[cbaytan]

I had been planning to give my K200D to a niece if I go for the K-5. But after reading through this string... maybe not.

If your niece understands the IQ as my wife, you might kiss good-bye to your K200D as me.

[speedoo]

Moo?¡ : Ou? p??' Ou? p???

I recently bought one and am waiting for delivery. Did some research and decided the camera and price were very attractive.

"refurbished" usually means not used, just can't be sold as new for a variety of reasons. I've bought other Pentax DSLR's from these folks and the cameras were basically new.

use coupon code "TAXSUCKS" to save the $5 shipping, but you will owe sales tax.

[john5100]

Had the opportunity to shoot Rod Stewart and Stevie Nicks with the good ole K200D. They had the media at the very back and the DA* 50-135mm had to be cropped like crazy for this shot. I really needed a 300mm lens.

[pepolak77]

I think about upgrading,but can´t do some comparison on my own.For my shooting I don´t need more than ISO 1600.1250 looks something like this
pepolak: Galleries: Digital Photography Review
All shots are without NR
color25
luminance0
As for ISO do I get much better results with K5?I don´t get to try K5.I´m planning
to buy DA 70/2,4 and can´t afford both

[jimr-pdx]

I stepped away from the k200d when a barely-used K-x came my way for under $400. I'd sure love a sealed body with the 12mpxl sensor, if that keeps it from competing with the K-5. On the k-x iso5000 looks like what I was used to at iso1600 from previous cameras (k200d, K-7).

[Marc Sabatella]

I originally thought the use of AA batteries was great, but then realized environmentally, not so good.

??? Surely AA's take no more resources to produce or recharge than Li-Ion cells? Obviously, disposable AA's don't make sense environmentally, but they wouldn't make sense monetarily, either.

[Marc Sabatella]

I stepped away from the k200d when a barely-used K-x came my way for under $400. I'd sure love a sealed body with the 12mpxl sensor, if that keeps it from competing with the K-5. On the k-x iso5000 looks like what I was used to at iso1600 from previous cameras (k200d, K-7).

FWIW, while this is a common initial impression, it really doesn't stand up to controlled testing. Only in the darkest shadows does the K-x really have that significant an advantage, but for mid-tones and lights, the difference is under one stop. If you still have both cameras, you might want to do such a test yourself, but it's also easy to do by checking the RAW samples on Imaging Resource, and others have done such a comparison themselves as well. The bottom line always works out the same - K-x 5000 is nice, but certainly not as good as ISO 1600 on the K200D, and in fact, not any better than 3200 (1600 push processed one stop) on the K200D. I suppose if you shoot JPEG the difference might seem bigger, as I gather the K-x has more effective in-camera NR in its JPEG engine.

[Marc Sabatella]

I've had my K200D since 2008 and the K-5 is the first Pentax since then that has caused me to seriously consider upgrading. Yes, the K200D could do better at high ISOs and I wish its buffer and burst mode were more robust. And, of course, Pentax's auto-focus system has improved steadily over the course of three years. Still, no other camera until the K-5 has included all of the things I love about the K200D including build quality, weather resistance, top LCD and image quality at low ISOs. I had been planning to give my K200D to a niece if I go for the K-5. But after reading through this string... maybe not.

I'm with you. The K-5 is the only camera I've seen that I'd be happy upgrading to, should my K200D ever fail, or should someone hand me $1500 to spend on camera gear. Personally, I couldn't care less about the extra buttons (ISO would be kind of nice, but that's it) or front dial, or live view, or most of the other features some might point to. But the somewhat nicer viewfinder and much quieter shutter are things I'd welcome, and be satisfied that I was not giving up anything else (except AA batteries, which I've pretty much resigned myself to) to get. And real world images appear to confirm what dxomark numbers show: almost a full stop improvement in performance.

Still, it's hard to complain about the K200D, and that's coming from someone who shoots high ISO a *lot*. Here, for example, are some shots from a couple of nights ago, part of a concert photography workshop I was teaching. The first is at the equivalent of about ISO 5000; the others at various other points from there down to 1600. Considering that shots like these would have been unimaginable just 10 years ago, it's *really* hard to complain.

[Fries]

Marc, consider me someone that's a bit of a fan of the K200D. Although I bought a K-5 I am still planning on using the K200d at a small wedding this month. I am still more comfortable with that camera in combination with a flash than the K-5. And I know it is capable of delivering quality photo's. Just to test how the 'old fellow' was doing I used it for this photo which was without flash.

[cbaytan]

Aha! our dear Marc is back. Where you been Marc? Jamming around? You're being missed.

[Marc Sabatella]

Thanks - just busy. I actually had been posting the last few weeks in the lens forums, though.

[JETninja]

I love mine, no idea how many shots I've taken. It lives in a Kata 467 in my Car, heat and cold do not faze it. Its been on several cruises to Mexico, will be in Europe for 12+ days in a few weeks. Only weak spot IMO is the sensor low light performance. My Son's KX blows it away in that respect, but I'd rather have my K200D. Someday I hope to score either a K20D or maybe a K5 mostly due to the improved low light ISO performance...

Doing Europe with just the 18-55mm and 55-300mm, cant wait!

[Biro]

I'm with you. The K-5 is the only camera I've seen that I'd be happy upgrading to, should my K200D ever fail, or should someone hand me $1500 to spend on camera gear. Personally, I couldn't care less about the extra buttons (ISO would be kind of nice, but that's it) or front dial, or live view, or most of the other features some might point to. But the somewhat nicer viewfinder and much quieter shutter are things I'd welcome, and be satisfied that I was not giving up anything else (except AA batteries, which I've pretty much resigned myself to) to get. And real world images appear to confirm what dxomark numbers show: almost a full stop improvement in performance.

Still, it's hard to complain about the K200D, and that's coming from someone who shoots high ISO a *lot*. Here, for example, are some shots from a couple of nights ago, part of a concert photography workshop I was teaching. The first is at the equivalent of about ISO 5000; the others at various other points from there down to 1600. Considering that shots like these would have been unimaginable just 10 years ago, it's *really* hard to complain.

You are absolutely right. The shots you've posted are fine images - with noise being noticeable only in the cymbals in the third shot. Perhaps mine is a point of view appreciated most by those who came up during the film era. But a little bit of noise does not upset me. The presence of some luminous (as opposed to chroma) noise produces a fine grain that often (at least to me) says "This is a photograph." Nice work.

[gp1806]

I am a little sad, in daylight I like the IQ better on the K200D than the K-R. I really can't say what it is, the k200D shots just look better to me. The focus is slower on the K200, but it is more accurate than the K-R. I like my grip on the K200, NA for the K-R. I could go on, but the K-R gets me shots in low light that I could not manage to get with the K200. My technique is not as good as Marcs, I guess. I would like a K-5, but that will have to wait.

[minahasa]

I'm thinking of letting go my K100DS for K200D, want to go up higher, but pocket says little step Wise or?