I really just want the camera to get outta my way while giving me solid, consistent results. For all my career, this has been Canon. I've used or owned other systems (Leica, Nikon, Hassy) and you know they all work great. Canon bodies (most) just happen to fit my hands better than others, although the K10D is very good too and offers all the tremendous usability I talk about in the review.

For people interested in buying a K10D, please remember that in my review I suggest that the comparisons are part of what we do here, but when you're doing photography, this debate is academic. Nobody except other photographers look at a great photo and say, "hmm, looks like a Nikon." In other words, it's the content, and it's a good bet it will always be that way. Getting the content can indeed be influenced by the gear however, so that's why we always come back to these comparisons. It's more interesting than politics, after all.

Anyway, I welcome any comments or suggestions (though I'm not online all the time). Ben, you wrote that you're using the 16-45mm zoom a lot. Maybe that's the lens to beat, because it sure isn't the little 21mm, unfortunately. Guess I'd better get busy looking for some old Leica R glass and an adapter... Just kidding, maybe someday but not now.

Best regards,
Larry

[benjikan]

Hi Ben,

I'm glad you're on here to voice your experiences, particularly since you *disagree*. And since I own the K10D, I want to know how you're getting images better than Canon's XTi (400D)! Or the old XT(300D) for that matter, since my testing shows the XT to best the K10D as well. Who needs to measure it when you can see it like night and day at 100% onscreen?

All that said, if someone would kindly instruct or demonstrate to me and/or John that we messed up somehow, I will be the first to publicly say "I was wrong" and retract any misinformation or erroneous commentary. That's just expected, right? So, it would be great to reproduce that magazine's results myself, I'll look for it at the foreign newsstand. As I mentioned, the lens appears to be the weak point here.

Just so you know, I have no particular axe to grind, I'm not a Canon or Nikon or Leica fanboy, and I'm not hoping Canon or Pentax or anyone sponsors me someday. I really just want the camera to get outta my way while giving me solid, consistent results. For all my career, this has been Canon. I've used or owned other systems (Leica, Nikon, Hassy) and you know they all work great. Canon bodies (most) just happen to fit my hands better than others, although the K10D is very good too and offers all the tremendous usability I talk about in the review.

For people interested in buying a K10D, please remember that in my review I suggest that the comparisons are part of what we do here, but when you're doing photography, this debate is academic. Nobody except other photographers look at a great photo and say, "hmm, looks like a Nikon." In other words, it's the content, and it's a good bet it will always be that way. Getting the content can indeed be influenced by the gear however, so that's why we always come back to these comparisons. It's more interesting than politics, after all.

Anyway, I welcome any comments or suggestions (though I'm not online all the time). Ben, you wrote that you're using the 16-45mm zoom a lot. Maybe that's the lens to beat, because it sure isn't the little 21mm, unfortunately. Guess I'd better get busy looking for some old Leica R glass and an adapter... Just kidding, maybe someday but not now.

Best regards,
Larry

My assessment is based on how my images have translated to print media. I don't care about how it appears on the screen, as my final images are going to be viewed in "Gloss Trendy Press" magazines. Please remember that I am shooting RAW DNG and in almost all cases at 100-200 iso. What I am saying here is that the Sony 10.75 megapixel sensor performs very well for my usage when I know which support it will be featured in. In the case of magazine publication, the K10D works very well. If I know that a client wants to do a 3x4 meter Subway/Metro Advert, I will probably use a Pentax 645 with a digital back. As to the noise of the K10D compared to Canon, I too was surprised by" Chasseur D'Images" test results. They are very objective in their testing methodology and they were quite taken a back by the results. Pentax was as good at 200 iso as was the Sony at 100 iso. These results were published in issue number 290. Another thing to remember is that the Pentax K10D is still a baby. It has only been out officially since the New Year and will present another Firmware Update shortly. I have had some focussing issues that are being addressed by Pentax in Germany. I think it is in the interest of Pentax like that of any large conglomerate, to address the issues at hand and find solutions that work for most users.

Best Wishes
Ben

[LRY]

Hi Ben,

Photo John and I have had some discussion about the value of evaluating cameras based on prints and not on what you see onscreen. While this approach may be fair given that many consider the print to be the final expression of the photographer's vision (and the digital file just an intermediate step--like film), I still feel that the quality of the file is a reasonable place to make judgements since prints introduce so many more variables.

One job I shot a couple years ago saw my DSLR file uprezzed some 300% to a 5-foot by 4-foot poster. It looked *terrible* onscreen, just awful. I was a bit scared to print it, to tell the truth. But it actually came out pretty decent in print and appeared fine when viewed at normal distances in the retail location where it was hung. The blotchy regions did not come out that way in print, and contrast edges, while not perfectly smooth, were smooth enough. And, the client was happy. (Whew.)

Anyway, I am glad to see Pentax making an effort to compete with something that dares to be different in the ways that really count, and I trust you're giving them plenty of suggestions for refinements. The K10D is a big step in the right direction.

Ciao,
Larry

[benjikan]

Hi Ben,

Photo John and I have had some discussion about the value of evaluating cameras based on prints and not on what you see onscreen. While this approach may be fair given that many consider the print to be the final expression of the photographer's vision (and the digital file just an intermediate step--like film), I still feel that the quality of the file is a reasonable place to make judgements since prints introduce so many more variables.

One job I shot a couple years ago saw my DSLR file uprezzed some 300% to a 5-foot by 4-foot poster. It looked *terrible* onscreen, just awful. I was a bit scared to print it, to tell the truth. But it actually came out pretty decent in print and appeared fine when viewed at normal distances in the retail location where it was hung. The blotchy regions did not come out that way in print, and contrast edges, while not perfectly smooth, were smooth enough. And, the client was happy. (Whew.)

Anyway, I am glad to see Pentax making an effort to compete with something that dares to be different in the ways that really count, and I trust you're giving them plenty of suggestions for refinements. The K10D is a big step in the right direction.

Ciao,
Larry

... and I trust you're giving them plenty of suggestions for refinements.

I sure am...