[pentaxmz]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone again for their input.

I ordered a K200D, charger, 4 gig card, and two sets of Eneloops.

Good for you! Congrats!

Biggest reasons for choosing the 200D over the XSi.

1) Build quality and ergonomics. The day I placed the order, I went to my local Wal-Mart to try out the XSi one more time. It still felt small and a little uncomfortable in my hand. Like I said, I do shoot with the first generation Rebel for work. I don't know if I just got use to it while working or if it was slightly different or what. In any case, the 200D just felt better in my hands.

Feel/handling is quite an important consideration. Build quality might be subjective but I've never handled a K200D. The XSi is a bit 'plasticy' for my liking but I thought all the lower end models were similar.

2) Batteries. Maybe this is stupid, but I like the AA batteries that one review labeled "arcane" power. My girlfriend pointed out that it would be an unlikely scenario where I wouldn't be able to charge a battery for the XSi, but I still like the feeling that I can pick up some AA's just about anywhere if I need to.

I TOTALLY agree with you! I am annoyed that the K20D doesn't have this option in their Body Grip accessory. They may be arcane but they are sure useful, in a pinch, when your proprietary battery is spent! In fact, at this moment, I cannot use my Pentax K20D because both batteries are used up after a long photo session today. But I have nearly 50 NiMH AA batteries available *IF* I could use them.

3) Picture quality. I looked for pics from both cameras. Although I found less interesting photographs taken by the 200D, I believe this is due to the proliferation of the XSi. In actual image quality, I found no noticeable difference.***

I agree... nitpicking probably. The 2mp difference isn't enough to sway me. But more is usually better, especially when pixel peeping or any sort of major cropping.

1) Autofocus. I hope this camera can do what I'd like it to for action sports. If I wanted to take action shots, I shouldn't have gotten the 200D, right? Well, I

......

If the 200D is capable of regularly producing shots like these (which were taken with an XSi) I'll be satisfied.

Well, I may disappoint AND create a stir among some of the zealots in the peanut gallery (I kid! I kid! ) BUT here goes.....

The photos you referenced were all taken at ISO 1600. Two characteristics that Canon does better than any other is low light and high ISO photography. A Pentax (or any other DSLR) CAN take action photos like this BUT they may not be as sharp. But go out and try, see what the results are for yourself.

One further note: Don't rely on auto focus! Pentax is slower than Canon... but that's not the point. Unless your experience differs, you are often better off using a smaller aperture and manual focus. Also, turn off image stabilization because it doesn't help in action photography (or any type of photography where there is rapid and deliberate movement).

[pentaxmz]

They don't existThe K10d I had couldn't even track a cat walking across the yard in AFC mode. The XTi in Ai servo mode can track and lock focus on moving objects up to 20 mph.

There is nothing worse than inane comments putting down other manufacturers! Unless you have factual statements to back this up, don't spew nonsense. I don't like it when the peanut gallery disses Canon (or a Canon owner) and the same is true when someone needlessly puts down Pentax.

Come on people, let's act a little more mature! This is not a usenet alt. forum!

[GaryM]

I don't mean to stir the flames and I don't ever want to get into a 'who's camera is better debate' but I have to agree with the other poster. You shouldn't need IS on a 50mm.

Gary, where were you 20 years ago? IS was Star Trek fantasy back then! Unless you are (unfortunately) unsteady, you shouldn't need IS at 1/30 on a 50mm lens and I know I normally won't have problems even at 1/15 sec. I will post a new thread later (as soon as my darn battery is charged) about this topic. If I see a difference with/without... I will admit I am wrong.

Well I guess I'm unsteady, because I can't shoot a 50mm at 1/15 and get consistently good results without IS or a tripod. Since Canon makes an 18-55 with IS, I must not be the only one.

Here's what else I use that I didn't have 20 years ago: ISO 1600, autofocus, the histogram on the rear LCD of my camera, Photoshop, Lightroom, my Epson inkjet printer, the internet. I like technology, and make no apologies for using it.

[pentaxmz]

Well I guess I'm unsteady, because I can't shoot a 50mm at 1/15 and get consistently good results without IS or a tripod. Since Canon makes an 18-55 with IS, I must not be the only one.

Here's what else I use that I didn't have 20 years ago: ISO 1600, autofocus, the histogram on the rear LCD of my camera, Photoshop, Lightroom, my Epson inkjet printer, the internet. I like technology, and make no apologies for using it.

:-)

Thanks for the laugh... I agree technology is nice. I owned one of the first commercial digital cameras back in 94 (b+w and only about 600 pixels)... but I didn't dump my 35mm (my beloved Pentax MZ-S cameras until I purchased the K20D). Prior to the K20D, 'nothing else was up to snuff' (IMHO).

I often forget that ISO 1600 or better wasn't even available 20 years ago. But back then I was making my own virtual ISO 3000 (or better) film from Ilford 400 ASA (as ISO was once known) by way of hydrogen gas hypering. I wonder if anyone in this forum knows that technique of removing oxygen in order to drastically reduce reciprocity failure. Oh hell, I am writing this in a digital group... what the heck do you people know about film? ha ha (I kid, I kid! ) and I digress!

[dylansalt]

Wow!
Is there anyone in this forum that appreciates the Ricehigh blog?

Canon's image stabilization philosophy is different from Pentax; it is that simple!

It is arguable whether one is better than the other. There are many pros (better and more famous than any of us) that will tell you that Canon's implementation is superior! Personally, I really don't care how IS is done. I've been successful without the aid of IS for over 20 years (or so).

To the original poster, if IS is important to have on legacy lenses then by all means buy into Pentax technology.

The fact is that RH's blog IS biased - period.

If he was unbiased then he would also list the "negatives" of his 5D (see Ken Rockwell's comments on his) and all the other Canon cameras.

