[Riktar]

I have been considering purchasing a K20D to replace my Nikon D90. But first some background on my past equipment:

I started with a Rebel 300D as my first Dslr body. From there I went to a 400D, later a 40D as well as a host of "L" and "regular" lenses. Not to mention the 430EX and 580EX II flashes.

From there I sold all my Canon stuff and bought a Sigma SD14 and while I was thrilled with the photos under controlled lighting I was less than impressed with sub-par lighting environment shots.

From there I bought into a D90 system with a 18-105mm VR lens and a SB-600 flash. I have added a 50mm f/1.8 lens as well as a 70-300mm VR lens.

The D90 purchase was born out of desperation in having to obtain something that could shoot in REALLY sub par lighting. The SD14 proved that it was not going to cut it and I had to have something for the next day.

I have been very fortunate in my past purchases by way of purchasing for a really good price and taking advantage of the timing in the used market and getting a good return on my sell and buy routine.

But with the state of the economy I realize I am going to take a pretty good hit on the resale of my Nikon gear. Then again, with the price of the K20D falling such as it is there would be a minimal out of pocket expense to switch platforms.

But I would really like to know what I can expect with the K20D.

One of the things that really impresses me with the D90/18-105mm/SB-600 setup is how well the metering system works between all these components. I noticed a much better keeper rate with exposure from the Nikon than I used to get when I shot with a 40D/17-55mm f/2.8 IS/580EX II setup. Any former Nikon users out there that can attest to how the K20D holds up against their Nikon gear?

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.

FPS is something that ranks pretty low on the list since I do not shoot sports.

Weather resistance is a plus for the Pentax.

And in camera fine tuning for focus on up to 20 lenses is a feature I would love to have.

Considering that I am not made of money I want to make this my last system switch for the foreseeable future.

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

For the most part I shoot static objects under controlled lighting. I have now shot 2 weddings as second banana and have been asked to participate in upcoming events since the pics I contributed have gotten good reviews.

Frankly if I would not have gotten involved with event photo shoots I would still have the SD14 and would have never bought the D90 system.

Any way enough of my rambling.

Any insight provided would be appreciated.

[Ash]

The K20D will not fail to impress, except if you're expecting fast AF performance in low lighting conditions - AF is not its strong point. Otherwise, it's top value for money and has features plus that leaves most users satisfied.

[WMBP]

I have been considering purchasing a K20D to replace my Nikon D90......

Any insight provided would be appreciated.

Wow, that's an interesting post. And here I am, daydreaming all the time about selling all my Pentax gear and buying a D90!

I take it you don't care about the D90's video? Yeah, me neither.

I have never had the opportunity to shoot with a D90 but I've certainly read a lot about it. I'd be surprised if you would find the K20D an improvement as far as image quality goes - or exposure. That's not a knock against the K20D. It's a GREAT camera, truly great. But everything I've read about the D90 makes me think it's a great camera, too, and that it and the K20D are more or less in the same league. If anything, perhaps the D90 is the better camera overall, and especially when it comes to low-light photography. I would be delighted to hear otherwise from people who really know what they're talking about.

I will agree with you about two things: in-body image stabilization, and the value/cost ratio. These are two of the biggest reasons to buy Pentax. Except that these aren't really two reasons: they're just ONE reason, because the advantage of in-body image stabilization boils down to money. Lens-based image stabilization is no worse and may even be slightly better than in-body. You just have to keep paying for me. In-body IS means you get image stabilization with any lens you own, but if you're rich, you can buy VR lenses for your Nikon to serve every purpose. Bottom line: the Pentax advantage boils down to $$. If I were rich, I'd buy a Nikon D3X and $50K worth of lenses and other accessories and I'd be very happy. When something better comes out next month, I'll buy it, too. That's if I were rich.

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. But the Nikon D90 doesn't feel like a toy to me. Not surprisingly, it's not comparably priced - it's more expensive than the K20D. I also like the K20D's mode operation and the general ergonomics. I'm a big fan of TAv mode. But there are similar options on the Nikon cameras, I believe.

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. I just have the feeling that my Nikon and Canon-using friends are not working as hard to get good flash results as I am. Maybe I'm kidding myself.

I am definitely not bad-mouthing Pentax. I have decided (again and again) to stick with Pentax, because I've got a lot invested in it, because switching platforms would be very costly, because I'd be spending more money AFTER I switched - and because I just don't see huge benefits in image quality in switching. In other words, it's all about money.

I'm acutely susceptible to technolust and techno-jealousy. But that's emotional, not mental. I know better. I know that the most important factor in the making of a good photo is the photographer, not the camera. 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." So I have to be even sterner with myself. The camera isn't all THAT important at all. 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 wish you were in North Texas. We could trade cameras for a week and perhaps both of us would feel better afterwards. :-)

Will

[NeverSatisfied]

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.

