So lets sum it up:

K-20
1. Not for a lot of sports shooting although a competent photographer depending on the sport can get good results. To machine gun fire a camera with horrible attention to detail and framing makes no sense to me. And so what it you can shoot at a jillion frames per second if they are all crappy mis focused shots. Besides if you want to do sports particularly indoors you better have deep pockets for fine lenses.
2. Not for astro photography.
3. Not for people who want a point and shoot.
4. Not for Rice Cakes.

Folks at under $750 for the body who else competes?
You want perfection then shell out tons more and you still have compromises.

I think every camera fits into its own niche.
The people who come in here and whine constantly are probably people who go through life whining. If Pentax doesn't work for you there are other brands out there.

[Javaslinger]

Even better, the K20D can be found for $600 on ebay - NEW - if your willing to deal with the canadian suppliers...

[rfortson]

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.

Well, you've underestimated in-body SR, and over-estimated lens-based IS/VR. You can only get 3-4 stops on a few specific VR/IS lenses, not all IS/VR lenses. The effectiveness varies over all the IS/VR lenses. This has been stated by several reviews, PopPhoto comes to mind as one.

In-body SR is probably 2-4 stops as shown by the same reviews and it's consistent across all lenses you put on the camera, so I'll take the consistent 2-4 stops (at no extra cost) rather than 3-4 stops only on one or two lenses (and not all IS/VR lenses).

[pentaxmz]

Well, you've underestimated in-body SR, and over-estimated lens-based IS/VR. You can only get 3-4 stops on a few specific VR/IS lenses, not all IS/VR lenses. The effectiveness varies over all the IS/VR lenses. This has been stated by several reviews, PopPhoto comes to mind as one.

In-body SR is probably 2-4 stops as shown by the same reviews and it's consistent across all lenses you put on the camera, so I'll take the consistent 2-4 stops (at no extra cost) rather than 3-4 stops only on one or two lenses (and not all IS/VR lenses).

Many of these reviews simply restate Pentax's published figures. In real-life, I suspect, it will be difficult to achieve four stops.

It doesn't really matter what PopPhoto has stated, you simply cannot argue the physics of moving a lens element vs moving the imaging platform. The amount of movement required to compensate for shake, in the optics, is minuscule compared to the amount required on the imaging platform.

Anyhow, like another poster has already stated, it is a virtual certainty that both Canon and Nikon will introduce in-body SR soon because it is effective enough and it offers a lot of practical advantages.

Please don't misunderstand me, Pentax got this one right!

[pentaxmz]

Even better, the K20D can be found for $600 on ebay - NEW - if your willing to deal with the canadian suppliers...

That blows my mind!

Especially when one takes into account that a 10 year old Pentax MZ-S can command up to $500.00 (or sometimes more) on eBay.

Since I have several MZ-S cameras, I am almost obsessed with watching these cameras sell on eBay. There are about 4 for sale now. I am excluding the, always present, PLUS $1000.00 BUY-IT-NOW MZ-S auctions. These never sell and I don't understand why these sellers continue to post them at this ridiculous price.

[rfortson]

Many of these reviews simply restate Pentax's published figures. In real-life, I suspect, it will be difficult to achieve four stops.

It doesn't really matter what PopPhoto has stated, you simply cannot argue the physics of moving a lens element vs moving the imaging platform. The amount of movement required to compensate for shake, in the optics, is minuscule compared to the amount required on the imaging platform.

Anyhow, like another poster has already stated, it is a virtual certainty that both Canon and Nikon will introduce in-body SR soon because it is effective enough and it offers a lot of practical advantages.

Please don't misunderstand me, Pentax got this one right!

Oh, so the reviews you quote are unbiased, but the ones I quote are merely repeating Pentax's marketing materials? Now I understand.

Here's at almost 5 stops hand held, even if you don't count the 1.5x crop factor. Taken with the K100D (first edition of Pentax SR) at 18mm, and 1.5 seconds hand held. (1/18 -> 1/9 -> 1/4.5 -> 1/2 -> 1 sec -> 1.5 sec)



Plus, you can see other examples of SR in action here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/47358-show-you...e-prowess.html

[pentaxmz]

Oh, so the reviews you quote are unbiased, but the ones I quote are merely repeating Pentax's marketing materials? Now I understand.

Here's at almost 5 stops hand held, even if you don't count the 1.5x crop factor. Taken with the K100D (first edition of Pentax SR) at 18mm, and 1.5 seconds hand held. (1/18 -> 1/9 -> 1/4.5 -> 1/2 -> 1 sec -> 1.5 sec)

Plus, you can see other examples of SR in action here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/47358-show-you...e-prowess.html

Although that is a pretty neat photo... I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about biases. Rather, I was talking about the physics of SR or IS (whatever one chooses to call it). You simply can't argue the physics. But aside from that, please remember that I also stated that the Pentax advantages actually outweigh all else. Pentax got it right which means Canon and Nikon will have in-body SR soon. I'm willing to bet this will happen in the next two years.

