[flippedgazelle]

Yes, many people favour lightness over a sturdy build, fair enough. for them there is the K-m, or a high-end compact or other brands. We´re talking about a K200D replacement, hence continuity in the build quality.

There is no "lightness vs build quality" argument.

I think there are many folks who do not fully understand "build quality", and thus tend to misuse the term. The K200D & K2000 have essentially the same build quality - same basic design, same materials, etc. The K-m is simply smaller and lacking weather seals, but is not inferior in the quality of it's construction, outside of weather sealing.

Pentax should include weather sealing in every model, as that could be a Pentax "signature feature". Even though most users won't need it (I often took my K100D out in a light rain with no issues), it will be a checkbox item and appeal to those folks with fantasies of high photographic adventure!

So the way to sell a K200D replacement is to replace the "Pentax" name with Nikon or Canon??? I think Nikon & Canon would be less than happy about that.

First of all I think it's vital to understand if we talk about the same subject or not. I am afraid that you talk about a successor of the K200D and I am talking about a mid range camera under K-7 and above an entry level model with the best chance to sell in large numbers. More important I am talking about a mid camera targeting the most numerous user group which IMO are the regular users without much ambition for n additional lenses or ISO 12800.

I included many of the best features of the K200D in my list, to emphasise that these need to be kept. These are the main features that differentiate the K200D from the Canon, Nikon, Sony equivalents.

It's your opinion and mine is that at least some are neither prized by the general public, nor useful for the average Joe hence they could be cut from the blueprint and replaced with other features more appealing to the general audience (even if not very popular on fora).

Yes, many people favour lightness over a sturdy build, fair enough. for them there is the K-m, or a high-end compact or other brands. We´re talking about a K200D replacement, hence continuity in the build quality.

K-7 is a bit smaller and lighter than K20 and it borders the K200D dimension wise so the camera under it must be also reduced in size and weight IMO. That will preclude the usage of a pentaprism (let alone the cost) e.g. .

I don´t think Pentax, or any other camera manufacturer, could get away with either using a 14MP top-of-the-range sensor from a $1500 camera into a new $700 camera or continuing to use an increasingly outdated 10MP sensor in a new camera. If the camera starts to fall behind the pack due to lower DR & FPS then surely this needs to be looked at with a newer sensor? Why would it have to out-do the K7 sensor?

Really? What about 50D and 500D? Of course there can be other ways to neuter a model (lower fps, lower ISO, only 720p video for example) but especially in this mid range class Mp sells! IMO it would be stupid not to use the same sensor and lower its cost by making a lot more of them!

The K200D stands out among other brands´ sub-$700 cameras as arguably the only one that´s not aimed at, or limited to, "beginners & soccer moms".

With all consideration it is neither horse not mule. A fine camera in its own right but terribly targeted at the market. And above all with no WR kit lenses to fully exploit its major differential to all its mid range peers.

It´s aimed at providing a good, solidly-performing camera that can stand a little abuse for those that don´t have the money to spend on a K20D, K7 or D3x. Surely a replacement for the K200D would continue this? If it didn´t it wouldn´t be a replacement for the K200D, it would just be another camera in the line-up.

It's exactly what I feared, we're talking about different things ...

This is the reason that many people see the K-m / K2000 not as a replacement for the K200D but as a camera that stands on it´s own, with it´s own faults & benefits.

I fully agree and concur.

ten chars,
Radu

[wolfier]

That is very true.

There are boatloads of people who think getting a DSLR would automagically improve their photos, and some of them looked at some of my pics and said "I wish I had your camera", "nice picture, I need to get a DSLR!"

Those people invariably ended up with D40, D60, D5000, or a 400D with a kit lens, shooting in full Auto or P mode with AWB Jpeg and the pop-up flash all the time, and spend no time in post-processing.

Granted there are a lot of serious photographers who also use these cameras and also those who got truly limited by their P&S, but from my observation, these days a DSLR seems more like a status symbol rather than a tool to capture pictures - while driving lens price up in the process.

How sad. I wish Apple makes an iDSLR so most of this group can flock to it instead.

Haha That's so funny!

I've seen exactly the sort of market the K-M draws.

After seeing my K200D a number of friends have asked me to come camera shopping with them.

They pick up a K-M in the store get very perplexed by the total lack of Live View, zoom it across the mall with the 18-55 kit lens, fire off a few continious shots.

After some discussion as to the need for multiple lens's and costs involved etc, they pick up a Pentax X70 take a few shot's look much happier and walk out with the X70!

So basically the K-M tends to appeal to those who deep down don't really want a DSLR at all.

And I bet the sales figures tend to reflect this also.

.-.-.

[wolfier]

No:

Live view, articulated screen, more than 12MP, video

You have a bias against Live View, articulated screen, more than 12MP, video and lump them to "features only beginners and soccer moms" need.

Which I strongly disagree. Live View gives you easier access to shooting from the ground without lying on your stomach or above head level. It is also helpful when you need to have a waiter to take a group picture. Articulating screen would compromise build quality, so I'm happy with the 178 degree IPS LCD screen on the K-7 for live view.

