[skb0]

Hi folks,

After two years, I finally sold my K200D, because I thought it was time to change and in order to anticipate better models (before I have to give it for free :-) ).

But which one will be the next one ?

The camera I'm looking for could be simply something like my former K200D but with a better sensor (higher ISO) and better viewfinder (as I had on older film SLR) and LiveView (mainly for checking focus while using old lenses or shooting macro). I have no need for video, powerful AI-Servo 78145 points AF or automatic ghosts and aliens profiling. I only use RAW mode, storage is so cheap these days !

Of course, I don't want to add a lot of money to buy the new one (about 500€ or less for the body).

My main lenses :
- DA 35 LTD (everyday use and macro, so accurate focusing is required)
- A 50/1,7 (manual focusing, so a nice viewfinder is required)
- M 135/2,8 (same, and metering should be better than on K200D with these lenses)
- DAL 55-300 (nothing special, forces higher ISO because of it's slow aperture)

I take most of my pictures while hiking or wandering (even at night) and I have come to a simple conclusion : when you have a DSLR with you, it's always too big and too heavy, will it be a K-X or a 5DmkII. Maybe one day the smallest μ4/3, EVIL or P&S will be good enough to allow something very small to take the best pictures out of your pocket, but it's still a dream. Not so bad results, but too far from what we are used to get with our DSLRs !

So, I have several choices :

- K-X : nice sensor but "cheap" building and handling, nice price. Not improved viewfinder, even worse. LiveView seems ok. Tried it in a shop.
- K-7 : very impressive (viewfinder, noise, feeling), but expensive even on 2nd hand. Tried it in a shop.
- K-20D : was impressive, but pretty cheap 2nd hand. A bit big and heavy ? I've never seen one for real.
- K??? (upcoming models) : I'm pretty sure they will be expensive or quite similar to existing ones : a K-7 with a K-X-like sensor should cost about the same as a K-7, and even more because it's new and a bit more because Hoya likes turning affordable things to expensive ones :-)

And a few questions :
- Can K7/K20 provide nice (usable even with some PP) pictures @1600-3200 ISO or not ? It's hard to find useful informations about this, it's more like a K-X vs K-7 high ISO war, with pictures from beyond (a lighter in the night @12800, not so much things to see, fireworks or the lights of a city, with a dark sky full of artefacts)
- Is the K20D that big compared to a K200D or K-X ? I can't figure how it can feel in hands.
- Is LiveView on the K20D good enough for checking focus or is it definitely that crappy and unusable ?
- Except for the size and a few improvements (according to my requirements of course), does the K-7 really worth the money (about 700€ 2nd hand) when I can have a K20D for about 400€ ? Are there incredible features I could miss and regret later ?


Thanks for any kind of help !

[JeffJS]

K7/K20d High ISO.. If you expose properly, they are usable. Some PP Noise reduction will benefit them, as with any camera. By all accounts, every Pentax dSLR I've ever owned has been a dog when it comes to high ISO shooting but I've never really found it to be a problem (when understanding the limitations).

K20d Size and Live View. If you held the K7, the K20d is slightly larger (the body of the K7 is a little shorter). Weight feels about the same to me. I put the grip on the K7 and find it a joy to use and I hated the grip on the K20d (made it too big for my liking). Your mileage may vary in that respect however. Forget about the LV on the K20d. It's garbage. It may help some for Manual focusing but the viewfinder is much better.

New models.. They are going to be expensive. In spite of what some may tell you, I wouldn't look for the K7 price to drop like a rock anytime soon.

Good luck..

[causey]

I switched from K200d to K-x a few months ago. Overall, I'm happy with my choice. I like K-x's high ISO performance and the fact that it's small and lighter than K200d (back problems...). I don't think it feels cheap, although to be sure it's not as robust as k200d. Better AF + the extra 2 megapixels make a difference. But that's me. I don't care a whole lot about the looks and buttons of a camera (I have to be frugal, and I'm no professional); what I'm after is picture quality, and I think there the K-x wins. Still, the difference in image quality between the two cameras is very tiny, really insignificant, compared to the difference that a good photographer can make. If you do prefer a more robust camera (weathersealing and all), then I'd say now it isn't a good time to upgrade. The k200d isn't outdated. Moreover, if you haven't got a K20D instead of K200D, can see no point in doing it now. To me it doesn't seem that going from K200d to K20d can count as serious upgrading, especially in the circumstances of the moment, when K-x, K-7 are available, and when rumors say Pentax is going to release two more cameras in the near future.

