Image detail in Canon 30d and Pentax K10d

[Lilchilichoco]

I have a question for someone who has worked with both brands.

I find that image detail is much more in the 30 D than the k10. For example skin texture.Recently, I studied the test shots of both side by side on Imaging Resource and found the K10 d miserably lacking detail compared to the 30D. When I compare my shots to those taken by the Canon,there is a marked difference in the "punch" and detail both. Can anyone tell me if I see this correctly that the K10D registers much less detail than the Canon or is it only a soft picture of K10 D and/or pp issue?


Thanks and Best Regards

[Prospero]

I don't have either camera, so I don't know if I can help you out here.

From what I have read in Jeff's review here, the performance of the K10D at default Jpeg settings is not very good. The Jpegs look a bit dull and soft, and indeed lack a bit of punch.

I don't think the K10D is registering less detail than a 30D (when similar lenses are used). It's just that the settings Pentax applies to its images emphasize the detail a bit less.

Perhaps you have tried the following things before, but here are a couple of things you could do. First of all, try using the vivid setting of your camera (or raise the in-camera saturation and sharpness).

Secondly, you could try to shoot in Raw and convert them to JPEGs on your computer. In that way you have a lot more possibilities to tweak your pictures to your liking.

I hope this helps,

Dennis

[timmciglobal]

The k10d's high ISO banding to me is a bigger issue. I'd pick the 30D over the K10d.

I've personally experienced the banding, especially pushing raw shots. It really is too big of an issue for me. Go with the 30d.

Tim

[swgod98]

Go with the 30d.

This isn't a "what camera should I buy" thread. The guy already has a K10D.

[coldrain]

This isn't a "what camera should I buy" thread. The guy already has a K10D.
And so does the girl.

For better/best results with the K10D, use RAW format to make photos. Convert them to something else on your computer, that will give better results than the in-camera JPEG routines. If you want to shoot in JPEG format, play with the image settings (see the review).

Of course also the lens will influence sharpness and contrast. A good starting point would be the Pentax 16-45mm f4.

[timmciglobal]

Then yes, the K10d has a known jpeg issue.

Using raw and converting will improve detail but the banding at high iso/pushed shots still is an issue.

Tim

[some guy]

shoot RAW. Leave the jpg with P&S users. ;)



so gonna get flamed for this. :p

[Lilchilichoco]

thanks everyone for your responses.

I have tried the in-camera sharpness,but it still seems to be soft. RAW then seems to be the answer. But sometimes you want to shoot JPEG. I have had no experience with the Canon and also realize that while my images are mostly untouched,most posted here are photoshopped. Thing is,I am wondering how seriously can you take the test shots? Because when you zoom in on Mickey Mouse's nose in the macro test shots in Jeff's review,there's more detail in the Pentax K10 than the Canon 30 d,as in I was able to see the pores in black in the K10d shot but not in the Canon shot,where Jeff has used Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG lense. For the Pentax, it was F2.4L, 70mm .

The detail was also more in the buildings in the night test shot of the K10d. It was one of the major reasons I chose Pentax.

However the poster and the text on the wine bottles in the ISO studio test shot of the Canon 30D,where Jeff used the Canon F1.4 50 mm,is far sharper than in the Pentax shot,where I understand the Pentax Kit Lens was used. Which led me to believe the sharpness in the Canon shot might be due to the lense.

It seemed to me that way,unless my eyes betray me.......so please don't open fire yet. Now the Comparometer on Imaging Resource tells me completely different results. And my out-of-cam hand held Jpeg are often too soft even blurred ,which makes me wonder if the SR really works or not. Again,it could be my hands,or my inability to read how much light I need.

I understand shooting RAW would be the best thing,but in real world,does the soft pictures issue really get resolved in RAW? Because while sharpness can still be tweaked,detail cannot be created.

Do RAW images always need pp or can they be used as-it-is ?


What creates a sharp detail picture? The camera,the lense,the lighting...or a combination of all?

I want sharp pictures. That's my weakness. Nothing less will do. Will my Pentax be able to give me that?