More MP than 12 is useful for crops in good light. CPU, RAM, memory cards and hard drive space cost next to nothing nowadays compared to what they did just 2 short years ago so processing power and storage is not a concern. If you need less pixels or want "cleaner ISO" in the shadows, you can always bin the pixels yourself, run it with Topaz, stack the shots, etc., like many serious photographers do. No offence.

As to video, with an external mic and any 18-200+ superzoom, K-7 can surpass a lot of dedicated video cameras anyway. I firmly believe you'll soon see a bloom of quality video shot with DSLR on YouTube. Well-made video is an art difficult to master - they rival the skill level needed to take good still pictures. What's available on the K-7 or even the D5000 give people room to grow beyond those $300 digital camcorders. So, what's wrong with video on DSLR? It's becoming a check-mark feature that no DSLR will be released without it, anyway.

All of those features, you can turn off without using it if you don't want to. These features only contribute to an insignificant cost to make the body anyway, so removing them won't make the camera any cheaper.

The K200D stands out among other brands´ sub-$700 cameras as arguably the only one that´s not aimed at, or limited to, "beginners & soccer moms". It´s aimed at providing a good, solidly-performing camera that can stand a little abuse for those that don´t have the money to spend on a K20D, K7 or D3x.

While I use a K-7 myself, I have seen enough people who use the 300D or the D50 who can produce great pictures (they're the minority nowadays given how many people buy cheap DSLR as a status symbol, but they exist). As long as the camera has an M mode - like any DSLR does, it's in theory all you need to get serious - so I don't know what you mean by a body "limited to" beginners and soccer moms.

Plus, beginners and soccer moms is a huge and lucrative market, as much as I oppose someone not serious getting into DSLR just for a status symbol and in the process driving up lens prices (instead of getting a Powershot SX200 and be very happy), it's their money to spend and Pentax is free to make them - who knows, some of these beginners and soccer moms can progress to become serious. Just remember where you were when you began, and if you were a beginner what choices would you be facing right now? (I would get a used D70 but some prefer new)

As it is, the K20D is a great bargain. Photography costs money. It always had and always will. Someone who wants to get into this hobby on the cheap should really consider getting everything used, that's the only budget way. Don't forget about the lenses. Anything with an M mode will do. But on the other hand, if you're talking about a high performance DSLR body with lots of direct buttons, 2 dials for quick control, weather sealing and on the cheap, I'm afraid this will never happen below $800 (the K20D is about to be discontinued so it's the exception rather than the rule). The same group of people are probably interested in lenses that cost $800+ anyway so in reality it is probably not a great concern.

---

Last edited by wolfier; 07-24-2009 at 09:01 AM.

[thibs]

There are boatloads of people who think getting a DSLR would automagically improve their photos, and some of them looked at some of my pics and said "I wish I had your camera", "nice picture, I need to get a DSLR!"

The reasoning is stupid IMO but if a picture won't be any better on a photographic point of view, the optics quality and sensor size will be help A LOT in geeting a better final picture (this is a generalization of course, comparing a low end DSLR with a low end/ middle end P&S: not really fair but that's exactly how would react Mister Lambda).

[Clarkey]

Video might determine the battery issue.

With the mid-level, you're going to see a mirror, not a prism. It's always been a defining line between mid- and high-end.

I agree with your post content related to the feature set, and especially agree regarding the video dictating battery size and type.

I have to take issue with the pentaprism though. It has een shown before on Pentax models to have little bearing on weight (DS vs DL ~30g ), and in the *Ist days, the mid range (DS models) had the prism, the DL bodies did not.

I believe that this is the achilles heel of the K200d as it stands. I pick up the DS and the viewfinder is much clearer and the information much, much easier to read. If you would like to compete with the likes of the D90 I believe you need this feature.
Don't talk to me about Canon - the build quality of the lower models is a good reason we are discussing this in the first place!

[Aristophanes]

AA is a size format. There is no technical spec that limits charge. That's chemistry/volume.

AA LIon batteries are available, but not in a rechargeable format. That is coming.

One of the concerns with rechargeable LIon's is transport. NiMH is very stable, but LIon is not. Also, many labs cannot use LIon's because of their combustibility.

Ironically, our cameras have actually been getting thriftier on the power despite larger sensors. This is largely due to software management.

Damn, how i hate those times, when you have written a detailed post and after hitting backspace, it initiates BACK action in browser instead of text editing.
So the short version:



It is not so straightforward.
AA NiMH's cant deliver their full charge at high current.
This is because of internal resistance, which increases noticeably long before the battery is discharged.
It can supply enough current for flashlight, remote or simple device.
DSLR "grabs" bursts of high current for processing, AF, SD writes, FLASH etc.
It is more pronounced for high capacity ones (>~2.5Ah).

LiIon's and LiPo's however, as well as professional NiMH's (like those you can find in drill battery packs, and cost like 15$ per 1.2V/3Ah cell) can deliver much larger currents, can be charged with much faster rate, and is capable to do so until almost fully discharged.

