[PentHassyKon]

All Pentax DSLR's have a thumb dial on the rear. The K20D (and K10D) also have one on the front.

I'm sorry but I can't seem to figure out where this front dial is. I read through the DPreview K200 but it doesn't show or mention a front dial for operation.

I keep thinking that maybe it's the aperture ring - but my instinct tells me that this is what you folks are referring to.

Maybe there's a picture somewhere of this front dial that you folks can refer/link me to.



EDIT: (I don't see a line-out font function)
Ooopsie. Never mind. I see you refer to the K20 not the K200. I just compared the K20 and the K200 and notice that the K200 does not have a dial under the shutter button towards the front. Is this the dial you folks are referring to?

Also, I see that from reading the K-m designer notes (link was posted here somewhere) that the camera was designed for 1 one hand functionality.

---

Last edited by PentHassyKon; 11-03-2008 at 12:43 AM. Reason: oopsie....

[MoiVous]

I look at the pictures and I don't see a substantial difference size wise between the 200 and the 2000 - hence MoiVous' post is intriguing to me.

If I understand you correctly the size difference is not apparent from the photos. But the numbers give the K200D about 11mm (~0.43in) greater width, 4.5mm greater height (~0.2in) and 7.5mm greater depth (~0.3in)

Sizes from the DPreview articles:
Dimensions

• K20D - 142 x 101 x 70 mm (5.6 x 4.0 x 2.8 in) - Mass (with battery): 800 g (1.7 lb)
• K200D -133.5 x 95 x 74mm (5.2 x 3.7 x 2.9 in) - Mass (with battery): 690g (24.3oz.)
• K2000/K-m - 122.5 x 91.5 x 67.5mm (4.8 x 3.6 x 2.7 in) - Mass (with battery): 625g (22.0oz.)

Not a lot in real terms - but noticable in hand I would think. The K200D is still bigger than its rivals though (EOS450D/D60/E510). I find it a good size for my hands.

Hope that clarifies things

[rfortson]

An 18-250 will look like a monster lens on the K2000 :-)

The 18-250 is pretty much the same size as the kit lens, though it weighs more. I haven't held the KM but if it's as small as advertised, pretty much any zoom is going to look big on that body.

[tomtor]

The 18-250 is pretty much the same size as the kit lens, though it weighs more. I haven't held the KM but if it's as small as advertised, pretty much any zoom is going to look big on that body.

Huh? I have both and the 18-250 is huge with its hood. It has a larger diameter and is longer (perhaps you refer to the 16-45?), not to mention its size at eg 150mm.

I guess it depends on the definition of 'pretty much the same'

---

Last edited by tomtor; 11-03-2008 at 09:35 AM.

[Marc Sabatella]

I just compared the K20 and the K200 and notice that the K200 does not have a dial under the shutter button towards the front. Is this the dial you folks are referring to?

Also, I see that from reading the K-m designer notes (link was posted here somewhere) that the camera was designed for 1 one hand functionality.

And perhaps it really is better in that respect than the K20D or K200D, but actually, the K200D works fine in one hand. I use my left hand for support only, or to turn the focus & aperture rings on my "M" lenses. I guess being lighter, and not really designed to be used with manual lenses (although it works in a limited way with them), one handed operation could be a little more practical than the K200D. I would agree the K20D is really too big to operate with one hand - it practically begs to be held in both hands, for me. I don't think the one wheel / two wheel thing plays into this at all. It doesn't take any more fingers or hands to set aperture & shutter speed using one wheel + button versus doing so with two wheels - it's two fingers of the right hand either way. Only difference is whether you can set both simultaneously or have to do it one at a time.

But as I said before, the fact that the K20D also allows you to set ISO without taking your eye from the viewfinder is worth *something*. It would be *possible* for Pentax to implement a way to set ISO directly in the K200D or K2000 in a future firmware upgrade, but it would have to work differently, as the various buttons have different purposes

[tomtor]

I look at the pictures and I don't see a substantial difference size wise between the 200 and the 2000 - hence MoiVous' post is intriguing to me.

It may look like a monster but at least one won't have to switch lenses or carry 2-3 other lenses - then again who am I to say: I have yet to touch any of these products other than my Pentax LX' lenses.

It is a great lens the 18-250, if you consider it I would suggest: go for the K200.

Min and Max sizes without the hood (in the first image the 18-250 is even placed a bit backwards). It is not huge compared to eg a DA300, but I really think that a K2000 should be fitted with a nice prime.

[Marc Sabatella]

Huh? I have both and the 18-250 is huge with its hood. It has a larger diameter and is longer (perhaps you refer to the 16-45?), not to mention its size at eg 150mm.

I guess it depends on the definition of 'pretty much the same'

I feel as you do. In the bag, the lenses look comparable, which is a remarkable feat of design and engineering, I'm sure. On the camera, though, even without hood, the 18-250 is noticeably a lot bulkier (and I'm including diameter and especially weight here - it weighs over twice as much as the 18-55! And as soon as you mount the hood and/or turn the zoom ring, the differences become *really* obvious.

Whether or not that *bothers* you is another matter of course. But as someone for whom the 18-55 had already come to be seen as relatively big, I personally felt the 18-250 to be uncomfortably large and heavy when I tried the lens on my DS. I imagine it would feel similarly on the K2000. I could see taking a few shots now and then with a lens like that, but it's not something I'd want to have on my camera most of the time. But of course, having it on the camera most of the time is the whole purpose of such a lens. Not for me, thanks - I'd just be n a hurry to take it off in favor of something smaller/lighter - not to mention faster.

