[philmorley]

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.

.

the change over isn't that high, especially now.

how much difference between 1dsmkiii and 5d and rebel? cost difference is big

some people pay $40k-$50k for a h3d $2k+ for each of its lenses. how much improvement is there over the k20d?

its slower, lower iso's, heavier, etc etc

the only thing that really is better is the image quality. is it worth that much extra? personally no, but the 2 people I know of that have one say yes.

[Ben_Edict]

It is interesting, that as, in many other discussions, too, people, not using a certain piece of equipment make the most outspoken negative comments.

One the other hand: IT IS ALWAYS NICE TO SEE; THAT THE K20 GETS COMPARED TO THE NIKON D200 or even D300 and the like. If you can even compare the K20 to modells costing 200% more, than Pentax has done some things VERY GOOD INDEED!


For me, assessing a camera always means, using it, because tech specs alone are only a basline, not the full story. I have and use both, the K10 and the K20. I only use the K10 now as a second body, if I need one and for a couple of lenses, that perform poorly on the K20's high res sensor.

Some of the "tiny" improvements are in fact very useful to me, may it be the "crippled" live view function (which is clearyl not as good as that of other makes, but still useful for some applications) or the pc connector (which I use with my studio flashes).

The image quality is great. It might not be very much better than the K10's, but you have 40 per cent more pixels to crop if one wants to change the size ratio of the final image and one can print A2 easily with the K20 files. I cannot really compare the noise level to other DSLRs, as always used Pentax. But it is very acceptable at ISO 800 and still the images are useable at ISO 3200. In film days it was pretty much the same. Have you ever pushed a Tri-X to 3200? That's what I call "noise"!

I cannot complain about the price tag at all. Any camera with similar image quality and this wide range of functiuonality from Nikon or Canon is way mor expensive.

The slow frame rate is a mark of Pentax, even in film days. Obviously Pentax historically always aimed at photographic markets, where the demand for high frame rates did not value very highly. Sometimes I wish for, at least those 5 fps, that my old MX and LX bodies + MDs reach, but I can live good with the K20, because I can shoot 8 or 9 RAWs in succession, before it slows down. That is more worth to me, than shooting five RAWs faster.

The 2.7-inch screen is smaller than 3 inches. So what? This is one decision, which kept the price of the K20 low, because Pentax could re-use the K10 body mostly. With a 3 inch screen they had to build a complete new body and we would have to pay for that. I like the thought to have saved not only 200 USD, but I also very much like the fact, that the K20 handels exactly the same as the wonderful K10. It is easy to use both cameras at the same time.

By the way, there are some more small improvements that are worth noticing:
- exposure bracketing now works with a single press on the shutter release button - tiny, but important to me! How often on the K10 I had forgotten to switch bracketing off and when I shot I got totally off exposures...
- the custom functions are even better than before
- you can adjust the screen colours
- shake reduction has been improved (at least in my experience)
- noise has been reduced (which I like very much)
- adjusting focus for different lenses might come in handy and is a feature until the K20 only the most expensive pro-modells offered etc. etc.

The K20 was a very good investment for me as I need two bodies anyway. Whether it is the adequate choice for a pure weekend or holiday snapper, is something entirely different.
Ben

[wildman]

[QUOTE=For me, assessing a camera always means, using it, because tech specs alone are only a basline, not the full story.

The image quality is great. It might not be very much better than the K10's, but you have 40 per cent more pixels to crop if one wants to change the size ratio of the final image and one can print A2 easily with the K20 files.[/QUOTE]

Ok.
This is why I use a K20D - the ability to get quality crops. This crop is about 1/8 the size of the full frame. For my kind of photography the ability to get good crops is essential.

[pentaxshooter]

Actually, just knowing that I have a higher number than those people with a K10D is enough improvement for me.

[pentaxshooter]

It was a joke.....

[RiceHigh]

One the other hand: IT IS ALWAYS NICE TO SEE; THAT THE K20 GETS COMPARED TO THE NIKON D200 or even D300 and the like. If you can even compare the K20 to modells costing 200% more, than Pentax has done some things VERY GOOD INDEED!

