[goddo31]

can't wait to hear what you think!

Cool
I'll have to make sure I actually remember to share the comparison then!! If you have a look on my Flickr in about a week you'll probably see something there too.

cheers,
Jason

[yeatzee]

Cool
I'll have to make sure I actually remember to share the comparison then!! If you have a look on my Flickr in about a week you'll probably see something there too.

cheers,
Jason

sounds good. i just realized we are friends on flickr

[JohnBee]

JohnBee - I appreciate your effort with the comparison stuff, but I think we all know the K-5 will beat the K200D with noise and push processing at 400ISO and above.
Not sure where you got 200ISO as the base either?? K200D should be base ISO 100 (it's not extended) and I thought the K-5 was the same.

Thanks,

TBH, I have no idea why I wrote ISO200 as nominal. If anything, I think it had something to do with the initial thread over at DPreview which involved highlight recovery. And... more to the point, the advantages of shooting at ISO200.

On the issue of ISO400 and push processing, I think you've missed the point of how the added DR of the K-5 comes into play in processing(at any sensitivity). which is where we either recover highlights or pull-up shadows. However... above all that, the reference I made was were the K-5 showed it's true potential in SNR as early as ISO400 against the K200D without any processing whatsoever.

And so I think the resulting advantages between both systems can be as much a thing of personal issue as it is an objective one. ie. how do you process you're images? and will you benefit from the added DR, SNR, color and tonal values of the K-5?

Granted... some people will obviously say "I see no difference" and mean it. Whereas someone else will say the complete opposite. Though what's outstanding, is where only one of the two. will actually shoot to tap into the added resources the K-5 has to offer. (make sense?)

As for the issue of graphs, there's really no sense pushing the issue. Some people find them to be valuable, while others don't. However, DxOMark has been proven to be conducive to RW observations in so many instances, that I think they have established themselves as a highly regarded source.

Cheers.

PS. I would recommend to all who are inquiring about nominal ISO performance, to read the original topic over at dpreview because it provides not only with real world images, but more importantly, how the added DR and SNR values of the K-5 can come into play in these particular conditions.

[goddo31]

John,

Thanks for your reply.
OK, I think I see what you're saying about the DR of the K-5 etc. I have no real doubt that the K-5 has awesome potential in terms of DR and SNR and more so as the sensitivity rises.
My curiousity is mainly centred on how the K-5 does against the K200D at low ISO (mainly 100ISO) where the exposure doesn't really need to be adjusted in post.
Even if the K-5 has a few more stops in DR at this range I am curious to see how the comparison goes. Part of the reason for me getting the K-5 is the DR...

I'm sure I will see some differences, the main things I am interested in is what sort of differences

Regarding the graphs, yes they are useful to a degree. I think maybe some of us are a little bit jaded about seeing graphs and reports so often - now this is not a comment about you, I just mean that there seems to be a lot of graphs and reports since the K-5 was launched. Of course they have their place, but it gets to the stage where you just want to see pictures. Even then, it's so subjective and hard to judge what is a 'good' picture from any camera (or lens) that you desire to compare something against.

I might have to go and have a look at dpreview then.

cheers

[john5100]

I'd say it was devised is to expose the noise patterns(attributes) between each system. However, I believe the OP(over at dpreview) went into details as to why he chose this type of comparison. And, if I understood correctly, the results were part of RW processing which he applied to his images. However in my own defense, I can say that when using plugins such as Topaz Adjust with K-5 files in contrast to the K200D really shows the strengths and weaknesses between both systems. This holds especially true when the images are shot at higher ISO's(ISO400+).

A few examples here:





These do a good job of showing where noise and dynamic range advantages can really make a difference.
So all in all, I'd say it is quite common to experience the strengths and weaknesses between both systems in real world processing.

One other issue I found with real world comparo's is where its not always easy to identify the causes of a systems weakness.
Which can be seen in this case of the dpreview topic. Where the OP was investigating vertical banding and edge tinging while processing K-5 files.
But the cause was very much up in the air, which had him convinced the K200D was better than the K-5 in this regard.

ie. Identifying magenta tinging where none should appear raises question as to why they are there(optical distortion, sensor distortion/bloom etc).
However... thankfully, we have others sources from which to draw our conclusions from also, and one of such sources is the infamous DxoMark which paints a rather good picture of the difference between both systems.

K200D, K-5 Signal Noise Ratio Comparison


K200D, K-5 Dynamic Range Comparison


Tonal Range Comparison


Color Range Comparison


Another good source(to investigate from) is with Imaging Resource and the infamous Comparometer. Which is a great tool for pixel peeping between the various systems so as to assess their strengths and weaknesses. In getting back to the response, I did notice a few requests for ISO100 samples. However, I think the topic initiated by MaKeR at dpreview helps show that sensor performances can prove to be critical even when shooting at or bellow nominal sensitivities(ISO100).
Despite it all, I am happy to say that the end result was.. a defective K-5 rather than what was initially thought at the beginning of the thread. And more importantly... where a normally functioning K-5 had no problems outperforming the K200D under the same conditions.

