From: Sam on

"Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
news:463bb533$0$17217$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>>
>> All I can say, having bought a GX-10, is that their stated goal to be a
>> major player in this market should not be dismissed lightly - they've
>> made some significant improvements to the K10D and now seem to getting
>> the message that purchasers of this type of product require firmware
>> updates and accessories.
>
>
> Here you go again, "they've made some significant improvements to the
> K10D"
>
> just what are these "significant improvements to the K10D"???


OK, my little simian, it's holiday time in the UK (I know because it's cold
and raining) and I'm off to get lot's of lovely pics for you to salivate
over (note!! - *only* 'salivation' is permitted!!) when I get back.

Meanwhile, I'll let you into the secret world of the Samsung GX-10, and it's
superiority over the humble K10D.

Firstly, the jpg's are great - really good, and considerably better than
those smudged things that Pentax laughingly call jpg's. That's because of
the Samsung algorithm, of course.

Secondly, let's talk about banding (or 'Vertical Pattern Noise', as you
Pentax types like to call it) VPN can be coaxed out of the Samsung, and
it's noticeable when the DNG is converted in Silkypix.

However, open the same DNG in Lightroom and the pesky VPN vanishes faster
than an Irishman from a temperance meeting. It's gone, vanished, exited,
disappeared.

Oddly, the same thing doesn't happen when you open a DNG from a K10 in
Lightroom. I dunno why, it should behave the same way, but it doesn't.

Thirdly, GX-10 noise at higher ISO's (say 800 and above) is remarkably free
from colouring. Not as 'grey' as noise produced by the Fuji S5, admittedly,
but a damn sight better than the multi-coloured speckles that make so many
K10D images look like something conjured up on an acid trip.

I've read the reviews stating that IQ from the K10 and the GX10 is the
same - and all I can think is that the lazy buggers were too idle to
actually shoot with the Samsung, assuming that the IQ *would* be the same
because of the similarity of the two cameras. Which, happily for me, is not
the case.

So. Monkey, as you entertain the cinema queues with your capering this
weekend, you can dwell on those points - perhaps it will encourage you to
rattle you collecting tin with even more gusto than usual, in the hope that
you also might be able to buy one of these Samsung wunder-cams.



From: Sam on

"Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
news:463bb648$0$17205$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Sam" <not(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:dOSdnQrek6ot1KbbRVnygQA(a)eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
>> news:463b2bb5$0$17198$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Sam" <not(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4KCdnQJJqo7RYKfbRVnytgA(a)eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:463afa2e$0$17199$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-
>>>>> Wireless flash has been available since 1.10, what Samsung flashes are
>>>>> you using?<<
>>>>
>>>> I've bought the Samsung SEF-36PXF, which is an identical clone of the
>>>> Pentax AF-360FGZ. It cost �99.99, unlike the Pentax version which goes
>>>> for between �150 - �200.
>>>
>>> Identical clone??? LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> In fact, it's possible that the 'in lens motor' concept was a
>>>>>> Samsung requirement at the planning stage of the K10D - GX10 - it
>>>>>> was, after all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish, this is market driven because the big players have in lens
>>>>> motors.<
>>>>
>>>> 'Rubbish'? - try not to be so agressive. I, personally, have little
>>>> doubt that in-lens motors were Samsung's idea - they know what the
>>>> market wants, unlike Pentax who were obliged to constantly reissue
>>>> dismal variations of their 6mp *istD until Samsung put some money into
>>>> the pot.
>>>
>>> And all yours did not work properly?<<
>>
>>
>> You mean that there *are* some K10D's that meter properly and produce
>> images without those attractive noise patterns?!! - amazing, what an
>> astonishing world we live in! (snigger)
>>
>>
>>>> Endless product delays are another Pentax specialty (645D,
>>>> one?....) - perhaps, this time, prompted by the fact that they are on
>>>> the brink of going out of the camera business for good.
>>>
>>> Link to this "proof"??<<<
>>
>> I daresay that you're the sort of clueless fool who would demand to see
>> the hole in the Titanic's side before getting into a lifeboat - for most
>> people, at least those with a minimum of three correctly functioning
>> brain cells, the writing is on the wall and it's extremely legible ;)
>>
>> At the moment Pentax is standing on the corner like a Tokyo tart, just
>> waiting for someone to buy her.........I suppose you could say that
>> Pentax is well and truly shagged
>> bwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
>>
>>
>
> ???? Right! So when Pentax brings out two new cameras this year you will
> be a bit surprised?? <<<


Oy Vey!! - don't tell me that they've taken their rice bowl to Mr Samsung,
and asked him to fill it with cash, again?!!! Have they no pride left?! -
the honourable thing would be to simply die.


