[wll]

I've been watching and sitting idly by till now......

My view is that Pentax has come up with a brilliant new camera. One that is light years ahead of the pack in image quality, and for me that is what it is about. The FPS thing does not concern me much and the AF issue is not a big deal for me. The image quality though is. I use my camera for landscapes, archetecture, studio table top work, and an occasional concert shoot.

With the fantastic DR, high ISO range, and image quality this camera is capable of, I'm very happy. Like most I can whine about not having a articulting lcd screen or ? but I bet the next generation has that along with higher FPS and faster AF.

The feature set that Pentax put in this camera with settings of your lenses back and front focus, dust removal, user settings, SR, etc, etc is fantastic and very useful.

My plans are to sell my last two DS's and add two K20D's.That means I have two K10D's one I will keep at the office and one in my everyday bag. The K20D's will be at my home office where I take most of my business photos. I will see if live view without an articulating lcd screen helps in studio work. (I think it will help a lot, but an articulating screen would really help).

Once folks are using this camera and the updated firmware comes out I think they will be jumping off the C and N bandwagon and on to ours. Pentax has made a MAJOR move, for the first time they have a sensor that is theirs and they don't have to wait in line to use it. I feel that that one item alone is a very big one and it is the feature that will (in time) push Pentax into a force to be reconed with. I have a feeling we are seeing a company that is about to set new standards for digi photography.

Samsung is much bigger than Canon/Nikon and they are very aggressive. I think Samsung/Pentax will come up with new sensors and technology that in a few years will make Pentax and Samsung king of the hill. I have stuck by Pentax for many years, and the last year was tough, but I have a feeling the wait was worth it......


wll

[schufosi777]

I totally agree with evertything u said.

[Falcons]

I tend to agree with your opinion on the K20D and the future for Pentax.

Pentax (with Samsung) now have their own proprietary sensor that immediately puts them up on Nikon who must rely on Sony (a major competitor) for their technology.

I think Pentax have done the smart thing and put out a camera at a relative small cost in R&D that still smokes the competition in price for features.

The really interesting thing to see is what impact the K200D has in the entry level market - unfortunately 10MP is pretty much a standard now in this market and this camera will go toe to toe with the nikon d40x - pricing will be the issue here I believe.

Against the canon 450d/rebel xsi - well I think canon have gone a little overboard on this one and jammed just about every feature they can think of into it.
I am sure spotty faced salespeople in department stores will love explaining all the feature on this camera as the dazed "soccer mom" (I think that's the term you Americans use) ponders exactly how she is going to remember how to use all of those gadgets and gizmos.
I believe that if this camera is built as flimsily as all of its former variants Canon has built themselves a huge 3" problem.

The Pentax stumbling block to sales has always been their perception in the marketplace, or rather lack of, perhaps the interest generated by this new sensor and its (hopefully) superior IQ will generate the buzz on the street Pentax need. I strongly doubt that faster AF would have had the same impact as a new sensor.

[rvannatta]

I totally agree with evertything u said.

Notwithstanding RH, I agree. It appears that pentax has a breakthrough here.

at least part of the reason for having a good camera is to take better pictures, and a combination of wider latitude (as we called it with film) and more MP's should give pentax a leg up at the sales counter. Just as computers sold based on Mhrz long after it was mostly irrelevant, SLR's are in a MP war, and the highest MP for the buck is gonna be the winner, and if it can actually take better photos too, that is a bonus.

Lack of dynamic range has long been a pain in the digital world, and it has put extra demands on the exposure control system to 'get it right'--but improved DR will impart a little forgiveness in the exposure control.

Similarly the higher ISO's will do good things for the AF as well because this will allow the program line to be tweaked to produce a greater depth of field envelope, again reducing the demands on the AF accuracy. Improved shake reduction points in the same direction.

If the better sensor pushed the envelope a couple of F stops on the ISO scale from the K10 and the shake control gained an F stop, and we have another EV in dynamic range, if we turn all this to increasing our depth of field, it will put a lot more of the world out there within the 'in focus bubble'---and profoundly so with the shorter focal lengths that tend not to have depth issues anyway.

Depth of field scales are sort of out of vogue now, but I own an SMC-A 15mm lens and it
offers a hyperfocal range of 1 foot to infinity at f16, and since that is pretty much the full focal range of the lens, focusing the lens correctly is not a big deal if you can shoot at f16.

