[*isteve]

I pondered going for the k20d so that I could keep my lenses... and I do love being a Pentaxian, but I have been told that the k20d won't make me happy and do what I want it to either. Looking at the ISO tests on DPreview and other sites seems to confirm this.

I think you should stop caring what other people think and make up your own mind. Clearly you want a D90 so buy one.

Bear in mind tho that the K20d is a year old and in 3 months a new camera will be released. You can wait three months can't you? If not you are asking the wrong question.

[Clicker]

See if you can rent/borrow a K20D body with grip and shoot some situations you'll need the higher iso and speed, then decide if you need to switch. I shoot mostly non-flash portraiture so speed isn't a necessity but i have begun adding "primes" to my system to handle most low-light situations.

If i shot mostly sports where the "action" needs to be frozen and i don't have the convenience of time for switching between body/lense combo then i would surely would move to either Canon or Nikon with a few select lenses.

[OregonJim]

My best friend recently got a nikon d90 and I am in love. She is able to get so many shots that I could never get with my k100d.

Hmmm... I've had the exact opposite experience. I recently switched from Nikon to Pentax and have several thousand $$$'s worth of Nikon gear to sell if you're interested...

I switched because of the variety of lens options available with Pentax, as well as the passion that they ignite in me when I shoot with them. I never felt that passion with Nikon. On a spreadsheet, the Nikon may seem superior - in my hands, the Pentax wins easily.

The D90 will not make you a better photographer, *unless* it excites you so much that it causes you to take many more pictures than you do now. Before you give up the K100D, though, make sure you're comparing apples to apples - the lens is far more important than the body!

[soccerjoe5]

I moved from a full Nikon system to Pentax last year too. One thing I don't like about Pentax is the really crappy software and tethered shooting. They need to really fix this if they want to attract a lot more pros! Pretty much everything else I'm very happy with.

[octavmandru]

I visited with one friend some location the other day.
I had my K200D, he: Nikon d90.
Crappy light, he had the kit lens 18-105 3,5-5,6.
me: old Tamron 28-200 3,8-5,6 and sigma 17-35.

Honestly, I had my doubts before. But the IQ on D90.. I was so disappointed by that camera. And it doesn't have even SR in body.
On the other hand... Happy with Pentax

Is not the camera, believe me... is the thrill of the new. But is a waste of money when draw the line.

[ll_coffee_lP]

Hmmm... I've had the exact opposite experience. I recently switched from Nikon to Pentax and have several thousand $$$'s worth of Nikon gear to sell if you're interested...

I switched because of the variety of lens options available with Pentax, as well as the passion that they ignite in me when I shoot with them. I never felt that passion with Nikon. On a spreadsheet, the Nikon may seem superior - in my hands, the Pentax wins easily.

The D90 will not make you a better photographer, *unless* it excites you so much that it causes you to take many more pictures than you do now. Before you give up the K100D, though, make sure you're comparing apples to apples - the lens is far more important than the body!

What a great post!

c[_]

[reeftool]

Hmmm... I've had the exact opposite experience. I recently switched from Nikon to Pentax and have several thousand $$$'s worth of Nikon gear to sell if you're interested...

I switched because of the variety of lens options available with Pentax, as well as the passion that they ignite in me when I shoot with them. I never felt that passion with Nikon. On a spreadsheet, the Nikon may seem superior - in my hands, the Pentax wins easily.

The D90 will not make you a better photographer, *unless* it excites you so much that it causes you to take many more pictures than you do now. Before you give up the K100D, though, make sure you're comparing apples to apples - the lens is far more important than the body!

Well said. I bought into a Nikon film camera and several lenses in the 90's and was very disappointed. I still have or someone in the family still has every camera I have ever owned except that one. I spent more money getting it fixed than I paid for it. Nikon never honored the warranty and I got billed for repair of a jammed autowind on 2 occasions and on the third time I trashed the camera. While I did get good pictures and the camera was great when it worked, I have no desire to continue to do business with a company that won't stand behind their products.

If you aren't happy with your Pentax and think you will do better with a Nikon then switch. A K100D and a D90 are not really an even match though and you might want to consider a K20D before changing brands.

[jsherman999]

.


I shoot a lot of kid shots with my Nikon D90 now, but yesterday I was looking through some Vivitar 28 2.8, and various M, K, and DA* shots in my albums and marvelled once again how the K20D can do colors - granted, these were very good lenses, but that Samsung CMOS sensor really brings out microcontrast and has such great, accurate color.

