Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-13-2009, 02:17 PM   #61
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
I tried the K-m for 3 times, one unit of my friend, many units at many shops at two different days. Actually, for the third time I tried the K-m, I spent two hours!


Oh, that is the funniest thing I've read this year!

Edit (more appropriate response to RH): Sad, misanthropic TROLL.


Last edited by panoguy; 04-13-2009 at 04:05 PM.
04-13-2009, 02:24 PM   #62
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 489
You could probably pick up a second hand K10D body for way less than a KM/2000
04-13-2009, 02:54 PM   #63
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
Seriously? This is one of the dumbest assertions I've heard. People buying an entry-level DSLR would reject the K-m because the kit lens doesn't have a lens hood...really?
I tested it again against the sun, in a situation where my DA* 16-50 (with hood) flares (sun in an angle). The DA L 18-55 performed this test better without the hood. My explanation is that the kit lens uses much fewer glass and is less prone to internal reflections. Anyway most hoods are not perfect because they cannot change their shape with focal length so most of the time the hood is designed for the shorter focal length to avoid vignetting.

I may try further tests with my FZ8 hood (The FZ8 and the Pentax kit lens have the same filter thread size: 52mm). BTW the FZ8 is an exception, most P&S don't use hoods, so I guess a newcomer will not be put off by this omission on the K-m. It even adds to the portability and it's one less thing to care about.
04-14-2009, 02:03 AM   #64
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
I may try further tests with my FZ8 hood (The FZ8 and the Pentax kit lens have the same filter thread size: 52mm).
Hey, you gave me an idea: my FZ5's hood is also 52mm. Although I used the hood less than 10 times in the past 4 years... Yesterday I shot some pictures in the city park under very bright sunlight, in some cases sun was close to the frame and there's no flare visible on the pictures. So I think I won't use hood.

04-17-2009, 10:47 AM   #65
Forum Member
PinarelloOnly's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Shoreline CT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by soccerjoe5 Quote
The JPEGs are customizeable. Fix em to your liking and you should be fine.
+1 on that!!!!!! Well I find this is true with my K110d and also with a K100d Super
that I owned for a short time.


QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
Is this serious?? Proprietary batteries also add weight to the body, I've yet to see any battery with 0g weight...
Lithiums seriously lightened up my K110D vs. Rechargeables.

and

4 AA Lithiums are indeed lighter than my wife's D50 prop. batt. of equal size.


Just to add:

Just like the D60, the Km/2000 is Made and Marketed for that DSLR newbie who is still going to shoot in AUTO mostly all the time.

Even as a back-up I could never use a DSLR that did not have a top LCD.

Also, like someone else hinted at, for a back up camera if I were an expert K10D
or K20D user I would be looking at another K10D or a K200D as a back-up
because the prices are not that bad right now.
04-17-2009, 11:14 AM   #66
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by PinarelloOnly Quote
Even as a back-up I could never use a DSLR that did not have a top LCD.
I thought it would be the case but the K-m has nice workarounds with the back LCD. It's also more versatile and it makes it more easy to control than the K200D. In short I don't miss it as much as I thought I would.

QuoteOriginally posted by PinarelloOnly Quote
Also, like someone else hinted at, for a back up camera if I were an expert K10D
or K20D user I would be looking at another K10D or a K200D as a back-up
because the prices are not that bad right now.
I still regret having sold my K10D but the K-m is actually a good lightweight alternative. The size difference is not negligible.
04-19-2009, 01:43 PM   #67
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,252
I don't own the K2000 (just the DS, K10, K20). Have used the K2000 for a few weekends. Its a decent camera.
I place features in two different groups. 1. Convenience features: Dual control dials, TAV mode, top panel lcd, etc. These are helpful but their lack doesn't usually impact the ability to take certain types of picures.
2. Capability features: DOF preview, mirror lock up, metering with all lenses ( entry Nikon doesn't), interchangeable lenses, wired remote, etc. Lacking these features can limit your ability to actually take certain types of images. Ex: useless K20D noise reduction mode when shooting fireworks.

I can usually live without some of the convenience features. Rarely will I live without the capability ones. Don't buy " system" dslr cameras to be limited. This is one of the reasons I don't shoot my Canon system very often.

The one thing I don't care for on the K2000 is the new menu. Theres nothing wrong with it - but it works totally different than all my other Pentax cameras. It was confusing to find certain settings vs my other cameras. If it was my only camera it wouldn't bother me.

Pros of K2000
1. Speed.
2. Size and weight.
3. One handed operation.
4. Nice menu.
5. Easy to operate camera.
6. AA batteries.
7. Image stabilization.

cons
1. Missing wired remote receptacle
2. Construction of 18-55. Platic bayonet (can't beleive the plastic saves that much weight - more likely its much cheaper to make). Missing focus clutch - great feature for beginners. Lack of lens shade. Would just buy the 18-55 II myself or different lens.
3. Small buffer for very few shots in continuos mode.

