Marlon was bothered by the VPN problem with the K10D. Noli posted this elsewhere:

Hi. Don't have the K10 but I'm a depreview member also. Somebody (forgot who) stated it quite well when he said that yes- vpn can be observed sometimes but those who are experiencing it are pushing it beyond the limits of their equipment. This is the case for any camera (N or C). So, whichever gear you buy, everybody has to know the limits of their equipment and work within those limits. Just my borrowed 2 cents.
Nols
It does not seem to be a problem for PDML members and having occasionally used a Canon 20D & 350D, Noli is right that its not uniquely a Pentax or in particular a K10D problem (I got my hands on a D80 but did not get to use it in a low-light situation). On the scale of things, the K10D is relatively new, I remember Canon releasing an astronomy variant of the 20D mid-term to address that issue (I forgot what they called it...).

Early models of the *istDS suffered something similar and that was later addressed in the firmware updates. So that could be fixed as well.

Bong

Thanks for opening up this new thread, Bong. Hopefully I can get the definitive answers I was looking for regarding VPN on the K10D - i.e., is VPN really only present in hi-iso shots, is it only present in grossly underexposed shots, etc.? That way, even if it really exists, then one would know how to deal with it.
Thanks again...

VPN really only present in hi-iso shots, is it only present in grossly underexposed shots
Yes with my K10D anyway. Sometimes it's not even there. I have an image that became a finalist in a contest which the original was uber underexposed. It was a JPG shot so when I recovered the shadows it had a moderate amount of noise, thankfully it was mostly luminance noise so it wasn't really bothersome. VPN wasn't present.

i was alerted of a "VPN" issue while posting on Fred Miranda. I personally, have never experienced it. If it does occur, it seems to happen only during some extreme situations of unrealistic shootng parameters. From, what i have read, it isnt isolated to any particular camera. the reality of shooting 2-3 stops underexposed and at an iso of 1600+ would create vertical pattern noise in any camera, any model. besides, the initial impression of any image under those settings would be of something awful.

my conspiracy theory mind, tells me that all this VPN fuss may be a moot point to begin with. simply a matter of stirring the pot for an otherwise excellent feature packed camera. it reminds me of when the D200 hit the market, it was slandered with notions of banding problems. when you researched the problem it was only visible under extrememly adverse shooting conditions and at magnifications of 200-400+. a very unrealistic situation, for another otherwise excellent camera.

it just seems, that competition is stiffening and that the consumer is now blessed with a wide variety of choices. this scenario plays to undermine established hierarchies, in essence, great for consumers but bad for camera companies depending on which side of the fence you stand.

I for one, am very happy with my pentax gear, and like most veteran photographers from the film era, all these new fangled digital noise artifacts dont really affect us, because if you have a foundation in photography based from the inherent characteristics of film, you would never subject your camera gear to such extreme and unrealistic shooting parametrs.

my 2 cents...

Mark is right. In a case of a badly exposed shot, the least you should worry about is the VPN. To begin with there might not be a photo to work with at all.

Bong