[Edvinas]

There are some things I'd like about the K20D over K10D (CMOS, ISO 3200, change ISO with dial instead of menu) but you get most everything else with K10D/GX-10 at a nice discount in price.

ISO change in K10D is exactly the same as in K20D. No need to go into menu.

[DJey]

I'd pick up a good used K10D. Seems the going rate for a used one in good condition is $450-500.

Jason

Second this one.. I have the K100D Super but sometimes I wanted the K10D for the additional features.. plus it has a pentaprism which makes use of manual focus lenses a joy..

The K10D will give you lots.. The K100D Super control is not as good as K10D..

just my 2 cents..

[Tom2]

If you have Nikon D200, get one standard lens, work on wringing out the max out of that SLR and when pentax comes with full frame, you can think of jumping ship... Good standard lens like tamron 17-50 or 28-75 or sigma 18-50 shd do it D200.

I have the 18-200 VR lens for the D200. Very nice lens for general use.

Given where Pentax has chosen to swim in the DSLR market, I have to wonder if they would ever have any interest in a full-frame DSLR. I'm guessing not.

Why would they want to enter the tough competition for what surely is no more than five percent of the market (probably less)?

My other option on all this, of course, is to sell the very nice Pentax lenses I have. Kinda hate to do that. These are pretty special pieces of glass.

[Steelski]

I have the 18-200 VR lens for the D200. Very nice lens for general use.

Given where Pentax has chosen to swim in the DSLR market, I have to wonder if they would ever have any interest in a full-frame DSLR. I'm guessing not.

Why would they want to enter the tough competition for what surely is no more than five percent of the market (probably less)?

My other option on all this, of course, is to sell the very nice Pentax lenses I have. Kinda hate to do that. These are pretty special pieces of glass.

Simply put, You will want the controlls of the K10D/K20D.
The K10D has the same type of Sony chip that your D200 uses.
The K20D fell in price recently I believe. If you can afford one then it would be a no brainer for me considering you have some nice lenses. Also the K20D has lens micro AF adjustment as well as the best SR system of all the Pentax Cameras.
Its simply the best camera we have to offer you, and I would strongly advise you in that direction. All the other cameras suggested are also viable, but they would all be a compromise in one way or another if you are a serious shooter.

[Class A]

... K100D which by the way, allows you to set the ISO with a press of the OK button and turn of the front dial - no menus, yay!

Are you sure this is possible with a K100D? Which settings are required for this? I'm not aware of this functionality, but would of course love to use it.

I second the poster who recommend a K10D/K20D because of the controls. The K100D is great but the K10D/K10D give you more buttons for quicker settings.

If you choose the K10D, be aware that this means shooting RAW for serious usage as the JPEG conversion in the K10D is sub-standard and does not even closely exploit the potential of the camera.

[awo425]

With your collection of fine tele lenses I would consider K20D and KATZ eye split image focusing screen.
K10D have too much noise, IMHO, even at ISO 400, and a lot of focusing issues with AF lenses.
Ergonomics of low end Pentax cameras is nothing to write home about if you accustomed to Nikon D200

[Marc Sabatella]

Are you sure this is possible with a K100D? Which settings are required for this? I'm not aware of this functionality, but would of course love to use it.

I think the comment was taken out of context, and what was actually being claimed is that the K20D has that feature, not the K100D. I re-read the original paragraph and admit it is unlcear, but that's got to be the explanation, because clearly, the K100D does not work that way.

If you choose the K10D, be aware that this means shooting RAW for serious usage as the JPEG conversion in the K10D is sub-standard and does not even closely exploit the potential of the camera.

Well, no camera will allow you to exploit its full potential if you give up complete control of the processing of the image. But as for K10D JPEG being "substandard", there are many who like it just fine. I know dpreview harped on it, but that's just one opinion.

[Marc Sabatella]

K10D have too much noise, IMHO, even at ISO 400, and a lot of focusing issues with AF lenses.

I would also challenger these statements. Sure, there was a period of time when K10D owners were obsessively testing their cameras for front or back focus in a way that no one had ever really done before, and quite a few found discrepancies that may or may not have indicated actual problems. But I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the incidence of any such problems was out of line with industry norms. I think it became a self-fulfilling thing, with people who were looking for problems in ways no one had ever looked for problems before, simply because others were doing the same.

As for noise, I also think that has been blown way out of proportion by people comparing 100% crops against 6MP cameras rather than by comparing images at similar sizes.

[Class A]

I re-read the original paragraph and admit it is unlcear, but that's got to be the explanation, because clearly, the K100D does not work that way.

I see, thanks. I read the "which" as referring to the K100D whereas it was meant to refer to the K20D (and can indeed be read that way as well).

Well, no camera will allow you to exploit its full potential if you give up complete control of the processing of the image.