Maybe K-7 is for you; but in your place, assuming I don't entertain the idea of getting a K-x, I would wait for another couple of years, until the prices of the next wave of bodies are affordable enough. Right now there's no significant leap you can make by upgrading-- that is, unless you're after better higher ISO and a couple more megapixels)

[Marc Sabatella]

- A 50/1,7 (manual focusing, so a nice viewfinder is required)

Note while the Kx might be worse than your memory of the K200D, it's actually identical. I don't know if you had an O-ME53 viewfinder magnifier for your K200D, but I recommend it.

- M 135/2,8 (same, and metering should be better than on K200D with these lenses)

What issues did you have with metering? Unlike some other models (eg, K20D and K-7), the K200D is actually perfectly consistent as you stop down. The only "issue" is that you are limited to center weighted metering.

- Can K7/K20 provide nice (usable even with some PP) pictures @1600-3200 ISO or not ? It's hard to find useful informations about this, it's more like a K-X vs K-7 high ISO war, with pictures from beyond (a lighter in the night @12800, not so much things to see, fireworks or the lights of a city, with a dark sky full of artefacts)

If you check out the High ISO thread in this forum, you should actully see quite a few real shots from all the cameras in question. Of course, different shooting situations, different camera settings, different PP applied, so it's tough to make *direct* comparisons. But an overall picture does emerge. i'd say the K-7 is slightly worse than the K200D at high ISO, the K20D slightly better.

- Is the K20D that big compared to a K200D or K-X ? I can't figure how it can feel in hands.

Feels that way to me, yes.

Frankly, I'd have kept the K200D until finding out what the new models brought. No way is the price for a used K200D going to change drastically any time soon just because new models come out. But prices of K-x's and K-7's might. Plus then you'd have new models to consider. As it is, if I were in your shoes, when the new models do come out, I might look around and just decide to buy another K200D. But for someone for whom size is not so much an issue, the K20D makes a ton of sense. I'd say the K-x makes a lot of sense too, but the way the mirror flips when stop-down metering on manual lenses is a deal breaker for me personally. Aside from that, I'd be perfectly thrilled with one.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 09-03-2010 at 10:01 AM.

[yeatzee]

If you check out the High ISO thread in this forum, you should actully see quite a few real shots from all the cameras in question. Of course, different shooting situations, different camera settings, different PP applied, so it's tough to make *direct* comparisons. But an overall picture does emerge. i'd say the K-7 is slightly worse than the K200D at high ISO, the K20D slightly better.

Owning both, i'd have to disagree....

[interested_observer]

And a few questions :
- Can K7/K20 provide nice (usable even with some PP) pictures @1600-3200 ISO or not ? It's hard to find useful informations about this, it's more like a K-X vs K-7 high ISO war, with pictures from beyond (a lighter in the night @12800, not so much things to see, fireworks or the lights of a city, with a dark sky full of artefacts)
- Is the K20D that big compared to a K200D or K-X ? I can't figure how it can feel in hands.
- Is LiveView on the K20D good enough for checking focus or is it definitely that crappy and unusable ?
- Except for the size and a few improvements (according to my requirements of course), does the K-7 really worth the money (about 700€ 2nd hand) when I can have a K20D for about 400€ ? Are there incredible features I could miss and regret later ?


Thanks for any kind of help !

ISO - I have a K20 and recently took some photos at my niece's high school graduation in May, out side - at night in the football stadium using ISO 3200. It worked out pretty well, would have been better if I would have brought my tripod. Anyway take a look at post #11 at...

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-beginners-corner-q/105636-grad-pho...ml#post1087828

Size - I too was worried that compared to my K100 the K20 would be too large. If I remember right, its 5oz more weight. Its a tad larger than the K7.

• K20 .. - 142 x 101 x 70 mm (5.6 x 4 x 2.8 in)
• K200D - 134 x 95 x 74 mm (5.3 x 3.7 x 2.9 in)

Liveview - I have not used it...

hope that helps ...

[skb0]

I thank you all for your replies !

I know the K200D is very great product, not outdated, but all I need in fact would be the same with a larger viewfinder (I used mine with a K3 focusing screen and a TENPA 1,36x magnifier) and a few more ISOs (I'm not afraid of PP but it's quite frustrating to miss a picture because it's to slow, even wide open @1600).

