[Marignac]

I'm planning to sell my EOS 1000d. When I bought it, I didn't figure what it means in terms of budget to rely on stabilized lenses, plus it seems I cannot withstand a certain Pentax afficionadism deriving from my pupil/stdent's experience with a K1000 many, many years back.

I'm often shooting in modest light conditions (dawn, sunset, night), or conditions with much contrast or backlight. Landscapes and architecture are my favourites. I shoot rather in manual than in AF mode. Occasionally I take photos of kids and dog.

From reviews and pictures that I've read or seen, and from some test pictures I've made in a shop with K-m and K200d, I've got the impression that the K-m has considerably more noise. From pictures I've found in the net I conclude that the K100dS is particularly well at this. On the other hand the K-m has an extremely well "feel" at it, it's a lot of fun.

The K200d would be exactly in the center, but 1. my wife is going to buy it and 2. it's too bulky a camera for me.

At the end there is a very simple question: which camera makes the better pictures - K100dS or K-m?

[jsherman999]

I'm planning to sell my EOS 1000d. When I bought it, I didn't figure what it means in terms of budget to rely on stabilized lenses, plus it seems I cannot withstand a certain Pentax afficionadism deriving from my pupil/stdent's experience with a K1000 many, many years back.

I'm often shooting in modest light conditions (dawn, sunset, night), or conditions with much contrast or backlight. Landscapes and architecture are my favourites. I shoot rather in manual than in AF mode. Occasionally I take photos of kids and dog.

From reviews and pictures that I've read or seen, and from some test pictures I've made in a shop with K-m and K200d, I've got the impression that the K-m has considerably more noise. From pictures I've found in the net I conclude that the K100dS is particularly well at this. On the other hand the K-m has an extremely well "feel" at it, it's a lot of fun.

The K200d would be exactly in the center, but 1. my wife is going to buy it and 2. it's too bulky a camera for me.

At the end there is a very simple question: which camera makes the better pictures - K100dS or K-m?

At this point, I'd suggest going with the K2000/K-M.

You don't say where you're from, but if you're in the US or Canada, you can get one in a prodigital2000 ebay auction for between $350 and $420 or so, with kit lens.

The K100DS is a remarkable little camera, though, can't go wrong with it, but the K-M isn't really any noisier (that I could detect,) and is newer technology, faster AF, more MP (better cropability,) better battery life.

Have a look at this thread for discussion and images.




.

[Marignac]

Well I took these shots to compare the noise. Both NR of K200d as well as K-m were set to "weak". I find the result quite obvious (1+3 K-m, 2+4 K200d).

[Marignac]

This one is k-m at 1600 and NR off, the second K100dS which has no NR device, so both are NR off:

Maybe my K-m samples are just ugly taken. On the screen of my Dell laptop they look much better then on my flatscreen computer where they look pretty hefty...

Do you have 1600 samples with weak NR or NR off?

Attached Images

   

[felix68]

It looks like the shots with the K2000 are pretty consistently underexposed, which will just make the noise worse. The K100DS shots look overexposed to me. Are you sure that there wasn't some exposure compensation set on the cameras that you tested?
Of course, the 6MP sensor in the K100DS is known for being very good in low light. The 10MP sensor in the K10d, K200D and K2000 are all the same so they all have similar noise characteristics. I think that your test handicaped the K2000 and favored the K100DS because of the exposure differences.
Just my $0.02.

[Marc Sabatella]

Well I took these shots to compare the noise. Both NR of K200d as well as K-m were set to "weak". I find the result quite obvious (1+3 K-m, 2+4 K200d).

I don't know; at this size I can see differences in exposure, differences in where the focus was, and perhaps even differences in JPEG compression (some apparent posterization in the K-m) sample, but differences in *noise* aren't clear to me at all.

In any case, they use the same sensor, so noise *should* be very similar, and the claim is that the K-m actually has slightly *less* noise due to smaller circuit paths. Nothing I've seen suggests there is enough difference to be a factor in any such decision.

As for comparison of these to the K100D (Super or not; same insides) - I've proven to myself over and over that when viewing images at the same size, there is essentially no difference in noise. Of course, if you blow both up to 100% - which is to say, making the image from the 10MP camera much bigger than the one from the 6MP camera - the 10MP images appears to be noisier. But it also has more detail, so when you shrink it back down to the same size as the 6MP image, you actually get more detail without more noise. But again, we're talking about differences that are not really very large, and not really worth putting high on the list of differentiators.

[Marignac]

At this point, I'd suggest going with the K2000/K-M.

You don't say where you're from, but if you're in the US or Canada, you can get one in a prodigital2000 ebay auction for between $350 and $420 or so, with kit lens.
...
Have a look at this thread for discussion and images.

I'm from Germany and occasionnally they have sales at 350 EUR, usually 400 EUR. So buying one at the ebay source could make sense since I'm occasionally in the US and could retreive it at friend's.

Thanks for the link to the K-m discussion.

[Marignac]

It looks like the shots with the K2000 are pretty consistently underexposed, which will just make the noise worse. The K100DS shots look overexposed to me. Are you sure that there wasn't some exposure compensation set on the cameras that you tested?
Of course, the 6MP sensor in the K100DS is known for being very good in low light. The 10MP sensor in the K10d, K200D and K2000 are all the same so they all have similar noise characteristics. I think that your test handicaped the K2000 and favored the K100DS because of the exposure differences.
Just my $0.02.