If anyone compares brand to brand, the K20D is the "best" in the Pentax land that will be the candidate to compete/compare. But it doesn't mean it is comparable, at least not in many areas that other excels without any doubt.

The IQ of the K20D maybe good, but when the exposure is not so correct and the AF produces OOF photos (when other cameras' AF still can do their jobs), it has no meaning at all when these two basic functions of a camera could not be performed

[jgredline]

Rice High,
Don't take this the wrong way, but your an idiot.

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.

Idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[RiceHigh]

This is the second time you violates the forum rule of not to attack people personally. I give you one chance, if you do the same for the third time, I shall raise a complaint to Adam.

Rice High,
Don't take this the wrong way, but your an idiot.

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.

Idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jgredline]

This is the second time you violates the forum rule of not to attack people personally. I give you one chance, if you do the same for the third time, I shall raise a complaint to Adam.

If it where not true, it would be an attack, however, if you read the definition, it describes you perfectly.

[GatorPentax]

alright everyone, lets all play nice now.

Even though we may not completely agree with Ricehigh, he has a right to his opinion. Calling someone an idiot isnt going to further this discussion in any shape or form.

With that said, im a pentaxian through and through (even converted 3 nikon owners ) but Ricehighs comment about searching for focus in dimly lit situations has merit. I've personally had to deal with it myself, but the picture quality of the k10d makes me overlook the focusing problem. Yes pentax may require a bit more work, but the results are, IMHO, better than anything the other camera companies have to offer at twice the price! And thats why i stick with Pentax. It may not be the most fancy, or the most high tech, but the photos always shocks my friends and family that uses other brands. They think i paid $2000+ for my camera lol

[letomuaddib]

alright everyone, lets all play nice now.

Even though we may not completely agree with Ricehigh, he has a right to his opinion. Calling someone an idiot isnt going to further this discussion in any shape or form.

With that said, im a pentaxian through and through (even converted 3 nikon owners ) but Ricehighs comment about searching for focus in dimly lit situations has merit. I've personally had to deal with it myself, but the picture quality of the k10d makes me overlook the focusing problem. Yes pentax may require a bit more work, but the results are, IMHO, better than anything the other camera companies have to offer at twice the price! And thats why i stick with Pentax. It may not be the most fancy, or the most high tech, but the photos always shocks my friends and family that uses other brands. They think i paid $2000+ for my camera lol

For whatever it's worth, the newbe me also agrees with the spirit of
RiceHigh's comments, if not the form (his website is a pure bash of
Pentax with almost nothing positive to say about a brand that has many
positives.)

I think we're not doing ourselves much of a service by ignoring problems
such as AF and exposure and keep blaming the user (in the exposure case
at the very least that's the usual response I see.)

Can Pentax do something about both of these things? Most definitely they
can. It's not in nobody's advantage to lose important pictures because
of underexposure. Yes, something can be salvaged using RAW and post
processing, but it usually exposes noise and, guess what, Pentax does
not seem to do great with noise, either (based on my own research and
experience with both the K200d and K20d.) So a weak side of the product
is pushing users into another weak side of the same product. Not a smart
decision to underexpose by default, if you're asking me (yeah, yeah, I
know you are not.)

Now, if the AF issue and FPS strike me as some potentially hard (perhaps
very hard) problems, the underexposure issue seems so stupid and easy to
fix that it's hard to understand why is it even there. I understand the
usual suggestion is that with Pentax you have to work a bit harder and
I would kind of buy that, but why not make the advanced users only work
harder, instead of those first coming in contact with the camera? If I
did not have a bright LCD screen that hid the underexposure issue until
I wrapped my head around the histogram and understood there was an issue
I probably would have returned the K200d in a week.

By the time I understood the issue I came to love the Pentax systems and
appreciate the many pros. However, by keeping acting like there's no problem
or the problem is very trivial for the user to solve on his own, I think we're not
sending Pentax the right message. This should be solvable by an easy firmware
upgrade and it shouldn't even require a new body. And as much as I am eager
to hear about new products at Photokina I would like to see old annoying
problems solved, too.