From: Pete D on

"Sam" <not(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
news:vfCdneYTTKSOW6bbnZ2dnUVZ8tqinZ2d(a)eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
> news:463bb533$0$17217$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> All I can say, having bought a GX-10, is that their stated goal to be a
>>> major player in this market should not be dismissed lightly - they've
>>> made some significant improvements to the K10D and now seem to getting
>>> the message that purchasers of this type of product require firmware
>>> updates and accessories.
>>
>>
>> Here you go again, "they've made some significant improvements to the
>> K10D"
>>
>> just what are these "significant improvements to the K10D"???
>
>
> OK, my little simian, it's holiday time in the UK (I know because it's
> cold and raining) and I'm off to get lot's of lovely pics for you to
> salivate over (note!! - *only* 'salivation' is permitted!!) when I get
> back.
>
> Meanwhile, I'll let you into the secret world of the Samsung GX-10, and
> it's superiority over the humble K10D.
>
> Firstly, the jpg's are great - really good, and considerably better than
> those smudged things that Pentax laughingly call jpg's. That's because of
> the Samsung algorithm, of course.
>
> Secondly, let's talk about banding (or 'Vertical Pattern Noise', as you
> Pentax types like to call it) VPN can be coaxed out of the Samsung, and
> it's noticeable when the DNG is converted in Silkypix.
>
> However, open the same DNG in Lightroom and the pesky VPN vanishes faster
> than an Irishman from a temperance meeting. It's gone, vanished, exited,
> disappeared.
>
> Oddly, the same thing doesn't happen when you open a DNG from a K10 in
> Lightroom. I dunno why, it should behave the same way, but it doesn't.
>
> Thirdly, GX-10 noise at higher ISO's (say 800 and above) is remarkably
> free from colouring. Not as 'grey' as noise produced by the Fuji S5,
> admittedly, but a damn sight better than the multi-coloured speckles that
> make so many K10D images look like something conjured up on an acid trip.
>
> I've read the reviews stating that IQ from the K10 and the GX10 is the
> same - and all I can think is that the lazy buggers were too idle to
> actually shoot with the Samsung, assuming that the IQ *would* be the same
> because of the similarity of the two cameras. Which, happily for me, is
> not the case.
>
> So. Monkey, as you entertain the cinema queues with your capering this
> weekend, you can dwell on those points - perhaps it will encourage you to
> rattle you collecting tin with even more gusto than usual, in the hope
> that you also might be able to buy one of these Samsung wunder-cams.
>
>
>

LOL. Sam, I think you have a problem, I will leave you to sort yourself out.
Cheers.


From: Sam on

"Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
news:463bc868$0$17223$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Sam" <not(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:vfCdneYTTKSOW6bbnZ2dnUVZ8tqinZ2d(a)eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "Pete D" <no(a)email.com> wrote in message
>> news:463bb533$0$17217$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All I can say, having bought a GX-10, is that their stated goal to be a
>>>> major player in this market should not be dismissed lightly - they've
>>>> made some significant improvements to the K10D and now seem to getting
>>>> the message that purchasers of this type of product require firmware
>>>> updates and accessories.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here you go again, "they've made some significant improvements to the
>>> K10D"
>>>
>>> just what are these "significant improvements to the K10D"???
>>
>>
>> OK, my little simian, it's holiday time in the UK (I know because it's
>> cold and raining) and I'm off to get lot's of lovely pics for you to
>> salivate over (note!! - *only* 'salivation' is permitted!!) when I get
>> back.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'll let you into the secret world of the Samsung GX-10, and
>> it's superiority over the humble K10D.
>>
>> Firstly, the jpg's are great - really good, and considerably better than
>> those smudged things that Pentax laughingly call jpg's. That's because
>> of the Samsung algorithm, of course.
>>
>> Secondly, let's talk about banding (or 'Vertical Pattern Noise', as you
>> Pentax types like to call it) VPN can be coaxed out of the Samsung, and
>> it's noticeable when the DNG is converted in Silkypix.
>>
>> However, open the same DNG in Lightroom and the pesky VPN vanishes faster
>> than an Irishman from a temperance meeting. It's gone, vanished, exited,
>> disappeared.
>>
>> Oddly, the same thing doesn't happen when you open a DNG from a K10 in
>> Lightroom. I dunno why, it should behave the same way, but it doesn't.
>>
>> Thirdly, GX-10 noise at higher ISO's (say 800 and above) is remarkably
>> free from colouring. Not as 'grey' as noise produced by the Fuji S5,
>> admittedly, but a damn sight better than the multi-coloured speckles that
>> make so many K10D images look like something conjured up on an acid trip.
>>
>> I've read the reviews stating that IQ from the K10 and the GX10 is the
>> same - and all I can think is that the lazy buggers were too idle to
>> actually shoot with the Samsung, assuming that the IQ *would* be the same
>> because of the similarity of the two cameras. Which, happily for me, is
>> not the case.
>>
>> So. Monkey, as you entertain the cinema queues with your capering this
>> weekend, you can dwell on those points - perhaps it will encourage you to
>> rattle you collecting tin with even more gusto than usual, in the hope
>> that you also might be able to buy one of these Samsung wunder-cams.
>>
>>
>>
>
> LOL. Sam, I think you have a problem, I will leave you to sort yourself
> out. Cheers.