I haven't tried one on my K200D; I suppose I might feel it balanced better there. But I'm definitely spoiled by my primes.

[rfortson]

I guess it depends on the definition of 'pretty much the same'

Well, that's true. I know the 18-250 is bigger than the 18-55, but I never considered it "bigger" in everyday use. In fact, my Op/Tech neoprene cover that I used for my kit lens, I also used for my 18-250. To me, they handled pretty much the same from a carrying/packing standpoint, so I sold the kit lens and kept the 18-250.

From PentaxSLR.com the newer 18-55 II kit lens is 2.7" in diameter and 2.7" in minimum length (220g). The 18-250 is 3" in diameter and 3.4" in minimum length (455g). To me, that difference in footprint is negligible, but the weight is obviously noticable.

I see by the photo you posted that you're also looking at how the lens compares when extended. In that case, yes, it's a beast. Of course, I like all the looks/comments I get as I zoom out and in.

[Class A]

When comparing the 18-250 with the 18-55 or other lenses, obviously one needs to consider its versatility (large focal range + nice close focusing) and the fact that you are either loosing shots or carry the extra weight in your bag.

I'm still unspoilt by light primes, so the 18-250 is just fine for me on my K100D (the latter being one of the heavier camera in its class). Not having to lug around extra lenses in the bag and having to change them (sometimes loosing shots in the process) counts for something too.

[PentHassyKon]

Wow! This forum is awesome! Great discussion. Now I have to contend with data overload and have more questions to bring forth to the body of expertise on here - questions which are probably best on a new thread. Keep it coming though! I'll try and do a search before I ask the other question (related to 18-250 lens)

[Jodokast96]

I do have an old auto flash - many actually. If I could, I'd use my old Nikon SB-24, if not I have my trusty Vivitar 283 and 285 as well.

Just be sure to test the voltages first. Don't want to fry the camera.

[Marc Sabatella]

Not having to lug around extra lenses in the bag and having to change them (sometimes loosing shots in the process) counts for something too.

True. Although as I mentioned elsewhere, you should also consider that the 18-250 will force you to miss shots as well because it does not have a wide enough maximum aperture, because its AF is relatively slow, because the focus ring is not as precise as that of a higher quality lens, because of the lack of quick shift, or even perhaps because you are that much less likely to have the camera with you than you might with a significantly smaller lens. Plus you have to accept that many of your shots will be compromised a bit in IQ over what is possible with higher quality lenses. As it happens, all of these issues are most pronounced indoors in low light.

Now frankly, if it were just a choice between a 18-55/50-200 combo and the 18-250, I might well choose the 18-250 too. Except for lack of quick shift (which is a pretty big exception, actually), all the potential "shot missers" I just described apply to any of the "consumer" zooms. Really, the main reason to do the two-lens kit would be financial: the 18-250 costs about twice as much.

It's primarily in comparison to primes that issues I mentioned become more significant. But of course, so does the extent to which you might miss shots with primes because you don't have the focal length you'd want on your camera, or perhaps *at all*.

I know it sounds trite, and I didn't buy into this at first either, but you really *do* start to learn to "see" differently with primes. Instead of bemoaning the shots you are missing because you've got the wrong focal length on, you start noticing opportunities for shots that wouldn't have even occurred to you if you were using the zoom. You'd be so busy taking the shots you *can't* take with the prime that you miss shots you could actually have taken with either lens.

Anyhow, not to say there aren't advantages to the 18-250. Obviously, there are. But they do come at a price that isn't always obvious.

[Class A]

I'll try and do a search before I ask the other question (related to 18-250 lens)

Some of us wrote reviews for this lens. Have a look at Pentax Lens Review Database - 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] and don't hesitate to open a new thread.

[Class A]

the 18-250 will force you to miss shots as well because it does not have a wide enough maximum aperture

There is no denying that there are faster lenses but faster zoom AF lenses aren't exactly cheap and the high ISO capability of DSLRs is so good that the lens isn't as slow as it would have been on a film camera.

because its AF is relatively slow

Is this really true? Compared to a SDM lens, yes, but then any screw driven lens must be slow in comparison to an SDM lens, right?

There are just ~45 degrees from the close focusing distance of 45cm to infinity so the in-body motor hasn't got a long way to go. This is not ideal for manual focussing but speeds up the AF. Venturi reports that the 18-250 "damn near out paced" his DA*50-135.

I've done very useful indoor shots at low light but overall I fully agree with you and I'm very much looking forward to get my hands on a small and fast prime.

[Marc Sabatella]

Is this really true? Compared to a SDM lens, yes, but then any screw driven lens must be slow in comparison to an SDM lens, right?

No. Actually, SDM isn't necessarily faster - just quieter. Focus speed is a factor of many things, but some important ones are how much light is reaching the AF sensors (which is a function of maximum aperture), how much contrast there is, and how much glass there is to be moved. Plus, as you note, the actual turning radius. By all accounts the 18-250 is no better in low light than the 18-55 (most say it is slower). The DA40 focuses *much* faster than either - it has pretty much everything going for it (relatively large aperture, high contrast, very low mass, small turning radius).