K20D VS Canon 40D High ISO (Not 56K Friendly)

[svenphoto]

Originally Posted by TDN

Nikon D300: € 1575.00

Pentax K10D: € 615.00

Pentax K20D: € 995.00

For almost €1000 difference with the K10D, the D300 better be better...
The fact that the 2 are even being compared is a compliment to Pentax

I have no doubt the K20D will be able to hold its ground next to the big guns.

Tom

well you are absolutly right...!the difference in price is even bigger adding 2 2.8 sr lenses in the combo,i.e. k10d+2 da* =2000euro d300+ 2 2.8 sr lenses = 4000euro.....thats why i love pentax . My thoughts during the studio-shoot were not including any rational cost-performance elements. Just frustration that the regular dimmed modelling lights were making my k10d/da*50-135 hunt for focus all the time ,making me sweat, and missing shots, while when using the d300, i was just overwhelmed with its acuracy and i could totally focus on composition and timing /reacting on the model. with that in mind and my da*16-50 problems that i posted earlier, I was just hoping to see the k20d being on top at atleast 1 point: -image quality. I am carefull in judging the pics above, on a small note the woodcolour seems better with the 40d, but ofcourse only Chris can tell us that, since his eyes where there!! also i wonder about the yellows on the spray can. on my monitor the ones in the k20d show up as neon-like, while the 40d ones just plain yellow. what does this can look like to your eyes chris?
Furthermore i love these comparisons, and learn everyday from almost all of you at this forum, so please correct me if i am wrong.

[Jonson PL]

Hi Chris,
thanks for taking the time and setting up the test. This time around, I actually prefer the K20.

[Gruoso]

Originally Posted by svenphoto

well you are absolutly right...!the difference in price is even bigger adding 2 2.8 sr lenses in the combo,i.e. k10d+2 da* =2000euro d300+ 2 2.8 sr lenses = 4000euro.....thats why i love pentax .

Let us talk about real prices with the comparison of the OP (K20D vs 40D).

40D+Canon 70-200 f4 USM IS +Tokina 12-24+canon 50f1.8II+ Canon 300 f4 USM IS + Tokina 16-50 = 1100+1100+ 450+ 80+ 1200+ 650= 4580 USD

K20d+ Pentax 70-200 (ops, let us say 50-135 f2.8)+ Pentax 12-24+ Pentax FA50 f1.4+ Pentax 300 f4 + Pentax 16-50= 1300+800+650+200+1250+650= 4850 USD

Of course I am not considering other things such as the flexibility of the system, third party equipment.... I think that some people should start to explain its decissions in terms of preference rather than it terms of price. With the new offers, seems that Pentax is not a bargain anymore. It is no more (and no less) than an excellent system for those that make a given type of photography.

Btw Sven, this is nothing personal against you, I am just using your quote to make a point.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Wow, I really like the look of the K20's noise better than that of the 40D's

Looks like the K20 spanks the 40D even more than the K10 did to the 30D!

I know that I'm upgrading when I can for sure now!

SLC

[aegisphan]

Originally Posted by Gruoso

Let us talk about real prices with the comparison of the OP (K20D vs 40D).

40D+Canon 70-200 f4 USM IS +Tokina 12-24+canon 50f1.8II+ Canon 300 f4 USM IS + Tokina 16-50 = 1100+1100+ 450+ 80+ 1200+ 650= 4580 USD

K20d+ Pentax 70-200 (ops, let us say 50-135 f2.8)+ Pentax 12-24+ Pentax FA50 f1.4+ Pentax 300 f4 + Pentax 16-50= 1300+800+650+200+1250+650= 4850 USD

Of course I am not considering other things such as the flexibility of the system, third party equipment.... I think that some people should start to explain its decissions in terms of preference rather than it terms of price. With the new offers, seems that Pentax is not a bargain anymore. It is no more (and no less) than an excellent system for those that make a given type of photography.

Btw Sven, this is nothing personal against you, I am just using your quote to make a point.

I just wonder why you would get the Canon 50/1.8 and not the 50/1.4 as a comparable one to the Pentax 50/1.4. The new Canon 50/1.4 would be around 350. That would put the Canon system in the same square with the Pentax's. Besides, the 40D is not really a direct competitor with the K20D, more like the Canon's 50D. At the moment, I think the Nikon D300 might make the valid comparison.