This is what is important for DSLR, not high capacity or voltage, but high usable capacity which can be fully delivered to the target at any moment.
Sometimes it seems so silly, that someone says k20d has faster AF because of higher voltage.

A real compromise would be design that allowed for both, proprietary RECHARGEABLE Li Ion and AA's.

[thibs]

AA is a size format. There is no technical spec that limits charge. That's chemistry/volume.

AA LIon batteries are available, but not in a rechargeable format. That is coming.

One of the concerns with rechargeable LIon's is transport. NiMH is very stable, but LIon is not. Also, many labs cannot use LIon's because of their combustibility.

Ironically, our cameras have actually been getting thriftier on the power despite larger sensors. This is largely due to software management.

I read (but is this true?) that AA just won't go Li-ion because it is too easy for customer to invert polarities and if he does so... BOUM !

[Aristophanes]

I read (but is this true?) that AA just won't go Li-ion because it is too easy for customer to invert polarities and if he does so... BOUM !

They already exist:

Li-ion 14500 Cylindrical Rechargeable Cell: 3.7V 750mAh (AA size, 2.77Wh)- UL Listed - LC-14500

One reason why manufacturers have been reluctant to voluntarily include them is the liability concern.

[thibs]

They already exist:

Li-ion 14500 Cylindrical Rechargeable Cell: 3.7V 750mAh (AA size, 2.77Wh)- UL Listed - LC-14500

One reason why manufacturers have been reluctant to voluntarily include them is the liability concern.

Sure but if those are the only models available then there's a couple problems, namely voltage, capacity and max current which, compared to NiMH from the same site, Sanyo 2700mAh cells) are unimpressive.

Furthermore, 3.7V batteries in a AA form? For an industrial use I don't see a problem but for customers use that would be plain stupid.

I'll also paste the warning, again, from the website you supplied:

Li-Ion batteries has the highest energy density ( mAh/weight), and become more and more popular. However, Li-Ion may explode and cause a fire if it dose not use properly. Please read our safety warning.
In current stage, we always suggest customer to use NiMH battery pack for high current application ( < 1C rate ), not Li-Ion , because Li-ion �s protection in high current application still is not matured yet.

Finaly, the link you gave are industrial batteries, easy to spot 'cos they do not have the little bump on top of the + side of the battery.

[Aristophanes]

The major reasons against rechargeable Li-Ions are:

1) Circuitry--in order to make the battery most efficient, there needs to be a charge/discharge circuit in each battery itself. In a AA format, this takes away from the chemical volume, so the power advantage is lost.

2) The volatility is explosive if a AA Li-ion is put into a regular recharger. They could easily explode.

That is why Li-Ion is proprietary. And why liability is an issue.

But, on a power:cost factor, AA single-use Li-Ion's and rechargeable AA NiMH are a better deal than a proprietary Li-Ion and charger in most cases (at least until battery design goes to generic production). If travelling they are a huge advantage.

Also, external flashes and grips are usually AA or hybrid due to the adaptability.

However, the cylindrical form factor of AA is not an ideal design for handheld products.

Finally, there is growing concern over battery and charger disposal given all the proprietary product incompatibilities and service life. The future looks to see a regulatory approach to battery design and service.

Sure but if those are the only models available then there's a couple problems, namely voltage, capacity and max current which, compared to NiMH from the same site, Sanyo 2700mAh cells) are unimpressive.

Furthermore, 3.7V batteries in a AA form? For an industrial use I don't see a problem but for customers use that would be plain stupid.

I'll also paste the warning, again, from the website you supplied:



Finaly, the link you gave are industrial batteries, easy to spot 'cos they do not have the little bump on top of the + side of the battery.

[thibs]

But, on a power:cost factor, AA single-use Li-Ion's and rechargeable AA NiMH are a better deal than a proprietary Li-Ion and charger in most cases (at least until battery design goes to generic production). If travelling they are a huge advantage.

Finally, there is growing concern over battery and charger disposal given all the proprietary product incompatibilities and service life. The future looks to see a regulatory approach to battery design and service.

Completely agreed.

Only a regulatory thing like the common mobile phone charger rule or something alike might change the situation IMO, manufacturers get too much money from that artificial business.

[Clarkey]

Dumb question - given the cost of the energizer lithiums etc, why aren`t CRV-3`s been supported any more - I`d love to have use of these again.

[AM2]

Dumb question - given the cost of the energizer lithiums etc, why aren`t CRV-3`s been supported any more - I`d love to have use of these again.

I was wondering the same thing... maybe it's because a bunch of people were trying out dodgy rechargeable CRV-3s in their *ist series cameras and wreaking havoc on the circuitry.

[nakey]

Dumb question - given the cost of the energizer lithiums etc, why aren`t CRV-3`s been supported any more - I`d love to have use of these again.

In my view, because of the cost of Energizer Lithiums

this may not be the case for you, but AUD $22 gets me 1 CRV3, or 4 Energizer Lithium AAs + change for some Mcdonald's soft serves.