Not sure if this helps but it seems the Metz 58 .may be the better choice (yea, I want one!). Would that adequately address the weak link in the Pentax system?

You are still going to have low light issues, Pentax does tend to be slower. But you should find that that slowness comes with a better percentage of shots that actually are in focus.

[kenyee]

From there I bought into a D90 system with a 18-105mm VR lens and a SB-600 flash. I have added a 50mm f/1.8 lens as well as a 70-300mm VR lens.
...
I have now shot 2 weddings as second banana and have been asked to participate in upcoming events since the pics I contributed have gotten good reviews.

You shot weddings w/ an 18-105 lens and 70-300???

The K20D is definitely better built, but the Nikon flash system is supposedly the best around, so if weddings are your thing, I'd seriously consider sticking with it and if you're serious, get a D700 w/ 24-70 (yeah, I know $5K but if you're getting paid for it...)

[WMBP]

Not sure if this helps but it seems the Metz 58 .may be the better choice (yea, I want one!). Would that adequately address the weak link in the Pentax system?

I'm not sure. I bought a Metz flash a year ago, and after a couple days of working with it, I returned it. I can't remember why. I think it didn't do P-TTL and at the time I thought that was a drawback. The problem now is, I can't go to an event with just one flash unit, I don't really want to spend the $$ for TWO metz units, and I think that trying to work with two different units sounds like a bad idea. But I'm actively rethinking my position here. The Metz unit couldn't hurt.

I've also heard from people in this forum who own the top of the line Sigma flash unit, which has a feature set more or less identical to the Pentax 540's and which, from what people say, doesn't seem to have the quality control problems that the 540 has.

Will

Will

[Mister Guy]

I currently use a Metz 48-AF and an el cheapo $20 Vivitar. However, I don't use TLL pretty much ever; I trigger them off AlienBee CyberSync poppers which I absolutely couldn't live without.

[flyer]

I use one Sigma EF500DG super and two EF530DG Super, and MOST of the time, the exposure is right on. It suffers when there are highly reflective things in the picture. I think it's due to the Pentax system trying to avoid "blowing" the highlights at any cost. Beside the, I love my Pentax cameras. Wouldn't trade.

[Riktar]

Wow, that's an interesting post. And here I am, daydreaming all the time about selling all my Pentax gear and buying a D90!

I wish you were in North Texas. We could trade cameras for a week and perhaps both of us would feel better afterwards. :-) Will

You have no idea how bummed I was to see your location. I was thinking the EXACT same thing.

I take it you don't care about the D90's video? Yeah, me neither.

Someone at Nikon should be given a smack for putting that feature in. While I did not really care about the feature I did compare it to my Panasonic DVC30 camcorder. And the DVC30 just stomps the D90 into the ground. And that is comparing 640x480 (DVC30) to the "HD 1280x720" D90.

If I were rich, I'd buy a Nikon D3X and $50K worth of lenses and other accessories and I'd be very happy. When something better comes out next month, I'll buy it, too. That's if I were rich.

If I was that rich I would add a H3D to the list and never worry about static shots EVER.

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.

Not sure if this helps but it seems the Metz 58 .may be the better choice (yea, I want one!). Would that adequately address the weak link in the Pentax system?

You are still going to have low light issues, Pentax does tend to be slower. But you should find that that slowness comes with a better percentage of shots that actually are in focus.

From my (albeit limited) experience I find that the lens attached to the body plays an important role. IE: My Canon Dslr's showed a marked improvement when focusing with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens Vs. a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens in low light. I am sure that same principle follows all makes of camera. If your using the kit lens on the K20D and then strap on a 16-50mm f/2.8 lens and compose the same shot you are going to see an increase in focus speed as well as better accuracy.

You shot weddings w/ an 18-105 lens and 70-300???

The K20D is definitely better built, but the Nikon flash system is supposedly the best around, so if weddings are your thing, I'd seriously consider sticking with it and if you're serious, get a D700 w/ 24-70 (yeah, I know $5K but if you're getting paid for it...)

Here is the story: I am invited to shoot as second banana. I go to the rehearsal to figure out how I am going to setup my SD14. Bear in mind I had NEVER tried using the Sigma in a low light event shoot. I was told that I could use a flash for the ceremony as long as I did not go into "strobe" (rapid firing multiple images) mode. Suffice it to say that the auditorium we were shooting in had poor lighting and no windows. It took about 5 minutes to realize that the SD14 was COMPLETELY out of it's element. Ask anyone who shoots with a Sigma how they like their camera and you will NEVER hear about it's low light capability being good. So hear I am at 8:45pm on a Friday night driving home in a complete state of panic. As I am passing a Best Buy I decide to run in and see what I can do about my plight. In a snap decision I purchase a D90 kit with the 18-105mm VR lens and a SB-600 flash. It was not my first choice but I was trying to work under the guidelines of my credit card balance and (most importantly) my wife's reaction to my latest purchase.
I was more than pleasantly surprised with the D90's ability to grab a good image under the indoor lighting at Best Buy. I was even more impressed with how well the focus and flash metering worked the next day at the wedding.
For all the first time fumbling I did with the camera it still produced. And it compared to my (former setup) 40D with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and 580EX II quite nicely.
Not to mention I only slept on the couch for one night. Which worked out well since I was up half the night trying to learn and get comfortable with a new system. DOUBLE BONUS!

