Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boon Lay
    Posts
    896

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    just go with KX with higher ISO and Good IQ had K10 and K20 before but the KX Iq is a lil better than the two,, of course WR is not with KX
    Canon 5D2, 1dmk2n, 24-70 L, 70-200 L, 50 1.8

  2. #22

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by repairedlens View Post

    I am concerning of the pixel quality since i am submitting to microstock that image quality is important. I am sure K7 is comparable to k10D/20D, but how is KX, that 2 year technology helps?
    i think perhaps if you read more about microstock/stock photography you will realise that most dslrs have acceptable image quality.

    what they are more concerned about tends to be noise, and whether you have overmanipulated it such that at high resolution the pixels have somewhat degraded. for example, if you submit a k-x image at iso3200, versus a k10d image at iso100, you bet they'd take the second over the first if they had to take one, all other things equal.

    and of course, the nature of your images. stock images tend to be very.. typical, somehow. things that relate to advertising, things that fit in advertising. you are right that stock agencies do not tend to care much about whether an image is award winning, or whether the composition is great, they are looking out for certain things. i know friends who took up stock photography pretty seriously, some of them got in too deep, and it became a bit tiresome to hear them evaluating every image in relation to stock, e.g. "this image can be used for stock, and is nice, not bad", or "this image is bad, but a stock agency will have use for it so i will shoot it".

    did they earn money? yes. but to me they didn't quite get sufficient renumeration for their effort. possibly because they used the stock agencies with less than satisfactory compensation. i won't know, what i saw was that stock photography tended to kill one's interest in photography for the things i held dear, so my advice for anyone who takes photography up as a hobby - if you do not need that extra income, try not to get too serious in stock photography. of course there are people who can maintain that balance and keep stock and hobby apart, but not everyone can do that, and that's something to think about.

    even if you have a 6 megapixel image, i wager you can find a stock agency to take it, just that you won't be able to sell it at the higher end of reso if there is such an option.........?
    Last edited by night86mare; 18th April 2010 at 10:56 PM.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    strange person, sound very arrogant, i know what is ISO3200 and ISO100, and what make you think you read more about microstock than me. and do you mean your "opinion"? quite strange someone make own opinion as '"advice" to everyone who take up this hobby.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    btw, just for your information:

    http://www.alamy.com/contributor/hel...al-cameras.asp

    Pentax:

    * Pentax K-7
    * Pentax K20D
    * Pentax K200D
    * Pentax K10D / Grand Prix
    * Pentax K-x
    * Pentax K2000 (K-m)
    Last edited by night86mare; 19th April 2010 at 01:06 AM.

  5. #25
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by kengoh View Post
    Didn't know that. Dunno why I find the D90 color more vibrant.
    K-X's color not bad too, quite natural.
    Color is user settable. Also, you can do PP to get to whatever color tones that suit you. But this is just my opinion.

    The basic sensor is the same. It is the image processing algorithms that are different. Nowadays, with so many sensors being used across different levels of camera bodies, the defining factors that separate cameras from different levels are the feature sets offered apart from the sensor.

    That said, with regards to electronic items, newer is usually better. But we are just saying that certain parts are better (like the sensor, or LCD..etc), but in terms of handling and feature set, an entry level K-x might not be suitable for you if really need features from a K10D, K20D body that is not available on a K-x. But my personal opinion for consumer electronics is to buy first hand whenever possible. Things break a lot easier nowadays.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    listing for k10d STOCK IMAGES:

    http://www.shutterpoint.com/camera/P...0PENTAX%20K10D

    you can do broad search for k20d, also got listing.

    hey presto, even got k100d images:

    http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-V....cfm?id=500101
    http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-V....cfm?id=640348

    shrug.
    Last edited by night86mare; 19th April 2010 at 01:06 AM.

  7. #27
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by repairedlens View Post
    strange person, sound very arrogant, i know what is ISO3200 and ISO100, and what make you think you read more about microstock than me. and do you mean your "opinion"? quite strange someone make own opinion as '"advice" to everyone who take up this hobby.
    Take it easy. If you read night86mare's post properly, he wasn't dissing you at all. Don't be so sensitive and no need to get so aggressive. If you cannot even take any viewpoint but your own, why even bother asking anything in a forum at all? Might as well find a bunch of yes-men.

    All his post is saying is pure and simple.

    - All images clean enough will be suitable for stock photography. Any DSLR at low iso will produce acceptable quality.
    - Success in stock photography is more of taking photos people will use, and that may not be in line with what you want/like to shoot.
    - And no one is saying you know nothing about stock photography.

    So cool it. Shoot more, live long, and prosper.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post

    - All images clean enough will be suitable for stock photography. Any DSLR at low iso will produce acceptable quality.
    - Success in stock photography is more of taking photos people will use, and that may not be in line with what you want/like to shoot.
    - And no one is saying you know nothing about stock photography.
    thanks for the summary.

    sometimes i wonder if what i write is really so offensive.