Basically, I think its a good camera. Do wonder about the marketing decision of moving the Shake Reduction inside the menu. The one control a Canikon won't have on the body and we hide it! Even noobies understand shake reduction.
thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST #17 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #18. Any brand camera. Enter now!
04-19-2009, 10:26 PM   #68
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mount Shasta
Posts: 185
The ONLY reason I would upgrade, so to speak, from my K10D is to get higher shutter speed with ISO 3200 on the K2000 for events I cover as a photo journalist. Money is a consideration. I have downloaded and processed samples until I am black and blue in the face, and with decent noise reduction I can't see any reason to spend the extra money on 14 megapixels, that is way more than I need, two dials that I will miss but can live without, a top lit display that I rarely use and more fps that I have never understood when covering sports because if you know the sport you just focus on a spot an shoot. Is the K20D so much better that it is worth the cost of the extra money that would buy a prime and the K2000 ISO 3200? On the other hand, the K20D is a hell of a camera for the price.

04-19-2009, 11:27 PM   #69
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Have you seen enough images from the K2000 at ISO 3200 to be sure it does a better job than simply shooting with the same shutter speed at ISO 1600 (thus underexposing) and then pushing it in PP? I understand that unlike the 6MP cameras, the K2000 ISO 3200 is not *actually*done this way, but the question is, are the results actually any better?

I tend to shoot my K200D underexposed by a stop at ISO 1600 pretty often, and find the results perfectly adequate. But by most accounts, the K200D does somewhat better than the K10D despite sharing the same sensor. I've heard mixed reports about how the K2000 compares.
04-20-2009, 01:57 PM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mount Shasta
Posts: 185
Marc. Thanks for replying. That is exactly what I do with the K10D. I can get acceptable with PP, but lose a lot detail, especially in the crazy low stage lighting with many colors coming from many directions. I'm hoping the native 3200 of the K2000 with get the detail back. The reviews are so all over the place from the 3200 is so good they should have included ISO 6400 to unacceptable. My gut feeling after viewing and post processing many downloaded 3200 shots is that I would definitely see a gain, but samples aren't real life shooting situations. Alas, I woud love to have a K2000 to try for a week.
04-21-2009, 09:27 AM   #71
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by tarsus Quote
samples aren't real life shooting situations.
What situations fall into "real life shooting" for you?
ISO3200 in low light is unacceptable to me. But that's just me, I hate to see any noise and like to pixel peep...
04-21-2009, 12:16 PM   #72
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by tarsus Quote
MThat is exactly what I do with the K10D. I can get acceptable with PP, but lose a lot detail, especially in the crazy low stage lighting with many colors coming from many directions. I'm hoping the native 3200 of the K2000 with get the detail back.
I wouldn't put too much hope on the K-m ISO 3200. BTW it has a scene mode for stage shots where the camera use only ISO 3200 and 2MP. Doesn't work that well and I would prefer raw at full resolution. From what I can see comparing my K10D and the K-m, the K-m is slightly better and cleaner but don't expect miracles. The K20D still looks better overall. If I have nothing interesting to do this week I may compare the K20D and the K-m directly at high ISO.
04-21-2009, 03:45 PM   #73
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
As a point of reference, here's a shot on the K200D I took at the equivalent of around ISO 4000 (underexposed around a stop and a third at ISO 1600 then pushed in PP). To me, it looks more than good enough for what it is, but some have a lower tolerance for noise than I do.



Looks fine at that size, actually but here it is somewhat larger (it's had some, but not a lot, of NR applied):

http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p711839810.jpg

My assumption is that the K10D would do not quite as well since virtually everyone says so; K-m would be about the same since some say it is slightly better, others say slightly worse.
04-22-2009, 05:40 AM   #74
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mount Shasta
Posts: 185
ManuH, I would love to see some comparison shots. "Real life shooting" for me is complex lighting, not studio setups, unpredictable people movement and needing to change focal lengths as performers move. I need good low light AND fast shutter speed. This thread is actually helping me make the decision to bite the bullet and get the K20.
04-22-2009, 07:04 AM   #75
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7
New Member and K-m/K2000 Owner

I purchased my K2000 a couple of months ago and I'm reading and watching as many books and videos as I can get my hands on to get up to speed. I'm in the US where Nikon and Canon have a serious monopoly. Here in GA it's really difficult to find anyone on even Craigslist with Pentax cameras and lenses. I'm left with the net to shop, but the problem there is that I can't test the lenses to see if that's what I want or not. And, I think that's very important to do especially being a newby shutterbug.

From the start and coming from using a Casio Exilim K1000, I miss having to be able to see what I'm shooting via the view finder, but it's not a real deal breaker for me.

I've taken some really nice pics so far for a novice (I'll post 'em when I figure out how to upload them here. But, you can visit me on flickr and tell me what you think there...please:

Flickr: thierryone's Photostream

Well, that's how I see it so far. I look forward to getting some great tips from you guys on working my Pentax K2000.

Thierry
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, camera, cons, dslr, k10d, km, lenses, pentax, photography, pictures, pros, pros and cons
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pros/Cons of using medium format lenses on Pentax DSLRs? hangu Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 49 04-15-2011 01:24 PM
Decision: Pentax K10D, K20D, or K7? Pros and cons? Lulerfly Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 11-04-2010 09:14 AM
In-Body SR vs. In-Lens SR Pros and Cons? uchinakuri Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 32 09-23-2010 09:42 PM
Epson R1800... Pros/Cons Buddha Jones Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 05-12-2009 07:14 PM
Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 (Pros & Cons) GLThorne Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 03-24-2007 07:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top