[nostatic]

In my brief foray with the Km, I found that the "professional" reviewers (ie dpr) are morons (as usual).

I found IQ to be excellent, AF to be well behaved (I always use single center point), and high ISO performance excellent as well. The only downside to me is that the body is just too small for my hands. Also, I'm used to the ergonomics of the K20d and miss having the buttons where "they belong."

It is an excellent choice for a "first" dSLR as well as a second body as long as your hands aren't too big.

[Marc Sabatella]

A bit surprised I have to look through the viewfinder all the time.

For the record, that's the norm with a DSLR. If you think about what a DSLR is - a camera with a Reflex mirror (the "R" in DSLR) that flips up and down to control whether light coming in reaches the sensor or the viewfinder - you'll see that any sort of digital display of the incoming image is in some ways at odds with that design. In the last couple of years, several DSLRs have tried, with varying degrees of success, to kludge up some sort of way of doing this, but it's far from the norm at this point. Given that in most ways, optical viewfinders are still superior to LCD's, it also shouldn't be too surprising that people haven't tried all that hard to implement LCD viewers for DSLRs.

[creampuff]

The JPEG quality of the camera is fairly poor, as I recall, but it definitely is a good starter camera.

Given you have only just owned a Pentax *istDS, I'm seriously wondering if you have you actually used this camera to make this assertion.
I bought the K-m for my niece and I have never encountered the supposedly poor JPEG quality that you mention.

[Marc Sabatella]

The *ist series is more than 3 generations old. The K-m's sensor is streets ahead of it.

It's more resolution, but not necessarily better in any other significant way. Some say it's not as good in the noise department, but I think they are very comparable.

Also, FWIW, the K-m sensor is pretty old, too - it first came into the Pentax world with the K10D.

Heck even the discontinued K100D betters it and it has Shake Reduction.

The K100D sensor is the same as the DS. While I agree SR is worth giving up the DS's better viewfinder for, some might have the opposite inclination, and I think that was sflights was referring to. But as someone who has lived with both the DS and the K200D (not K-m, but same sensor and viewfinder), I do believe the newer cameras are worth the money. I will never willingly go back to a camera with no SR - it's just too valuable.

[creampuff]

It's more resolution, but not necessarily better in any other significant way. Some say it's not as good in the noise department, but I think they are very comparable.

Also, FWIW, the K-m sensor is pretty old, too - it first came into the Pentax world with the K10D.

The K100D sensor is the same as the DS. While I agree SR is worth giving up the DS's better viewfinder for, some might have the opposite inclination, and I think that was sflights was referring to. But as someone who has lived with both the DS and the K200D (not K-m, but same sensor and viewfinder), I do believe the newer cameras are worth the money. I will never willingly go back to a camera with no SR - it's just too valuable.

The K-m and K10D may share the same lineage for the sensor but there definitely have been tweaks made because images from the K-m are a little better than the K10D in my opinion. Even the shop owner where I bought the K-m acknowledged the K-m's images looked better than the K10D he had in his shop.

As to the K100D and *ist DS sensor comparison, yes they may share the same sensor but the image quality of the K100D is definitely much better as the processing algorithms were tweaked for better sharpness and details. I believe dpreview has done extensive tests to prove this.

[RiceHigh]

The bad thing is that it is named "K-m", not "KM", and that there is already a Pentax KM.....and that the stupid confusingly similar name makes it damned near impossible to do a google search for the old film KM.

I'd love to have one.

K-m is a good name marketing wise. It is simple and unique. Do you see how many DSLRs outthere are DXX and XXD, its refreshing afterall. The small letter "m" stands for "mini" and has a good meaning.

Anyone who googles will need to filter out the unwanted messages, anyway

[RiceHigh]

I'm thinking about getting a Pentax KM and the 18-55 lens, I would use it as a general carry around camera for every day use. I would also use it as a second body for my K10D.

What is the good....the bad....about this camera. Thanks.

I have tried the K-m for several times now with more than ten units. I can conclude the following:

- small, solid and well built

- AF is faster and smoother, with slow zoom, quite often there is hunting, but just for one to two times and it will stop. For fast primes, hunting will be less.

- exposure accuracy with kit zoom is not that good, especially at the 55mm side. There seems still some QC issue as I found that particular two units were "darker" than the other.

- with primes, the exposure accuracy is good, especially the
well-calibrated stop-down metering (as it seems to be)

- P-TTL is still not reliable, especially it could be unexplanably dark with the kit lens, more problematic at the 55mm side.

- jpeg quality is not of high definition, but its usable, depending on your requirements.

- Viewfinder image is bright, sharp and large (comparatively in its class)

- it is still AA battery type sensitive if you use NiMH, some batteries won't work for longer! You cannot use CR-V3 neither as the battery compartment will prohibit the insertion of CRV3 as intentionally designed.

Bottom line: at the same price as the Canon EOS 1000D kit, it is not a bad entry level choice. You have to decide what are more important for you, e.g., if direct out of camera jpeg and super sharpness is really important, you'd better choose the 1000D, say for example. Otherwise, the K-m still excels.

[Marc Sabatella]

The K-m and K10D may share the same lineage for the sensor but there definitely have been tweaks made because images from the K-m are a little better than the K10D in my opinion. Even the shop owner where I bought the K-m acknowledged the K-m's images looked better than the K10D he had in his shop.

There are indeed differences - different analog-to-digital converter, different firmware with different JPEG processing, etc. Underlying sensor is still the same as far as anyone has been able to prove.

