Pentax K Series - First Year Opinions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RonB, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. RonB

    RonB Guest

    The Pentax K Series cameras are a little past their 1/2 year (K10) and 1
    year (K100D, K110D) times-on-market. How about some hand-on owner's
    impression of these cameras?

    - Oveall quality
    - Operating ease
    - Picture Quality
    - Practical K-Mount utility
    - Quirks (lotsa stuff about jpg processing, etc. What is real?)
    - Happy, Mad?
    - Etc.

    Thanks
    RonB
     
    RonB, Apr 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "RonB" <> wrote:
    > The Pentax K Series cameras are a little past their 1/2 year (K10) and 1
    > year (K100D, K110D) times-on-market. How about some hand-on owner's
    > impression of these cameras?


    Not me, but a friend I respect highly is a very happy Pentax user.

    > - Oveall quality
    > - Operating ease
    > - Picture Quality
    > - Practical K-Mount utility
    > - Quirks (lotsa stuff about jpg processing, etc. What is real?)
    > - Happy, Mad?


    The things he's saying in favor of the system include the image
    stabilization (it just works, with every lens, even the long ones, despite
    what we Canonistas say) and the wide selection of lenses, including many
    incredibly compact primes.

    He likes it so much, he went out and bought a Pentax 645 system!

    The only problem with Pentax is that they have not yet announced a
    full-frame camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RonB

    frederick Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    > The only problem with Pentax is that they have not yet announced a
    > full-frame camera.
    >


    I thought that they'd announced a 645 digital, thus better/larger than 35mm.
     
    frederick, Apr 26, 2007
    #3
  4. "frederick" <> wrote in message news:1177554824.18068@ftpsrv1...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >> The only problem with Pentax is that they have not yet announced a
    >> full-frame camera.

    >
    > I thought that they'd announced a 645 digital, thus better/larger than
    > 35mm.


    Yes. But it's more than 10 times more expensive than the cameras the OP
    asked about, so I ignored it. (More accurately, didn't even think about it.)

    FWIW and IMHO, MF digital is problematic. Since the unit sales are so small,
    the technology is nowhere near as mature as APS-C or 24x36mm dSLR
    technology. Also, it's not "full frame", so has wide angle problems. And
    since sensor fabrication costs go up exponentially with area, it's never
    going to be cheap.

    So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36 digital
    is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most will not chose
    to spend that much on a camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Who has a 5D and an L5, but no car, in
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 26, 2007
    #4
  5. RonB

    frederick Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "frederick" <> wrote in message news:1177554824.18068@ftpsrv1...
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> The only problem with Pentax is that they have not yet announced a
    >>> full-frame camera.

    >> I thought that they'd announced a 645 digital, thus better/larger than
    >> 35mm.

    >
    > Yes. But it's more than 10 times more expensive than the cameras the OP
    > asked about, so I ignored it. (More accurately, didn't even think about it.)
    >
    > FWIW and IMHO, MF digital is problematic. Since the unit sales are so small,
    > the technology is nowhere near as mature as APS-C or 24x36mm dSLR
    > technology. Also, it's not "full frame", so has wide angle problems. And
    > since sensor fabrication costs go up exponentially with area, it's never
    > going to be cheap.
    >
    > So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36 digital
    > is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most will not chose
    > to spend that much on a camera.
    >

    Yeah - but that US$2,500 is still 5 times more than an "entry" dslr, and
    there's only minor differences in IQ. (yeah - I sound like Ken Rockwell).
     
    frederick, Apr 26, 2007
    #5
  6. "frederick" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >> So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36
    >> digital is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most
    >> will not chose to spend that much on a camera.
    >>

    > Yeah - but that US$2,500 is still 5 times more than an "entry" dslr, and
    > there's only minor differences in IQ.


    Exactly. Unless one needs 12x18 and larger prints that are going to be
    compared with medium and large format, or one needs sharp images at wide
    apertures in low light, or one needs tilt, shift, or extreme wide angle, the
    10MP entry level dSLRs are fine.