That may in fact be the case, I remember that I made sure NR settings were the same on both cameras and I do think I checked at least that exposure was on neutral on the K2000 but I also remember the K200d having a lot of presets so the K200d shots may have been overexposed.

I don't know; at this size I can see differences in exposure, differences in where the focus was, and perhaps even differences in JPEG compression (some apparent posterization in the K-m) sample, but differences in *noise* aren't clear to me at all

.
Well in fact on my laptop the noise doesn't seem as obvious as on my PC screen at home which is far better in resolution...

I guess it all boils down to the question of 6MP or 10MP. In some way 6MP does seem to be the better deal since I do not do poster-kind-of printouts but 6MP.

Plus I miss the depth-of-field button on the K2000 which I think is an important feature. On the other hand my dear old K1000 didn't have one either and I just simply released the lense a bit and the same workaround is possible with the K2000. But then again I'm not comfortable with this thought because the sensor (which the K1000 didn't have) might be affected with dirt...

But then - if most of you knowing well both cameras say the difference in noise is not or only merely noticeable, then K2000 is just a nice little camera that is extremely well shaped...

[arbutusq]

Based on mu observations the noise of the K-m is higher than the K100 at the pixel level especially if you underexpose, but seen as a whole picture there is not much difference between the two. This is in RAW though, I don't shoot jpeg.

I love my K100 but the K-m is a far better camera for me. YMMV.

[Marignac]

Based on mu observations the noise of the K-m is higher than the K100 at the pixel level especially if you underexpose, but seen as a whole picture there is not much difference between the two. This is in RAW though, I don't shoot jpeg.

I love my K100 but the K-m is a far better camera for me. YMMV.

Well I don't shoot RAW and do not see this to happen all too soon for lack of time. So I'm happy when jpegs come out of camera well.

So contra K2000 at slight underexopsure (which I do often willingly). Pro is that K2000 has quite a lot of settings allowing to come to reasonable results with jpeg out of cam...

[arbutusq]

A lot of noise is contained in the shadows (especially blue channel noise) A lot of a camera's jpeg noise behavior is due to the tone curve applied. Applying a steeper tone curve will reduce the appearance of noise, conversly a low contrast (gentle tone curve) will increase the appearance of noise. As well shooting at higher color saturation settings will increase noise as well.

For best high ISO noise performance on either camera shoot natural, contrast +2. If you want more saturation set it at +1. This should give better results on either camera.

I'm planning to sell my EOS 1000d. When I bought it, I didn't figure what it means in terms of budget to rely on stabilized lenses, plus it seems I cannot withstand a certain Pentax afficionadism deriving from my pupil/stdent's experience with a K1000 many, many years back.

I'm often shooting in modest light conditions (dawn, sunset, night), or conditions with much contrast or backlight. Landscapes and architecture are my favourites. I shoot rather in manual than in AF mode. Occasionally I take photos of kids and dog.

From reviews and pictures that I've read or seen, and from some test pictures I've made in a shop with K-m and K200d, I've got the impression that the K-m has considerably more noise. From pictures I've found in the net I conclude that the K100dS is particularly well at this. On the other hand the K-m has an extremely well "feel" at it, it's a lot of fun.

The K200d would be exactly in the center, but 1. my wife is going to buy it and 2. it's too bulky a camera for me.

At the end there is a very simple question: which camera makes the better pictures - K100dS or K-m?

Hi, Marignac and welcome to the forum!

I have experience with both cameras and my advice to you is to go without hesitation towards K-m (the dual kit lens hold tremendous value for your money). Some reasons for that are:

- the 2 and some years that separates the 2 models are visible in all working aspects; K-m is faster in shooting, reviewing pictures, transfer files, AF system, buffer clearing;
- the SR mechanism is of newer generation and produces better results;
- the back LCD on the K-m is much better on viewing angles and color reproduction and slightly larger;
- the shutter sound is more discreet;
- the batteries last a lot longer;
- huge differences in menu and features like post process in camera, digital filters, etc (especially for begginers);
- same type (CCD) sensor 10Mp vs 6Mp IMO better noise control per picture at all ISOs;
- larger Mp count means cropping possibilities.

I hope this helps with your decission!

Radu

[audiobomber]

This one is k-m at 1600 and NR off, the second K100dS which has no NR device, so both are NR off:

The K100DS does use NR at the default setting. To turn it off you have to go into the menu.

[Nick Siebers]

I would get a K100Ds. I have one and love it. It's a great little machine. K-m, who knows what problems will come up. And bigger MP = eats up more space on your hard drive. Sure more cropping options. But I can crop vertical to horizontal and the pic still looks good filling my screen - that's enough for me. My 2 cents!

[arbutusq]

I would get a K100Ds. I have one and love it. It's a great little machine. K-m, who knows what problems will come up. And bigger MP = eats up more space on your hard drive. Sure more cropping options. But I can crop vertical to horizontal and the pic still looks good filling my screen - that's enough for me. My 2 cents!

The jpegs from the K-m are a bit bigger (25-50%) but the PEFs are actually a bit smaller as they are losslesly compressed. K100 PEF 10mb and K-m PEF is about 9mb.

You really can't go wrong with either though. If the K100 is significantly cheaper than the K-m buy it and spend the difference on lenses. You wont see a huge diff between any of these cameras with IQ.