In the end of day, I have to agree that it's all in personal preference. If your studio shooting demands a good low light AF system, then either Canikon would be a better candidate. I would not hesitate to switch if the Pentax's becomes inadequate for my work. Fortunately for me, this is simply my hobby so I can get by with the slowness/incompetency of the AF system.

[Gruoso]

Originally Posted by aegisphan

In the end of day, I have to agree that it's all in personal preference. If your studio shooting demands a good low light AF system, then either Canikon would be a better candidate. I would not hesitate to switch if the Pentax's becomes inadequate for my work. Fortunately for me, this is simply my hobby so I can get by with the slowness/incompetency of the AF system.

At the end of the day either the 40D, D300, A700, E-3 and K20D is overkill for my uses too. I rarely need fast AF-FPS, I rarely shoot above ISO400 and I rarely print big. Pentax had the best value in bodies and old lenses. It had high quality equipment at, some times, ridiculous low prices and a compatibility with old lenses that above all things is what I like the most of Pentax. I just feel that the last products are not the best price/performance ratio any more and they are actually quite far from being it, but at least, the compatibility remains untouched. Saying that, and before critics arise, I do think that the K20 is a tremendous camera. I only think that it has some gaps that make the price look to high to me.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by Gruoso

Let us talk about real prices with the comparison of the OP (K20D vs 40D).

40D+Canon 70-200 f4 USM IS +Tokina 12-24+canon 50f1.8II+ Canon 300 f4 USM IS + Tokina 16-50 = 1100+1100+ 450+ 80+ 1200+ 650= 4580 USD

K20d+ Pentax 70-200 (ops, let us say 50-135 f2.8)+ Pentax 12-24+ Pentax FA50 f1.4+ Pentax 300 f4 + Pentax 16-50= 1300+800+650+200+1250+650= 4850 USD

That's a very unfair comparison. Not only the 50mm F1.4 vs F1.8 (the Canon F1.8 certainly can't compete with the Pentax 1.4 on any level), but an F4 long zoom vs an F2.8 one? Two third-party lenses for Canon vs zero for Pentax? And to be completely fair, you'd need all IS lenses on the Canon side - which means no 50mm and not the Tokina 16-50mm.

You can work prices any way you want and you can certainly build a K20D system for the same or less than a comparable 40D.

[Gruoso]

Originally Posted by Groucho

That's a very unfair comparison. Not only the 50mm F1.4 vs F1.8 (the Canon F1.8 certainly can't compete with the Pentax 1.4 on any level), but an F4 long zoom vs an F2.8 one? Two third-party lenses for Canon vs zero for Pentax? And to be completely fair, you'd need all IS lenses on the Canon side - which means no 50mm and not the Tokina 16-50mm.

You can work prices any way you want and you can certainly build a K20D system for the same or less than a comparable 40D.

You have to consider that I am not a canon dealer I just was putting an example of what I think that it is a compelling equipment for both brands with similar quality. As Aegispan mentioned you can change the 50 1.8 for the 50 f1.4 and the price will match. I was using 3rd party lens that are rebranded pentax to match the quality of the lens (add the 50-135 if you want). The canon 70-200 f4 (for what I have seen, not my experience) is an extraordinary lens that match or exceed the 50-135 in every single aspect (from f4). I am not trying to convice you or anybody to go canon or nikon or whatever, I am just pointing out that besides the old lens compatibility, Pentax is not a bargain anymore. Again, Pentax has now a much better system that it has before (particularly with the next arrival of long new 3rd party lenses) but some of the extra stars that it had before are not shinning anymore. THe IQ from both cameras, which it is the point of the OP is a mixed bag with some good things in 40d and some other good things in K20D. I brought all this price comparison stuff to answer what I think that it is a wrong concept of some posters here that consider Pentax as the best bang for the buck. I am just saying that they should justify their decission on other aspects, period. I feel quite comfortable owning Pentax and knowing that other brands have other products that are better in some aspects than mine. I just dont get why some people cannot accept that and has to criticize whatever Nikon or Canon does.