I'd appreciate if someone could post a straight out of the camera JPEG shot from a Canon 30 D and even a Nikon D-80,something that you might consider a standard test shot.

Thanks and Best Regards

[cdifoto]

You can get sharp pics just fine if you:

A) Use a great lens.
B) Sharpen the images.

I'm willing to bet you simply aren't sharpening them properly, and when you resize for the web you don't sharpen again as is necessary for just about every camera/lens combination due to loss of detail in the resizing process.

I typically give my web size (800x533 or vice versa) images a pass of 80/.3/0 Unsharp Mask in Photoshop just to bring back a little detail...and my lenses are SHARP optics.

[Rooz]

What creates a sharp detail picture? The camera,the lense,the lighting...or a combination of all?

I want sharp pictures. That's my weakness. Nothing less will do. Will my Pentax be able to give me that?

I'd appreciate if someone could post a straight out of the camera JPEG shot from a Canon 30 D and even a Nikon D-80,something that you might consider a standard test shot.

Thanks and Best Regards

your k10d will produce sharp pics without a problem if you have all of the above and you practice some more on the points you focus on. maybe a good idea is to do a seach on flickr for the k10 and that will put your mind at ease on what a great tool it is.

i notice alot of your shots are in lower light conditions, thats one thing that will effect sharpness...lack of light. as cdi also points out, the lens plays a huge role in this aswell. but of course the user plays the biggest part, practice, practice practice m'dear. :)

fwiw, i rarely, (in fact i can't remember the last time), sharpen an image in photoshop.

[coldrain]

Compact digital cameras go for out of camera impact, processing the sensor results by applying sharpening, contrast enhancement and saturated colours.

Most DSLRs keep that down because all these processing steps can and will introduce irriversible artifacts, and the manufacturers want to leave the processing up to the photographer.

Some cameras standard saturate colours more than others (Nikon D80, D50, D40), some cameras sharpen in camera a lot (Nikon D70/D70s).
Some cameras can be varied very well between unprocessed and processed with image parameters (Canon 400D, 30D, Nikon D80, D200).

The Pentax just happens to have not the greatest JPEG rendering, but... with the correct settings and a good lens you will be able to get very decent results. So, get yourself a lens like the 16-45 f4 I mentioned already, and start experimenting with things.

The reason cdifoto and I use USM in photoshop or such is because when you scale a photo down, the scaling produces a softer result. A bit of unsharp mask gets rid of the softness.

[Lilchilichoco]

coldrain...:).....you really want me to keep my cam. I'll give it a try I promise. But what if I want the best results and not just "very decent"? I don't like too much post processing. I want to keep the idea I captured as pure as possible.....though it may very well be argued it's just a whim. What's bothering me at this stage is that if the Pentax is not able to deliver crispness AND,as is a known issue,does not really hold well in the lens area,dipping my chance of getting a 'sharp' lense, the sort that cdi has;) :).....should I still stick with the camera? Especially when I want to work with available light and am not big on pp.I am not really rushing back to the shop but it is bothering me.

cdiphoto, thanks for the tip about the scaling down....I didn't know this....


Rooz, I like to use available light. I was hoping the SR will help me there. As of now, we haven't quite got along.....still practicing.


Please do answer the questions in my last post too.


How seriously can you take the test shots? (tricky..;))

In real world,does the soft pictures issue really get resolved in RAW? Because while sharpness can still be tweaked,detail cannot be created.

Do RAW images always need pp or can they be used as-it-is ?


Thanks and Best Regards

[Rooz]

is there a 50mm f1.8 equivalent for pentax ? thats a great place to start cos its cheap, sharp and lets in piles of light.

