[Edward B.]

I'm glad I found this site. I've browsed the forums these last few days and have found some very good information and opinions on Pentax cameras. In fact, I registered just so I could make this post asking for opinions on my first digital SLR purchase.

A little bit of background. My experience with cameras comes primarily through my work in community newspapers. In college, I took a brief course on photography where I used an old Pentax manual for black and white photography. I was fairly satisfied with, primarily because I had no expectactions and because it took a beating. Since this was my first experience, I can't comment too much on picture quality, etc., although I did manage to produce a few really good shots with it.

After college, I spent approximately three years in community journalism where I used digital SLRs. I shot with a Nikon enough to know that I was not a huge fan and some with an Olympus. Most of my photography was done with Canon, however, and I was very satisifed with its performance. My last year or so I primarily used a Canon Rebel.

I'm no longer involved in that work, but I want to pick up a digital SLR for hobby purposes.

I've narrowed my selection down to the Canon XSi and Pentax K200D. I have had the chance to use both cameras, although I was only able to use them briefly in a store setting. So I didn't get to test out taking sports shots, etc.

I'm already leaning one way, but I'd like to hear some opinions. The reason I'm posting here is because I already know a lot about the Canon, and I have no problem finding other people who have used the Canon and have opinions on it. I have met very, very few people who have experience with any Pentax, let alone the K200D specifically.

Here are a few things I like and didn't like about the K200D.

Pros:

- Body. I felt a lot more comfortable with the Pentax in my hands. I took two other people with me to check out the camera. Both of them preferred the Rebel primarily because of its lighter weight. I actually prefer the heavier Pentax, though. It feels more substantial. Even though the salesman told me it would be a horrible idea, I felt like I could smash the camera into a brick wall or into the skull of a mugger and still use it.

- Lens. Same with as with the body. The lens looked and felt like a higher quality product. Now, whether this is the case or not I have no idea.

- AA batteries. Again, this is a personal thing, but I like the idea that I can pick up some Energizers if I get desperate. Also, from what I've read, you can get very good performance out of rechargeable Eneloops – around 500 shots or so? As long as that's the case, I'm good. Now, if you can only get 200-300 shots out of rechargeables then I'd have to put the power source in the negative.

Cons:

- Picture quality. Now, I wasn't able to test this camera out very long, so much of this is heresay. That said, I have read the following about the Pentax.
1) JPG quality is no where near as good as on the XSi. This is a problem because, although I plan on learning to shoot RAW, I will use JPG quite a bit at family events, etc.
2) ISO performance is not as good XSi. I've read this all over the Internet and seen pictures. What threw me is that the salesman told me he thinks the Pentax actually has better performance in this regard than the XSi. Now, the guys at this place work on commission, so if anything I'd expect him to try to sell me on the more expensive XSi.
3) Constant underexposure. I read about this, and did notice it while taking pictures at the store. The XSi's pics came out a lot brighter than the Pentax. I know that you can change the camera's default JPG settings, but can you change the exposure settings in the default as well?

- Auto Focus and FPS. The frames per second doesn't concern me that much. I shot high school sports constantly, and I never fired off more than one shot at a time. Granted, maybe I should have, but I was always happy with the result of firing off one shot at a time. I'm guessing the Pentax will be able to accomodate this just fine. What does concern me is the auto focus, however. I've read that it performs very poorly under low light and that even under optimal lighting it is just plain slower than the XSi. Again, I didn't get the chance to test this out in the store.

- Viewfinder. Small gripe, but the XSi viewfinder is a tad brighter.

- Metering and No Dedicated ISO button. Alone, these would be minor issues, but together they're a little annoying. First, the XSi metering in the viewfinder presents you with a bar much like a ruler where you can see exactly how far on the recommended exposure you are. The Pentax, unless I'm missing something, only displays a number. Like 0 for correct exposure, -1 for underexposed, etc. The bar is just a lot easier for me to look at and determine what I want to do. I know Pentax has a dedicated RAW button, but to me the ISO button on the XSi is a lot more useful. If I'm shooting RAW, then I don't see the need to change back to JPG or vice versa. I can see myself changing the ISO if, for instance, I have to move from an outdoor location to an indoor, etc.