    I suspect, though, that the next generation of the 5D will probably provide
    a larger step up from APS-C. (Since the new 1DmkIII sensor technology
    implies a 16MP 5DmkII.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 26, 2007
    #6
  7. RonB

    frederick Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "frederick" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36
    >>> digital is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most
    >>> will not chose to spend that much on a camera.
    >>>

    >> Yeah - but that US$2,500 is still 5 times more than an "entry" dslr, and
    >> there's only minor differences in IQ.

    >
    > Exactly. Unless one needs 12x18 and larger prints that are going to be
    > compared with medium and large format, or one needs sharp images at wide
    > apertures in low light, or one needs tilt, shift, or extreme wide angle, the
    > 10MP entry level dSLRs are fine.
    >
    > I suspect, though, that the next generation of the 5D will probably provide
    > a larger step up from APS-C. (Since the new 1DmkIII sensor technology
    > implies a 16MP 5DmkII.)
    >

    You are probably right, but having seen some (even compressed jpegs)
    from 39mp H3d, 1ds II 35mm frame size isn't "full frame" any more. ;-)
    Some time not so far away, Canon will need some new tricks.
     
    frederick, Apr 26, 2007
    #7
  8. RonB

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:18:32 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "frederick" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>
    >>> So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36
    >>> digital is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most
    >>> will not chose to spend that much on a camera.
    >>>

    >> Yeah - but that US$2,500 is still 5 times more than an "entry" dslr, and
    >> there's only minor differences in IQ.

    >
    > Exactly. Unless one needs 12x18 and larger prints that are going to be
    > compared with medium and large format, or one needs sharp images at wide
    > apertures in low light, or one needs tilt, shift, or extreme wide angle, the
    > 10MP entry level dSLRs are fine.
    >
    > I suspect, though, that the next generation of the 5D will probably provide
    > a larger step up from APS-C. (Since the new 1DmkIII sensor technology
    > implies a 16MP 5DmkII.)
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    Canon have that technology already although it is pricy - 1Ds mkll

    --
    Neil
    reverse 'r' and'a' - delete 'l' for email
     
    Neil Ellwood, Apr 26, 2007
    #8
  9. RonB

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "frederick" <> wrote in messagenews:1177554824.18068@ftpsrv1...
    > > David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >
    > >> The only problem with Pentax is that they have not yet announced a
    > >> full-frame camera.

    >
    > > I thought that they'd announced a 645 digital, thus better/larger than
    > > 35mm.

    >
    > Yes. But it's more than 10 times more expensive than the cameras the OP
    > asked about, so I ignored it. (More accurately, didn't even think about it.)
    >
    > FWIW and IMHO, MF digital is problematic. Since the unit sales are so small,
    > the technology is nowhere near as mature as APS-C or 24x36mm dSLR
    > technology. Also, it's not "full frame", so has wide angle problems. And
    > since sensor fabrication costs go up exponentially with area, it's never
    > going to be cheap.
    >
    > So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36 digital
    > is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most will not chose
    > to spend that much on a camera.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Who has a 5D and an L5, but no car, in
    > Tokyo, Japan


    It's a wonder you can afford *any* sort of camera, wot with the cost
    of living in Tokyo!

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Apr 26, 2007
    #9
  10. "Nervous Nick" <> wrote:
    > On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> "frederick" <> wrote in
    >> messagenews:1177554824.18068@ftpsrv1...
    >> > David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >>
    >> So it's largely a fantasy for real people. At US$2500 or so, 24x36
    >> digital
    >> is "affordable" to anyone who can afford a car, although most will not
    >> chose
    >> to spend that much on a camera.
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Who has a 5D and an L5, but no car, in
    >> Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > It's a wonder you can afford *any* sort of camera, wot with the cost
    > of living in Tokyo!


    No car, no kids. Lots of guitars and cameras.

    But the cost of living here is only bad if one insists on living like an
    American. There are 124 million people here (including our CEO) who know how
    to find things at sensible prices.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 26, 2007
    #10
  11. "Neil Ellwood" <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:18:32 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>
    >> I suspect, though, that the next generation of the 5D will probably
    >> provide
    >> a larger step up from APS-C. (Since the new 1DmkIII sensor technology
    >> implies a 16MP 5DmkII.)