[Rooz]

check this out. it appears i may have spoken too soon...when shooting jpeg the 30d was a considerabley ahead, but in RAW shooting..."Shooting RAW and using the same conversion workflow we can see that the K10D does indeed manage to extract slightly more detail from the scene than the EOS 30D." http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page22.asp
i read that the sensor used to process jpeg images in the k10d is pretty ordinary...more reason for you to switch to RAW. why don;t you take the same pic in raw and jpeg and see for yourself ?

raw files do not need to be PP. you can keep them as is if you like them the same way you are doing now without a problem as long as the viewer on your PC can view them easily.

if you ever get photos printed, alot of places, (in australia anyway), do not accept raw files. they will only print from jpeg or bmp. in fact alot of them don't even take bmp.

w/ regard to test shots. i pay very little attention to it. some pay attention more than others and they have some value but it is not what you should be basing an entire purchase on imo.

[coldrain]

Did you or did you not read through the review from Jeff Keller?
If you turn up the sharpness for the JPEG image settings, and turn up the contrast a notch, even the JPEGs get to look a lot nicer. Jeff shows that with sharpness +2 and contrast +1.

RAW has little to do with post processing, RAW is the pure sensor data (more or less), which will need to be converted to an image suitable for the human eye. With JPEG in camera, the in camera computer does that for you, and it depends on the settings and quality of the JPEG routines on how the results turn out. So, if it is not sharp enough for you, turn up the sharpness settings.

With RAW you do the conversion on your own computer. You determine the sharpening, colour saturation and tone, and contrast, when wanted. That is all, RAW will give the best possible results when you need it. Whether that is on a Canon, a Nikon or a Pentax.

So... I do not want you to keep this particular camera in particular, I just want you to understand what is what. Because if you are afraid to experiment with in-camera settings, if you do not see the value of a sharper better lens before you blame the Pentax, you will not be happy with any other camera either.

The Pentax you have is a very good camera, capable of very good results.
If you want best JPEG output even when watched at 100% pixel size, the best option without doubt would be the 5mp Sigma SD14. It is an amazing camera pixel quality wise.
The Canon 30D and 400D are after that probably the best JPEG cameras.
BUT, your Pentax is a very good camera, and I am sure I would be able to get about the same results from that Pentax as I am getting from my 350D.

So, unless you want to keep feeling unhappy, fiddle with the in camera JPEG settings. And try to shoot RAW and play with the RAW conversion software too.
And get yourself a decent lens or two, like I said... try the Pentax 16-45 f4. Very nice lens, I would like that lens on my Canon!
It is very affordable, look on B&H's website. I believe it is around $300 after mail-in rebates. And then you will be able to tell if your (very nice) Pentax with SR will be able to make you happy.
If not, you then could try a Canon 400D/XTi or 30D with 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. A very nice, sharp lens with IS, but the lens itself costs $1000.

Try the settings... try that lens. You will be much happier.

As for capturing low light indoors, there are very nice prime options for the Pentax. The 43mm f1.7, the 50mm f1.4, and the expensive but gorgeously made 31mm f1.9 spring to mind.
http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_31

[Prospero]

coldrain...:).....you really want me to keep my cam. I'll give it a try I promise. But what if I want the best results and not just "very decent"? I don't like too much post processing. I want to keep the idea I captured as pure as possible.....though it may very well be argued it's just a whim. What's bothering me at this stage is that if the Pentax is not able to deliver crispness AND,as is a known issue,does not really hold well in the lens area,dipping my chance of getting a 'sharp' lense, the sort that cdi has;) :).....should I still stick with the camera? Especially when I want to work with available light and am not big on pp.I am not really rushing back to the shop but it is bothering me.

cdiphoto, thanks for the tip about the scaling down....I didn't know this....


Rooz, I like to use available light. I was hoping the SR will help me there. As of now, we haven't quite got along.....still practicing.


Please do answer the questions in my last post too.


How seriously can you take the test shots? (tricky..;))

In real world,does the soft pictures issue really get resolved in RAW? Because while sharpness can still be tweaked,detail cannot be created.

Do RAW images always need pp or can they be used as-it-is ?


Thanks and Best Regards

If you want the best possible result you will have to invest in cameras like a Hasselblad or other medium/large format digital cameras (selling at very high prices) :)

I think if you would switch to Canon your pictures wouldn't get more crisp, possibly less so. To get sharper results you will have to improve your technique. You have to get to know your equipment and learn more about photography. This may take a while.

