[lol101]

K20D has lots of neat features that competing cameras don't have, pretty much like K10 had.

It also lacks in certain departments (fps, maybe AF, 1/8000s+1/250sX...) pretty much like the K10 lacked confronted with 30D and D200.

The only difference is that while 40D went down in price and up in features from 30D, K20D went up in price and up in features.

Now Pentax can't escape the confrontation by saying that they cost 500$ less than the competition.

Spec sheets will be compared and Pentax will be clobbered because of no 5-6fps, 14bits raw, revamped AF or fast X-sync.

But they have a secret weapon: the new sensor!

So K20D is all about IQ: we have been told that numerous times, the IQ will be the best in class in the APS-C segment, even comparable to 1DMkIII x1.3 crop sensor.

If it is proven to be the case, I'll buy one without hesitation.

Apparently Pentax/Samsung have found a way to maximize pixel size: great!

But then it hits me: why on earth go for 14,6MP?

Why not stay at 10MP and REALLY get that 1DMkIII quality for sure with bigger pixels, lighter files (which would have probably mean higher fps), bigger dynamic range and a one stop increase in high ISO that would have set them completely on a different level than the other APS-C cameras?

You probably understood that I have difficulties believing that K20D will have significantly better IQ than 40D/D300 because, despite what they say, they have aimed, at best, for similar sized pixels as the other guys while they had the chance to use bigger ones.

Same size pixel = same IQ in my book but I would love to be proved wrong...

So if the K20D has similar IQ to 40D, at a similar price and with lower performances in the action photo department, will the other neat feature it has be enough to fence off the competition?

I have my doubts...

[creampuff]

Seriously are you rambling all this negativism all to yourself?
The new camera is out. If you're not satisfied, don't buy it, buy something else.

Your comparison with the 40D isn't valid. The 40D hasn't been a runaway success in the marketplace and the Live View implementation has been dismal to say the least. Is it any wonder that it is now being discounted. How can you compare it price wise with a camera that has only been officially announced just hours ago and hasn't even hit the camera stores yet? The street prices will likely be lower than MRSP.

[rvannatta]

My first pass at the specs suggest to me that they have built a winner, primarily because
it looks, feels and smells like a K10 only better because of an upgraded sensor and related features. It looks like the K200 may end up being most of a K10. Given that the K10 sold pretty well, this is a good enough an upgrade to keep up the momentum.

if it truely delivers the greater latitude promised, there will be a lot of very fine photos taken with the k20. Actual delivery of the new lenses seems critical though. the delays have sucked the second hand market pretty dry and the lense family needs to be there.

[lol101]

Seriously are you rambling all this negativism all to yourself?
The new camera is out. If you're not satisfied, don't buy it, buy something else.

Your comparison with the 40D isn't valid. The 40D hasn't been a runaway success in the marketplace and the Live View implementation has been dismal to say the least. Is it any wonder that it is now being discounted. How can you compare it price wise with a camera that has only been officially announced just hours ago and hasn't even hit the camera stores yet? The street prices will likely be lower than MRSP.

You're saying the K20D isn't marketed on the same level as 40D?

Did you even read what I said? I said that IQ would be the final verdict: if it's better than 40D/D300, Pentax has won the battle.

My only thought was that they could have secured that by aiming for lower MP but that does nothing to prove that they didn't succeed with 14.6MP: the verdict is still out on this (read the title...)

You won't find anyone more anxious to see Pentax differentiate themselves from the others on what matters most: IQ, so yes, I was thinking out loud because I still have doubts about the fabulous IQ rumors we've been fed: don't you?

[Andrew Faires]

Just from my perspective, performance was paramount this time around (and I'm talking for my uses). They got part of it right with the sensor (I hope) and a quieter shutter release. They've even added on some attractive bells/whistles which I could see myself making use of. But the same fps and AF (even if it's tweaked slightly) mean I don't have immediate cause to upgrade.

[creampuff]

lol101, not sure it really is in the same class as the 40D. Definitely outclasses the rest in my book. High frame rate isn't the measure of how good a camera is, image quality is.

As to why Pentax didn't stay at 10 mp, if it stayed at 10 mp, it very simply it would have been overshadowed by even Canon's latest offering Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi: Digital Photography Review

[nosnoop]

But then it hits me: why on earth go for 14,6MP?

Because it sells!
Some of you may shake your head in disgust. But that's the truth.

When people look at the spec sheet, that's the very first figure staring at their faces. And people would get impressed. It is much easier to sell a high MP, 14.6MP in this case, and telling them it achieves this high res while maintaining excellent image quality. On the other hand, it is a much harder job to tell them that they have the same MP sensor but the image quality is slightly better. To be honest, even if they make it 12MP, it will not be a blow-your-mind superiority; at most a detectable improvement.

Now, if you tell the customer that you have two cameras having the same high quality image, one is 14.6 and one is 12MP, and the 14.6 is cheaper, it is much more convincing that way. People feel that they are getting the money worth. Just like engine capacity and horse power for a car; you may tell them that the torque and power delivery of the other engine is better, but for most people, it is the cc and hp which count.

Sure, FPS is important for some people as well. But most people are more impressed with higher pixel count than 1/8000 shutter speed or 1/250 x-sync.

[Jonson PL]

Hi Laurent,
I think the reason that they’ve gone for 14.6 MP, is that they plan to stay there, and then simply refine the sensor. People liked the 6 MP from the *Ist line, but it didn’t look impressive on paper. With this new sensor, they can next time have four channel read-out and 6-8 FPS.

