Yeah, I said it! I just don't understand why somebody would pay $1000-1400 for a camera that isn't THAT much improved from the K10D.
Yes, it has a very nice sensor. I'll give it that much.
-Live view? It's been discussed. Some will use it, others will not. Some say they will use it, but never will.
-PC sync socket? A hot shoe adapter costs $20 or less.
-Dust alert system? Tiny improvement.
-Expanded Dynamic Range? Okay, this may come in handy for picky photographers or portraitists, but for the majority of us, there's Photoshop, GIMP, Aperture, Corel, etc.
-Custom image functions? This may just be my opinion, but whoop dee doo! Again, IMHO this is just for a picky photographer that doesn't want to post-process his/her pictures.
-Still sync speed is 180.
-2.7-inch LCD. Almost all the others are 3"
-Shake reduction system still anything but extraordinary.
-AND still only 3 FPS
Now, don't get me wrong. For the photographer who demands perfect IQ and huge-sized images, this is a great camera. But that's not everybody. The Canon 40D, Nikon D300, and Sony a-700 are all SO much better, judging by specs.
PLEASE note, though, that this was written by an owner of a K10D, not a K20D. I've never owned one.
I do not mean to offend anybody by this; I'm only sharing my opinion, and starting a debate. People keep saying what they love about this camera, but IMHO it's not that big of an upgrade from the K10D. Good luck against 40D, D300, and A-700.