But, seriously, being able to get a pretty clear shot at 1.5 seconds has way more to do with your short focal length and your remarkably steady hand than the Pentax's SR.

SR or IS won't do much for someone who doesn't already have a fairly steady hold on the camera.... and 1 stop, 2 stops, 3 stops, 4... whatever, it's arbitrary.... and based upon assumptions that there is a normal amount of jitter caused by the operator of the camera at a particular focal length. For instance, you might be able to achieve 5 stops with SR (and a 48mm lens), but Grandpa Joe will be lucky to achieve 1/2 stops or non at all with SR with the same lens. Additionally, you will never-ever get 5 stops with a 200mm lens and SR.

But this has nothing to do with comparing technologies.

Although that is a pretty neat photo... I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about biases. Rather, I was talking about the physics of SR or IS (whatever one chooses to call it). You simply can't argue the physics. But aside from that, please remember that I also stated that the Pentax advantages actually outweigh all else. Pentax got it right which means Canon and Nikon will have in-body SR soon. I'm willing to bet this will happen in the next two years.

But, seriously, being able to get a pretty clear shot at 1.5 seconds has way more to do with your short focal length and your remarkably steady hand than the Pentax's SR.

SR or IS won't do much for someone who doesn't already have a fairly steady hold on the camera.... and 1 stop, 2 stops, 3 stops, 4... whatever, it's arbitrary.... and based upon assumptions that there is a normal amount of jitter caused by the operator of the camera at a particular focal length. For instance, you might be able to achieve 5 stops with SR (and a 48mm lens), but Grandpa Joe will be lucky to achieve 1/2 stops or non at all with SR with the same lens. Additionally, you will never-ever get 5 stops with a 200mm lens and SR.

But this has nothing to do with comparing technologies.

An interesting read:

Among DSLR users there are many who debate over and over ad nauseum the advantages and disadvantages of in-lens vs. in-body image stabilization. Most of the arguments are filled with speculations, marketing spin (trying to sow FUD), hopes, and fears rather than facts. I hope the following helps to separate the two.

This is a summary of the known advantages and disadvantages of in-body and in-lens stabilization -- in contrast to speculations, marketing spin, hopes, fears, etc..

In-body stabilization advantages:

1. Stabilizes *any* lens (new, old, camera company's lens, 3rd party lens, AF lens, MF lens, lens mounted with an adapter, etc.).

2. Price of DSLRs with in-body stabilization are similar, sometimes less, than comparable bodies without it (Sony A200, Pentax K20D, Sony A700, Sony A900).

3. Stabilization gets upgraded regularly and is put in new bodies (2005 KM 7D/5D has 1st generation, 2006 Sony A100 has 2nd generation, 2007 Sony A700 has 3rd generation; 2006 Pentax K100D has 1st generation, 2006 Pentax K10D has 2nd generation). Of course, you don't get the advantage of the new generation of stabilization unless you buy a new body. No doubt there are some people that don't upgrade their DSLRs for many years and are still using a Nikon D1, Canon D30, etc., but most enthusiasts and professionals that use DSLRs upgrade every few years (or even more often) because of the fast advance in overall technology (AF, megapixels, speed of operation, new features, etc.).

4. Stabilization is available instantly with no delay.

In-body stabilization disadvantages:

1. Optical viewfinder is not stabilized. DSLRs with liveview (Olympus E-520) do have a stabilized view when using liveview.
In-lens stabilization advantages:

1. Stabilization works with DSLRs and FSLRs.

2. Optical viewfinder is stabilized.

In-lens stabilization disadvantages:

1. Only available in a very limited set of lenses. And sometimes you have to choose between a mediocre optical and/or build quality IS lens or a much better optical and/or build quality non-IS lens.

2. Rarely, if ever, updated. The only case I know of where an IS lens was updated is the Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens got updated to the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS lens. The old one came out in 1995 and was finally updated in 2005, but it didn't help any of the owners of the 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS. The 1998 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS is still waiting for an upgrade and so are many other lenses (Canon 70-200mm f2.8L, etc.).

3. In many cases it adds a lot to the cost of the lens (Canon 70-200mm f4L vs. Canon 70-200mm f4L IS, Canon 70-200mm f2.8L vs. Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS, Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 vs. Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 vs. Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS, etc.).

4. When the IS system is asleep there is approximately a 1/2 second to 1 second delay when you half-press the shutter release while the IS system initializes and starts to stabilize. If you shoot too quickly you will often get a blurry photo because the IS lens elements are still getting set and are moving around.

