[WMBP]

If you set your noise reduction for high ISO to strong in camera you can get some great results with ISO 3200. I haven't shot with Nikon but I have seen Nikon results in the same circumstances and the K20D is right there with them if not better.

I'm interested to hear you say this. I have heard conflicting views on this subject. The contrary view to yours is that using strong noise reduction in camera destroys detail that can never be recovered, and that noise reduction is better done on your computer using something like Noise Ninja. My default opinion is that the camera, no matter how high end, can't computer [woops: I mean compete] with a real computer in processing power or flexibility. This is part of the reason that I shoot raw and never convert to jpeg in the camera. However, this noise reduction issue might be different. I find it awkward to work with noise reduction software like Noise Ninja and if I could get good-enough results from the camera by boosting the noise reduction option, it might be worth it. I think I'll give it a try.

Will

---

Last edited by WMBP; 02-12-2009 at 01:32 PM. Reason: fixed mistake where I said "computer" but meant "compete"

[Canada_Rockies]

I'm interested to hear you say this. I have heard conflicting views on this subject. The contrary view to yours is that using strong noise reduction in camera destroys detail that can never be recovered, and that noise reduction is better done on your computer using something like Noise Ninja. My default opinion is that the camera, no matter how high end, can't computer with a real computer in processing power or flexibility. This is part of the reason that I shoot raw and never convert to jpeg in the camera. However, this noise reduction issue might be different. I find it awkward to work with noise reduction software like Noise Ninja and if I could get good-enough results from the camera by boosting the noise reduction option, it might be worth it. I think I'll give it a try.

Will

Will, Noise Ninja can be set up as an add on in both Photoshop and Lightroom. You could then set up your pp software to apply Noise Ninja automatically depending on the ISO setting in the EXIF of the image. I think. Personally, I don't have a problem with the "noise" from my K10D - it is still light years ahead of pushing Tri-X to 1600.

[Riktar]

Well the D90 is on it's way to it's new home and the K20D is waiting for the battery to charge.

The %$^# camera shop had but one lens in my price range. So I have my walk around lens at least.

I am waiting for my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 to get here from a recent Ebay purchase.

And then the fun shall begin!!!!

[mike.hiran]

Well the D90 is on it's way to it's new home and the K20D is waiting for the battery to charge.

The %$^# camera shop had but one lens in my price range. So I have my walk around lens at least.

I am waiting for my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 to get here from a recent Ebay purchase.

And then the fun shall begin!!!!

good choice on the sigma... I've heard some good things about it. by all means post some photos and let us know what you think after getting used to it. your experience with many cameras is somewhat rare so your feedback would be interesting. Congrats and good luck!

[designinme_1976]

I am VERY interested to hear your initial thoughts on the focus of the K20D compared to what you have used in the past in low light. I have decided as well to switch systems from Nikon/Canon. I shot both and everything boils down to money. If it didn't, well.. I would be on year long vacations taking pictures with new gear all the time, and would own every system possible until, if ever I found the perfect solution.

From what I have read, the K20D is every bit as good as a Nikon D300 in most areas not counting Focus speed, Frames/second, and High ISO. From looking at the high ISO images of both the D300 and the K20D, I really don't see much more going on for the Nikon other than large amounts of noise reduction being used. I would imagine if someone did a test.. took a picture using the K20D with NO NOISE reduction on at ISO 1600.. ran it through Noise Ninja, and down sampled it to 10-12 MP, that it would be very close to the Nikon.

The D300 cost twice as much as the K20D. For me personally, the advantage of having image stabilized primes will be such a convenience. On the Nikon or Canon system, using some of the higher end third party lenses such as the Sigma 70-200 falls short compared to the Nikon because it lacks IS. But, not on the K20D. So.. now for $700 bucks you can get a 70-200 2.8 RS/VR/IS lens.. saving yourself a grand.

I didn't mind the Canon 40D, It had a great FPS, the problem was most were not in focus. I really don't see the point of shooting 5 frames per second to only get 1 decent photo. And don't even talk to me about tracking. The 40D was horrible at tracking. This feature must be left to the PRO models.. Canon throws it in there just to tease you.

