[photogem]

K-r has other difficulties: Mirror-flop
K-x is nice small but AF motor is huffing and puffing when using live-view and larger lenses.
K200D is not that small but WR and has the same CCD sensor as the K10D with a very natural capture.
And yet, I would prefer the K10D over the K200D, it is quite a bit more sturdy and professional. Just also larger.
But cheap to have these days. I still like it.

[tibbitts]

I had a K-50 previously, and had the solenoid replaced by Precision under warranty. I then sold the K-50 in order to buy a KP. I liked the camera but I don't think I need to get it again. I'm looking to spend less than $100 on this, so I'm targeting an older model like K-x, K-r, maybe K-200d if I can find it.

This makes no sense to me. You have a vast array of lenses so I'm not seeing $100US or so difference as sufficient justification for buying a K200d (which I have) vs. a K-5. In both cases I'm assuming you have no aspirations to add KAF4 lenses of course. With the K200d you are giving up individual lens focus adjustments, the better K-5 viewfinder, and many other features. While I used to appreciate the AA batteries, now that my rechargeables are older I'm finding them very finicky with the K200d. Maybe that's a change in the K200d or maybe the batteries, but I don't want to spend money on disposable lithiums to find out. I guess some people here see some magic in K200d sensors that I just don't, but the K-5 sensor is just much better at higher ISOs vs. the K200d, has more pixels of course, and (most important for me) has so much more dynamic range.

[dms]

The k-x is a fine camera, and I believe the k-r is basically the same, except you can see the AF sensors, but it does not take AA batteries. For me AA lithium are great--they last forever, and if I need them for my GPS when backpacking I can take them from the camera. Suggest you get it thru KEH, B&H, etc. so you can check it out on receipt and return if need be w/o hassle. If t works it should last and serve you well, and you have not sunk a bunch of money into it.
I personally don't want the accelerator/too much messing w/ my file data, and given that--I happen to think there is virtually no difference in IQ between my K-5, K-x, K-S2 and Nikon D700. And I don't need more than 10mp. Of them I probably am least enamored w/ the K-S2.

BTW the K-10D (I have the identical body K-20D) is a much larger camera, and for me is much more dated--anyway it feels very large--and [the K-20D] is inferior to the K-x image wise. Cannot speak to the older sensor CMOS vs CCD.

[photogem]

The k-x is a fine camera, and I believe the k-r is basically the same, except you can see the AF sensors

That is one difference, but there are quiet a few more:
- better AF
- 3" display
- better Liveview
- stronger AF motor
- AF-assist light
- double ISO

- Li-Ion + AA (with adapter)
and a few others.

....but it does not take AA batteries.

It was the first to use the D-LI109, but with the AA Adapter same as K30/50/500, one could use AA's
and that was the best, because the powersupply was based in the Kx PS and could produce problems: Mirror-flop!

The other problem was front-focus in low-kelvin light

For me AA lithium are great--they last forever, and if I need them for my GPS when backpacking I can take them from the camera. Suggest you get it thru KEH, B&H, etc. so you can check it out on receipt and return if need be w/o hassle. If it works it should last and serve you well, and you have not sunk a bunch of money into it.

I understand your suggestion but this front-focus issue must be known because one cannot solve it via fine-adjust!
Also the mirror-flop was really a problem and yet, many worked alright.

I personally don't want the accelerator/too much messing w/ my file data, and given that--I happen to think there is virtually no difference in IQ between my K-5, K-x, K-S2 and Nikon D700.

Well, I experienced the opposite.
The K-5 and particular the K5II/s are a good step higher. The K-5II/s has a better AF, particular in low-light,
it was the first to be more sensitive in lowlight, the K-S2 followed, same f2,8 sensors there.

BTW the K-10D (I have the identical body K-20D) is a much larger camera, and for me is much more dated--anyway it feels very large--and [the K-20D] is inferior to the K-x image wise. Cannot speak to the older sensor CMOS vs CCD.

Here you mix something up:

The K10D has the "older CCD-Sensor" and can be superior to the K-x image-wise but not in low-light.
It still is a might beast, kind of a real masterpiece, a real Pentax.


The K20D is a complete different story, it had the 14,6MP Samsung sensor, one finds that one in the K7 as well.
That was a difficult sensor, for many indeed inferior to the K-x.

But I liked the handling of both, the K10D and K20D (similar bodies, one can swap parts, same as the K7 and K5)

It was the K-m which had the last time this CCD sensor, a small handy body with the limitation of just 5 focus-points
so basically an *ist-DL2 but with shake-reduction.
The larger K100D again 11 focus points.

K200D the same CCD-Sensor as the K10D!