    >
    > Canon have that technology already although it is pricy - 1Ds mkll


    No, they don't. The 1DmkIII sensor is a new technology that claims 5D noise
    levels with the smaller 1DsII size pixels, and also claims 14-bit A/D
    conversion.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 26, 2007
    #11
  12. RonB

    monsells Guest

    Getting back to the K10D JPGs, I've read numerous posts on forums that
    say that the JPGs are fine, and that if one wants a JPG closer to the
    slightly sharper and clearer JPG that they're used to they just need to
    use the Bright setting. Others are saying that's not quite so, that it
    doesn't really give you that. I'm interested in opinions either way.?

    I wish I had tried it to see when I had one for a borrowed hour, because
    I tried in vain to get a JPG that was pleasing to me using the other
    settings (sharpness, saturation and contrast). i wasn't trying to
    Photoshop it in the camera, but I was trying to get a JPG that I felt
    good about handing off to someone as is.

    I would love to hear from someone who was unhappy at first but found an
    eventual setting that worked for them, as opposed to the Canonikon
    haters who thought the JPGs were great from the start : ) Not
    doubting you, but I won't be swayed by explanations of why what I don't
    like I actually should like. : ) (Please note big smiley!)


    I really want to get over this last bee in my bonnet so I can just get
    it with confidence.


    Thanks!!

    M
     
    monsells, Apr 26, 2007
    #12
  13. RonB

    Guest

    Getting back to the K10D, I'd like to get some opinions about the
    Bright mode. Some are saying that it takes care of the JPGs not
    being presentable "as is", others are disagreeing. I know that when
    I had a borrowed one for an hour, I was unable to get JPGs I was
    satisfied with by trying different combinations of the sharpness,
    contrast and saturation settings. I felt it wasn't solving what I
    didn't like about the images, particularly the edges, but I wasn't hip
    to the Bright mode at the time. Naturally the short time I had it in
    my hands wasn't long enough to be certain of my conclusion, plus it
    was months ago, before much of the feedback on this topic I'm finding
    now was posted. So I'm hoping someone who had a similar mindset
    about it and is satisfied with the solution will chime in. I've
    seen how good the RAWs come out, so I have no doubts about image
    quality there (which is obviously more important). But there are
    definitely times I still want to hand off the images as is, to someone
    who doesn't work with RAW.


    I really want to lose my trepidations about this camera, so I'd
    appreciate any thoughts either way on this.

    Thanks,

    TB
     
    , Apr 26, 2007
    #13
  14. RonB

    Guest

    On Apr 26, 1:06 pm, monsells <> wrote:
    > Getting back to the K10D JPGs, I've read numerous posts on forums that>



    Sorry for the double post of this via a different account. I kernel
    panicked after sending this and it didn't seem to ever show up, so I
    sent another (from different computer, different account) saying the
    same thing. Thought the monsells post never went out.

    Same person. Can't seem to delete either. My bad. Sorry : o
     
    , Apr 26, 2007
    #14
  15. RonB wrote:

    > The Pentax K Series cameras are a little past their 1/2 year (K10) and 1
    > year (K100D, K110D) times-on-market. How about some hand-on owner's
    > impression of these cameras?
    >
    > - Oveall quality
    > - Operating ease
    > - Picture Quality
    > - Practical K-Mount utility
    > - Quirks (lotsa stuff about jpg processing, etc. What is real?)
    > - Happy, Mad?
    > - Etc.
    >
    > Thanks
    > RonB
    >
    >


    I got a K100D for Christmas. I love it, but I am still in the process
    of relearning a lot of photo basics I haven't used for a long time...
    The Pentax replaces a Canon A80 P&S which took decent pictures when used
    the right way, and both my wife and I had used Pentax 35mm models before
    the digitals came about. I have a K100, hers is an ME, with a nice
    70-200 zoom and a fixed 135 telephoto.