The pentax system in my opinion really gives you choices. They might not have the lens selection the Nikon or Canon has, but most of that can be filled in with 3rd party lenses, many of those are fantastic pieces of glass that rival the camera makers version themselves.

Just my opinion.. eager to hear yours.

[losecontrol]

Well the D90 is on it's way to it's new home and the K20D is waiting for the battery to charge.

The %$^# camera shop had but one lens in my price range. So I have my walk around lens at least.

I am waiting for my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 to get here from a recent Ebay purchase.

And then the fun shall begin!!!!

Congrats to a good buy!

Post some photos....we will be waiting!!

[Riktar]

Just a quick note to the previous replies:

I can't make an informed opinion from trying out the K20D after just a few hours. Not to mention shooting with a "kit" lens is not a fair test of the sensor in the K20D. Once the Sigma lens arrives, and if I can lay my hands on a prime (50mm f/1.4 or so) I will post back with some images and my opinion.

But I will say that the K20D has some rather unique features that make it a compelling camera.

And so far, I have NO regrets after taking a few shots with the kit lens. At least in the sense of comparing it to the other bodies in "kit" form.

[Riktar]

Well I am still waiting for my 24-70mm f/2.8 to arrive. So I am going to start with some basic comparisons before getting into more detailed analysis.

Hand holding: The camera compares the closest to my former D90 in size. It is definitely smaller than the 40D and the SD14. I will be adding a grip to give my little finger something to hold onto.

Focus speed with the Promaster (Tamron) 18-200mm lens: Under bright/daylight conditions it achieves focus reasonably well. Compared to my D90 18-105mm VR lens it can be a tick or 2 slower but it still locks on reasonably well. When you are going from extreme distance (focus point WAY off from previous picture) it can do some hunting before it locks on. Indoors under basic light it works ok. Under low light, well let me say that I have yet to use ANY camera that locks focus in a heartbeat. And since I shoot events with an add on speedlight I can use the infrared light from the flash to help the focus speed.

Menu system: Here is where this gets subjective. For myself I find the menu system a bit tedious. Now I understand that the K20D has TONS of options to utilize so finding all the stuff it can do is going to take some getting used to. Over time I am sure I will figure out how to quickly get to the most common functions. But in terms of being intuitive I think the K20D does a good job of laying out all the stuff. To draw an analogy on this one could compare control layouts in a car. That is to say that going from a Ford to a Toyota or Chevy is going to involve learning where all the "new" stuff is.

Noise: I shoot (99% of the time) RAW images so I can't speak about the in camera jpeg engine. What I can say is the level of detail the camera captures is more than the 40D and D90. This really shows up when I run my images through Noiseware to clean them up. If you want to see a direct comparison yourself go to Imaging Resource's compare page. After picking the D90 and the K20D use the Still-life photos at 3200 ISO. If you run both images through Noiseware Community edition (Freeware program) and compare you will find the K20D images clean up just fine and have better contrast and detail then the D90. And bear in mind you are talking about Jpeg images. Shooting in RAW will result in images with even MORE detail since there will be no jpeg artifacts to contend with.

While I do have other comments I am going to hold off until after my daughter's wedding which will be 2 weeks from today. The K20D will have a chance to strut it's stuff under the lighting conditions/scenarios that I intend to use it in.

But for the moment I am more than pleased with my decision to switch to the K20D.

[jsherman999]

.


Riktar, congrats on your new purchase, and we appreciate you taking the time
to post your thoughts on both systems - I know we have a lot of folks thinking
about getting the D90 or D300.

I have a toddler, and the one thing that is limiting me with my K20D system
was low-light AF-lock speed - I really need to nail focus on a moving, bobbing
object in (usually) tungsten light. The K20D, depending on the lens, would often
be hunting and about 1/2 seconds behind the shot I needed to nail.

I decided to build a minimal Nikon system to specialize in fast-AF/indoor kid
shots, so I bought a D80, liked it quite a bit, and then just upgraded to the D90
last week.

My Pentax system is and will remain my main system, but in Nikon mount I now
have the 50 1.8 AF-D, 35 1.8 AF-S (on order,) Tamron 28-75 2.8, and Sigma
50-150 2.8 HSM II. I bought strictly low-light, fast-focus glass, because that's
what this system is for. Since it's not my main system, I have no need for
the extremely expensive Nikkor VR zooms, especially since the Tammy & Sigma
are such excellent alternatives (and I think your Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM is going
to be killer-great also.)

