K2000 Impressions

tarsus · 06-22-2009, 01:41 PM

I purchased the K2000, moving from the K10D get ISO 3200 and faster AF. I include some ISO 3200 shots in low light situations with 50 precent cops and noise reduction. My impressions are as follows:

AF is significantly faster in all light situations. Nearly instantaneous in good light.

Feels significantly lighter than the K10D, but once I put on my walkaround work lens, a Tamron 18-250, it didn't make much difference. With a small prime, it was very small and light.

I have not missed the red focus spot as I turned it off in the K10D in anticipation of getting the K2000. In very low light, however, you cannot see the grid and have to center by best guess.

I do miss the two wheels, but having worked with Canons and Nikons at work, I adjusted. Manual mode has an interesting set shutter speed and aperture value operation using the wheel and the ev button. An AvTv mode.

In pictures taken with all modes and even scene modes, the K2000 histogram shows a very elegant perfect curve, low to middle high point to low, without any adjustment.

To my taste, the IQ is equal to or better than the K10D.

There are a lot of adjustments to picture quality, more than the K10D.

Automatic white balance is better, but still needs tweaking.

The pictures below were shot in Av mode, ISO 3200, NR on Weak, Bright picture, center focus and spot metering with the Pentax 50 1.4. Pictures 1, 2 and 3 are in a dark room with a small light. One is the shot without any additional NR, 2 is crop without additional NR, 3 is crop with additional NR in Topaz Adjust. Pictures 4 and 5 are in a completely dark room with only the candle. Four is without additional NR, five is the crop with Topaz Adjust NR.

ISO 3200 with additional NR is pretty much what I expected, more than adequate for newpaper reporting. The K2000 isn't a Nikon D3x, but neither is the price. I am amazed at the functionality you can buy these days for $400.

Hope this was helpful for those thinking about making the switch.

-Swo0p · 06-24-2009, 05:02 AM

thanks for this

AntiBad · 06-24-2009, 05:45 PM

yes, the lack of AF points is kinda annoying... but the thing that struck me is the K2000 just seems too small... I usually shoot with my left eye and with the k2000 I can't because then I poke my own eye out trying to turn the wheel! though really, I bought the thing because it was small... i'd recommend the k200d to anyone looking, for a more usable size more AF points that show (jsut in case) and weather sealing.
pictures look fine though... although personally, I wouldn't use ISO3200, it's a bit too messy for me.
oh, just thought of this, the buttons are super small and take gettting used to, not a good camera for changing settings quickly (I'm not saying it can't be done, but the lack of external controls and the fact that they are super small complicate things).

love my pentax limiteds, think the km is small.

simico · 06-25-2009, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by AntiBad

oh, just thought of this, the buttons are super small

Huh? The buttons look same size to me as on any other camera I've seen so far. Even if they are a bit smaller, they aren't "super small".

Originally Posted by AntiBad

i'd recommend the k200d to anyone looking, for a more usable size

K200D isn't really noticably bigger, these 2 are around the same size.

GaryM · 06-25-2009, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by simico

Huh? The buttons look same size to me as on any other camera I've seen so far. Even if they are a bit smaller, they aren't "super small".

K200D isn't really noticably bigger, these 2 are around the same size.

I have both, and the K2000 feels much smaller in the hand. The K200D is a nicer handling camera IMO (I prefer the top LCD for info), but the K2000 seems to nail autoexposure much better, and is much faster in operation. I've grown to like it quite a bit, it makes a nice match with the DA Limiteds.

-Swo0p · 06-26-2009, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by GaryM

I have both, and the K2000 feels much smaller in the hand. The K200D is a nicer handling camera IMO (I prefer the top LCD for info), but the K2000 seems to nail autoexposure much better, and is much faster in operation. I've grown to like it quite a bit, it makes a nice match with the DA Limiteds.

im getting a new DSLR. im stuck between the K2000 and the K200d. which one is 'better quality' or better all around, in your opinion??

bymy141 · 06-26-2009, 06:28 AM

Don't you miss the orientation sensor?
It is one of the things that would piss me off, enough not to buy a camera.

- Bert

GaryM · 06-26-2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by -Swo0p

im getting a new DSLR. im stuck between the K2000 and the K200d. which one is 'better quality' or better all around, in your opinion??

The K200D can take a battery grip, and balances better with larger lenses, and it's also weather sealed. So if I had to go down to just one body I would lean toward the K200D. But the K2000 in operation is actually more pleasureable to use (especially with a DA Limited on it), due to it's much faster operation. It's really a toss-up.

Originally Posted by bymy141

Don't you miss the orientation sensor?
It is one of the things that would piss me off, enough not to buy a camera.

Doesn't bother me much at all, I just rotate the image in Lightroom. The orientation sensor is superflous to me, but it sure seems important to others, especially DPReview!

*Duck Dodgers* · 06-26-2009, 11:36 AM

Yeah, I wish I had an orientation sensor on my 35mm prints. It's such a hassle to turn them 90 degrees!