Whaaaaaat!! - spanked already!!!, I thought you fancied yourself as
something of a flame warrior?


From: John Bean on
On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:32:52 +1000, "Pete D" <no(a)email.com>
wrote:

>
>"John Bean" <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jmem33d6tje3sd7v6d3mr4ntrams2ot16e(a)4ax.com...
>> On 4 May 2007 06:15:08 -0700, Charlie Self
>> <charliediy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 4, 9:02?am, John Bean <waterf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4 May 2007 04:36:33 -0700, Charlie Self
>>>>
>>>> <charlie...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I just checked U.S. prices for the K10D and the Samsung. Straight
>>>> >body, K10D is $850 (minus 50 buck rebate), Samsung is $1000. hat's
>>>> >at B&H. Not for me.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie, the OP is quoting UK prices so I assume he's in the
>>>> UK. Samsung sells for a *much* lower price than Pentax in
>>>> the UK, not the other way around as it seems to be in the
>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I have a Samsung SA50-200 rather than a Pentax
>>>> DA50-200 on my DS.
>>>
>>>John: Is the swing that great? When the rebate is knocked off, we're
>>>talking about a $200 difference for essentially the same product.
>>
>> We have no rebates :-(
>>
>> There's a lot of variation but taking a single supplier who
>> sells both the Samsung "kit" will sell for about the same
>> price as the Pentax body, so you basically get the lenses
>> free. The kit lenses are not cheap in the UK, I paid �129
>> for my Samsung 50-200, the Pentax was �169 - that's over
>> $300... So yes, you could easily save the equivalent of $200
>> in the UK by buying a Samsung rather than Pentax, depending
>> on what kit you buy.
>>
>>
>>>Certainly, if I could get a GX10 for $200 less than the Pentax, I'd be
>>>at least poised to leap, even though I don't really have the hots for
>>>either one...but at $600!
>>>
>>>Of course, the OP was writing about either pounds or euros, both of
>>>which are worth more than the buck. And his cost was $1,195. Argh!
>>>Ouch. That's my wallet screaming in commiseration. I'm complaining
>>>about, essentially, an $825 K10D. I apologize.
>>
>> Yep, that's the way it is. After saving your $200 equivalent
>> by buying Samsung instead of Pentax here in the UK you would
>> still be paying $200 more than US prices for Pentax. It's a
>> funny old world.
>
>And the Samsung only supports DNG so you need double the memory compared to
>PEF files when you shoot RAW.

I fail to see how that's pertinent to this part of the
discussion Pete. In the UK you can save a lot by buying
Samsung rather than Pentax - and memory is getting cheaper
almost by the minute. In the US (and maybe other places) the
Samsung price isn't competitive so it's a moot point anyway.

You probably know my feelings about equipment from dpreview
and other places, and I'm a fairly strong supporter of
Pentax. But your articles in this thread do neither you nor
Pentax any favours, instead you come across as an
evangelical fanboy.

The OP is equally silly in his bashing of the K10D since
independant tests have shown no significant difference in
image quality, but his point about the UK pricing is
absolutely valid.

--
John Bean