I'll just throw in some thoughts below:

Well I am still waiting for my 24-70mm f/2.8 to arrive. So
I am going to start with some basic comparisons before getting into more
detailed analysis.

Hand holding: The camera compares the closest to my former D90 in size.
It is definitely smaller than the 40D and the SD14. I will be adding a grip to give
my little finger something to hold onto.

Agreed - very similar in size between the D90 & K20D. I find the K20D to be
more solid, with the sealing enhancements adding to the solidity (better doors,
etc.)

Focus speed with the Promaster (Tamron) 18-200mm lens: Under
bright/daylight conditions it achieves focus reasonably well. Compared to my D90
18-105mm VR lens it can be a tick or 2 slower but it still locks on reasonably well.
When you are going from extreme distance (focus point WAY off from previous
picture) it can do some hunting before it locks on. Indoors under basic light it
works ok. Under low light, well let me say that I have yet to use ANY camera that
locks focus in a heartbeat. And since I shoot events with an add on speedlight I
can use the infrared light from the flash to help the focus speed.

I think your Sigma will lock faster than that 18-200. My D90 system is faster
with every lens than the K20D with the corresponding lens. The Sigma 50-150
locks much faster than the DA* 50-135, (DA* 50-135 is sharper, though,) and
the Tamron 28-75 on the D90 locks faster than it did on my K20D (when I had
a Tammy in K-mount.)

It isn't a night & day difference, but it is significant, and it does mean that
I'm getting shots I missed before.

AF accuracy is still an open question - as you noted with your 40D, getting
focus lock doesn't mean much if its not accurate.

Menu system: Here is where this gets subjective. For myself I find the
menu system a bit tedious. Now I understand that the K20D has TONS of options
to utilize so finding all the stuff it can do is going to take some getting used to.
Over time I am sure I will figure out how to quickly get to the most common
functions. But in terms of being intuitive I think the K20D does a good job of
laying out all the stuff. To draw an analogy on this one could compare control
layouts in a car. That is to say that going from a Ford to a Toyota or Chevy is
going to involve learning where all the "new" stuff is.

Exactly right - and I'm coming at it from the opposite direction - the D90
menu system, while 'pretty', seems slower to navigate and less intuitive
to me - strictly for the same reasons you give above. I don't know where the
cupholders are yet so I keep spilling coffee on myself.

Noise: I shoot (99% of the time) RAW images so I can't speak about the in
camera jpeg engine. What I can say is the level of detail the camera captures is
more than the 40D and D90. This really shows up when I run my images through
Noiseware to clean them up. If you want to see a direct comparison yourself go
to Imaging
Resource's compare page. After picking the D90 and the K20D use the
Still-life photos at 3200 ISO. If you run both images through Noiseware
Community edition (Freeware program) and compare you will find the K20D
images clean up just fine and have better contrast and detail then the D90. And
bear in mind you are talking about Jpeg images. Shooting in RAW will result in
images with even MORE detail since there will be no jpeg artifacts to contend
with.

Agreed - the K20D will capture a bit more detail than the D90 at high-ISO
(and you'll find this is true at low ISO too ,) but I'm really impressed with
the D90's in-camera noise reduction at this point - its less heavy-handed than
I've been led to believe. The CMOS sensor in the D90 is impressive.

(for the benefit of Pentaxians wondering about this, here's an ISO 2000
shot from the other day (Tamron 28-75 @ 28mm, f/4) and crop below) :





Here's ISO 1250, with crop:





But shoot PEF, use noise-ninja, and there are few cameras better at low-light
detail than the k20D, but the D90 in-camera noise reduction and the resulting
jpegs are pretty impressive to me so far.

While I do have other comments I am going to hold off until after my daughter's
wedding which will be 2 weeks from today. The K20D will have a chance to strut
it's stuff under the lighting conditions/scenarios that I intend to use it in.

But for the moment I am more than pleased with my decision to switch to the
K20D.

