yes. that's a known fact. it is also known that the k20d was way behind "the competition" in high iso, unsatisfactory build quality compared to "the competition", and so on. the k-7 had the same problems as the k20d and a few others on top (compared, again, to this illusive "competition" ). if i could only find the time, i would.. let me try this way (we like polls, don't we):
1. print some test charts and start shooting them with my k-5 (and pay somebody to shoot them with my k20d, so i don't have to touch that outdated unsatisfactory piece of gear)
2. take the k-5 out with my favorite lenses, maybe bring the k20d along as a second body (k-5 wide, k20+grip+tele.. hmmm), and shoot landscape ALL DAY.
now, which do you think? (hint: i've had the k-5 since monday and this
is all i have to show for it (yes, yes, my dog grasing, i've been told: very inspired) . if i had a roll of film, it would still be in there, waiting to be finished!; so which do you think?)
just my two cents worth..