Originally posted by asw66 OK, I'll bite.
My guess is that the "flaw" in the body that ogl is hinting at is indeed the absence of an articulating LCD, as others have said. We all know that engineering involves compromises, and I expect that Pentax would favour greater ruggedness and smaller size over an articulated LCD.
I know that many of you won't see this as a flaw, but I for one would like to see one. It's very handy in crowds to be able to simply lift the camera overhead and compose the shot through the viewfinder.
EDIT: Um, I meant that you compose the shot through the *LCD* when it is held overhead. But you knew that, right?
Do you have a K20d?
Ever shot in crowds?
Put the camera in playback or liveview. Then hold it up over your head, like you'd do shooting in a crowd.
Any particular difficulties seeing what's on the screen?
*creaking a little* Way back when, people who'd chase celebrities and spray and pray for a living would only look up and see what film they were shooting. The same people now aren't crying out for such a feature, only maybe Live View suited to that kind of work. Articulated LCDs have their uses, but there's nothing stopping you now. The LCD we have already can do high-angle without even changing a setting, like my little bridge could do.
I think most of us who aren't gung-ho for video or even more-advanced live view kind of know what it's *good* for. (I'm not against having these things, myself, I just wouldn't want the finder to be any dimmer or more expensive than it has to be over it. Handy, fun, useful for the occasional trick or not having to carry a special accessory for your wandering macro shots, but not worth that better grade of lens or real performance advantage or whatever. If things are moving fast, you don't generally have time for gimmicks, anyway. )
There's kind of this notion we hear, 'Oh, Pentax can't compete with C&N for *real pro* stuff...' What, cause there's not enough bells and whistles this year?
It's actually kind of those brands who have *ditched* certain segments of the 'pro' market. Those that may never have missed it if they couldn't do 1/4000 of a second in their lives, and if they did would be worried about a half-stop of reciprocity failure.
People who'd like an LX or an FE2 or an F-1 without the options cause they knew what they needed and just didn't want it fragile.
Used to be a 'pro' camera was as well made and purpose-designed as a machine could be made... It was the 'serious amateur' stuff that got the bells and whistles. The more 'pro' you are the more specialized you've ended up, likely and usually that means if you want something fancy and high performance, it's for one type of job.
The truest definition, really, of a 'pro' camera is, 'A camera you can make money on.'
Usually, it's not about what 'features' it has so much as how well it gets out of your way. Pentax has maybe attracted a lot of us who may tend to be a little Luddite, ...there's more than one Canon FD orphan here, among whom I number... Pentax has been making cameras more like *that,* too, ..yaknow, I have the big brass&glass Canons, there's an 'enthusiast' A-1 in my bag right now, .... actually, I put up with the bells and whistles cause the meter's more sensitive than the consumer AE-1Ps I love...those can be like a good hacked-together courier bike, nothing fancy, nothing in your way.
I think Canon, unfortunately absorbed a certain Nikonian standard of, 'If you were even serious, you'd have an F3.' I would be like, 'Actually, if I had Nikon money, I'd be looking at FE2s: that finder's lovely, but the thing handles like a brick on a short handle.'
Used to be you'd pay for *automation,* though. Now you pay for enough controls, and hope you can afford the 'features.' Haven't a problem with Pentax if they keep along with their ways as of the K20. Shows some respect for a photographer. And sometimes being 'pro' means knowing what you *don't* need.