[adrhld]

If you have made the jump, can you tell me the advantages of k20 vs k10? I am considering this move or possibly a K7 from a K 10??

Thanks!

[Adam]

You won't be gaining much apart from the added resolution, whereas the k-7 is an entirely new body egronomically.

See our camera comparison system for a side-by-side comparison between the k10, k20, and k7.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-cameras-compared/?c1=k7&c2=k10d&c3=k20d

[Ron Kruger]

Look at a buch of posted pics from each model. Beyond the resolution Adam mentions, the K10D and K20D have different types of sensors, so they render colors and contrasts differently. Beyond all the numbers and charts and technical jargon, the look of the images is what matters most. Mega-mega pixels is overkill for most uses.

[Big Dave]

If you have made the jump, can you tell me the advantages of k20 vs k10? I am considering this move or possibly a K7 from a K 10??

Thanks!

If you like to do a lot of telephoto work the extra resolution will allow much greater cropping and still retain quality. I personally like the results of the cmos sensor better then the ccd. Oh, also better high ISO performance. If I had a K10D, I think that I would upgrade to at least a K7. Used K7s are getting cheaper and I have had excellent results buying from Marketplace. Of course a new one is cheap, at least in the USA.

Dave

[jjdgti]

I did the change from K10D to K20D. Adding some Megapixels. The K20D is a little better. Pricewise, there is not much difference now $300s for K10D and High $400 - $500 for the K20D.
Pluses is that you can use the grip if you have/upgrade.

For the K-7 it is about $650 and up. New body no compatibility with the grip.

For me, the K20D's only significant advantage was live view. I'm not as limber as I used to be, and live view enabled me to get ground level shots I couldn't otherwise have gotten.

On the other hand, my K10D never showed a hot pixel. But, for the month I owned it, my K20D was plagued with them. Ultimately, I returned the K20D after it developed a dark line through all images.

[SOldBear]

I personally don't think it's worthwhile to update from K10D to K20D, unless live view is important to you. I'm still not used to the live view feature with my K7 yet.

From K10D to K7 is a different story. Some of the improvements are important but not easy to quantify. To me they are:

- Quieter mirror & shutter.
- Much more consistent exposure in p-TTL (IMHO, p-TTL in K10D and K20D is unusable).
- Better exposure with manual lenses (I replaced the stock K10D focusing screen with the one for the *ist DS).
- Better ergonomics.
- Better battery meter (by the time the K10D displays less than full bar, there's only a few exposures left).
- More efficient sensor cleaner (the one in K10D is useless).
- AF assist light.
- In-camera HDR (I know, it's a gimmick, kind of. But I just took some nice Christmas light scenes that would be impossible without HDR).

[wll]

I had two K10'S and the two happiest days of my life were when I bought them and the day I sold them.

For any kind of low light shooting they were horrible....my DS's blew them out of the water as far as I was concerned.

On the other hand the K20D is one of my favorite cameras. Yes, it does not have the feature set of the K-7, that's a given, but .... the image quality is better at high ISO, and for me that is important.

If all the reports last year gave the K-7 better high ISO image quality I would have got rid of my K20D's, but the K-7 did not cut it. The quality of the sensor has been the topic of conversation for the last 12 months.

The new noise reduction software also makes the K20D look better as Topaz DeNoise 5 is awesome :-)

If anyone has a K20D, with low shutter clicks (under 2500) and is looking to get rid of it for ~450.00, PM me :-)

On another note ..... the K5 is the camera I have been waiting for from Pentax for a while. I'm very excited about it, worrying about high ISO and noise are closer to being a thing of the past.

So much for my rant ;-|


wll

[jamarley]

I too have been struggling with this dilemma. Since I can rarely afford to buy the newest, latest and greatest, I've been looking at the K20D for a while, but now that the K-5 is out I'm leaning (lusting?) a little more toward the K-7. Of particular interest is the improved viewfinder & LCD for my aging eyes, live view for my aging knees, and hopefully better AF for my aging reaction times.

But all this talk of poorer low-light performance compared to the K20D makes me hesitant. I shoot mostly outdoors, but in late afternoon/early evening light. I usually walk my dog for maybe an hour, starting about 1/2 hour before sunset. So my question is whether real world performance trumps the stats and is most of this brou-ha-ha basically pixel-peeping?

BTW, I've been meaning to complain about the use of the term "low-light". Just what does it mean in practice? I've seen some info on candle power and such, but I don't really know how to relate it to the world in which I walk daily. That's why I've stated when I'm out shooting vis-a-vis daylight hours rather than clock time.

Any insight would be appreciated and I hope the OP would benefit as well, as I don't want to hijack the thread.

Jeff