The more you use it, and the more you allow yourself a little LBA (even for the
inexpensive MF lenses - the Green Button is something I really wish the D90 had,)
the more you'll come to appreciate the K20D. It gives me exquisite images
with a multitude of wonderful lenses. Last month I spent some time shooting
with a $25 Super Takumar 55 f/2 that Blew me away, and the M series are
extremely affordable, and great fun with great IQ.

In-body SR is a godsend - all these old lenses are VR to about 2 stops. And
the AF adjustment is huge - the D300 has it, the D80/D90 do not. With
the D90, I'm at the mercy of a lens being withing specs, but just slightly,
slightly off - with the k20D, this is adjustable, and all lenses that are shipped
to me within spec can be absolutely razor sharp with AF adjustment.

There are some holes in the Pentax lens lineup, more so than Nikon, but the
one area where Pentax really shines is small, affordable, incredibly great
prime lenses - the FA 31, 43, and 77, and the DA 21, 35 macro, 40 and 70
are without equal in the other mounts when you factor in IQ/size/cost. I
really suggest that you indulge yourself in that area.



.

[mike.hiran]

thanks all for the comparisons... very interesting stuff! not that I'm about to switch, as I am quite happy with the Pentax bodies and my current lens collection. I'm sure I would be happy with most companies systems, but I find the Pentax handles indoor family stuff great (external flash on spot beam/ or diffused flash has helped a lot) and landscapes and still shots superbly.

looking forward to further updates if your time/willingness permits!

[Riktar]

.
In-body SR is a godsend - all these old lenses are VR to about 2 stops. And
the AF adjustment is huge - the D300 has it, the D80/D90 do not. With
the D90, I'm at the mercy of a lens being withing specs, but just slightly,
slightly off - with the k20D, this is adjustable, and all lenses that are shipped
to me within spec can be absolutely razor sharp with AF adjustment.

There are some holes in the Pentax lens lineup, more so than Nikon, but the
one area where Pentax really shines is small, affordable, incredibly great
prime lenses - the FA 31, 43, and 77, and the DA 21, 35 macro, 40 and 70
are without equal in the other mounts when you factor in IQ/size/cost. I
really suggest that you indulge yourself in that area. .

While I did not mention in my initial eval (I will elaborate after more testing) the in-body stabilization was one of the features that attracted me to the K20D.

And the micro focus adjustment was just icing on the cake.

What "holes" are you referring to? If you just mean with a Pentax logo on it ok. But when you look at 3rd party lens choices I think there are no holes. Or am I just whacky on the junk?

[pentaxmz]

In body image stabilization is something that I really want. Canon and Nikon have got a real racket going on with placing their system in the lens.

No, not really. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Canon and Nikon's IS lenses. One must remember that Canon was offering IS lenses well before the DSLR. In those days, that was the *only* way to stabilize a 35mm film image. Canon's huge investment, makes it difficult and costly to now switch to in-body stabilization. Besides, on-lens stabilization is far more effective than in-body.

And on paper it looks like the K20D just flat out stomps the competition on feature sets.

Depends on what features are important to you. I would never say, "flat out".

The Pentax K20D is no doubt a nice camera but it is not perfect, even for the price it is currently selling at.

[Pentaxviking]

Just buy the K20D and get rid of the plastic D90. K20D is better almost at everything really important.

D90 has "better flash kit" and takes "more pictures" (4,5fps against 3fps) and have better "screen" Personally i dont use the built in flash, i dont need to take alot of pictures at high speed and i just use the screen for menu etc

K20D have sync connector, weather and dust protection and is built on metal (i dropped the k20d 2 meters it still does the job

[designinme_1976]

The grass is always greener on the other side.. how many times have we heard this? Well, I am in a similar boat. I have shot for a very long time with both Nikon and Canon. Both systems have their problems.., but the reality is, those problems bother me.

1. Cost - I can really care less about the "investment" Nikon or Canon has made in their IS/VR system so as to not put SR into the camera body. You mark my words, in another 3 years, both systems will have it. They will INTENTIONALLY make the system with SR targeted at the low end.. and will make it very clear that the VR in the lenses will provide more stops of use.. so my theory is they will put it in their NON pro bodies to compete with Sony, Oly, and Pentax... but it will be a "dumbed down version" to not irritate the pro shooters who spend $8000 on a camera and don't get the feature

2. Quality control - Canon has horrible quality control. I hear a lot of people on here complain about the Pentax control issue, but I can first hand say that Canon has issues with their lens quality control, and this is NOT limited to consumer lenses. I went through 3, say it 3 70-200 F4 L lenses.. at a local retailer a few years back, and all of them couldn't focus correctly. So I bought the sigma instead.
This wasn't limited to lenses, but also camera bodies. I had to send back two camera bodies to have them focus adjusted.. the only two I ever bought, and both went back/front focusing.