As you can probably tell, I really like the build and feel of the Pentax, but I'm a little worried about how its picture quality and performance stand up to the XSi. Again, I'm going to use this as a hobby camera, so I understand that I may not need the improvements that the Canon has. But I would like to take pictures at high school basketball games and other sporting events, possibly doing some freelance work for the local weekly paper.

Any comments or advice would be much appreciated!

[nostatic]

What is your budget? Can you swing a K20d? Different ballpark but figured I'd ask.

I haven't looked much at Canon because I don't like the way they feel or their interface. Don't underestimate the "feel" of the camera. If it feels cheap now, it'll feel that way a month from now. If it fits in your hand and gives you the feeling of solid quality then it'll likely be that way in a month.

As for picture quality, it depends on a lot of things. I never shoot jpg so I can't comment on the in-camera processing. Part of the metering is just getting used to shooting and depending on the light switching between spot/center weighted and matrix metering. The nice thing about the K20d is that this is a switch rather than a menu choice.

Other aspects of performance are a non-issue for me. I never shoot at high frame rates, and the focus works ok for me. The AF performance of Pentax isn't as bad as many claim imho. You have to take things you read with a grain of salt. Some percentage of "reviews" are bogus, others are clouded by operator error. Now, is it on-par with an equivalent Canon wrt speed? Maybe not. Is it close? Probably. How about accuracy? That is more of a toss-up from what I've read.

The main reason to own Pentax are the limited prime lenses imho. There really isn't a Canon equivalent (considering build quality, aesthetic, price, performance). But ymmv.

[krypticide]

Can't really comment that much on the JPG output, but I believe the biggest gripe with the K100/K10 was soft JPGs. That issue seems to have been solved on the K20D, and I'm guessing on the K200D as well.

I think it comes down to feel and lens selection. Both will get you great images. But one is lighter but doesn't feel as nice. The other is heavier but feels nicer; I went for heavy and better grip than lightweight (which feels cheap to me).

I personally think Pentax has some of the best glass available, and you get in-camera stabilization for any lens you attach to it. That's a savings of $100+ per lens in most cases.

Plus, you get to feel smug that you chose a camera carefully, not because you (at least seemingly) chose it based on what everyone else was buying. ;-)

[mitchkramez]

being the owner of a k10d, i wish i would have gotten the 40D... the k10d suffers from horrible dynamic range and even worse white balance in tungsten light. the 40D is beautiful (so is the rebel). while the k200 and k20d both have enhanced dynamic range, i think i'd still go with the canon over it because of the ease of finding cheap lenses, better dynamic range, and far superior white balance imo. if you can swing the 40d, i think you then get the weather sealed body, but i'm not sure how important that is to you.

this is just an honest post from a current pentax camera owner. don't flame me b/c i'm recommending a different camera these are just my observations over almost 2 years of k10d use, i've used the k200d on several occasions in the past, and find it's images very similar to my k10d, including terrible tungsten white balancing.

if i were a primarily outside photog, that'd be fine, but considering 75% of my images are indoor shots, it really sucks. but hindsight is 20/20

[nostatic]

being the owner of a k10d, i wish i would have gotten the 40D... the k10d suffers from horrible dynamic range and even worse white balance in tungsten light. the 40D is beautiful (so is the rebel). while the k200 and k20d both have enhanced dynamic range, i think i'd still go with the canon over it because of the ease of finding cheap lenses, better dynamic range, and far superior white balance imo. if you can swing the 40d, i think you then get the weather sealed body, but i'm not sure how important that is to you.

this is just an honest post from a current pentax camera owner. don't flame me b/c i'm recommending a different camera these are just my observations over almost 2 years of k10d use, i've used the k200d on several occasions in the past, and find it's images very similar to my k10d, including terrible tungsten white balancing.

if i were a primarily outside photog, that'd be fine, but considering 75% of my images are indoor shots, it really sucks. but hindsight is 20/20

This is why I suggested the K20d. I shoot primarily indoors with limited primes and get great results. I'm not sure about the "cheap" Canon glass comment though. Do they even have an equivalent to the limited primes?

White balance is a complete non-issue if you shoot raw. And don't underestimate the importance of in-body SR. You have to pay extra to get a Canon lens that has it, and then you lose small/light. I can put my 43/1.9 on the K20d and have an incredibly compact package complete with SR, allowing me to shoot lower light (depending on the details). I routinely shoot at 1600 with no complaints at all with the K20d. I can't comment on the K200d though.