The K20 is still weather-sealed, which the 40D is not. It is a replacement of the K10, and the K20D packs nearly 50% more pixels than its predecessor, but it matches the burst rate of a 3 frames per second in RAW or Fine JPEGs (approx 14 and 38, respectively). And further as Pop Photo writes; Slow it down a hair to about 2.7 fps and it'll write JPEGS until you fill an SDHC card.


I think you pose a very important question. Probably Hoya wants the higher margin, so the price has gone up.

That is has Iso 6400, indicates that Iso 3200 would be usable, as is likely with CMOS sensor. But your point is correct, IQ is gonna be the key. I’ve preferred CCD over CMOS, so far. But it is gonna be interesting to see how the K20 is gonna fare. Ability to choose IR filter is also an interesting aspect.

[roentarre]

High ISO will be so useful for me.

Macros, event photography, wedding, night time party shots etc.


Currently k10d is not usable in a lot of situations where I had to resort to canon gear instead

[lol101]

High ISO will be so useful for me.

Macros, event photography, wedding, night time party shots etc.


Currently k10d is not usable in a lot of situations where I had to resort to canon gear instead

I am pretty much in the same spot: high fps is not on my list but high ISO IQ is.

I am also fine with K10 AF so if the K20 is as good or a bit better, I'm good.

A few options on the K20 have me going: but these are just options, for the most part jpeg related and I am a 100% raw shooter so I will keep that to myself.

So I guess I'll be happy with K20 if it delivers what's been hinted at so many times: extremely high IQ at all ISO.

[lol101]

Hi Laurent,
I think the reason that they’ve gone for 14.6 MP, is that they plan to stay there, and then simply refine the sensor. People liked the 6 MP from the *Ist line, but it didn’t look impressive on paper. With this new sensor, they can next time have four channel read-out and 6-8 FPS.

The K20 is still weather-sealed, which the 40D is not. It is a replacement of the K10, and the K20D packs nearly 50% more pixels than its predecessor, but it matches the burst rate of a 3 frames per second in RAW or Fine JPEGs (approx 14 and 38, respectively). And further as Pop Photo writes; Slow it down a hair to about 2.7 fps and it'll write JPEGS until you fill an SDHC card.


I think you pose a very important question. Probably Hoya wants the higher margin, so the price has gone up.

That is has Iso 6400, indicates that Iso 3200 would be usable, as is likely with CMOS sensor. But your point is correct, IQ is gonna be the key. I’ve preferred CCD over CMOS, so far. But it is gonna be interesting to see how the K20 is gonna fare. Ability to choose IR filter is also an interesting aspect.

Yes, I think your assesment is spot on.

I am also thinking that designing and building a new sensor is expensive and that they have to recoup their R&D investments by keeping a good margin on K20D.

Again, if the IQ is there, I'll be more than happy to help them earn $$ (and with a DA*300f4 on top )

[HawaiianOnline]

If the IQ is significantly better than the 40D and/or the D300, then it may be more fair to compare this camera with cameras like the Canon 5D or even the 1DsMkII. These were not fps kings either, but their superior image quality was better for landscape, wedding, studio, etc. The K20D may not be meant for the territory of the 1DMkII or III.

[roentarre]

If the IQ is significantly better than the 40D and/or the D300, then it may be more fair to compare this camera with cameras like the Canon 5D or even the 1DsMkII. These were not fps kings either, but their superior image quality was better for landscape, wedding, studio, etc. The K20D may not be meant for the territory of the 1DMkII or III.

I think k10d beats 5D in a lot of areas especially in colour and contrast. The most of all, the "surreal" dream-like image quality in k10d shots.

The only problem of k10d is skin tone rendering and off WB with protraits (no matter how I adjust, I cannot seem to get it right).

Bokeh is certainly beautiful from 5D but with time, I guess k20d will be quite good for sure. I do not do macro with canon gear any more since k10d really beats 5D real bad! The only issue with k10d is noise issue as macro photography using natural light often requires high ISO...

[darthkir]

High ISO will be so useful for me.

Macros, event photography, wedding, night time party shots etc.


Currently k10d is not usable in a lot of situations where I had to resort to canon gear instead

Myself included. I dont have the needs for the high fps, but i do (really) need the fast AF. Stunning pic quality MUST be combined with the ability to QUICKLY capture the moment, hence the need for fast AF and (sometimes) high fps. What good is a 1 stunning image with poor moment compared to 10 standard images BUT with great candids? Unless you shoot in a studio where you can have the luxury of having ppl to wait for you than its not a problem. What about events like sports, indoor wedding etc.?

[mutley]

Seriously are you rambling all this negativism all to yourself?
The new camera is out. If you're not satisfied, don't buy it, buy something else.

Your comparison with the 40D isn't valid. How can you compare it price wise with a camera that has only been officially announced just hours ago and hasn't even hit the camera stores yet?

Wow, that's the kind of attack I usually get when I point out suggestions for K10D improvement by firmware or next model (K20D).

Oddly enough, Pentax included some of my suggestions...

Focus speed choice by a setting without the double-check

type of sharpening choice including edge rather than one or the other

chroma noise improvement, and defeatable NR adjustment

less jpg compression at highest quality (along with the usual oft requested better jpg engine)

User defeatable AF calibration adjustment for muiltiple lenses (along with many other posters).



The 20FPS Burst might just be an inherent capability in the sensor design, so it was cheap to implement in the camera by software (I wonder how the GX-20 implements this if the same)

But, how much per camera cost would be adding better predictive AF processing capability in the K20D? Doing this is more processing based, but faster low light AF might be more hardware based needing different sensors. Even with that, how much more per camera cost would it have added? Or maybe just a smaller improvement rather than absolutely no change at all?