Really, aside from a few bells & whistles, the D90 has only one substantial advantage over the K20D - AF speed. I'll probably be using my K20D for anything that doesn't require super fast AF lock.

Also, in one other area there is a surprising gap - MF on the K20D is much, much better/easier than on the D90. The D90 focus-indicator light is not as accurate, and there is no green-button equivalent. None of the MF lenses meter on the D90 (the AIS lenses do meter on the D200-300-700, but not D90 and below,) and there's no green button, so the initial shots are always trial & error mistakes until you get the exposure right. This, in addition to having to depend only on my eyes because the in-focus indicator is too variable makes MF on the D90 about 50-75% as enjoyable as on the K20D.

This may be a contributing factor to why there is no real LBA in Nikon-land - at least, not like we have it here. Sure, they talk about their 105 1.8, 85 1.4 MF lenses, but a surprising percentage of Nikonians just shoot with their 18-200 VR kit+ zooms and leave it at that - and continue to try to find IQ salvation in The Next Body Upgrade. Or, mortgage their house to buy that $1500 17-55 f/2.8 and then go into an existential funk when their IQ has not increased five-fold along with the price of kit-upgrade.

They would never have the equivalent of - or at least I haven't seen - our "Vivitar 28 as 31ltd replacement" thread, or any of the club threads - it's not as important to them. There's the $1900 pro zooms, the $1100 pro 85 1.4 and 105 VR, and then there's a bunch of really inadequate WA primes (20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28 2.8,and 1.8 variants) a pretty good 50 1.8, a bit better 50 1.4, a kinda-boring 85 1.8, an excellent-but-90's-vintage 180 AF IF ED 2.8 (so sweet,) and then a very, very good 85 1.4. They've just come out with a new 35 1.8 DX AF-S for $199 that's very good for the price, and that seems to have caused a lot of 18-200 types to take a second look at the benefits of a fast prime - in other words, they might be back where we're at now in a decade or so , depending on what Nikon plans to do in the DX sector.

So... I don't know. There is definite benefit in having fast-AF lenses (Sigma HSM II, Nikkor AF-S) married to a fast-AF body like the D90. On the other hand, I think I'm already bored with the Nikon lens selection. I have yet to be sated with what's available on Pentax - and I have owned a lot of k-mount lenses.


.

[Vinfer]

I pondered going for the k20d so that I could keep my lenses... and I do love being a Pentaxian, but I have been told that the k20d won't make me happy and do what I want it to either. Looking at the ISO tests on DPreview and other sites seems to confirm this.

I know that none of us have crystal balls... but as I am no urgent rush to get new gear, do you think I should wait awhile and hope that Pentax comes out with a camera that makes me squeal

DPreview test ISO says all of nothing.

1) First of all you should compare two prints (30 x 45 cm) of the photos to assess the noise. You should not rely on cropped images on a monitor lcd.

2) Second, Keep in mind that, by default, the noise reduction in the K20 is
set very very low compared to the competitors. So you can operate on noise in post processing, with specialized software, keeping however many details.

[aleonx3]

.

snip...
Also, in one other area there is a surprising gap - MF on the K20D is much, much better/easier than on the D90. The D90 focus-indicator light is not as accurate, and there is no green-button equivalent. None of the MF lenses meter on the D90 (the AIS lenses do meter on the D200-300-700, but not D90 and below,) and there's no green button, so the initial shots are always trial & error mistakes until you get the exposure right. This, in addition to having to depend only on my eyes because the in-focus indicator is too variable makes MF on the D90 about 50-75% as enjoyable as on the K20D.

This may be a contributing factor to why there is no real LBA in Nikon-land - at least, not like we have it here. Sure, they talk about their 105 1.8, 85 1.4 MF lenses, but a surprising percentage of Nikonians just shoot with their 18-200 VR kit+ zooms and leave it at that - and continue to try to find IQ salvation in The Next Body Upgrade. Or, mortgage their house to buy that $1500 17-55 f/2.8 and then go into an existential funk when their IQ has not increased five-fold along with the price of kit-upgrade.