I use one Sigma EF500DG super and two EF530DG Super, and MOST of the time, the exposure is right on. It suffers when there are highly reflective things in the picture. I think it's due to the Pentax system trying to avoid "blowing" the highlights at any cost. Beside the, I love my Pentax cameras. Wouldn't trade.

The EF-500 DG Super is what I was using on my SD14 and the results were less than spectacular. It obviously performs better on the K20D from what you are saying.

My ranking of flash metering (With the equipment I have owned) is as follows:
1. Nikon D90
2. Canon 40D Close, but still,,,
3. Sigma SD14 And this is a distant 3rd.

All that being said I know that running brighter glass is going to help with low light focus and metering.

As far as (high) ISO performance goes, the D90 does have a leg up on my former 40D. But here is the thing: When viewed at 100% (And yes, I know about pixel peeping. I promise to smack myself across the knuckles after I am done typing this) the D90 sacrifices some detail to achieve that. From what I have read in reviews and looked at in examples, the K20D does a very nice job balancing that factor. So I would hazard a guess that I could still shoot up to ISO 1600 with usable results.

My concerns with the D90 for the future:
1. Buying better glass is going to be costly. Just like Canon the cost for "pro" glass with image stabilization is going to be an arm and a leg compared with Pentax DA* glass or 3rd party fast glass. And the fact that my less than stable 52 year old hands have image stabilization no matter what is a plus. And since I can still use the same Pentax lenses I shot with in High School, well there you go.
2. Weather sealing. I know it is "resistant" not "proof". But is still better than what I have with my D90. As it stands right now I am on pins and needles every time I am within the "splash distance" of moisture. Not to mention dust and whatnot.
3. Full frame. Well this point is rather academic since there is no way I am going to be buying any full frame bodies.

So here I am. I not by any means unhappy with how the D90 performs. But when I do a future cost analysis on better glass I keep coming up with my thoughts on buying into the K20D

[Vormulac]

I haven't had my K20 long enough to really offer much on your plight, but I did buy a Metz 58 for my K10 and have used it with my K20 and the results are excellent. It's extremely powerful and works flawlessly with the camera. Beep after happily exposed beep of flashing pleasure (but get yourself some high power rechargeables like eneloops or something similar first!).

[mike.hiran]

I think there's a company that does rent-by-mail of pentax lenses and bodies... I forget the company though. Maybe someone can help me and to OP out???

[kenyee]

...the K20D does a very nice job balancing that factor. So I would hazard a guess that I could still shoot up to ISO 1600 with usable results.
...
My concerns with the D90 for the future:
1. Buying better glass is going to be costly. Just like Canon the cost for "pro" glass with image stabilization is going to be an arm and a leg compared with Pentax DA* glass or 3rd party fast glass. And the fact that my less than stable 52 year old hands have image stabilization no matter what is a plus

If you're going to somewhat pixel peep, I wouldn't shoot more than ISO1100 (and auto-ISO only lets you set it in stop increments, so I only set mine from 100-800). I think it's pretty comparable to the D90 from what I've seen, but with a bit more resolution so you can be more aggressive about cropping.

As for the glass, what was surprising to me is you can get better deals on Nikon glass used than Pentax glass, just because Nikon owners like to trade up a lot more than Pentax users

The SR helps out quite a bit in weddings but that's balanced by the slower AF speed in low light (you can compensate for the AF by learning to us the AF-ON mode instead of the shutter half-press to focus).

You can try a rental from cameralensrentals.com or if someone in your area has a K20D, maybe you can find someone who would be willing to go w/ you to the next wedding event so you can trade cameras through the day...

[rburgoss]

snip I started with a Rebel 300D as my first Dslr body. From there I went to a 400D, later a 40D as well as a host of "L" and "regular" lenses. Not to mention the 430EX and 580EX II flashes.

From there I sold all my Canon stuff and bought a Sigma SD14 and while I was thrilled with the photos under controlled lighting I was less than impressed with sub-par lighting environment shots.

From there I bought into a D90 system with a 18-105mm VR lens and a SB-600 flash. I have added a 50mm f/1.8 lens as well as a 70-300mm VR lens.

The D90 purchase was born out of desperation in having to obtain something that could shoot in REALLY sub par lighting. The SD14 proved that it was not going to cut it and I had to have something for the next day.

