[NLAlston]

By this weekend, I will be in the financial position to get myself some more photographic gear. My K10D has served me well, except for the fact that it falls short of the capabilities I'd really desire for nighttime & other low-lighting conditions, without my having to always haul a tripod around. I am keeping my K10D, but am considering purchasing another camera - and the one I am leaning toward is The Nikon D300. Research, and other given information, has revealed that this particular camera is awesome in its low-light handling. The K20D isn't out yet (as far as I could find), but I have tried to gain as much information on it, as I could; particularly within the area of my mentioned 'low-lighting' concern. Sadly, there wasn't much to help me.

I don't feed into that Nikon/Canon - "If it ain't one of us..." - foolishness, and I really wish that my beloved K10D was much stronger in the area where it is weak. But I, apparently, had to look elsewhere, and the D300 seemed to be the best option in my price range.

If the K20D was to have the 'strength' I desire, I would just wait until it was available - and buy it. At least, then, I'd have two bodies that could share the same stable (when acquired) of lens. I only have two rather inexpensive lenses for my K10D, so it isn't like I presently have a real investment in lenses. I had even considered purchasing the absolute fastest-cut-of-glass that could be had, for the K10D, but even that wouldn't hold a candle to the D300 being outfitted with proper glass.

If it's OK to ask this here - what, honestly, would you do if you were in my shoes?

[Arpe]

I would wait. Wait and see what the 20 is really like, if you can wait that is.

I am also looking to upgrade my istDs. At this stage it's the 20 or the Canon 40D. My thinking is that I will give the 20 a go, if it can't do as I ask, I will sell and change to the Canon. The main reasons for me not changing now are that fact that I've got the lenses I want now (and they are Pentax) and the built-in SR of the Pentax, meaning all my lenses will be upgraded at the same time! Buying IS lenses for the Canon would mean my having to start again, and building up again, slowly.

Slightly frustrating times we live in, I want answers now!!

[kittykat46]

My spouse has a Canon EOS 40D which I borrow sometimes in Auto mode - Very nice, very good high ISO Image Quality, good low-light AF speed and accuracy.

But the Pentax has on-board SR, while for the Canon and Nikon, you would be looking at far more expensive IS / VR lenses.

So if the criteria is No Tripod in low-light, the K10D often lets you take good pictures under conditions where the Canonikon cameras stay in the bag.

If Pentax did a good job with the K20D, low light performance ought to be better than the K10D - we'll see.

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't understand what you "desire for nighttime & other low-lighting conditions"

I have shot a LOT withboth the K10D and *istD at 1600 and 3200 and have been very pleased with the results.

I have seen postings by others also on this forum which are excellent given the shooting conditions.

I notice that except for your 50mm lens, your only other lens is very slow. This is a real handicap in low light situations.

While I have some slow zooms also, I use as my principle low light lenses my two fast zooms, Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and sigma 70-200 F2.8 plus fast primes, 24mm F2.5, 50mm F1.4 and 135mm F2.5. All the primes are MF and zooms AF.

I have no problem with focusing (neither does the camera) and I have do most shots with stage lighting.

I have also done night shots while travelling (city lights etc) with my K10D and had no issue.

It ma be what you desire is beyond the realm of present technology.

Regardless of what you ultimately do, you need much faster lenses. (the 50 is OK but you need better zooms and some primes) That is where you should put your money

[NLAlston]

Regardless of what you ultimately do, you need much faster lenses. (the 50 is OK but you need better zooms and some primes) That is where you should put your money

Lowell,

I think that I am going to hold off on the D300, and see what the K20D has to offer in 'real world' applications. If it stands true to all that is hyped about it, I will definitely get it. I didn't want to have just the one camera, and - with the K20D - I'd be in the position to share lenses, flash unit & other accessories (such as my battery grip, which is a 'must-have, for me). I would still be able to get some really nice glass for this pairing, and (quite possibly) be able to achieve just what I want.

Thanks.

[Matt Miller]

what, honestly, would you do if you were in my shoes?

Use the K10D and a tripod.
Get a fast prime.

[WMBP]

I don't feed into that Nikon/Canon - "If it ain't one of us..." - foolishness, and I really wish that my beloved K10D was much stronger in the area where it is weak. But I, apparently, had to look elsewhere, and the D300 seemed to be the best option in my price range.