As to the K100D and *ist DS sensor comparison, yes they may share the same sensor but the image quality of the K100D is definitely much better as the processing algorithms were tweaked for better sharpness and details.

For JPEG, yes. For RAW, there should be no differences, as the K100D and DS share more of the same hardware than the K10D and K-m do. With the K10D and K-m, it's basically the sensor only, but with the K100D and DS, they also share the same ADC as far as I know.

[creampuff]

marc, I never said the sensors were not similar.
With a gap of 2 years between the *ist DS and K100D as well as yhe K10D and K-m I am certain continual improvements have been made by the design engineers, because the image quality improvements are there.
For the *ist DS and K100D, there latter shows image quality improvements not just in jpegs but RAW too. I don't need to dwell on this as the dpreview's test well demonstrates.

[Marc Sabatella]

For the *ist DS and K100D, there latter shows image quality improvements not just in jpegs but RAW too. I don't need to dwell on this as the dpreview's test well demonstrates.

You'd need to dwell on it if you wish to convince anyone of this, since it is *not* the conventional wisdom, and indeed, *not* what dpreview themselves concluded. The exact words from their RAW comparison: there is "almost no difference between the K100D and *ist DS. This is what we would expect as they share the same six megapixel sensor."

Anyhow, whatever tiny differences *might* exist in RAW IQ between the K100D and DS, they pale in comparison to the very significant difference made by SR. No doubt, the K100D is going to give you better pictures much of the time for that reason alone. If the light is bad enough for the better viewfinder of the DS to make a significant difference in focus, it's usually also bad enough that lack of SR wil hurt. And if you shoot JPEG and happen to like to use the settings chosen by dpreviw for their comparisons, you will indeed see advantages to the K100D in that department too.

That's why I absolutely agree the K100D is the better choice for most people. And with more resolution, no more noise, and the advantages of either weather sealing or smaller size, the K200D or K-m would better still for most people. So I'm not disagreeing with your basic conclusion here - just some of the specific facts used to support it. The RAW image quality from *any* of these cameras is very, very, good, and aside from the undeniably significant increase in resolution, the advances made over the years in the sensor area pale in comparison to the other differences between these cameras.

[glanglois]

First K2000 thoughts after about two dozen exposures:

In low indoor light, autofocus is much faster and more likely to occur than with my K10D. The latter would give up in my family room at 4.5 (Sigma 17-70) while the K2000 does fine with the kit lens at 5.6,

Noisy with reduction off. I'll have to do some comparisons using various levels of reduction. Or perhaps break down and do the noise reduction with purpose-built software. At least administrable noise management allows me to do that.

Lens and camera are light. Batteries make it noticeably heavier. Batteries appear to be required, alas.

Viewfinder is hard to deal with for me. I wear glasses and found its size challenging. Familiarity may breed .... something. I don't think that image magnification is the problem. The viewfinder "window" just seems small. I felt a bit claustrophobic.

The little included flash (AF200FG) is small, light, and seems effective enough. Nothing exciting or manageable. Just a good way to shoot some unchallanging indoor scenes. I may sell the flash on or make a little bouncer to mount on the front. I wish Pentax had something like the Nikon (400?) with the tilt for bounce but little else in the way of goodies. And the Nikon was tiny and had decent performance with only two batteries! I should look at other small flashes in that price range.

The LCD info is serious stuff. I'm just not used to seeing it there yet. It seems wierd but that's just lack of familiarity.

Pentax actually includes four real Energizer lithium batteries instead of cheap alkalines. Nicely done! That gives me plenty of time to find a good deal on another set of Eneloops.

And the enclosed rebate card is a big deal. I had decided against trying a fisheye and this box came with a rebate card good for, among other deals, $90 off a 10-17 fisheye. That gets me down to about USD $265. Why wouldn't I do that ????

Umm ... time to get back to my new toy.

[rfortson]

I've never really understood the reviewers' complaints with jpegs from any camera. First of all, most people will shoot raw. And secondly, if you do shoot jpeg, you can tweak all the in-camera settings to make the jpegs look pretty much however you'd like.

[soccerjoe5]

The JPEG quality of the camera is fairly poor, as I recall, but it definitely is a good starter camera.

As I recall, it's that the JPEG quality is "poor" in its default. I like the JPEGs of the Pentax, they're very tweakable. Tweak em and you'll love em

As for the camera, fantastic camera. Only thing that's stopping/delaying me from getting one is that I've got to get myself a P&S first!

[glanglois]

I've never really understood the reviewers' complaints with jpegs from any camera. First of all, most people will shoot raw. And secondly, if you do shoot jpeg, you can tweak all the in-camera settings to make the jpegs look pretty much however you'd like.

It's clear that Pentax have created this camera for those users just beginning the move from P&S to the world of manual intervention and interchangeable lenses. I don't think those beginners are looking to jump into raw right away. They're probably more concerned about composition, lens choice, exposure, and even which funky digital effect to use. They may well be using Picasa or Easyshare or Picnik or something from Microsoft that I don't want to think about.

Raw will come - but JPEGs will be the preferred format for most of these folks for a long while to come.

That said, is there a "conventional wisdom" tweak for JPEGs that I should start with? I usually shoot raw on my K10 but other family members will be shooting JPEGs as they take turns with this body.

[shuttervox]

First of all, most people will shoot raw.

Really?


[kurt]
------