PentaxPoke:
I believe what Pop Photo meant by "unacceptable" was in comparison to the competition. Their results, which, I assume, must have some validity clearly show the K20d (which I proudly own) as lacking at ISOs > 1600. However, if I remember correctly, they only posted results for ISO 3200 in this review. So, I do not know what their assessment is for the ISO range which falls between 1600 and 3200. I do not believe you can infer, from their published review, that they ever said ISOs > than 1600 but < than 3200 are unacceptable on the K20. Do I make any sense?
You have shown us some great shots of high ISO from the K20--kudos! However, these shots will not earn %100 respect from we who analyze them until we see them at original size. Clearly, the effect of shrinking a pic has a directly proportional effect of hiding noise in the pic--would you agree?
But all this is kind of silly. The K20 has image stabilization which surely offsets some of the competition's advantage at higher ISO. We must note we can not say this about the A700 since it has stabilization aboard the body too. In fact, it is generally accepted that the Sony has a slightly better stabilization system.
The fact is, like so many other areas of life, that which is best is not decided in a black and white manner. What I mean is, although there surely are objective criteria by which a camera is judged, there is also, more importantly in my mind, subjective criteria, unique to the heart of the photographer, too.
The K20 offers a superior utility for old lenses. How, precisely, do we score this in the review--clearly, we can not. Why, because its value is determined by the individual photographer, not by some silly test.
I have digressed a bit, but for a purpose and I am steering back to your ISO concerns. Who cares if other cameras scored higher in the ISO test than did the K20? I knew this, but still bought the K20. What you find acceptable, another person will not. For some people, the edge the competition has at higher ISOs is vital, thus making the K20 "unacceptable." I care about high ISO, but I also care about other things as well. There seems to be a bit of an inferiority complex lurking about, but there is no need for it. I think it is good to simply admit the other cameras in the review outperformed the K20 at higher ISOs--IT IS THAT SIMPLE! But who cares! The K20 is still a great camera, capable of producing stunning resolution pics at very large prints.
No human being is perfect; we are all equally flawed--this surely is what makes us interesting and lovable. If we were perfect, there would be no need to be here--correct? Now if we are not perfect, how much further will the things we build be from perfection? This high ISO thing is much ado about nothing! The more we discuss it, the more it truly makes the K20 look like it is hurting.
I can't help but be reminded of the energy-packed rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. I am, for better or worse, a Red Sox fan. It is only recently that I have even known an iota of the "better" side of the coin. For decades I listened to how the Red Sox were just as good as the Yankees, but the facts remained the Yankees nearly always out-performed them.
I need to wrap this up! Discussions which set out to prove an earlier review about the K20 wrong are, in my eyes, missing out. The camera is a great camera. The camera is not the best performer in every single category--get over it. We need to be happy with what we have, not unhappy with what we don't have. How many years, how much pain, and how much wandering should it take to get to the soul of things?