vs.
"If these are the things you look for in a DSLR, then we can easily recommend the K20D, but its relatively high price, disappointing Live View, tendency to underexpose and uncomfortable positioning rules out our Highly Recommended award. If you want more effective anti-shake, superior Live View, faster continuous shooting and a bigger or more flexible screen, then there are simply better or cheaper alternatives out there."
* Live View: yes, it is pretty useless; but I don't care, it's not a P&S, no SLR had live view until just a few years ago, they shouldn't make it such a big deal.
* [slight] Underexposure: that's a good thing, helps eliminates blown out highlights
* Uncomfortable positioning: I don't even know what they mean with this.
* Ineffective anti-shake: 2-stops vs. 3-stop in the rivals in a single test run. It's not like the K20d's anti-shake doesn't work at all.
* Slow continuous shooting & high price: true
* Small screen: the Canons' 3" screens have the same resolution as the Pentax screen. The extra size doesn't make much of a difference.
And, wow, I just looked over the noise comparison:
Pentax K20D review Cameralabs noise results
That Sony A350 is really, really awful. The K20d delivers just about 2-stops less high-ISO noise! The Canon XSi is pretty close to the K20d. Still, I think Pentax has about a 0.5-1 stop advantage (and more resolution!).
I totally agree with what Jason said: who wants a "recommended" camera that takes amazing pictures?
me, me, me! (vs. a "highly recommended" Sony camera with an unusable viewfinder and terrible image quality even at ISO 200
)