[Vylen]

also AF speed can be a non-issue if you keep using pentax lenses with quickshift focus... which in general is pretty darn handy

[redpigeons]

what are you shooting the most?
and what lens are thinking to get?

to me that fix my dilemma between Pentax and Canon
both fantastic cameras you cant go wrong
but you may miss some Pentax lenses if you choose Canon and you may loose some canon zooms if you choose Pentax ( well not really )

[ftpaddict]

but you may miss some Pentax lenses if you choose Canon and you may loose some canon zooms if you choose Pentax ( well not really )

You might also miss Canon's good AF performance and terrible ergonomics.

[Marc Sabatella]

WB is also a non-issue if you remember to set it correctly before shooting. True, AWB doesn't look so hot on the K10D indoors (although the K200D and K20D both improveme on this), but if you change to the tungsten setting - either in camera or in PP - results are beautiful. Either way, should be a non-issue.

As for batteries, I've never heard anyone complain about Eneloops. I never bother running mine down all the way, so I can't say for sure how many shots I'd get on average, but I've definitely taken 500 shots or more before deciding I might as recharge. Again, can't see that as an issue. Although if you're considering the "pick some up at the corner store" empergency option, be aware that ordinary alkalines are all but useless - couple dozen shots max. But Lithium AA's are pretty easy to find too, and they'll easily last 1000 shots.

Image quality in JPEG - entirely subjective. Both seem good enough to me that I can't imagine complainign about either, but of course, if you're going to get picky, you'll find ome preferring the pentax look, some the Canon. If these small differences in JPEG quality matter to you, you'll have to decide that on your own. But keep in mind there are usually many parameters you can control. So if you find you ike a more sharpened image, either camera lets you turn p the in-camera sharpening. Ditto with contrast, saturation, and perhaps other parameters.

High ISO performance - the samples I've seen also look close enough to be a non-issue, really. It's tough to compare because you get wildly different results depending on camera settings, exposure, lighting, dynamic range of the scene itself, etc. So unless you're taking the same shot back to back with both cameras, you can find pictures that look better from the Canon or from the Pentax. The pictures I've seen that *are* the same scene shot the same way look pretty close to identical to me.

Underexposure: the Pentax cameras absolutely refuse to blow out highlights in multi-segment mode, and they are also stickler for produces ISO standard exposures - a little darker than an 18% gray card on average. Switch to center-weighted metering and suddenly the camera will not be able to try to protect highlights, crating brighter pictures with blown highlights by default just like Canon, if that's what you want. Really, exposure is also a subjective thing. Part of DSLR ownership is learning how your camera exposes, when you'll like the results, when you won't, and how to override the default exposure. If you just want to point and shoot and not think about exposure, a DSLR is not the right camera, IMHO. But based on what you've said about your background, I don't think that's you.

I've never used the Canon, but I love my K200D, FWIW.

[Vylen]

You might also miss Canon's good AF performance and terrible ergonomics.

too right... i still don't understand why Canon put their buttons below the screen - whose genius idea was that... and there's all that empty space on the right hand side of the body... ugh

oh and my sister has a Rebel XSi... Too small

[AndrewG NY]

You may not think you'll upgrade the body anytime soon but I certainly wouldn't make this call without deciding what glass you'll use in the near/forseeable future. It is fairly likely that you'll have the glass longer than the body.

With K200D you do have Sv shooting mode for quick ISO changes but it is somewhat crippled compared to the dual e-dial modes that K10D/K20D offer. And in the K200D's favor is 1/3EV ISO settings rather than only 1EV steps.

Too much is made of JPEG quality and High-ISO differences--the cameras may have slightly different styles, particularly out of the box but could probably be configured to be pretty close. At the end of the day you're talking about pretty small differences that won't be terribly visible in prints or when downsized for web/email use.

Continuous shooting. Yes, the Canon is faster--but still of the same class--less than 1fps different. I think you start thinking of a better class when you get to >= 5fps.

I think the complaint about tungsten lighting for Pentax is mostly when people are using AWB which was designed for the daylight range. Use the tungsten preset and its not bad. I also think that Pentax's manual white balance on their most recent (K10D and newer) D-SLRs is particularly well implemented.

