Q & A #2

"Dear Al,

I saw your galleries in pBase, and I was impressed by your photos! I have a film SLR. But, I am thinking of getting into digital and am in the process of evaluating several DSLR's.

I am torn between Canon EOS Digital Rebel xti and Pentax K10D. I really like the build and ergonomic of Pentax K10D. But, as I read in dPreview, the K10D does not have as good a image processing as the competitor. As a result, the image is not as sharp!

Although, if taken in RAW format to bypass the image processing in camera will give Pentax K10D performance as good as or better than the competitors, but it will be more time consuming!

Do you have any comment/advise on the sharpness issue with Pentax K10D? Thank you in advance for your time!"

My response:

Just to clarify my qualifications to answer your question, 2 of my best friends have Canon 30D's which I've used several times & I've shoot with a 5D and XTi before.

The sharpness issue of the processor is much overrated. Your shutter speed, choice of lens and IS/SR will have a greater effect on the sharpness of your photos than the image processor. In this day in age, almost any processor is going to yield a sharp image. Are the JPEGs from the K10D softer than RAW? Yes, but not a bunch. A little Unsharp Mask sharpening is going to make the photos virtually impossible to distinguish from Canon, Nikon or Oly's.

Of all the issues between Pentax & Canon systems the processor sharpening is not what I would consider important. I think the differences on issues of price, lens availability, ISO noise, SR vs IS, ergonomics, body & lens weight are far greater between these systems than the processor sharpness. I really think you should look at those issues to make an informed decision.

At the end of the day make sure you are happy with your decision. Nothing is worse than investing in something that causes you to second guess yourself.

Q & A #1

I've been getting quite a few questions regarding photography lately. I thought it'd be helpful to post them here along with my answers. Here's the first:

"It looks like you did great stuff with the 16-45 as you continue to do
with the others. I take it the combination of a dedicated WA Sigma
10-20 and midrange 28-75 zoom appealed to you more, but I'm curious as
to why?"

My response:

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I had the DA 16-45 and the Tamron 28-75 which is a great combo. The overlap was nice because you don't have to change lenses every 5 seconds. I used them together for about 9 months and was very satisfied.

But I found that I was taking a lot of photos at 16mm and still not getting the photos I wanted. It wasn't until two of my shooting buddies told me that I needed to get an UWA lens because the 16-45 was cramping my creativity that I realized I needed something wider. So I sold the the DA 16-45 and bought the 10-20.

The DA 16-45 is a great lens. I never had issues with it and it was a pleasure to use. However I get so much more out of using my 10-20. In fact I really don't miss the gap between 20-28mm that much. And as you can see, I've been able to produce great shots with the 10-20 that I would have never been able to recreate at 16mm. The 10-20 is probably my second most used lens after my 28-75.

For my style of photography the 16-45 is neither long enough nor wide enough, so I'd rather carry two lenses one wide, one long to give me better options.