    Overall quality - I find only one thing that is noticeable, the fit of
    the battery compartment cover plate. Just a tiny bit loose and can be
    noticed when holding the camera in normal shooting position.

    Operating ease - Not bad, but I have no basis for comparison with other
    DSLRs. Menus weren't too bad to figure out. Manual could have been
    better, but that is true of just about any complex electronic item nowadays.

    Picture quality - camera is capable of exceeding my current skill level.
    Any faults in my pictures are *my* faults.

    K-Mount - this is the best thing about the camera for me. I have the
    ability to use the old 135 and 70-200 lenses just as on the old bodies.
    Both lenses are old enough that there is no auto-anything on 'em, but
    that just gives me the opportunity to relearn the basics of shooting 100
    percent manual settings... :-\

    No processing quirks I've noticed, but I just do basic cropping and
    touchups.

    HAPPY!

    Jim
     
    J. F. Cornwall, Apr 27, 2007
    #15
  16. RonB

    RonB Guest

    Hey thanks. I have been lusting over the K10D but I really think the K100
    is enough. I, like you, have old Pentax bodies and lenses that are driving
    me toward a Pentax buy. Plus I have been very happy with the old KX and
    K1000s that I still use. I also own a couple of the late 70's/early 80's
    vintage Series I vivitars that are very good lenses (70-210 and f1.9 28mm)

    RonB

    "J. F. Cornwall" <> wrote in message
    news:0KsYh.2499$...
    > RonB wrote:
    >
    >> The Pentax K Series cameras are a little past their 1/2 year (K10) and 1
    >> year (K100D, K110D) times-on-market. How about some hand-on owner's
    >> impression of these cameras?
    >>
    >> - Oveall quality
    >> - Operating ease
    >> - Picture Quality
    >> - Practical K-Mount utility
    >> - Quirks (lotsa stuff about jpg processing, etc. What is real?)
    >> - Happy, Mad?
    >> - Etc.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> RonB

    >
    > I got a K100D for Christmas. I love it, but I am still in the process of
    > relearning a lot of photo basics I haven't used for a long time...
    > The Pentax replaces a Canon A80 P&S which took decent pictures when used
    > the right way, and both my wife and I had used Pentax 35mm models before
    > the digitals came about. I have a K100, hers is an ME, with a nice 70-200
    > zoom and a fixed 135 telephoto.
    >
    > Overall quality - I find only one thing that is noticeable, the fit of the
    > battery compartment cover plate. Just a tiny bit loose and can be noticed
    > when holding the camera in normal shooting position.
    >
    > Operating ease - Not bad, but I have no basis for comparison with other
    > DSLRs. Menus weren't too bad to figure out. Manual could have been
    > better, but that is true of just about any complex electronic item
    > nowadays.
    >
    > Picture quality - camera is capable of exceeding my current skill level.
    > Any faults in my pictures are *my* faults.
    >
    > K-Mount - this is the best thing about the camera for me. I have the
    > ability to use the old 135 and 70-200 lenses just as on the old bodies.
    > Both lenses are old enough that there is no auto-anything on 'em, but that
    > just gives me the opportunity to relearn the basics of shooting 100
    > percent manual settings... :-\
    >
    > No processing quirks I've noticed, but I just do basic cropping and
    > touchups.
    >
    > HAPPY!
    >
    > Jim
     
    RonB, Apr 27, 2007
    #16
  17. RonB

    m II Guest

    RonB wrote:

    > Hey thanks. I have been lusting over the K10D but I really think the K100
    > is enough. I, like you, have old Pentax bodies and lenses that are driving
    > me toward a Pentax buy. Plus I have been very happy with the old KX and
    > K1000s that I still use. I also own a couple of the late 70's/early 80's
    > vintage Series I vivitars that are very good lenses (70-210 and f1.9 28mm)


    I prefer the AA batteries used in the K100d. When I get some time I'd
    like to run resolution tests on a bunch of old glass. I was thinking of
    a large piece of graph paper for the background with assorted small
    pictures and decals spread out over it.