I don't think you give up complete control when you are shooting JPEG. You just have less dynamics and, more importantly, less safety margin, hence you cannot repair things as drastically after the shot.

The in-camera RAW-to-JPEG converter is just one of many possible and does not necessarily need to be worse than a PC based solution.

There are lots of different demosaicing algorithms within cameras and within PC software solutions. Different RAW converters will give you different results (partly because there is no single right way to recover information which has been lost by a Bayer array sensor) and I'm sure you can find (older) software RAW converters that are worse than (modern) in camera converters. Because the technology is relatively young there is still development going on and it is no disgrace for the K10D to have a RAW->JPEG conversion that is outperformed by more modern solutions.

But as for K10D JPEG being "substandard", there are many who like it just fine. I know dpreview harped on it, but that's just one opinion.

To be honest, I have no first hand experience with the K10D. I'm sure the JPEG quality will be just fine for many. The sample pictures provided by dpreview and their corresponding tests and analyses seemed to be more than just an "opinion", though. It looked more like a well supported observation to me.

[mugund]

I have the 18-200 VR lens for the D200. Very nice lens for general use.

Given where Pentax has chosen to swim in the DSLR market, I have to wonder if they would ever have any interest in a full-frame DSLR. I'm guessing not.

Why would they want to enter the tough competition for what surely is no more than five percent of the market (probably less)?

My other option on all this, of course, is to sell the very nice Pentax lenses I have. Kinda hate to do that. These are pretty special pieces of glass.

My point is whatever you can do it in Pentax you can do it in a nikon D200 with 18-200 VR except when you need fast lens capability. My suggestion is to extract the maximum out of it... Your options are either u sell D200 + 18-200 VR and get a pentax body or sell all Pentax lenses and get low light lens unless you want to maintain two systems. In that case, you can get a K20D or if you just want to use your lenses, get the newly announced K2000 (if K200D gets lower price, u can also buy ..) . Now you have 2 systems. If you feel like using your old lenses, then use K2000 else D200... you cant lose

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't think you give up complete control when you are shooting JPEG. You just have less dynamics and, more importantly, less safety margin, hence you cannot repair things as drastically after the shot.

True. I guess my point is, whatever you do give up - and it is actually quite a lot when it comes to WB - indicates that you aren't getting the "full potential" out of the camera. Whatever that means. Of course, one could say the same of not having the absolutely best lenses, not using a tripod, etc. Which is why I'm not convinced that shooting JPEG is any more limiting than using the kit lens or shooting handheld or whatever else one might do that one *could* do differently.

That said, I gave up JPEG some time ago - it's just far easier to get the results I want with RAW in the situations where I want to affect WB, exposure, and contrast. That was true with my DS, it is true with my K200D, and it would remain true with the K10D.

Different RAW converters will give you different results (partly because there is no single right way to recover information which has been lost by a Bayer array sensor) and I'm sure you can find (older) software RAW converters that are worse than (modern) in camera converters.

True again, but I'm not really talking about quality of the basic conversion - I'm talking about the ability to customize curves and so forth. Doesn't matter how "good" the conversion is - I'm going to want control over the exposure curves if I am going to claim I am exploiting the full potential of the camera. And doing so before conversion always beats doing so afterwards. This to me is far more important that any difference in the actual demosaicing algoirthm.

Because the technology is relatively young there is still development going on and it is no disgrace for the K10D to have a RAW->JPEG conversion that is outperformed by more modern solutions.

Absolutely. Although the interesting thing about the dpreview comments is that they thought it was step backwards from the K100D.

To be honest, I have no first hand experience with the K10D.

Ditto.

[Class A]

And doing so before conversion always beats doing so afterwards.

I cannot see how that should "always" be the case. Some mild tone curve alterations can be done in the 8-bit (JPEG) domain without noticeable detrimental effect on quality. I'd be really surprised if you could tell the difference between pre- and post-processing.

Same for WB. Unless you screwed it up pretty drastically, it can be fixed with JPEGS as well. That's my experience. Perhaps I'm missing something.

This to me is far more important that any difference in the actual demosaicing algoirthm.

You obviously haven't pixel peeped at the results of a basic demosaicing algorithm. Seriously, you'll notice pretty obvious differences between algorithms (even the better ones) at 100% crops. Perceived sharpness and absence/presence of colour artifacts can considerably differ.

Although the interesting thing about the dpreview comments is that they thought it was step backwards from the K100D.

That's odd indeed. AFAIK, the K10D was introduced later than the K100D, which makes it implausible that whatever the difference may be, could be a disadvantage for the K10D. Perhaps the K100D's conversion is just as "bad" and dpreview just didn't saw the same relevance/significance (being just happy that it was better than what they though of the *ist series)? I've seen a test where the K100D super's conversion was described as an improvement over the K100D's...