If the K20D was to have the 'strength' I desire, I would just wait until it was available - and buy it. At least, then, I'd have two bodies that could share the same stable (when acquired) of lens. I only have two rather inexpensive lenses for my K10D, so it isn't like I presently have a real investment in lenses. I had even considered purchasing the absolute fastest-cut-of-glass that could be had, for the K10D, but even that wouldn't hold a candle to the D300 being outfitted with proper glass.

If it's OK to ask this here - what, honestly, would you do if you were in my shoes?

I am in your shoes, and I have decided to wait for the K20D.

I'm not a "Pentaxian." I have a bad personal vibe about Canon for reasons I can't understand (I have no bad experiences with Canon), but honestly, I don't very much care what brand of gear I use. I wish I had the money to own one or two of everything. If I were Bill Gates, before going to bed tonight I'd place orders for a Nikon D3, a D300, maybe a D40 for taking on walks, a Canon 5D, a Canon 40D, one each from Sony and Sigma and Olympus--plus my Pentax **ist DS, my K10D, and a new K20D when it comes out. Hey, let's throw in the new Leica DSLR, too. Oh, and I wouldn't want to forget great lenses for each of those mounts. I'll take one of everything in the Zeiss catalog, for starters.

Unfortunately, I can't right now afford ALL of that stuff. Actually, right now I can't afford to trade my K10D for a Nikon D-whatever. If I could afford it, I think I'd be content to sell my Pentax stuff and get a Nikon D300, which looks like a great camera. And it's available now.

But I have a lot of money invested in my lenses and other Pentax accessories like a couple of 540 FGZ flash units. My current lens collection, which I've gone to some trouble to get right, includes a couple Pentax primes, the 16-45 f/4, the DA* 50-135 (which alone cost much more than the K10D), and a couple of good Sigma lenses. I actually need most of these lenses and would prefer not to think about what it would cost to try to replace them with Nikon counterparts. $4K-$5K is my guess and I think I'm guessing on the low side.

So I'm going to wait at least for a couple of months and look at the K20D. I think the K20D looks like it's going to be a terrific offering. I have gigs to shoot between now and the spring when the K20D may begin to appear. But I don't really imagine that I'd do dramatically better with a newer camera from another maker. If the K20D comes out and doesn't actually grab me as I expect it will, then I'll reconsider.

Will

[RiceHigh]

I just won't put bet on the K20D which looks to share the same body, AF, AE and flash system as the old K10D - It will very probably just waste the money in the end.

If you are dissatisfied with the low light performance of the K10D, I bet the K20D will not be something much better and show great difference.

And as I have used the D200 (not even to say the D300 which has a brand new AF system), the AF performance and accuracy against the Pentax is just day and light. Actually, the Canon 400D's AF is just faster and more sensitive than *any* Pentax DSLRs ever made, frankly.

By this weekend, I will be in the financial position to get myself some more photographic gear. My K10D has served me well, except for the fact that it falls short of the capabilities I'd really desire for nighttime & other low-lighting conditions, without my having to always haul a tripod around. I am keeping my K10D, but am considering purchasing another camera - and the one I am leaning toward is The Nikon D300. Research, and other given information, has revealed that this particular camera is awesome in its low-light handling. The K20D isn't out yet (as far as I could find), but I have tried to gain as much information on it, as I could; particularly within the area of my mentioned 'low-lighting' concern. Sadly, there wasn't much to help me.

I don't feed into that Nikon/Canon - "If it ain't one of us..." - foolishness, and I really wish that my beloved K10D was much stronger in the area where it is weak. But I, apparently, had to look elsewhere, and the D300 seemed to be the best option in my price range.

If the K20D was to have the 'strength' I desire, I would just wait until it was available - and buy it. At least, then, I'd have two bodies that could share the same stable (when acquired) of lens. I only have two rather inexpensive lenses for my K10D, so it isn't like I presently have a real investment in lenses. I had even considered purchasing the absolute fastest-cut-of-glass that could be had, for the K10D, but even that wouldn't hold a candle to the D300 being outfitted with proper glass.

If it's OK to ask this here - what, honestly, would you do if you were in my shoes?

[mattdm]

If you are dissatisfied with the low light performance of the K10D, I bet the K20D will not be something much better and show great difference.