3. I switched to Nikon shortly after my last attempt with Canon.. and the Nikon system was so much better in my opinion. The problem is, I am not rich. I really wanted to purchase the D300 after being left short with the D200. The D200 may very well focus faster than the K20D, and shoot 5 FPS, but the problem was it's low light work wasn't that good. The noise reduction was introduced at ISO 800 and you COULDN'T turn it off, so, I would get this horrible, blotchy noise reduction, smearing detail all over the place.. whenever I shot at ISO 800. Shadow noise was horrible too.. and the images lacked detail unless shooting 400 or below. So.. I set to save my money for the D300.. and I really wanted the 70-200 VR. When I added up the cost for those two lenses.. and really though about it.. I just couldn't justify spending Over $3000 to get TWO things I really wanted...

- Micro Focus Adjustment ( my days with Canon have made me never to trust if a lens will work correctly, so I want it.. one less problem to deal with
- Vr with a 70-200 2.8
- Good ergonomics
- Good selection of fairly priced primes with SR is a HUGE "freebie" that you get with Pentax.. Icing on the cake
- SR with all third party lenses... that is a big feature as well
-

For the same prices as the Nikon with the 70-200 VR.. I could get the K20D, Sigma 70-200 ( SR ), and still have $1500 LEFT to spend on primes.

[pentaxmz]

Lens-based image stabilization is no worse and may even be slightly better than in-body.

Whoa there matey!

With all due respect, that is simply not true at all. From a purely stabilization (or how many stops) point of view, lens based stabilization is vastly superior. It is typically 3-4 stops vs 1-2 stops.

But this superior IS comes at a cost, in terms of weight, and cost of each lens.

There are some other things about Pentax cameras that are truly wonderful. The build quality of the K20D is fabulous. Similarly priced Canon and Nikon cameras feel like toys by comparison.

Not necessarily true. While the K20D build quality leaves little to be desired, both the Canon D40 and D50 have excellent builds as well. Remember the newest Canon D50 is selling for less than what the Pentax K20D sold for originally. Many of us early adopters purchased our K20D's for more than the D50.

Which leads me finally to one of the big disadvantages of the Pentax cameras as a system: flash. The Pentax 540FGZ simply isn't a very good piece of hardware, not nearly worthy to sit atop a K20D. The Pentax flash units are now pretty old designs and seem to be pretty badly built. They're also not terribly powerful. And to go from bad to worse, the P-TTL system can produce some very iffy exposures. I hasten to mention that the 540 FGZ isn't by any means worthless and if you work hard, you can take good photos with it.

Funny you should say this because I was speaking with a new Nikon owner today about this. Apparently he had considered the Pentax K20D but found the flash selection a 'joke'. Additionally, he was told that older flash systems were not TTL compatible with the K20D.

In other words, it's all about money.

In my opinion, that's a terrible unflattering (but sometimes true) endorsement for Pentax.

I know that the most important factor in the making of a good photo is the photographer, not the camera.

Very true! Unless, of course, the camera is unable to complete a task due to limitations.

Yes, of course I too say to myself, "Well, I'm a pretty good photographer, and if I switch to, oh, Hasselblad, I'd be a pretty good photographer with even better equipment."

Provided you get a good composition/exposure, I guarantee it will be better than what the K20D can do. There is no argument that the larger format is vastly superior to what an APS-C camera can capture.

all.[/I] I've said it here repeatedly: If you can't take a great picture with, oh, an *ist DS or a K100D, then a K20D ain't gonna help. And it's true. Why does it feel wrong? Because the massive marketing culture we live in tells us the opposite every day. Resist!

I'm tempted to agree *but* it isn't true. The potential quality of image with the K20D is vastly superior (especially in terms of resolution and dynamic range) compared to the *ist DS. And future generations of digital cameras will make the K20D seem so primitive too.