[cbaytan]

I don't really think about any comparison.

May I kindly ask, why?

[planedriver]

May I kindly ask, why?

I hope You didn't misunderstand me...I can do that for You..but I don't have a tripod so I guess it would be totally unscientific and any result published here could be easily argued...for me my naked eye is enough and I have the impression that we have similar eyes.

(what I can do for You right now is to send You a private message with typical pictures I take..some with the k200d some with the K-5 and tell You what do I think about them-but this is really a subjective comparison..and really don't want to raise an argument about it here in this forum..like a year before when the K-x arrived...for some it was not sharp enough or soft..and there was no conclusion..just one: the K-x is a great camera)

Andras

[GlennG]

Tons of spot-on comments in here! Some reflections:

Here is my one of the bests sample of K200D, click on pic to see full size, amazing ain't it. http://www.baytan.org/Pentax/IMGP2401.JPG

Yes, it IS amazing. Beautiful. I recall my now 17 year-old daughter looking like that. Seems that it was just an instant ago.

I wanted to ask here, since many of you are familiar with the 10 MP CCD models, and can compare to others bodies - are K10/K200 photos "better" than photos from later models? I have looked at MANY photos on pentaxphotogallery and, if a photo seems particularly vivid, I find that it was more likely to be taken with a K10 or K200. In fact, to my eyes, those models (K10 or K200) seem to take the very best photos (if the light is good). Am I biased, or am I seeing something that is not there? Not that I think photos from K20 and later are not good (they are very good) - I just think the k10/k200 photos "pop", somehow. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Glenn

[cbaytan]

I don't have a tripod so...

BTW a solid rock or a tabletop are better tripods than tripods.

and really don't want to raise an argument about it here in this forum.

I understand about your hesitation, damn fanboys.

I've sent you a PM about my email. Thanks in advance for the samples, if you send them one by one, it'll be easier for the server for sure.

[planedriver]

Hmm. While I could carry two bodies around with me I really really don't want to - I'd rather have an extra lens.

If you're inclined and it's not too much trouble I'd really like to see a real-life comparison of the same scene with the same lens... You might save a few people here some money (though you'd also deprive Pentax of it).

timh..don't get me wrong..for me the k200d is the top choice for certain types of situations and the K-5 is just another top choice. And to be honest I would say the K-5 delivers low iso still pictures with a score of 8 or 9 compared to the 10 (this is about my taste!!)I give to the k200d...but on the other hand if I give 10 to the K-5 in other situations I have to admit that the k200d never comes close to..well to anything...

..but this is just not a fair comparison as we are talking about two different classes of cameras.

..beleive me having a wide angle as well as a tele-photo at hand during the same time is really great!!

Andras

[timh]

I would say the K-5 delivers low iso still pictures with a score of 8 or 9 compared to the 10 (this is about my taste!!)I give to the k200d

This is really interesting to me, because on any objective measure I've seen the K-5 sensor is significantly better. It's much higher resolution too, in terms of the number of photosites - that should overcome any light-collection advantage the CCD design has.

having a wide angle as well as a tele-photo at hand during the same time is really great!!

I can totally see that, if someone was paying me to shoot their wedding or similar event - but for ordinary leisurely photography? Hmm.. I can already fit a lens in each jacket pocket, that gives me a quick enough changeover if I'm really on a mission. I often think about getting a Sigma DP1-series P&S in addition to a DSLR but not two DSLRs... Not for me, at least.

[planedriver]

This is really interesting to me, because on any objective measure I've seen the K-5 sensor is significantly better. It's much higher resolution too, in terms of the number of photosites - that should overcome any light-collection advantage the CCD design has.

I am talking about my personal taste!..and that is subjective-and is nowhere near to being objective


Andras

---

Last edited by planedriver; 01-15-2011 at 11:23 AM.

[planedriver]

- I just think the k10/k200 photos "pop", somehow. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Glenn You got it spot on..for some (like me for instance) that sensor with a Pentax body around it can produce something special. And as You said "think" I have the same impression and expression..I think that's what I feel and I simply like that..so it has nothing to do with pixel-peeping or measuring anything..or at least I don't need a "measured proof" to convince myself..

Andras

[timh]

Oh, absolutely - but if the K-5 sensor is collecting more data in every respect it should be possible to replicate the output of the K200D with camera (or at least raw conversion) settings...

It'd still be really interesting to see raw files of a comparison.

[Tom in Delaware]

I don't miss the K200D because I still have it and won't ever sell it. It is a great landscape camera and the 10 mp CCD really delivers great IQ at 100-200 ISO. Dawn at Cape Hatteras with kit lens.

[sewebster]

This is really interesting to me, because on any objective measure I've seen the K-5 sensor is significantly better. It's much higher resolution too, in terms of the number of photosites - that should overcome any light-collection advantage the CCD design has.

A friend of mine just updated from the k10d (same sensor as k200d) to the k5 and he felt that the k10d had lower noise until iso 400 where they were equal and then the k5 was vastly better at higher iso. I think he much prefers the k5 in general, these were just his comments on iso performance.

[ihasa]

I agree with some of the other comments that the K200's build quality was a bit better than the Kx. Aside from the weather sealing, the body felt more solid and stiff. I upgraded to the K-7, a similar sized camera, and although I miss the base ISO 'out of camera' IQ, I am more than happy with the extra features and more tolerable high ISO noise. After basic post processing, the output from the K-7 can be equally as smooth and punchy IMO.

I don't not miss the terribly small buffer and slow fps of the K200D

I think Pentax thinks more like

K-x / K-r / K-5

No, I think the K-x is being discontinued, stocks are being run down here in the UK.

[joecen63]

Per me la k200d è una macchina favolosa per la sua categoria, un corto favoloso, mi sono trvato sotto la pioggia ed ho fotografato seza problemi con il 18-55wr,

[VaSA]

When I bought K200D, I think it was the best camera in its class for the price. No other entry-level camera had a 2nd LCD and weather sealing, and if one shoots RAW the pictures are incredible. The images out of my friend's Canon T1i actually look worse than the images out of my K200.

[cbaytan]

I wanted to ask here, since many of you are familiar with the 10 MP CCD models, and can compare to others bodies - are K10/K200 photos "better" than photos from later models? I have looked at MANY photos on pentaxphotogallery and, if a photo seems particularly vivid, I find that it was more likely to be taken with a K10 or K200. In fact, to my eyes, those models (K10 or K200) seem to take the very best photos
Glenn

Yeah, K10 and k200 CCD sensors and maybe AA filter choices made both cameras a phenomena, resolution & color tone graduations are beautiful in both, in fact IMO Pentax still sits on the K10D's reputation on the market that had Pentax name resurrect into digital arena. IMO (again) Pentax somehow is not using this reputation accordingly. K-7 have bad noise in high ISO's and K-5 had stained sensor accident were major mishaps for Pentax.