They would never have the equivalent of - or at least I haven't seen - our "Vivitar 28 as 31ltd replacement" thread, or any of the club threads - it's not as important to them. There's the $1900 pro zooms, the $1100 pro 85 1.4 and 105 VR, and then there's a bunch of really inadequate WA primes (20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28 2.8,and 1.8 variants) a pretty good 50 1.8, a bit better 50 1.4, a kinda-boring 85 1.8, an excellent-but-90's-vintage 180 AF IF ED 2.8 (so sweet,) and then a very, very good 85 1.4. They've just come out with a new 35 1.8 DX AF-S for $199 that's very good for the price, and that seems to have caused a lot of 18-200 types to take a second look at the benefits of a fast prime - in other words, they might be back where we're at now in a decade or so , depending on what Nikon plans to do in the DX sector.

So... I don't know. There is definite benefit in having fast-AF lenses (Sigma HSM II, Nikkor AF-S) married to a fast-AF body like the D90. On the other hand, I think I'm already bored with the Nikon lens selection. I have yet to be sated with what's available on Pentax - and I have owned a lot of k-mount lenses.


.

I tried my friend's D200 a few times using the 18-200mm VR and I did not like it at all compared to my K10D. Either I couldn't find the focus confirmation indicator or the focus indicator light was not that obvious to find, but I have no problem locking into focus (at least that was in my case). However, I got all the shots only to find out that the images are soft. Is this a problem with the lens or is it the camera or user error? In the same situation, my shots with my K10D were crisp and clear (though AF is not as fast).

The 18-200mm VR may be a highly rated lens in Nikon land, but that was absolutely no match to my ltd primes (31mm/77mm) for IQ. To get a similar IQ lens to the ltd primes, I have to get one in the $1500 range (24-70mm f2.8 VR), that is almost as much I paid for both primes. I don't think I will be jumping over to Nikon land any time soon. K20D may be or DA* lens.

[asdf]

The 18-200mm VR may be a highly rated lens in Nikon land, but that was absolutely no match to my ltd primes (31mm/77mm) for IQ.

Ken Rockwell thinks 18-200 VR is a "miracle." Case closed?

[polur101]

What is PMA?

[rparmar]

I shoot a lot of kid shots with my Nikon D90 now, but yesterday I was looking through some Vivitar 28 2.8, and various M, K, and DA* shots in my albums and marvelled once again how the K20D can do colors - granted, these were very good lenses, but that Samsung CMOS sensor really brings out microcontrast and has such great, accurate color.

No doubt. I think I recall every one of those photos from the times you have posted them. Very good examples of what a good camera, good lens and good photographer can do.

They would never have the equivalent of - or at least I haven't seen - our "Vivitar 28 as 31ltd replacement" thread, or any of the club threads - it's not as important to them.

You nailed it there. We all know that a zoom can come close but never equal a prime, and sometimes the difference is not all that small. Pentax has the primes... and darned good ones too. So logically we have the best optics. And photography is still all about the light.

Yes, there are a few examples of great prime optics from the other makes, but not many -- not enough to keep me happy, anyway.

Ken Rockwell thinks 18-200 VR is a "miracle." Case closed?

Indeed... but not for the defense.

I recently had a chance to peruse, up close, a bunch of shots by a professional taken with full frame Nikon. They were totally disappointing in really obvious ways.. the amount of distortion alone was incredible... something I would never stand for, and too much to adjust for later.

This is starting to mystify me. Do some photographers simply not see this stuff?

[pingflood]

The 18-200mm VR may be a highly rated lens in Nikon land, but that was absolutely no match to my ltd primes (31mm/77mm) for IQ. To get a similar IQ lens to the ltd primes, I have to get one in the $1500 range (24-70mm f2.8 VR), that is almost as much I paid for both primes. I don't think I will be jumping over to Nikon land any time soon. K20D may be or DA* lens.

Who would've thought, an 11x superzoom doesn't match primes? Hold the presses.

I recently had a chance to peruse, up close, a bunch of shots by a professional taken with full frame Nikon. They were totally disappointing in really obvious ways.. the amount of distortion alone was incredible... something I would never stand for, and too much to adjust for later.

This is starting to mystify me. Do some photographers simply not see this stuff?

I think you've got it. It's just a big scam and pros use Canon and Nikon because they've been sucked in by the marketing scheme.

[asdf]

I think you've got it. It's just a big scam and pros use Canon and Nikon because they've been sucked in by the marketing scheme.

It's marketing...and booze.