  9. #29
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    thanks for the summary.

    sometimes i wonder if what i write is really so offensive.
    Nowadays people are very touchy la. Very sensitive one, very emo.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Color is user settable. Also, you can do PP to get to whatever color tones that suit you. But this is just my opinion.
    I wonder if we can just set it in-cam? PP for every photo we take I think is very time consuming.


    IMO, definitely KX high ISO has lower noise than k10D/k20D. But, the noise signature is different. KX doesnt have the film-grain like noise. Depends if you like which type of noise I guess.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    Nowadays people are very touchy la. Very sensitive one, very emo.
    cool, let's get back to discussion.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    I think if one really talk about image quality terms in technical way, more JPG out of camera have been processed and compressed by their in-camera processor, every brand of camera had fine-tuned what they think it is 'best' for user.

    base on your guys experience, it seems to me as long as it stays low ISO the image quality won't differ too much.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by kof88 View Post
    I wonder if we can just set it in-cam? PP for every photo we take I think is very time consuming.


    IMO, definitely KX high ISO has lower noise than k10D/k20D. But, the noise signature is different. KX doesnt have the film-grain like noise. Depends if you like which type of noise I guess.
    I think in stock image, it must not have any noise whatsoever. Coz I did joined shutterstock once(itchy hand anything join haha) but when I read the terms...wah piang until cross-eyed. Thats why people who do this need a good camera and a good hands too.

    But I do agree, getting a 1st hand is much better. Never know when will the 2nd hand will break down unless its a 2nd hand kx or newer models which u not need to worry.

    2cents
    My Flickr iownthislensthatlensthislensthatlens

  14. #34

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    I don't know much about stock photos (or shutter stock in this case), but after my 5min browsering there, I think the most important thing for stock photos is still the photo quality instead of pixel quality. Yes, pixels count for the value, but your photos have to be good to begin with.

    If you care about pixel quality more than photo quality, go and get a full frame camera, then your photos would have better chance to be sold. Most APC-C cameras are good enough to make good photos, but pixelwise still can't compete against full frame cameras.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by fengwei View Post
    I don't know much about stock photos (or shutter stock in this case), but after my 5min browsering there, I think the most important thing for stock photos is still the photo quality instead of pixel quality. Yes, pixels count for the value, but your photos have to be good to begin with.

    If you care about pixel quality more than photo quality, go and get a full frame camera, then your photos would have better chance to be sold. Most APC-C cameras are good enough to make good photos, but pixelwise still can't compete against full frame cameras.
    Hi Fengwei, it is true and also untrue for those microstock agency..of course photo quality is important. Most scanned slide or negative images will be rejected unless it is done by high-end scanner.

    microstock is a bit different from Alamy or Getty... i give you an example, they sell something like an apple isolated on white background. Some designer will buy that to use for their design, like illustration or image manipulating..

  16. #36

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by repairedlens View Post
    Hi Fengwei, it is true and also untrue for those microstock agency..of course photo quality is important. Most scanned slide or negative images will be rejected unless it is done by high-end scanner.

    microstock is a bit different from Alamy or Getty... i give you an example, they sell something like an apple isolated on white background. Some designer will buy that to use for their design, like illustration or image manipulating..
    Oh I see... I thought must sui-sui take great pic. Coz I read the term in Shutterstock like very scary.It made me stress until I never take any pic for them hahaha
    My Flickr iownthislensthatlensthislensthatlens

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Serangoon Ave. 4
    Posts
    274

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by ricsal View Post
    I think in stock image, it must not have any noise whatsoever.
    You're right - in the 'conditions' of one I was looking it it specified you had to do noise reduction process on every shot - so obviously they like that artificial plastic-type Canon look plus over saturation. Makes everything look like computer graphics.

    Tim

  18. #38

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    Quote Originally Posted by timo View Post
    You're right - in the 'conditions' of one I was looking it it specified you had to do noise reduction process on every shot - so obviously they like that artificial plastic-type Canon look plus over saturation. Makes everything look like computer graphics.

    Tim

    if you are interested of those website, may check my blog link,

    http://bobobuha.wordpress.com/2010/0...ebsite-big4-2/

    actually different microstock website may have different kind of images they try to accept, just like different people have different taste of images, but it is also not true that a 'clean' or heavy photoshopped images are preferred. Imagine the buyer is usually will use the images for more photoshop and montage in some effect or enhancement, so saturation or other photoshop fine-tuning of your photos should keep to minimum.

  19. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Toa Payoh
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D

    IMHO altho IQ is impt, what will the image be used for is what will determine the IQ needed. If the agency needs images on a big wall, of course IQ is very impt. But to use images for brochures, standard posters, the difference in IQ will be insignificant. The photographers images will not please or be accepted be everyone. So is IQ important, my answer is "it depends". my one-cent worth.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •