[Marc Sabatella]

I love my camera but quickly came to wish I had paid a few hundred more for the K20D.

If you shoot RAW, you can simply underexpose at ISO 1600, push the results in PP, and get results that are "almost" as good as the K20D. I do it all the time.

A 2.8 telezoom would be definitely be nice but the price puts that out of my reach.

Do you know what sort of focal lengths you would need f/2.8 at? What kind of use to you have in mind? You can get very good results with very inexpensive manual focus primes.

Combine these two ideas - shooting underexposed and push processing, and using inexpensive manual focus primes - and you can easily be shooting at shutter speeds 4-8 times faster than what you might otherwise be shooting, while getting results that might surprise you.

For example, here's one I've posted before, from the M135/3.5 (a *very* easily found lens that runs only about $50, shot at the equivalent of IS0 4000 (about a stop and a third over a stop underexposed at 1600 and push processed):



Had I taken that shot with an 18-250 and not underexposed, I'd have been stuck with a shutter speed of around 1/4", but between underexposing/push-processing and being able to shoot at f/3.5 instead of f/5.6, I was able to get almost three stops improvement - a shutter speed of 1/30". Which was easily the difference between getting a sharp picture versus getting a big blur.

As for what "features" the K20D would provide above and beyond the K200D, I wouldn't put it that way. You get a bigger/brighter viewfinder, you get more pixels and somewhat better high ISO performance, you get more knobs to control various settings without needing to use the menus.

[Riverlady]

--Max ISO of 3200 (6400 expanded) vs 1600
--14.6 mp vs 10 - allows you to crop and end up with a higher res crop (good for birds when my zoom isn't quite long enough)
--Real Live View that functions during shooting (but sadly does not articulate) vs K200D that only allows you to review on display after shooting

Also, I believe the K20D allows you to directly control more features on the body rather than having to go into menus to do it. This allows for faster changes to settings on the fly.

There's more, but those are the 3 things that I would particularly value, especially the ISO. I do a lot of my shooting outdoors in low light conditions (dusk/dawn) and my main go-to lens is slow at the telephoto end and I don't envision a fast 300mm in my future any time soon. So many times I'm forced to use a tripod (good for flowers/landscapes, awkward for birds) or quit shooting when I'd really like to keep going.

When I was camera shopping I was moving up from a 6 year old 3mp 'prosumer' point and shoot and was concerned that the K20D would be too complex with a steep learning curve. So, I went with the K200D. I spent 2 weeks in Big Bend shooting everything in sight, then enrolled in a 4 week photo class locally in which we were required to shoot in manual mode and use a tripod, and I found that I liked it and it was not that difficult. I started shooting raw format because, using Lightroom, I can do exposure adjustments--the Texas sun and sky is so bright for a good part of the day that it is hard if not impossible to properly expose both the cloud detail and rocks/foliage. Shooting raw w/Lightroom also allows me to do all white balance/saturation adjustments in post processing... so pretty quickly all those scene modes became sort of pointless. The K20D has enough of the programmed stuff so it is there if you need it, just not so much as the K200D.

On the K200D plus side, I like the AA batteries since I already had a good charger and lots of rechargeables and you can buy them anywhere, good if you spend a lot of time in the boonies. The K200D is somewhat smaller, I believe, than the K20D, to me the size is "just right". Both have the weather sealed body, which was important to me since I'm often out in the weather.

[Marc Sabatella]

--Max ISO of 3200 (6400 expanded) vs 1600

Yes, but see my post above. You can get the equivalent of 3200 or 6400 on the K200D simply by underexposing at ISO 1600 and then pushing in PP. Are the results as good as as the K20D? Probably not quite, but nothing to sneeze at, as the picture I posted should demonstrate.

So I'm not saying there are no reasons to consider upgrading - I'm simply saying that the *existence* of ISO 3200 and 6400 shouldn't be one of them, because you can get exactly the same effect on the K200D already.

[Riverlady]

Yes, but see my post above. You can get the equivalent of 3200 or 6400 on the K200D simply by underexposing at ISO 1600 and then pushing in PP. Are the results as good as as the K20D? Probably not quite, but nothing to sneeze at, as the picture I posted should demonstrate.

So I'm not saying there are no reasons to consider upgrading - I'm simply saying that the *existence* of ISO 3200 and 6400 shouldn't be one of them, because you can get exactly the same effect on the K200D already.

Thank you for those tips. I am going to work on that. I guess actually I have done that -- taken shots that I knew were underexposed and raised the exposure in Lightroom, I just never thought of it in terms that it was the equivalent of higher ISO. I ended up with quite a bit of color noise as I recall, but I did get the shot of my granddaughter pole vaulting in low light.

I have just started working with manual lenses & focusing. I have a 50mm A and a 28mm M and have been working on getting familiar with those before going on to get some longer focal lengths. Have you upgraded your focus screen? I have read about that, I'm not really sure how they work & would need to get it installed, I'm not too inclined to mess with the innards yet. I have been wondering if, shooting birds or other quickly moving objects, for example, can one get a close enough focus using a small enough aperture (for greater DOF) and estimating distance, as there is not usually time to close focus. Somewhere I read something about "focus on the eye" of the bird... lord I can't even see the eye of the bird. LOL

[Canada_Rockies]

Interesting, I hadn't really thought about moving up to the K20D. Besides live view, what features does it have that would be useful for an amateur?

One lens I definitely want is a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Given that the Nikon/Canon models are a lot more for image stabilization, the Pentax appears to be the best package deal.

I've called every store I can find in the central Indiana area and none carry Pentax K200D (except special orders). Maybe I'll head up to Chicago sometime.

Central Camera in Chicago are good people. It's an old brick and mortar store with maybe 30 feet on the sidewalk, and inside a narrow aisle between and under camera gear going way, way back. I bought my MZ-S, 24-90 and the AF 500 FTZ flash there while working in Chicago. I also bought the Sigma 170-500 from Albert (yep, same name!), but did not keep it. The biggest expense was the SMC Pentax Shift 28/3.5 that I have since sent away, using the money for other Pentax goodies. It was great on film in big city, but here in the trees not so much.

[NaClH2O]

Hi Riverlady

You do not have to have an upgraded focus screen to get good consistent manual focused shots. You do have to practice tho. The included link outlines a series of exercises that will definitely improve your manual focus. Note that they are boring. Very boring. But I used to be a professional musician and I never got good on an instrument until I had mastered playing scales on it. Practicing scales is even more boring than practicing manual focusing. But both lead to the same end result, proficiency with your instrument.
Here is a link to the focus exercises:
Re: Is a KatzEye required for those using manual focus?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

NaCl(nothing more boring than practice, nothing more effective than practice)H2O

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree MF is quite feasible with practice. My 28 is actually the hardest MF lens I have to focus with, because unless I'm right on top of a subject, it's pretty small in the viewfinder. Conversely, my 200 is my easiest lens to MF because everything is just so *big*.

As for shooting birds by guesstimating distance, no, I wouldn't recommend that. DOF is too shallow at long telephoto focal lengths for that to be very reliable. FWIW, I find with a good focus ring (eg, the M200/4) to be an easier, faster, and more reliable way to gets birds in flight than relying on AF. At least with my Tamron 70-300 - the DA50-200 is noticeably faster.

As for color noise when "push processing" to simulate higher ISO, yes, that happens, but the NR controls in LR should be pretty good at cutting that down. Like I said, K20D is a bit better, but not earthshatteringly so - look at samples posted here (like the most recent ones in the thread about how well the K200D & K20D "clean up") and you'll see noise at ISO 3200 there too. Other samples make it look like some sort of miracle camera. I find that with any camera, the amount, type, and appearance of noise is extremely dependent on lots of factors.

[jadem]

Get the K200d and you will never regret. Just a happy k200d user!

[klh]

Wow, thanks again for all the advice. I'm leaning pretty heavily toward the K20D now, primarily based on the extra dial/buttons and slightly faster fps.

I'll try to get up to Chicago this weekend to have a look. In the meantime, I found what looks to be a great price at buydig.com (K20D with 18-55 kit lens) for $769. They are a licensed Pentax dealer. Does anybody have experience with them?

[klh]

Just to close the thread - I purchased the K20D with the 18-55 kit lens. It arrived on Friday.

So far it's been great! Now to start saving up for some new lenses!

[Canada_Rockies]

The controls on the K10 and K20 are much less reliant on diving into the menus. My daughter just visited for the weekend, and brought down her brand new K200 with the kit 18-55 II lens. The sensor is the same as my K10 has. The K10 has the following major (to me) advantages.

• OK button used to change ISO as well as display it.
• Front e-dial. Don't need to function shift the single dial.
• AF/MF switch includes AF.S and AF.C selection
• Focus point setting (Auto, Select, Centre) on camera back

The K200 has scene modes that my K10 does not. I use Hyper program for that, but have been using SLR cameras for a long, long time.

It boils down to user preference. I prefer to use external controls over menu diving for the most used functions. Tanya is upgrading from a Canon P&S (G9 I think) and wanted to get the better quality and ability to change lenses, but without the complexity of the K20 controls.

[Marc Sabatella]

I always feel compelled to point out that not everyone uses the same functions. A button to change the focus point from center to anything else would be wasted plastic for me - I have no interest in changing this. Ditto on AF-S versus AF-C, centerweighted metering versus the other methods, or most of the other external controls provided on the K20D. For me, those buttons would be a *detriment*, because it would become possibly to accidentally change one of them without realizing it (as used to happen with my RAW button before I disabled it). Others, however, muck with those settings all the time, and appreicate those controls a lot.

On the other hand, direct control over ISO while in "M" mode would be nice.

[Canada_Rockies]

I always feel compelled to point out that not everyone uses the same function. A button to change the focus point from center to anything else would be wasted plastic for me - I have no interest in changing this. Ditto on AF-S versus AF-C, centerweighted metering versus the other methods, or most of the other external controls provided on the K20D. For me, those buttons would be a *detriment*, because it would become possibly to accidentally change one of them without realizing it (as used to happen with my RAW button before I disabled it). Others, however, muck with those settings all the time, and appreicate those controls a lot.

On the other hand, direct control over ISO while in "M" mode would be nice.

As I said, user preference. The K10 and K200 can take identical high quality images and both are weather proofed. You pays yer money and you makes yer choice. Both are very good cameras.