Speculations, marketing spin, hopes, fears, etc.

1. Issues such as whether in-lens stabilization is more effective or, at least, more effective for long focal length lenses is not proven. Various tests that I have seen in multiple places seem to leave it still as an open question. I think the only fair thing to say about this is both systems seem to work pretty well. For one person one system may be a bit better and for another person another may be a bit better. Also, a particular generation of one system might be a bit better than a particular generation of another system, but with different generations of each the results might be the opposite. Frankly, I see this whole issue as sort of a wash. Neither system is perfect, neither system is going to consistently in all situations give you exactly 3 stops or 2.5 stops or 4 stops or whatever.

2. Another issue concerns whether in-lens is mechanically more or less reliable than in-body. This is just speculation too. I'm sure inside the various companies they have their confidential information about the MTBF of their sysytems. It isn't likely they will want to share that info with the whole world though. Since most people replace their DSLRs from time to time for many reasons (mostly because of the fast evolution of the technology) the average user (this is my guess) probably never experiences a shutter failure or failure of other moving parts in the body before the DSLR is replaced for some other reason. In-lens IS is, no doubt, quite reliable too, but it also is a mechanical system and has an MTBF. I think that most people hold onto their lenses for a much longer period than their bodies though.

3. Another issue that gets brought up pretty often is what optical degradation occurs because of the IS lens elements in the lens. Klaus Schroiff at Photozone.de believes it does degrage the optical performance though and he does lots of lens testing. I didn't mention it in the above lists because it is sort of speculation, I guess.

4. In-body stabilization seems to have little effect on the size and weight of the body since comparable bodies from the competition without stabilization are not smaller or lighter (in fact, they are sometimes bigger and heavier). In-lens stabilization seems to add size and weight to the lens, at least in some cases (Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 vs. Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS vs. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS vs. Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6, etc.). I put this in the speculation category because it is not known definitively that it is the IS mechanism alone that is causing the size and weight increase.

[Riktar]

Let me state that from the pictures I have taken with the K20D and a Promaster/Tamron 18-200mm lens I see no discernible difference when I compare them to similar shots taken with my Nikon D90/18-105mm VR or the Canon 40D/18-55mm IS.

Once I get my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lens I will go back and compare it to shots taken with the 40D/17-55mm IS to see how that fares. Hopefully I will be able to score a 2.8 zoom lens that goes out to 200mm so I can see how well it works against the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I used on the 40D.

I have my own benchmarks I use around the house. And since i still have most of the shots taken with prior cameras I have owned I will speak from experience and not speculation.

The system works just fine. It is a bit different when you are looking through the viewfinder since you don't have the benefit of "seeing" how stabilized the image is. But the picture you view on your computer will bear out the fact that it does work.

And if someone can point to an article that shows how this system worked better than that system on a resolution chart, well, I 'll start to worry IF I find myself shooting resolution charts instead of people and places.

Let me state that from the pictures I have taken with the K20D and a Promaster/Tamron 18-200mm lens I see no discernible difference when I compare them to similar shots taken with my Nikon D90/18-105mm VR or the Canon 40D/18-55mm IS.

Once I get my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 lens I will go back and compare it to shots taken with the 40D/17-55mm IS to see how that fares. Hopefully I will be able to score a 2.8 zoom lens that goes out to 200mm so I can see how well it works against the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I used on the 40D.

I have my own benchmarks I use around the house. And since i still have most of the shots taken with prior cameras I have owned I will speak from experience and not speculation.

The system works just fine. It is a bit different when you are looking through the viewfinder since you don't have the benefit of "seeing" how stabilized the image is. But the picture you view on your computer will bear out the fact that it does work.

And if someone can point to an article that shows how this system worked better than that system on a resolution chart, well, I 'll start to worry IF I find myself shooting resolution charts instead of people and places.

How dare you use real life examples vs. speculation and throwing the big word physics out there!

[designinme_1976]

......Hopefully I will be able to score a 2.8 zoom lens that goes out to 200mm so I can see how well it works against the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I used on the 40D

I am curious what your initial feeling is about the K20D compared to the Canon 40D. I am making the move from Canon/Nikon ( I owned both the D200 and the 40D at different times )...

I am guessing the low light focus is an issue for some.. what is your opinion on this? I plan to just get the Katz Eye screen, and then do mostly manual focus when I need low light.. probably using the Fa Limited Primes...

Thanks for any input.. hopefully will be getting my starting kit in about 10 days...

[sandpiper6]

Thanks for this thread. I am currently a Pentax K100D shooter living without my top LCD display since my daughter dropped my camera. My husband still shoots with *ist-D bought exactly 5 years ago. It's sensor is going bad and there is soooooo much improvement in Pentax across the board in those 5 years. And to think we paid almost $1500 for that one.