That is why we do not really appreciate RH - not because we are supposedly Pentax fanatics

Why doesn't RH also evaluate Nikon, Olympus, Sony products?

I have held and used Canon's and to be quite honest the models up to the 40D feel like cheap plastic c***p as do the lenses (sure I acknowledge they are able to take a great pic in decent hands) so why not list these negative attributes in his blog.

The only two positives I can see of the Canon is it's supposedly superior autofocus
(which in my hands didn't really feel THAT superior to my K10) and a large database of lenses to choose from.

The Canon 18-55IS is simply not in the same league as the Pentax 18-55 in terms of IQ and color resolution and to be quite frank unless one invests in "L" glass you will find a lot of sub par Canon lenses (RH would never admit this)

Whether on board VS Lens based IS is superior - who knows

The fact is with on board (as with Sony also) I can just slap on any lens and I have IS (shoot with a 300mm at 1/20sec handheld without IS and compare the result).

With Lens based I pay a premium for the technology.

Like it or not future cameras are going to be bristling with technology going forward - like it or not

Regards

Dylan

[jct us101]

Hey now everyone, we're all entitled to our own opinion, and you really shouldn't flame others. It's very unforumlike.

[lostkj233]

And still have a few bucks left over to take the wife out to dinner.

I don't call that cheap, I call it smart. Especially the part about taking the wife out to dinner after spending all that money on a camera. I never ate a lens, but no matter what it cost, I'm betting that prime rib was better

Al

Good for you, but what do you have at the end? Nothing, you flush the money down the toilet the next day, but it's only money, you make more. By the way, prime rib is over rated, its just cow anyway you cut it.

[lostkj233]

2) Batteries. Maybe this is stupid, but I like the AA batteries that one review labeled "arcane" power. My girlfriend pointed out that it would be an unlikely scenario where I wouldn't be able to charge a battery for the XSi, but I still like the feeling that I can pick up some AA's just about anywhere if I need to.

Why is this an issue? With the Canon BG-E5 battery grip you can use two
LP-E5's or 6 AA's. As a side note, I hope your going to use recyclable NIMH batteries, that way your not filling our landfills with toxicins. If your not, recycle your AA's.

[bwield]

I think this thread has certainly run it course...
Further posting just feeds Lostkj233.. Lets move on and let this one rest in peace.

[pingflood]

The Canon 18-55IS is simply not in the same league as the Pentax 18-55 in terms of IQ and color resolution and to be quite frank unless one invests in "L" glass you will find a lot of sub par Canon lenses (RH would never admit this)

Now that is simply not true. There's plenty of non-L glass that is excellent. I have the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85.18 and while the 35 is just about average the 50 and 85 are outstanding. The new 70-300IS is very nice, too. It's like saying that anything outside DA* and Limiteds in the Pentax lines aren't worthwhile. Every brand has its performers and duds.

[dylansalt]

Now that is simply not true. There's plenty of non-L glass that is excellent. I have the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85.18 and while the 35 is just about average the 50 and 85 are outstanding. The new 70-300IS is very nice, too. It's like saying that anything outside DA* and Limiteds in the Pentax lines aren't worthwhile. Every brand has its performers and duds.

Accepted, but besides the 70-300 I would regard the others as "primes" due to their wide aperture but are not digital specific as the DA Limiteds are and I nor you can comment on the superiority of either - having seen both, the Pentax Limiteds have a far superior build quality - whether a person wants to pay for that.....

The Canon 70-300 loses out to the Pentax 55-300;

It's a nice partner to the 18-55 due to it starting at 55 and being a little bit more versatile

The Pentax lens is R 4000 less than the Canon - a substantial difference.


And I did state that Nikon & Canon do have a far larger current lens database than Pentax and needs to be considered.

I'm certainly am not a fanatical brand loyalist and have shot with many brand of cameras.

Cheers

Dylan

[GaryM]

Hey now everyone, we're all entitled to our own opinion, and you really shouldn't flame others. It's very unforumlike.

But very internet-like

[Marc Sabatella]

I understand it has a small buffer. I'm not talking about shooting Allen Iverson for Sports Illustrated or anything. I'm talking high school sports.

Whenever I shot sports in the past, I always took one shot at a time.

That is - I zeroed in on the subject, focused, released the shutter once. Repeated.

Unless I'm complete bonehead (which is very possible, ), my understanding is that I should be able to accomplish this with the 200D.

You are correct, as long as you don't intend to repeat this more than 3-4 times per second. I rarely shoot more than once per second, and when I do, it's mavbe twice per second, and I only want to sustain that for maybe 2-3 seconds. It's pretty much never that my buffer fills.

[Marc Sabatella]

Wow!
Is there anyone in this forum that appreciates the Ricehigh blog?

How long have you been following it? Most of the worst what he has come up with was back in the days when he busy getting himself banned from dpreview, maybe around 3 years ago. But even then it was quite apparent there was *some* useful information there, but also quite a bit of stuff posted that demonstrates he doesn't actually understand these issues nearly as well as he thinks he does. And that pretty well remains true now. The problem is, if you don't already understand the science behind the issues yourself, you really can't separate the stuff he writes that is absolutely true (or at least, a valid opinion) from the stuff that is technically just *wrong*.

[aleonx3]

<<snap>> the 35 is just about average the 50 and 85 are outstanding. The new 70-300IS is very nice, too. It's like saying that anything outside DA* and Limiteds in the Pentax lines aren't worthwhile. Every brand has its performers and duds.

My friend using the Canon 85 f1.8 USM is always struggling with his lens keeping the shutter speed below 1/125 whereas I have no issues dragging the shutter down to 1/60 with my 77mm ltd; that's the advantage of in-body stablization and I am not saying the 85mm lens is bad.