I may be remembering this wrong but I think the Canon may have some sort of Live View, while the K200D probably doesn't. Don't know if this is important to you.

[grainbelt]

As a recent DSLR convert, I feel compelled to comment. My situation is a little wierd, I take my camera on motorcycle trips (on and off road) and intentionally wander off in to the middle of nowwhere quite frequently. Given that scenario, my evaluation was as follows:

K200D Pros:
weather sealing
AA batteries
ergonomics
in-body image stabilization
legacy lens support

Canon Xsi Pros:
lens and accessory availability
potential resale
upgrade potential within Canon system


When it came right down to it, the Pentax had more of the specific features I desired, and I placed less importance on the 'system' and available accessories. As it turned out, I recently bought some old Pentax gear someone had laying around. I now have a 100mm 2.8 lens that is optically terrific and is even image stabilized (though without autofocus) on my DSLR.

I also find the Pentax folks on the internet to be a bit more concerned about the image and the process than the equipment, which is what this hobby is all about.

[unkabin]

As a recent convert to Pentax, I'll throw in my two cents. I had a Canon for a while, and I sold it. Not for the K10D I have now, but because I just couldn't seem to fall in love with it. I recently had a chance to buy a K10D at a great price, used, and I am SO glad I went for it. I've also shot with Minolta (now Sony), but in the DSLR market, I've never felt so good about supporting a company as I do about Pentax. The rugged build they give even their entry-level cameras speaks well of them. The legacy lens support speaks well of them (I have a 50mm 1.4 on the way as I write). In-camera stabilization speaks well of them. Including wireless flash capability without forcing the purchase of accessories (I don't know about the 200 in that regard) speaks well of them.

Just about any camera is a compromise. In dealing with that cost/benefit compromise, the decisions that Pentax makes are similar to the decisions I would make if I were given a price/wants list and x number of dollars. Their values are in line with my values, I suppose (I like to think, anyway). Canon just didn't feel that way to me. Speaking of feel, I second the notion that how a camera feels in your hands IS important. You'll get great shots out of any modern DSLR, but your enjoyment mileage may vary.

I don't know your budget, but you might want to at least put your hands on a K20D; maybe consider a used/demo K10D. $400ish with a kit lens. Bump the sharpness of the jpegs up a couple notches, maybe +1 saturation and forget about it.

[cpopham]

Disclaimer: I'm posting this as a former K100 (and now K20) owner, who has played quite a bit with a friend's Rebel xti.

- Lens. Same with as with the body. The lens looked and felt like a higher quality product. Now, whether this is the case or not I have no idea.

Well, it *is* a kit lens, so it's never going to be stellar, especially wide open. Having said that, for a kit lens the Pentax lens is excellent, especially when stopped down a bit.

- AA batteries. Again, this is a personal thing, but I like the idea that I can pick up some Energizers if I get desperate. Also, from what I've read, you can get very good performance out of rechargeable Eneloops – around 500 shots or so? As long as that's the case, I'm good. Now, if you can only get 200-300 shots out of rechargeables then I'd have to put the power source in the negative.

It depends entirely on the batteries and the charger - I've had very mixed results with various types of rechargables (never tried Eneloops though) and ended up just using Lithium AAs (Energizer Ultimate), which are superb. As an added bonus, they're much lighter than rechargables too. The ability to buy batteries at a corner store has saved my bacon while out and about in London - yes, it was my fault (left my spares in the charger in my hotel room), but with a proprietary battery I'd have been stuffed. This, coupled with its smaller size is the reason I've kept my K100.

1) JPG quality is no where near as good as on the XSi. This is a problem because, although I plan on learning to shoot RAW, I will use JPG quite a bit at family events, etc.

With the default settings, perhaps. Fortunately, the JPEG settings are highly customisable, and you can tune them to your tastes. It's pretty much the same as tuning your RAW developer settings...

ISO performance is not as good XSi. I've read this all over the Internet and seen pictures. What threw me is that the salesman told me he thinks the Pentax actually has better performance in this regard than the XSi. Now, the guys at this place work on commission, so if anything I'd expect him to try to sell me on the more expensive XSi.