The K20D seems to be a great alternative (I only have to add about 100€ to get one, about the same for a K-X and about 500 to get a K-7 ! I sold my K200D + 18/55 for 350€), offering a better viewfinder and a more capable sensor.

And if it's still too big/heavy, I'll sell it again :-)

[Marc Sabatella]

re: my statement that the K-7 is slightly worse at high ISO than the K200D

Owning both, i'd have to disagree....

No doubt, you've got better data than me here. Do you have samples you could post - like direct comparisons?

My impression is formed mostly by just kind of looking at the various samples posted in these threads that are *not* direct comparisons, but there are so many variables that it's hard to sort out. I *have* done a direct comparison using the RAW images from the Comparometer still life test at ISO 1600, and to me the K200d does beat the K-7 there, but I'll readily admit that's not an ideal comparison either.

I gather the K200D does NR on its RAW files at ISO 1600 whereas the K-7 apparently doesn't until *above* 1600. Since I usually care about the results I'll get in practice - and that means apply the sort of PP I might expect to apply - it's not the default conversions of the RAW files I should compare, but the results after tweaking to my satisfaction using my basic PP workflow - in particular, tweaking a couple of sliders in ACDSee Pro. When I do that - tweak both individually to get the most pleasing balance between NR and detail retention to me - I'd say the differences in in the Comparometer images do largely go away. The K200D does still show more detail for the same amount of noise for the most part, but it was also shot with a different lens, it seems (a 200mm lens versus a 70mm lens). Depending on what specific lenses were used, the difference should probably not have favored the K200D, but it's still a variable I can't control.

[Marc Sabatella]

I know the K200D is very great product, not outdated, but all I need in fact would be the same with a larger viewfinder (I used mine with a K3 focusing screen and a TENPA 1,36x magnifier) and a few more ISOs (I'm not afraid of PP but it's quite frustrating to miss a picture because it's to slow, even wide open @1600).

I can't help with the viewfinder - sounds like you've already pushed the K200D to the limits there. But I would observe that "more ISOs" is not a problem if you're willing to PP. I do this all the time - shooting deliberately underexposed at ISO 1600 to get a faster shutter speed, then pushing the exposure in PP. That's very easy to do as a batch process in most programs. And this is basically what cameras that offer higher ISO setting in camera do anyhow - they shoot underexposed at ISO 1600 then push the exposure digitally. Whether you do it in camera or in software, the results will be exactly the same. Underexposing at ISO 1600 and pushing one stop in PP is *exactly* the same as shooting ISO 3200 in the first place; pushing two stops is *exactly* the same as shooting ISO 6400.

Of course, I won't claim the K200D is as *good* as the K-x or K20D at these levels. I will say that up to the equivalent of ISO 3200 and a little beyond, I find the results quite usable and not that far behind what the K-x or K20D can do. But there seems to be a "knee" in the curve about half a stop past past ISO 3200 where the K200D usually gets noticeably worse by more than I'd expect, while the K-x usually doesn't. Still, the results are dependent on a lot of factors like the color of the light, the amount of detail in the shot and the texture of the surfaces depicted, whether the interest is in the lights or the shadows, etc. See this post for a recent example.

So anyhow, if the concern is mostly the larger viewfinder and the *ability* to shoot higher ISO in camera, and not so much issues with the *quality* of the K200D's results at those ISO levels, and size is of some concern, then the K-7 seems the natural choice right now. But still, might as well wait I think. I doubt the K-7 will go up

[ihasa]

Another K200D user here! By far the nicest camera I have ever used. However the K-7 is now catching my eyes at the current prices.... to me it's a natural 'upgrade', a 'K200D Deluxe' with those little enhancements like the gorgeous viewfinder, metal body, and LV.... in a similar sized WR package. And having HD video + mic socket is just thrilling for me!

I've spent hours pixel peeping, and it looks to me like the K-7 has 'nicer' noise at ISO1600 if not necessarily that much less of it - crunchy grain which is in itself fairly acceptable, rather than smudgy mottling. Like the K200d, the camera seems to respond well to a little coaxing and ETTR.

While I would love to wait for the K5 (or whatever) to settle down to current K7 prices, that's going to be too long to wait, I'm afraid. If it combines high ISO capability and even faster AF with the current K-7 body and feature set, prices might NEVER quite settle down to that level! I think such a camera would be a showstopper as I am sure it's the high ISO issue that has put a lot of people off buying the K7.

K-x - amazing high ISO, but seeing through that K-7 viewfinder, and the build quality, has spoiled me I'm afraid!