Really? I agree that the K10D is kind of weak at ISO 1600, but do you really think they'd introduce ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 modes if there were no difference? Honestly, if it can do a clean ISO 1600, that alone is a big step up. But if we take the published limits as a guide, I'm happy with the K10D at ISO 1250, and the implication is that the K20D will be similarly usable at ISO 5000.

[codiac2600]

I just won't put bet on the K20D which looks to share the same body, AF, AE and flash system as the old K10D - It will very probably just waste the money in the end.

If you are dissatisfied with the low light performance of the K10D, I bet the K20D will not be something much better and show great difference.

And as I have used the D200 (not even to say the D300 which has a brand new AF system), the AF performance and accuracy against the Pentax is just day and light. Actually, the Canon 400D's AF is just faster and more sensitive than *any* Pentax DSLRs ever made, frankly.

RH, is this opinion? It sounds like fact, but I know it's opinion. You even said in a post that the K20D high-iso images look good? Are you trying to play both sides of the field? Just calling you out on what you previously stated...

Oh, have you seen images from the final firmware K20D? Wait... no, many of haven't.

A few websites have compared the K20D high ISO with beta firmware to the Canon 40D and they say its either a tie or a close edge to the 40D.



To the original poster I'd wait and see what the real world images look like from the K20D before making a decision. You might be quite surprised to see the final results.

[codiac2600]

Really? I agree that the K10D is kind of weak at ISO 1600, but do you really think they'd introduce ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 modes if there were no difference? Honestly, if it can do a clean ISO 1600, that alone is a big step up. But if we take the published limits as a guide, I'm happy with the K10D at ISO 1250, and the implication is that the K20D will be similarly usable at ISO 5000.

He's just sad because his 5D has some stiff competition and Canon isn't replacing it anytime soon.

Honestly he is only speculating because he has nothing better to do...

[RiceHigh]

Really? I agree that the K10D is kind of weak at ISO 1600, but do you really think they'd introduce ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 modes if there were no difference? Honestly, if it can do a clean ISO 1600, that alone is a big step up. But if we take the published limits as a guide, I'm happy with the K10D at ISO 1250, and the implication is that the K20D will be similarly usable at ISO 5000.

I'm not satisfied with the K10D at even as low as ISO 400 when color noise starts to appear. With the K100D, things are acceptable up to ISO 800. For usable good ISO 1250 by my standard, my 5D is the only DSLR I have can provide that.

[RiceHigh]

He's just sad because his 5D has some stiff competition and Canon isn't replacing it anytime soon.

Honestly he is only speculating because he has nothing better to do...

Don't go it personal further and anymore. Or, I shall report it to the site owner. Since you're a "moderator", I would expect you should behave much better than others, whom I would just ignore them when they attacked me personally.

[RiceHigh]

Low light performance means many things for the abilities of the DSLR. The ability to focus in low light (not to say fast or accurate - just "able to focus") is one of the most key things about "low light performance" in my book.

RH, is this opinion? It sounds like fact, but I know it's opinion. You even said in a post that the K20D high-iso images look good? Are you trying to play both sides of the field? Just calling you out on what you previously stated...

Oh, have you seen images from the final firmware K20D? Wait... no, many of haven't.

A few websites have compared the K20D high ISO with beta firmware to the Canon 40D and they say its either a tie or a close edge to the 40D.



To the original poster I'd wait and see what the real world images look like from the K20D before making a decision. You might be quite surprised to see the final results.

[Mallee Boy]

I just won't put bet on the K20D which looks to share the same body, AF, AE and flash system as the old K10D - It will very probably just waste the money in the end.

If you are dissatisfied with the low light performance of the K10D, I bet the K20D will not be something much better and show great difference.

And as I have used the D200 (not even to say the D300 which has a brand new AF system), the AF performance and accuracy against the Pentax is just day and light. Actually, the Canon 400D's AF is just faster and more sensitive than *any* Pentax DSLRs ever made, frankly.

Hi Michael,
I'm a little confused and hopefully you can help me out.
On Jan 25, 2008. you posted that that "high ISO results from the K20D were surprisingly good."
Now you are saying that you are willing to bet that the " K20D will not be something much better and show great difference" than the K10D.

My confusion is what has changed your mind? Your two statements are very much a contradiction.



....and how much are you willing to bet?

Yours Sincerely
Grant