Hope this helps...

Hi buddy,

I'm not sure what I'm seeing in these photos. The first Audi looks better but what is the processing difference here?

Thank you

John

[cbaytan]

Hi buddy,

I'm not sure what I'm seeing in these photos. The first Audi looks better but what is the processing difference here?

John

Mercy. Look at the sky difference , look at the pot's surface, look at the ground underneath the pot, they play with the contrast and gamma (maybe also saturation and hue) in PPing on Canikon pictures. Reason: making the areas more visible and impressive. They are widely common procedures in photoshop. John Bee is saying K-5 pictures are more useful in PP than K200D's, which is no doubt about that. What would you expect from a high-ISO and especially DR monster?

[RichardS]

am I the only one not interested in comparison charts?

Nope. I applaud the people who have the technical ability to create the charts and understand what they mean for image quality. I don't. I just go by how the images appear to my. These shots illustrate the differences to me. EXIF should be intact. All natural/ambient light, no fill flash and no fancy tricks.

K200D, ISO 400, DA* 50-135,


K200D, ISO 100, DA* 16-50


This is a crop of


K200D, ISO 160, DA* 16-50


The first two are in hot, tropical sunlight. The last is indoors.

K-5, ISO 80, FA50 1.4 - quick snapshot


K-5, ISO 3200, FA50 1.4


K-5, ISO 400, FA50 1.4


The first was in glaring sunlight, the second in ambient light in an underground car park and the third was in overcast conditions.

They are different somehow. But I don't know how to describe the difference. Maybe it's the PP, but I don't think so. I'm not very sophisticated. I like both looks.

Richard.

[cbaytan]

K-5, ISO 400, FA50 1.4


They are different somehow. But I don't know how to describe the difference. Maybe it's the PP, but I don't think so. I'm not very sophisticated. I like both looks.

Richard.

Great samples, thank you, in fact they are the best K-5 pictures I've ever seen, wondering how K200D would behave with 50mm 1.4.

[canonfather]

cbaytan - If you use a memory card larger than 2G (SDHC instead of SD) you absolutely need - NEED - to do the firmware upgrade. If you're unconvinced, take a few controlled comparison shots of identical images on the SD card and then on the SDHC and try looking at them at 100% or closer - or try doing some contrast adjustments. You'll be convinced.

I've also noted that I seem to have better (smoother, fewer artifacts) results using the DNG format for RAW instead of the PEF. Probably just my software's ability to read it, but I work with what I have. : )

[cbaytan]

cbaytan - If you use a memory card larger than 2G (SDHC instead of SD) you absolutely need - NEED - to do the firmware upgrade. If you're unconvinced, take a few controlled comparison shots of identical images on the SD card and then on the SDHC and try looking at them at 100% or closer - or try doing some contrast adjustments. You'll be convinced.

I've also noted that I seem to have better (smoother, fewer artifacts) results using the DNG format for RAW instead of the PEF. Probably just my software's ability to read it, but I work with what I have. : )

DOH', I am totaly lost here, never had nor thought an SD card, my old K200D came with a 4GB SDHC card, I've used 1.5 years without a problem, than I gave it to my wife with a 8GB Sandisk Extereme III she used that with FW 1.0 , all was before FW 1.01 came out, I eventually upgraded her FW, but noticed no difference.

My 1 day old K200D arrived, I instantly inserted an 8GB Extereme III, using it perfecly without upgrading the FW.

I especially didn't understand what would be the difference between RAW files recorded to SD and SDHC cards? Are RAW files aren't the same files? How in the earth different card types could make an IQ difference between them?

[PacificCanuck]

I bought my first DSLR around 2 years ago now. When I started out I didn't have any preconceived notion of what brand I wanted. I looked around some stores, read some reviews, tried out the Nikon and Canons. However, when I picked up the K200D, it was the first camera in my price range that impressed me.

The build quality was significantly better than the similarly priced Canons and Nikons. It had a top LCD, which I thought was important -- and two years later, I'm very glad I did. The weather-sealing was a nice feature, and was a convincing argument towards overall build quality for me.

I read some reviews about image quality, and it seemed the K200D held up well enough -- maybe the JPEG processing was a little weaker than some, but it was certainly a good modern camera.

After rechecking all the other cameras, the K200D was still the only camera in the entry-ish level range that really stood out from the Nikons and Canons -- not because of swivel LCDs, or megapixel count, or HighDynaTechnoMagicalBurst Image Processing, or whatever -- but because it felt like a quality, well made instrument.

I'm disapointed that Pentax hasn't continued that tradition -- the Kx and Kr sound like great cameras, but I'm not sure they really stand out against entry level competitors from other brands. Add a simple top LCD (thats gotta be cheap) and some weather sealing (a little pricier) and build quality, and I think they'd stand out a lot more. Like someone else mentioned here, it seems like a niche they could have developed.

But hey, sounds like the K200D didn't sell very well, so what do I know. Maybe the ecomo
ics or marketing just don't work out.