Pentax seems to like applying very low levels of noise reduction to the images coming out of its cameras. This means that there is more fine detail, but more visible noise. Again, this can be configured to some degree.

Constant underexposure. I read about this, and did notice it while taking pictures at the store. The XSi's pics came out a lot brighter than the Pentax. I know that you can change the camera's default JPG settings, but can you change the exposure settings in the default as well?

What Marc says about matrix metering on Pentax cameras trying to avoid blowing highlights at all costs is spot on. I seem to recall that some members of this forums tend to have some level of positive exposure compensation enabled on their camera at all times. Personally, I don't.

- Auto Focus and FPS. The frames per second doesn't concern me that much. I shot high school sports constantly, and I never fired off more than one shot at a time. Granted, maybe I should have, but I was always happy with the result of firing off one shot at a time. I'm guessing the Pentax will be able to accomodate this just fine. What does concern me is the auto focus, however. I've read that it performs very poorly under low light and that even under optimal lighting it is just plain slower than the XSi. Again, I didn't get the chance to test this out in the store.

The K200 buffer fills up pretty quickly - it's probably a good idea to buy fast SD cards. Having said that, it never really bothered me with my K100, but then again I don't shoot sports...

One of the reasons the Pentax AF is slower is that it does a double check and correct, rather than a single check and correct like some of its competitors. Some speculate that while this makes it slower, it also makes it slightly more accurate.
With my K100 I found that the difference between NiMH batteries and Lithium batteries made a difference here. NiMH batteries are notionally 1.2V, while Lithium are ~1.5V. On my K100 at least, it makes an audible difference to the pitch of the noise the focus motor makes, and appears to reduce the time to focus slightly, especially in poor light. I should point out that as I said earlier, I believe some of my issues with rechargable AAs are due to the particular batteries and charger I have.

- Viewfinder. Small gripe, but the XSi viewfinder is a tad brighter.

The K200 viewfinder is also a tad bigger... it's also worth making sure that the lenses on both cameras are open to the same aperture when making this comparison.

I know Pentax has a dedicated RAW button, but to me the ISO button on the XSi is a lot more useful. If I'm shooting RAW, then I don't see the need to change back to JPG or vice versa. I can see myself changing the ISO if, for instance, I have to move from an outdoor location to an indoor, etc.

I'm iffy about the need for a dedicated ISO button in anything other than Manual exposure mode. Note that the K200 (like the xsi) has auto-iso, so in the various program modes (P, Av, Tv) the camera can automatically select a sensitivity from a range you set. Alternatively, the K200 has something special.... Sensitivity Priority (Sv) mode. In this mode, you control sensitivity with the e-dial, and the camera automatically selects a shutter speed and aperture, the same as it would in P mode. However, in full manual (M mode), you will have to set a particular sensitivity through the function menu.

[*isteve]

being the owner of a k10d, i wish i would have gotten the 40D... the k10d suffers from horrible dynamic range and even worse white balance in tungsten light. the 40D is beautiful (so is the rebel). while the k200 and k20d both have enhanced dynamic range, i think i'd still go with the canon over it because of the ease of finding cheap lenses, better dynamic range, and far superior white balance imo. if you can swing the 40d, i think you then get the weather sealed body, but i'm not sure how important that is to you.

this is just an honest post from a current pentax camera owner. don't flame me b/c i'm recommending a different camera these are just my observations over almost 2 years of k10d use, i've used the k200d on several occasions in the past, and find it's images very similar to my k10d, including terrible tungsten white balancing.

if i were a primarily outside photog, that'd be fine, but considering 75% of my images are indoor shots, it really sucks. but hindsight is 20/20

K200D has more DR than the 450D without DR extension.
Pentax K200D Review: 18. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review

If you think the tungsten WB is any good on a 450D then I would read this...
Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi Review: 22. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review
and compare it with this....
Pentax K200D Review: 19. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review

Neither has a good tungsten result but the Pentax preset is much better, as is the fluorescent performance. I dont know of a single SLR that has good tungsten auto WB.

Thats not to say the 450D is bad camera. Its default JPEG IQ is very good indeed, its probably easier to get good results with it, and theres lots of glass available.

However it does not have weather sealing (neither does the 40D worth a damn) or an in-camera SR system and the kit lens is awful.

You pays your money.