I was stung by the issue with the K200d but now that I just upgraded
to the K20d I rediscover it and I find it even more upsetting. The
suggestion to usually keep the exposure compensation at +0.7 is good
advice but somewhat funny. How would you feel to buy a manual car
and be told that the gears are actually shifted on this car by two
(first becomes third, etc.) and yes, it does make you do more work but
the results are pretty good?

Oh yeah, I forgot to introduce myself, I'm a very new user to the Pentax
system and an unexperienced photographer (discount my opinion on that
basis freely) and in spite of this message I love the camera and the
lenses. I just don't think it does anyone (including Pentax) any good to
ignore problems and act like they do not exist. The choice between the
features/price point we enjoy and have the small problems fixed is a false
dilemma, we can (and should) have both.

Best regards,

letomuaddib

PS: Much of this is based on me not having heard of a good reason to
underexpose pictures pretty badly (sometimes my histograms are all
cramped in the left half.) If, for some photographic reason this is
a good thing I would like to know (though I still think it caused
more than one user to return his Pentax for a refund because of "dark
pictures and it's not smart to push users into seeing noise problems
even at pretty low ISO speeds because of underexposure.)

PPS: Are long winded messages frowned upon here? I guess we shall see.

[res3567]

The K10D has lower noise at 1600 than the K20D according to a recent issue of Popular Photograpy that tested the K20D. The do the full test on some sort of machine and I am satisfied with the noise levels on my K10D. I am upgrading from a digital compact and there is a TREMENDOUS difference.

[RiceHigh]

The K10D has lower noise at 1600 than the K20D according to a recent issue of Popular Photograpy that tested the K20D. The do the full test on some sort of machine and I am satisfied with the noise levels on my K10D. I am upgrading from a digital compact and there is a TREMENDOUS difference.

Yes, you can compare the results against the 40D, D300 and A700 as well in my following summary below:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: First K20D Production Camera Formal Test

However, do note that judging noise alone may not be very meaningful. I think the K20D images contain more details than those others and the K10D as well, anyway.

Also, do note that those noise figures, including those measurbated and obtained by DPR, seem not have been normalised to the same viewing size and yet again it is not so meaningful to compare afterall, e.g., the same noise level *per pixel* for a 20MP camera is *surely* looking better than a 10MP with the same measurbation figures obtained.

In fact, the Internet still lacks a true measurbator to do better measurabation test. If I had the resources and time to do the tests, I must: 1. measure the Signal-to-Noise ratio; 2 Normalise the viewing size for meaningful comparison.

[mhertel]

The K10D has lower noise at 1600 than the K20D according to a recent issue of Popular Photograpy that tested the K20D. The do the full test on some sort of machine and I am satisfied with the noise levels on my K10D. I am upgrading from a digital compact and there is a TREMENDOUS difference.

My K20D is way better at ISO 1600 than my K10D..

[Ben_Edict]

Yes, you can compare the results against the 40D, D300 and A700 as well in my following summary below:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: First K20D Production Camera Formal Test

However, do note that judging noise alone may not be very meaningful. I think the K20D images contain more details than those others and the K10D as well, anyway.

Also, do note that those noise figures, including those measurbated and obtained by DPR, seem not have been normalised to the same viewing size and yet again it is not so meaningful to compare afterall, e.g., the same noise level *per pixel* for a 20MP camera is *surely* looking better than a 10MP with the same measurbation figures obtained.

In fact, the Internet still lacks a true measurbator to do better measurabation test. If I had the resources and time to do the tests, I must: 1. measure the Signal-to-Noise ratio; 2 Normalise the viewing size for meaningful comparison.

RH is pointing into the right direction here. Comparing noise on the pixel level is utter nonsense. Noise is relevant only if calculated to the complete image. And that has to take into account, the the magnification to reach a final print size.

It is and ever was the same with simple film grain. Nobody seriously discussed, whether the single grain was a micron bigger or smaller, but measured how much contrast and resolution were influenced by the grain or whether the grain was obvious in the final print. One can easily apply the sme procedure to digital images. It just affords more thinking, than simply look at pixel level. And thinking is something sorely missed in all too many publications on the web and in print…

Ben