[Marc Sabatella]

I cannot see how that should "always" be the case. Some mild tone curve alterations can be done in the 8-bit (JPEG) domain without noticeable detrimental effect on quality. I'd be really surprised if you could tell the difference between pre- and post-processing.

Same for WB. Unless you screwed it up pretty drastically, it can be fixed with JPEGS as well. That's my experience. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Small changes, sure. But I do a lot of shooting in jazz clubs under really terrible stage lighting - strongly colored, differently colored from one area of the stage to another, and just not enough of it anywhere. So am fairly often making pretty significant changes to WB to make the color believable, and doing fairly heavy-handed application of curves to bring out enough detail in the highlights without exposing too much noise in the shadows or destroying the impression that the subject is in fact under a spotlight (where shadows are "supposed" to be dark). And when doing this kind of PP, the difference between RAW and JPEG is like night and day to me. The info lost during RAW->JPEG conversion is pretty much exactly what is needed to remove strong color casts or to allow the sorts of curves I often apply to not produce posterization-type artifacts.

And I'm not *just* talking about the quality of the results. There is also the matter of how easy it is to make the changes. If you are using Lightroom, Aperture, Lightzone, or maybe one or two others, then you can actually adjust JPEG files using the same types of non-destructive controls you can with RAW. But those of us using programs that provide non-destructive processing only for RAW see a tremendous difference just in how easy it is to work with the files, too. I love the fact that with RAW, I can apply adjustments in batches, then revisit some files for further adjustment, and never have to "save" my changes. No way could I ever go back to a traditional workflow where you have to do all your adjustments to files one at a time then convert them. People with RAW processing software (eg, the Pentax software) that doesn't support nondestructive workflow would indeed be seeing little or no usability advantages to RAW, and indeed, it might seem like *more* rather than *less* work. But with more modern RAW processing applications, the workflow advantages can be *huge*.

You obviously haven't pixel peeped at the results of a basic demosaicing algorithm. Seriously, you'll notice pretty obvious differences between algorithms (even the better ones) at 100% crops. Perceived sharpness and absence/presence of colour artifacts can considerably differ.

Got me there. Let's just say I am less sensitive to those sorts of issues.

AFAIK, the K10D was introduced later than the K100D, which makes it implausible that whatever the difference may be, could be a disadvantage for the K10D.

Precisely. Which is why I'm inclined to chalk it up to subjective opinion. I am guessing the engineers at Pentax weren't thinking it was a step backwards, but the folks at dpreview are. Personally, I don't see any difference worth caring about.

Perhaps the K100D's conversion is just as "bad" and dpreview just didn't saw the same relevance/significance (being just happy that it was better than what they though of the *ist series)?

Could be, but the language of the review sure made it sound like they really saw it as a step backwards.

Anyhow, the bottom line here for me is this: pretty much everything having to do with camera performance is subjective. So I wouldn't be listening too much to what anyone (including me!) says about "this camera is way better than that other camera". At least, not without getting really deep into the specifics of why someone might feel the way they do, so you can judge to what extent you might feel the same way.

It's the same reason I pretty much completely ignore star ratings (eg, two stars, three and a half stars) etc when reading CD or movie reviews, but do pay attention to the text. I don't care if the reviewer liked it; I care to find out what he was responding to to so I can try to figure out for myself if *I* would like it.

But it makes for interesting discussion, I think...

[Class A]

\And when doing this kind of PP, the difference between RAW and JPEG is like night and day to me.

Sure, with respect to drastic alterations, we have absolutely no disagreement.

I also fully agree with you that non-destructive manipulation is the way to go.

People with RAW processing software (eg, the Pentax software) that doesn't support nondestructive workflow

The Pentax software produces JPEGs from RAW files and the latter never get changed. It also supports batch processing, so it doesn't seem as bad, does it?

pretty much everything having to do with camera performance is subjective.

Some image quality parameters can be measured, but I agree with you that at the end of the day it is the eye of the beholder deciding whether image quality is appealing or not.

P.S.: I hope we are not unduly hijacking the OP's thread.

[rfortson]

My point is whatever you can do it in Pentax you can do it in a nikon D200 with 18-200 VR except when you need fast lens capability. My suggestion is to extract the maximum out of it... Your options are either u sell D200 + 18-200 VR and get a pentax body or sell all Pentax lenses and get low light lens unless you want to maintain two systems. In that case, you can get a K20D or if you just want to use your lenses, get the newly announced K2000 (if K200D gets lower price, u can also buy ..) . Now you have 2 systems. If you feel like using your old lenses, then use K2000 else D200... you cant lose

It will be hard to match his 400mm f/2.8 lens with the Nikon 18-200VR.

Since the OP doesn't really want high ISO, I'd recommend the K10D. It should give him all the control he'll want, and he can use those nice older lenses.