[Stib101]

I have been experimenting with studio portraiture using my Pentax K-x & have been generally happy with the results. I'm looking for a 2nd body just for this purpose & save the K-x for other activities ie. walkabouts for it's compact size(perfectly fits diaper bag with the DA 40mm attached cushioned with nothing but diapers & bibs). I have been looking around for used bodies & pricewise, they're pretty close. I'm leaning towards the K-7 because it's a newer generation(pre K-5) camera. Whereas, I heard so much about the K20D as a good workhorse for this specific task albeit, much older. I still have my K100D Super that my wife uses & love the pictures I get from it. They're different(warmer tone) compared to the K-x. What do you think?

[Ash]

For studio work, you will find insignificant difference between the K20D and K-7 output. The K100D Super has that beautiful 6Mp CCD sensor that renders colours very vividly. Nevertheless the K20D rendition has been considered very natural and I can recommend it for work between ISO 100-400. So too the K-7, which has essentially the same sensor as the K20D.

[hcc]

I will agree very much with Ash based upon pictures that I saw. The most important (by far) is the lens selection.

[elho_cid]

It is quite ironic that the K20d is actually better for this specific job. You can use tethering with genuine Pentax tools, while that would be problematic with K-7.

[Michu]

Do studia - K-7. Ma o wiele lepszy AF, a to bardzo ważne podczas pracy przy świetle modelującym.

[newmikey]

I'd second the vote for the K20D especially in the studio. Nothing to sneeze at out in the open either, it still is an awesome camera. It always amazes me how soon we forget the quality of what we tend to call "old" camera's.

With the difference in prices it pays to buy a slighter older model, allowing that much more leeway for lens purchases. On MP count alone there's not much to choose between the K20D and its two successors. Apart from being able to hold the latest and greatest, the main distinguishing issues that would direct a choice are:
-K20D if you are just after the pixelcount and IQ at ISO's up to 800 (landscape, portraits, architecture etc.)
-K7 if you have an occasional need for video (vacation, meetings etc.)
-K5 if high-ISO is an absolute must-have (concerts, weddings etc.)

I've held off the upgrade and sunk my money into Sigma's ultrawide 8-16mm which fits in neatly below my DA16-45 and DA*50-135. It really pays to look at glass first, body second unless one of the above bulletpoints is a must.

[wll]

I'd second the vote for the K20D especially in the studio. Nothing to sneeze at out in the open either, it still is an awesome camera. It always amazes me how soon we forget the quality of what we tend to call "old" camera's.

With the difference in prices it pays to buy a slighter older model, allowing that much more leeway for lens purchases. On MP count alone there's not much to choose between the K20D and its two successors. Apart from being able to hold the latest and greatest, the main distinguishing issues that would direct a choice are:
-K20D if you are just after the pixelcount and IQ at ISO's up to 800 (landscape, portraits, architecture etc.)
-K7 if you have an occasional need for video (vacation, meetings etc.)
-K5 if high-ISO is an absolute must-have (concerts, weddings etc.)

I agree about the K20D. I have some extra bodies just because it is a great studio camera and a stellar performer. I recently bought a refurbish one for $375.00 with 90+ shutter activations. I set it up with a used battery grip, a neck strap that carries an extra battery and lug this baby around for shots that I want to keep. Being that it is a WR body I have little reservation about taking it out to the boonies (of course you need a WR lens in wet weather). I have used it in higher ISO situations and you can get by, but of course nothing like the K-5 :-)

I had the K10D, and for me that camera did not cut it. ISO would start to get pretty bad at 800, where as the K20D was a good 1.5 - 2 stops better, IMHO. As a matter of fact the K200D, even though it used the same sensor as the K10D, seemed to be better, who knows ?

The other big deal is the tethering option that the K-7 or K-5 don't have ..... although I must say PK-tethering is a great program and does a heck of a job.

So much for my rant ;- )


wll

[RioRico]

Is this a poll? I also vote for the K20D, because of 1) quality and 2) tethering. As suggested, if you NEED video AND high ISO, get a K5. Otherwise, the K20D is just about the ultimate APS-C studio camera.

[sjwaldron]

I had a K10D (same body style) for a while and thought it was a better studio camera than my K-7/K-5. In slower paced settings, the control layout was perfect for that type of work.