    mike
     
    m II, Apr 28, 2007
    #17
  18. RonB

    Steve B Guest

    "RonB" <> wrote in message
    news:iptYh.201971$...
    > Hey thanks. I have been lusting over the K10D but I really think the K100
    > is enough. I, like you, have old Pentax bodies and lenses that are
    > driving me toward a Pentax buy. Plus I have been very happy with the old
    > KX and K1000s that I still use. I also own a couple of the late 70's/early
    > 80's vintage Series I vivitars that are very good lenses (70-210 and f1.9
    > 28mm)
    >
    > RonB



    I've had my K100D for 7 months now and it can really do the business
    quality-wise, even in jpg but you do have to learn its little foibles. The
    very best quality will require RAW and Silkypix converter plus a good lens,
    but good lenses include £35 ebay goodies like a 50mm A f1.7 I picked up and
    there's a free Silkypix version that covers the bare essentials. Manual
    focus is fairly easy with practice using a bright old lens because you get
    a nice smooth long throw focus ring and the AF confirmation light still
    flashes and is correct plus the viewfinder is decent. Prime lenses get
    image stabilisation, so you're suddenly in a different league for low
    natural light photos at lowish cost.

    Jpgs are fine, but I prefer to keep the contrast and sharpening right down,
    saturation 0, and give each picture some sharpening afterwards with a mix of
    large radius contrast boost and small radius edge enhancement, it just looks
    so much better that way but that's the same with most cameras that haven't
    over processed (and usually ruined IMHO) the jpgs. If not post processing I
    would use Saturation 0, Sharpening +1, Contrast -1 and exposure
    compensation -0.3EV.

    Problems?

    Having to be aware that the Auto WB doesn't cover a wide range so it won't
    de-yellow tungsten lighting, so manual WB or the fixed tungsten WB or RAW
    are the order of the day for tungsten lighting. AWB works well in daylight,
    bright or shaded but it's best to use the fixed WB settings. Cloudy and
    Daylight cover most situations. People have complained about the WB not
    automatically going to flash WB when the flash is raised, but colours seem
    fine to me with flash if the camera is left in Cloudy WB which also works
    very well indoors anyway with dull natural lighting, so that saves having to
    fiddle with WB settings if taking a mix of flash and non flash shots.

    The battery compartment is bound to wobble slightly if you look at it's
    sprung loaded design, but it looks strong enough with metal hinges and
    several catches, it's never caused any real problems for me, perhaps they
    could have put a stronger spring in. The camera overall is very well made,
    with a solid feel to it.

    No focus assist light unless you buy a flash. The internal flash works when
    raised as a focus assist light and works OK at short distances but is
    annoying and only comes on when it wants to i.e. when it's dark, it can't be
    forced on. Low light auto focusing is OK though but not quick and you
    definitely need to aim at something with some contrast. With a bit of light
    and a good lens it's fast enough though and always accurate bit it's a bit
    noisy.

    SR works well especially at distance, not perfect but a definite aid to not
    losing shots. It's not so much help for macro but Pentax admit that, it's
    obvious really when the system works by correcting for angular camera
    movements and yet with macro the main 'shake' is caused by translational
    movement (up/down/left/right) relative to the subject, not angular movement.

    Conclusion?
    It's a great camera if you take the time to learn it.
     
    Steve B, Apr 28, 2007
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,757
    Dave Martindale
    Sep 9, 2003
  2. High Sierra

    Pentax Optio 450 (opinions)

    High Sierra, Jan 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    289
    High Sierra
    Jan 1, 2004
  3. Davidmystery

    Pentax Optio S40 - any user opinions?

    Davidmystery, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    321
    Davidmystery
    Apr 27, 2004
  4. JK

    Pentax Optio 43WR opinions?

    JK, May 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    416
    nellybly
    May 30, 2004
  5. smolderingwick

    2 year AAS degree (w/certs) vs. 4 year CIS degree

    smolderingwick, Feb 6, 2011, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,933
    smolderingwick
    Feb 6, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page