Since October 2005, I have found my specialty niche in birth photography. I have shot births with the *ist-D, *ist-DL and K100D. In January, I got to borrow a friend's D90 and co-shot it with my K100D. The issue at hand was I used the D90 more. It had a focus assist lamp though. It felt like cheating, but got the job done. I hated the idea of shining that light on a laboring mom and family though. I do not know how *they* really felt about that, though they *said* they didn't mind. She wasn't a ******l delivery either which doesn't give me a really valuable opinion on the later stages of labor and that focus assist lamp.

I'm on the fence between switching to the D90 vs just upgrading to the K20D. Hospital rooms, especially overnight births are lowlight WITHOUT flash. So, I can't use the infrared assist of the flash unit either. If there's a way to do that without firing the flash - please do tell. My flash is the Sigma EF-530 DG ST. Will that TTL with the K20D??? I'm not a flash master by any means. Our studio flash is 2 old vivitars on lightstands. I can't wait to learn more and get better at using the flash. My first birth in October 2005 was my first time shooting by myself and I used Joe's *ist-D with a manual focus 50mm lens and the 28-70, 2.8 (Sigma?). I would love the 24-70 2.8 for myself. Or a 2.8 of an 18+ zoom. My 50mm, 1.4, af and our 28-70, 2.8 are our only fast lenses at this point. We have the 18-55 kit and the Sigma 70-300, 4.0 lenses.

If I buy the D90, I'd have to buy a lens or 2 and a flash. If I buy the K20D, I could keep my current flash (?), and upgrade a lens or two. Since I've already tasted the af speed on the D90, will I be happy with the K20D upgrade from K100D? I've done many births with the K100D and gotten great results even though limiting myself to ISO 400 occasionally pushed to 1600. I shoot RAW. The K100D has MUCH better ISO capability than the *ist-D. Is the K20D MUCH better than the K100D???

I find that I leave in camera stabilization on all the time. I used to get lots of camera shake shots on the *ist-D. I'm pretty shaky. My husband is not as shaky, so he's been fine using the *ist-D.

Being the main image editor for both of us (hubby still has day job and we have 4 kiddos), I get frustrated editing the *ist-D images for dynamic range. I'm glad to see lots of comments about DR on the K20D. Is it much improved over the *ist-D and the K100D? I think DR might be my second biggest dissatisfaction with current camera set. (First being ISO limitations for no flash, lowlight work. Yes, there are still churches requiring no flash during ceremonies.

With 4 kiddos, money is a factor. I finally have a little bit of money to put into some equipment upgrades out of this year's tax refund. Yet, I'm still on the fence about what to actually spend it on...

Anybody know how DR stacks up against D90 vs K20D?

Also adding: We had a 5 year biz plan to grow slow on purpose beginning June 2004. We are now in transition out of that into stepping up the business now that the youngest child is in school 1/2 day this year. In August, all of my children will be in school all day for the first time EVER. (Oldest will be 18, youngest 5.) Of course, we'll be attempting to get started in the senior market with the help of our oldest (a junior) and her friends.

Any help?

Thanks a bunch.

Faith Piper

LIFE BY FAITH - my blog with birth slideshows, not including last 3 births.
Anna Olivia Birth Documentary and Dominic Birth Documentary
no slideshow made yet for the 012008twins.
Faith Piper, Aiken, SC Birth Photographer (new site, not finished filling galleries by any means)
Home (old site with work from 04-06)

[Riktar]

I am curious what your initial feeling is about the K20D compared to the Canon 40D.

I am hopeful my 24-70mm f2.8 gets here soon so I can make a more informed statement. The reason being is that I primarily shot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on that (40D) camera. And comparing focus speed with a f3.5 (at best, remember that will go all the way to 5.6 on most kit lenses) to a f/2.8 is not at all fair.

This is not going to give you a direct answer but to illustrate my point I will go back to the first time I mounted my shiny new 17-55mm f/2.8 on my Rebel XTi which was previously using the 18-55mm kit lens. I was so shocked at the difference in "lock on" speed I thought that this would be all I would ever need.

Yah, right,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

That aside I will say I REALLY liked the way the 40D fit my hand. And don't dismiss how a camera feels to you. Believe me, when you are event shooting and it starts coming up on the 8th hour you have had this "thing" in your hand you really start thinking about how much "fit" comes in to play.

That's why I have the battery grip on it's way. Makes a world of difference. At least to me it does.

[sandpiper6]

No reply to my questions?

[kenyee]

So, I can't use the infrared assist of the flash unit either. If there's a way to do that without firing the flash - please do tell. My flash is the Sigma EF-530 DG ST.

look in manual for "spotbeam mode". Pentax flashes have this option that fires up the AF lamp only. Not sure if Sigma has it...