Just a few days ago I posted some K200D images from Japan here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/138272-travel-some-shots...ep-2010-a.html They were taken with my K200D, paired with an FA50 F1.4 and an FA35 F2. Two years on, and I've been extremely happy with my camera -- K200D made me a Pentax 'fan'.

[cbaytan]

I've realized today, I didn't update my wifes K200D FW which I bought 2.5-3 years ago, FW shows V1.00, my new K200 came with FW 1.00 also, but when my camera has fine sharpness on the settings my wifes has not. That proves FW's can be updated silently. Bad part is camera companies won't allow you for FW downgrade if you are not happy/sure with new FW. I think it should be the consumers right to choose which firmware he wants to use on his camera. Also a PC/MAC flash program should be available for firmware updates for without recording the FW file on the memory card, That should be a very simple/small program I am sure, why they don't do that it's kind of weird.

[Jonathan Mac]

I bought my first DSLR around 2 years ago now. When I started out I didn't have any preconceived notion of what brand I wanted. I looked around some stores, read some reviews, tried out the Nikon and Canons. However, when I picked up the K200D, it was the first camera in my price range that impressed me.

The build quality was significantly better than the similarly priced Canons and Nikons. It had a top LCD, which I thought was important -- and two years later, I'm very glad I did. The weather-sealing was a nice feature, and was a convincing argument towards overall build quality for me.

I read some reviews about image quality, and it seemed the K200D held up well enough -- maybe the JPEG processing was a little weaker than some, but it was certainly a good modern camera.

After rechecking all the other cameras, the K200D was still the only camera in the entry-ish level range that really stood out from the Nikons and Canons -- not because of swivel LCDs, or megapixel count, or HighDynaTechnoMagicalBurst Image Processing, or whatever -- but because it felt like a quality, well made instrument.

I'm disapointed that Pentax hasn't continued that tradition -- the Kx and Kr sound like great cameras, but I'm not sure they really stand out against entry level competitors from other brands. Add a simple top LCD (thats gotta be cheap) and some weather sealing (a little pricier) and build quality, and I think they'd stand out a lot more. Like someone else mentioned here, it seems like a niche they could have developed.

Two years on, and I've been extremely happy with my camera -- K200D made me a Pentax 'fan'.

Wow. This is exactly my story too. I had no idea which DSLR to get as my first - until I picked up a K200D.

BTW, the firmware 1.01 only resolves an occasional error writing data to the memory card. I never experienced this error but upgraded anyway. I´ve noticed absolutely no difference in performance.

[josephleaf]

although this is a really old thread, I think there are some points to consider here, from a different perspective.

The K200 is kind of a middle level camera, in a market that demands Ultimate pro(pentax is firmly not in this market) Pro/advanced (K5, preceeded by K7, K20, K10 and *istD) and entry level K-r (preceeded by K-x, then K100, *ist DXX)

the K200 did not fit, it was an advanced level sensor surrounded by entry level electronics in a half way advanced body.

For pentax to survive they need to concentrate on hitting the Advanced and entry levels with strong contenders, the present cameras do that. I am not sure the money is there for something in between entry and advanced, especially as prices vs performance fall.

The other thing is, at least for me personally, I like the option of having sensors that are different. Although entry level, the K-x and K-r have different sensors that can do some things very well, and offer even an advanced shooter something other than the same sensor just not as good performance in the body.

I think with todays offerings you might see a serious shooter with K7 / K-x or K5 /K-r pairing, than you would have seen K10 / K200 shooters a few years back.

A good comment by Lowell indeed.

When I moved into DSLR from P&S (LX3), I was looking for a good-for-money body and thinking of buying good lenses in case i want to move on, or to just sell off the body when i decided not to do DSLR anymore.

K200D fits into the category. It has WR, focus points, top LCD, reasonable functions and I prefer it over the Kx, which was the entry-level body at that time. I found a new one with 2 kits selling at about US$500 last year and i bought it.

And later i found out the superb CCD sensor and it renders very impressive color with good light.

The high ISO performance is so-so, but for the amount I paid for, I couldnt ask for more. In fact, I paid for my LX3 with about the same price 2 years ago!

So right now, the only thing I need to concentrate is good lenses and when cash allows, I could always get a used K7 as a reasonable upgrade.

[lockheed]

Great thread. I was just testing an old SMC M 135/3.5 on my K-5 and on a whim I dug the now-neglected K200D from the bag and took the same pictures with it too. I was amazed to see how much more vibrant and sharper photos the K200D rendered... (even when K5 was in Vibrant mode and K200D in Natural). I didn't do a real comparison shooting, just a couple of jpgs, but the older model brought great photos so easily that I was astounded. I was thinking K5 would totally replace the K200D, but now it looks I'll have to keep both bodies in my bag. K5 for action, macro and low-light shooting, the old body for landscapes and daylight photos.

In addition K200D fits my hand a lot better than K5, and feels more natural to use. The only thing missing is front dial really.