But I would really like to know what I can expect with the K20D. snip .

I do not mean to be disrespectful here, but I would like to know what kind of photography experience you have, especially in digital DSLR photography.

It seems to me that you've gone through several systems (in a short period of time? considering that the models you've purchased are all currently available new).

To be honest, just about any of the systems mentioned can give good results, if used properly and knowing a bit of the craft.

I could dare to pronosticate that you will not be happy either with a new K20D, whatever glass you purchase for it. Not even with Leica, Hasselblad, Contax or whatever system you choose and go for the top of the top of whatever...

Photography is like music. You cannot expect the music will come out right from the instrument, If you have not learned to play it well enough. and as such, we all know there are better pianists that others, and no one even dares to say that the piano itself is to take credit for the music produced.

[FunkyMonk]

You have no idea how bummed I was to see your location. I was thinking the EXACT same thing.


Someone at Nikon should be given a smack for putting that feature in. While I did not really care about the feature I did compare it to my Panasonic DVC30 camcorder. And the DVC30 just stomps the D90 into the ground. And that is comparing 640x480 (DVC30) to the "HD 1280x720" D90.


If I was that rich I would add a H3D to the list and never worry about static shots EVER.


From my (albeit limited) experience I find that the lens attached to the body plays an important role. IE: My Canon Dslr's showed a marked improvement when focusing with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens Vs. a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens in low light. I am sure that same principle follows all makes of camera. If your using the kit lens on the K20D and then strap on a 16-50mm f/2.8 lens and compose the same shot you are going to see an increase in focus speed as well as better accuracy.
Here is the story: I am invited to shoot as second banana. I go to the rehearsal to figure out how I am going to setup my SD14. Bear in mind I had NEVER tried using the Sigma in a low light event shoot. I was told that I could use a flash for the ceremony as long as I did not go into "strobe" (rapid firing multiple images) mode. Suffice it to say that the auditorium we were shooting in had poor lighting and no windows. It took about 5 minutes to realize that the SD14 was COMPLETELY out of it's element. Ask anyone who shoots with a Sigma how they like their camera and you will NEVER hear about it's low light capability being good. So hear I am at 8:45pm on a Friday night driving home in a complete state of panic. As I am passing a Best Buy I decide to run in and see what I can do about my plight. In a snap decision I purchase a D90 kit with the 18-105mm VR lens and a SB-600 flash. It was not my first choice but I was trying to work under the guidelines of my credit card balance and (most importantly) my wife's reaction to my latest purchase.
I was more than pleasantly surprised with the D90's ability to grab a good image under the indoor lighting at Best Buy. I was even more impressed with how well the focus and flash metering worked the next day at the wedding.
For all the first time fumbling I did with the camera it still produced. And it compared to my (former setup) 40D with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and 580EX II quite nicely.
Not to mention I only slept on the couch for one night. Which worked out well since I was up half the night trying to learn and get comfortable with a new system. DOUBLE BONUS!
The EF-500 DG Super is what I was using on my SD14 and the results were less than spectacular. It obviously performs better on the K20D from what you are saying.

My ranking of flash metering (With the equipment I have owned) is as follows:
1. Nikon D90
2. Canon 40D Close, but still,,,
3. Sigma SD14 And this is a distant 3rd.

All that being said I know that running brighter glass is going to help with low light focus and metering.

As far as (high) ISO performance goes, the D90 does have a leg up on my former 40D. But here is the thing: When viewed at 100% (And yes, I know about pixel peeping. I promise to smack myself across the knuckles after I am done typing this) the D90 sacrifices some detail to achieve that. From what I have read in reviews and looked at in examples, the K20D does a very nice job balancing that factor. So I would hazard a guess that I could still shoot up to ISO 1600 with usable results.

My concerns with the D90 for the future:
1. Buying better glass is going to be costly. Just like Canon the cost for "pro" glass with image stabilization is going to be an arm and a leg compared with Pentax DA* glass or 3rd party fast glass. And the fact that my less than stable 52 year old hands have image stabilization no matter what is a plus. And since I can still use the same Pentax lenses I shot with in High School, well there you go.
2. Weather sealing. I know it is "resistant" not "proof". But is still better than what I have with my D90. As it stands right now I am on pins and needles every time I am within the "splash distance" of moisture. Not to mention dust and whatnot.
3. Full frame. Well this point is rather academic since there is no way I am going to be buying any full frame bodies.

So here I am. I not by any means unhappy with how the D90 performs. But when I do a future cost analysis on better glass I keep coming up with my thoughts on buying into the K20D

I have shot two weddings with the K20D for Wedding Media Group. They use Nikon D300 and D700 and they are impressed with the results of the K20D. Be sure to get the Metz 58 Flash. It does a great job. 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.