My point is simply that witih all this new speed, AF doesn't need to be very smart to have good results. With a standard 15-50 focal range, you should be able to take most photos
under lighting conditions historically suitable for photography, at f16, and if the AF can park the lens in the hyper focal area most of the photos will be in focus.

the K20 should with the cumulative changes take good photos at least 6 f stops faster
than the classic 35mm SLR. This is pretty much the full range of the aperature ring (if the lens had one)

While I don't want to apologize for a lame focus system, objectively it appears that one is hardly needed, and that the 'trap focus' mode should work well if it is smart enough to find
the hyper focal area of the lens and then shut down.---profoundly so if AUTO ISO and depth of field bias is used in the program line because virtually everything will be in focus that the lens can see. It's harder to come up with a wrong answer if there are no wrong answers.

[Jonson PL]

The more I think about it, the more I like the notion of the K20.

If I wasn’t a student, and didn’t already have the K10, I would jump for the K20. I could definitely use the high Iso ability. And the sensor design sounds very promising. Add to this a lot of nifty features, I’m not sure I could keep track of them all, if I had the camera.

Professionals were in the early days of digital using the Canon's EOS-1D. And a lot of the older digital work on display were shot with a camera like this, or the likewise 4 MP Nikon D2Hs. Since Pro’s in 2006 were still buying the 4 MP outstanding Nikon D2Hs, I’m sure I could also find a use for the 1.6 MP 20 fps K20. I could train my skill till a better camera comes along, and who knows I might just get a keeper in between.
Just setting up the composition, so that only marginal cropping would be needed. For newspapers, 1.6 MP would do nicely.

Steve Blooms exhibition of wildlife in big poster shots, which toured the world, was taken with digital cameras that only did 3 fps, BTW.


I don’t want it to come out hard, but sometimes when I read of people complaining when shooting at f/1.4 of a moving target and not nailing the focus perfectly; or with zero experience start shooting sports and don’t feel that their images look like what they see in the magazines; I can’t help but think of how the Pro’s always in photography got to know their equipment and learned to work around problems.

I read of one Professional who was accused of a person he knew that he only got the good shots, as he must have the better equipment, eventhough it was actually way cheaper. They traded and he still got the better shots, but now had seriously upgraded his kit, via the swap.

[lol101]

The more I think about it, the more I like the notion of the K20.

If I wasn’t a student, and didn’t already have the K10, I would jump for the K20. I could definitely use the high Iso ability. And the sensor design sounds very promising. Add to this a lot of nifty features, I’m not sure I could keep track of them all, if I had the camera.

Professionals were in the early days of digital using the Canon's EOS-1D. And a lot of the older digital work on display were shot with a camera like this, or the likewise 4 MP Nikon D2Hs. Since Pro’s in 2006 were still buying the 4 MP outstanding Nikon D2Hs, I’m sure I could also find a use for the 1.6 MP 20 fps K20. I could train my skill till a better camera comes along, and who knows I might just get a keeper in between.
Just setting up the composition, so that only marginal cropping would be needed. For newspapers, 1.6 MP would do nicely.

Steve Blooms exhibition of wildlife in big poster shots, which toured the world, was taken with digital cameras that only did 3 fps, BTW.


I don’t want it to come out hard, but sometimes when I read of people complaining when shooting at f/1.4 of a moving target and not nailing the focus perfectly; or with zero experience start shooting sports and don’t feel that their images look like what they see in the magazines; I can’t help but think of how the Pro’s always in photography got to know their equipment and learned to work around problems.

I read of one Professional who was accused of a person he knew that he only got the good shots, as he must have the better equipment, eventhough it was actually way cheaper. They traded and he still got the better shots, but now had seriously upgraded his kit, via the swap.

May I quote here Richardday (I hope he doesn't mind) from a post he wrote before the official annoucements and that I thought at the moment to be 100% right:

"I believe that when the new cameras are announced and the features and performance have been fully digested and you sit down and think impassionately and rationally about your photograpic requirements, then most will be delighted with the new offerings."

Now, after a few days, I still think he is 100% right.

He did say "most" people, not "all" people and that's the sad reality that there is not ONE camera on the market that pleases everyone (otherwise they would be ONLY one camera on the market).

As far as K20D is concerned, people who NEED high fps and blazing AF tracking won't be part of the fun I'm affraid and I am sorry for them but we can't really do anything but hope for the best in 2009 (K1D?) for them.

But still, I believe that if you though K10D was a good camera, you have no real logical choice but to think the K20D is a better one.

[regken]

He did say "most" people, not "all" people and that's the sad reality that there is not ONE camera on the market that pleases everyone (otherwise they would be ONLY one camera on the market).

This past weekend 2 friends asked me for recommendations on which DSLR they should buy. I directed one to the K10D and the other to the Canon 40D because they had different needs. No sense in buying the wrong tool for the job you want to do.