Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by RichA, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    That's what the site speculated caused it. Good thing is, of the
    shots someone will take, it is likely few will be effected by a slight
    increase in moire, but all will benefit from an increase in resolution
    and sharpness.
    RichA, Oct 24, 2007

  4. With this quote:

    "There isn't a single camera on the market which gains so much by
    shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera RAW to convert its images than the
    K10D. The difference is night and day and indeed the K10D in this
    comparison trumps the EOS 40D for detail which hints perhaps that Pentax
    are using a sensor with a lighter anti-alias filter (although if you
    look at some of the crops you can see some demosaicing artifacts)."

    This is true to a degree - if you study the 40D and K10D results, the
    40D is at least a decent smooth raw conversion, the K10D is ragged as
    hell and actually has less detail than the 40D, just higher contrast and
    some aggressive sharpening.

    The Sony A100 beats the K10D for raw extract detail. The only reason the
    statement above is true is a subtle - the camera 'gains so much' because
    its JPEGs are awful - very flat and soft. The A100 can not be said to
    gain quite as much because the JPEGs are not such a contrast to raw

    I doubt the abilities present at dPreview if the analysis of the
    examples shown is that the Pentax beats the Canon. Even the very first
    pair of images show that the Canon has finer, smoother, more accurately
    drawn detail. If I got raw conversions like those shown for the Pentax I
    would upset - any further sharpening or interpolating etc would be
    impossible with such crude detail.

    David Kilpatrick, Oct 24, 2007
  5. No, it's false sharpness. Once the higher spatial frequencies have been
    aliased down to lower, more visible frequencies, no amount of
    post-processing will remove the damage done without causing serious
    degradation of the image. It can also be one of those subtle effects
    where you look at an image, and know something is wrong with it, but can't
    quite put your finger on it.

    Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters!

    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2007
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    But, the K10D also has at least 10% higher resolution than the Canon
    as well, which means (in effect) it is operating like a camera with a
    higher megapixel count.
    The Sony is also good because it doesn't forgo detail in order to
    control noise.
    I don't know why they talk about bad JPEGS contrasting with raw,
    resolution is resolution and it has nothing to do with "perception."
    RichA, Oct 24, 2007
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    How do you know the sharpness is "false?" If more real detail is
    visible, it isn't just a ragged contrast effect, it is higher
    RichA, Oct 24, 2007
  8. If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias
    filter - it's false. The effect will be that the higher spatial
    frequencies are aliased down to the lower ones, and this is most easily
    visible on patterned objects, as you know, creating rather nasty artefacts
    in the image. Sharp edges (perhaps what you are describing as detail)
    will be aliased in exactly the same way, creating an artificial, rather
    unpleasant sharpness to the image. Something your eyes and brain may tell
    you isn't right.

    If you like that effect, so be it. Optical anti-alias filters, unlike
    those in the audio world, are not near-perfect, so you need to decide for
    yourself what is "good enough".

    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2007
  9. RichA

    John Bean Guest

    Harry Nyquist will be spinning in his grave...
    Don't waste your energy trying to explain facts to the troll
    John Bean, Oct 24, 2007
  10. RichA

    newsmb Guest

    newsmb, Oct 25, 2007
  11. David J Taylor, Oct 25, 2007
  12. It may be worth it to see if there's a general feeling that: "Some images
    are 'cleaner' than others, but you are not sure why".

    David J Taylor, Oct 25, 2007
  13. RichA

    John Bean Guest

    Equally many people seem to think that edge sharpness is
    king and seem to ignore rendering quality in general. This
    applies to both lenses and sensors, and manufacturers are
    just meeting the demand.

    The first Pentax dSLRs (*istD/DS) had quite strong AA
    filters and older Pentax lenses tended to be corrected to
    produce pleasing pictorial rendering rather than maximum
    sharpness; the combination produces some stunning images.
    More recent additions to both body and lens ranges seem to
    have taken the path of sharpness at all cost, not a
    direction that pleases me.

    "Never mind the quality, just look how *sharp* it is" :-(
    John Bean, Oct 25, 2007
  14. Blame the pixel-peepers?

    David J Taylor, Oct 25, 2007
  15. RichA

    John Bean Guest

    I don't blame anybody, it's just market forces at work. Even
    I do some pixel-peeping, but only when there's something
    wong with an image and I'm trying to find the cause.

    So long as I have choices I'll use what pleases me and those
    who seek ultimate sharpness will choose something else.
    Choice is always a Good Thing :)
    John Bean, Oct 25, 2007
  16. RichA

    newsmb Guest

    My point was that if you look at the diagonal resolution lines the
    Canon shows aliasing artifacts while the Pentax and Nikon do not. So
    which camera has the stronger aliasing?

    Anyway, the cameras are so close none of this matters one iota in real-
    world photography.
    newsmb, Oct 26, 2007
  17. You only gave one image to look at, not several to compare. Please give
    the full URLs of the images you are talking about.

    Getting the best overall image quality may actually depend quite strongly
    on getting a camera fitted with a sufficiently good anti-alias filter,
    although some may prefer the false sharpness from a weak or omitted
    filter. Of course, the lens quality matters as well (whether it has a
    high enough MTF at spatial frequencies which will make alias artefacts

    David J Taylor, Oct 26, 2007
  18. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    So why is this false sharpness if there is no bad moire effects?
    Pete D, Oct 26, 2007
  19. Pete D wrote:
    If there is no aliasing, there is no "false-sharpness".

    David J Taylor, Oct 26, 2007
  20. RichA

    newsmb Guest

    I was pointing to DPReviews's own resolution charts from the D40

    Look at the comparison of the diagonal resolution lines near the
    bottom of the page.
    newsmb, Oct 27, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.