[Maxington]

Originally Posted by Groucho

That's a very unfair comparison. Not only the 50mm F1.4 vs F1.8 (the Canon F1.8 certainly can't compete with the Pentax 1.4 on any level), but an F4 long zoom vs an F2.8 one? Two third-party lenses for Canon vs zero for Pentax? And to be completely fair, you'd need all IS lenses on the Canon side - which means no 50mm and not the Tokina 16-50mm.

You can work prices any way you want and you can certainly build a K20D system for the same or less than a comparable 40D.

Not to mention that the Pentax DA*'s are weather sealed, so you'd have to go to Canon L glass for that, and the 40D isn't sealed either, so up you go to a top end body.

May not matter for a lot of people, but Pentax weather sealing is a massive plus for me living in tropical area.

There's no way I could afford to buy weather sealed Canon or Nikon gear!

[xdrew]

Chris, would you mind to share RAW files from this test? I hope it was not in jpeg ...
Thanks

[codiac2600]

Guys, the Canon 50 1.8 beats the Canon 50 1.4 on the MTF chart. It's the only 50mm lens I had and again this is not a sharpness test, just noise level. You're comparing things this test will not tell you.

On colour accuracy the K20D slaughtered the competition in this test. If I held up the objects to my screen they look EXACTLY like they do in real life period. Again, this isn't a colour accuracy test.

[robgo2]

Originally Posted by Rickster

Here you go ... let's compare apples to apples ...

800


1600


3200


Which images above have the least noise and highest detail?

Although the color balance on the 40D images are a bit more pleasant they are not accurate. The whites are beige. RGB values for white on the 40D = [239,228,212] vs [250,250,250] for the K20D

According to the EXIF data, the 40D images were shot in AUTO WB and the K20D images were manual. I don't think we can say much about WB in these images except the K20D manual WB balance appears to be spot on.

Boy, am I glad that you posted this information, Rick. I thought I must be nuts, because I seemed to be the one of the few who thought that the K20D images were superior in every way. Who knows what the correct color balance is, if you weren't there when the photos were taken?

What impresses me so much about these K20D photos is what impressed me about the first photos that Ben posted: They look so real that you feel as though you can reach into the image to touch the subject matter. The 40D pics are fine, but really not in the same league, IMO.

[ricardobeat]

Originally Posted by Gruoso

Let us talk about real prices with the comparison of the OP (K20D vs 40D).

40D+Canon 70-200 f4 USM IS +Tokina 12-24+canon 50f1.8II+ Canon 300 f4 USM IS + Tokina 16-50 = 1100+1100+ 450+ 80+ 1200+ 650= 4580 USD

K20d+ Pentax 70-200 (ops, let us say 50-135 f2.8)+ Pentax 12-24+ Pentax FA50 f1.4+ Pentax 300 f4 + Pentax 16-50= 1300+800+650+200+1250+650= 4850 USD

Of course I am not considering other things such as the flexibility of the system, third party equipment.... I think that some people should start to explain its decissions in terms of preference rather than it terms of price. With the new offers, seems that Pentax is not a bargain anymore. It is no more (and no less) than an excellent system for those that make a given type of photography.

Btw Sven, this is nothing personal against you, I am just using your quote to make a point.

How about this:

50D + 70-200 2.8 IS USM + Tok 12-24 + canon 50 f1.4 + Canon 300 f4 USM IS+ Tok 16-50 = 1300 + 1600 + 450 + 320 + 1200 + 650 = $5520

K20D + DA 50-135 + 12-24 + FA 50 1.4 + DA 300 f4 + DA 16-50 = 1300+800+650+200+1250+650= 4850 USD

And you still don't have stabilization for all the Canon lenses.

The options are endless. You can buy a Sigma 10-20, DA 16-50, 50-135 and a bigma and do the same with even less money. Shake Reduction adds a lot of value to any kit, you always get more dough for your dollars with Pentax, regarding image quality.

If you're not pixel hungry you could even put a K100D in the equation and cut a good $1000 dollars off the bill Going lower, absolutely nothing compares in image quality to a K100D with 18-55 + 50-200 + Sig 10-20 at it's price point!