About the SR-system; what is does is give you about two stops advantage when handholding. Normally people can handhold images at a speed of 1/focal length. So at 18mm (27mm in full frame cameras), you can handhold images at about 1/30th of a second without SR. At 55mm you can handhold images at 1/80th of a second.

With SR you gain two stop of handholdability, which means that you can multiply your exposure time with two for each stop (so in total with four). Thus, you can handhold 1/8th of a second at 17mm and 1/20th of a second at 50mm. This is great for available light photography, but in very low light it might still not be enough. Also remember that motion of your subject will not be stopped at the slowest shutterspeeds.

When I look at your pictures, I see that some are lacking sharpness because they are slightly out of focus or because of blur (either due to handholding or subject motion). Not because of Pentax' poor Jpeg rendering.

While available light photography is great, it is very hard with the lens you are using. For the best results, you will either need a lens with a constant apperture of f/2.8, or a prime. Prime lenses are lenses with a very large apperture that have one focal lenght. Pentax makes many primes ranging from flat pancake lenses to the more conventional prime lenses. Which one is the best to chose, I don't know. I have only skimmed through the list of Pentax lenses and not done any further research.

You could consider getting a flash. If you bounce a flash via the ceiling or use a diffuser you get very natural light. An advantage is also that you can use a smaller apperture, which will give your shots

Raw files can be converted just as they have been taken with a Raw converter (I think one is included with your camera). You can also batch convert your files, which will take a little time. You can create some settings which makes the result look the way you like (boosted sharpness and saturation, for instance) and apply that automatically to every image you convert.

About the test shots, I wouldn't take them to seriously. Test shots will only mean so much to you in real life.

Finally, don't be afraid to tweak your images a little. A picture doesn't get less pure that way. When you take a picture, a camera takes many decisions for you, so the picture isn't even pure too begin with.

[Rooz]

When you take a picture, a camera takes many decisions for you, so the picture isn't even pure to begin with.

excellent point.

coldrain...if it's not your canon cheerleading, it's you delivering the subtelty of a sledgehammer...man you crack me up. seriously, laughin my ass off here. :D

[Lilchilichoco]

coldrain........did you or did you not read thru MY response to the in-camera sharpness? I said I have done it....sharpness and contrast both at +2. I will repeat, I do not have access to a canon to actually see the difference. All I was asking was that since the comparometer on Imaging Resource shows some serious lack of detail in the skin of the model,has anyone seen that for real? And since it’s so clear in the comparison I quoted, I wanted to get that clear BEFORE I invest in Pentax lenses. I don’t want a camera for excellent JPEG results alone,I want my camera to ALSO be able to spring up excellent JPEG results. I am not inclined to be unhappy at all….I just want perfection. At least in technology,if not in people!:)

Prospero thank you for your pointer that my lense may not be enough for what I am asking of it. I am a downright novice and I do not know how to use the camera to the best of it's abilities. I wasn't blaming the camera. I was just wondering if someone who had more experience with camera systems had seen a lack of image detail in the Pentax. I hadn't thought of flash.....good idea.

Rooz,I’ve read that review….I’ve chewed these reviews to bits,but the real thing is the real thing….and with that come real questions. For someone who knows about the mechanics of a camera it will be one glance at the specs and he would know what he’s got….but for someone like me…the reviews make little sense. And if the test shots should not be taken seriously then why should the rest of the review be taken seriously?

Pentax has this in 50mm F1.4

http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_50_F14



Thing is, when you have used cameras and know about the technical aspects and what you want from them,you have a fair idea of what a camera can produce. I can only ask people who have that experience. That’s what I was doing.


coldrain,Gosh!!..you can be a real sour old granny,but you do get me to see "what is what"....:)thanks a ton.

Prospero,you clarified a lot of things...thank u.

Rooz....thanks for taking the time.

As suggested by everyone,I'll do Raw and get another lense.

Thanks to everybody who responded.