[res3567]

Here's the question...I'm ready to get my first DSLR after several years using a Kodak 5 megapixel 10x zoom.. There's a little more than $200.00 difference between the k200d and the k20d depending on which website you look at. I'm an amateur photographer who's ready to go to the next stage. Will I wish I had purchased the k20d after a few months or is the k200d enough of a camera for most people? Is the k20d challenging to the point of frustration? Sorry the question is vague but I really would appreciate the advice. Thanks in advance.

Do you like alot of buttons insted of menus?

Will you be satified with 10 MP or will want 14 MP?

Do you want a heavy larger camera or a lightweight?

I have both the K10D and the K100DS.

I love both.

The K100DS is very small and light in my hands.

I like that for traveling and sports shooting (children's and maybe pro baseball at the stadium).

The K10D has more "Pro" features such as a second comand dial(called e-dial in the camera menu).

It has a larger buffer.

It has better playbayback features.

It has a faster AF moter.

It has buttons that don't require you to menu dive.

The K200D is has been called a "light" version of the K10D. It has an excellent feature set incuding a top mount LCD (unlike the K2000 and other entry level DSLRs), the ability to change focusing screens, and has a grip available as well. It is also weather sealed!
Not to mention it takes AA's instead of a proprietory battery.

The biggest question you need to ask yourself is how far do you want to take your photagraphy?

Do you need all of the "Pro" features the K20D has to offer?

Do you plan to become a working pro?

Are you an advanced ametuer who just like taking professinal quality pics?

If the first is true then the K20D is your choice.

If the latter is it than the K200D will more than fit the bill.

You could always get a K20D later if you want more features and of course have some spare change cause the price will drop in the future as the K7 comes down the pipeline......

---

Last edited by res3567; 05-24-2009 at 08:41 PM.

[Marc Sabatella]

Not really -- that's why I said they were useful as quick presets.

Can you get the same results with other modes? Absolutely. With less effort? Not a chance on the K200D.

Aside from switching to AF-C - which I find of dubious value anyhow - there really wasn't anything on you list that isn't easily done in Av mode by simply choosing an appropriate aperture - again, assuming any of those things actually matter. It's still the case that 99% of the time, shooting in P mode gives results that are as practically good as any of the specific optimizations you mentioned. Sure, there *is* value in doing those things, but you don't need them.

[chhayanat]

Aside from switching to AF-C - which I find of dubious value anyhow - there really wasn't anything on you list that isn't easily done in Av mode by simply choosing an appropriate aperture - again, assuming any of those things actually matter. It's still the case that 99% of the time, shooting in P mode gives results that are as practically good as any of the specific optimizations you mentioned. Sure, there *is* value in doing those things, but you don't need them.

I broadly agree with the above. I use both the K200D and the Samsung GX20 (essentially the same as the K20D) with both SMCP-M manual focus lenses and current SMCP-DA lenses. There is no visible difference in the quality of the viewfinder despite the pentaprism in the GX20 (both are inadequate for me); I never liked the MX viewfinder either. Having used only mechanical film cameras in the past, the scene modes are meaningless for me. I use mainly M (manual mode). Yesterday, I used Program mode on the K200D for the first time in seven months and did not mind the results, except when there was strong backlighting; such situations require adjustment in M mode as well. White balance management (the end result and not the number of choices) is about the same in both. The GX20 (the K20D) are known to have metering problems with SMCP-M lenses (in my case consistent overexposure by two stops); the K200D has fewer such problems. The only difference of consequence for me is that the 14.5MP of the GX20 helps me to get larger crops of bird pictures.

Words like 'amateur' and 'professional' are applied to cameras by the manufacturer's advertising strategists. There is no need to take take them too seriously. Shooting properly with any DSLR involves a considerable investment of time in practice both of taking pictures and post-processing on a computer. Generally, the advice given to users of photographic equipment is that they should buy the best they can afford in terms of their needs. Anyone who cannot afford the K20D may rest assured that the K200D will allow them to do everything that may be reasonably demanded of a modern photographer.

[Quension]

Aside from switching to AF-C - which I find of dubious value anyhow - there really wasn't anything on you list that isn't easily done in Av mode by simply choosing an appropriate aperture

Night Portrait is actually one of the tougher ones, and a good example of a scene mode encapsulating a bunch of artistic decisions. When you have the flash up, neither P nor Av will drag the shutter as slowly, and Tv is willing to stop down farther. Night Portrait sticks to AWB, even if Custom 17 would normally choose Flash WB, and it accounts for subject distance by weighting ambient exposure over flash when the lens focus point grows distant.

You can at least get similar results in Tv along with flash compensation, but it's not something you can pull off in P or Av.

It's still the case that 99% of the time, shooting in P mode gives results that are as practically good as any of the specific optimizations you mentioned. Sure, there *is* value in doing those things, but you don't need them.

Right; it's not that you need them, it's that you probably want specific results for certain shots, so the question is how you go about getting them. The scene modes are tools to that end.

[Marc Sabatella]

I understand what you're saying, but my assumption is that most people considering the use of scene modes don't care about subtleties such as this. Even at night, P mode will take a picture, and your subject will be reasonably well exposed. That's all most people will care about. The point being, you don't need to choose a scene mode to get a usable picture - just to get one with a very specific type of effect. But that effect isn't really that important to most people most of the time. And at the point where one becomes savvy enough to start caring about these sorts of things, that's the point where people often start exploring Av, Tv, and M modes.

[mysticcowboy]

The K20D or the K200D are both good choices, depending on what you want to do with them. I've used the K10D, which has the same sensor as the K200D. Now I have the K20D.

If you're mostly going to shoot jpegs and use presets, then the K200D is plenty of camera. People love the idea of those extra megapixels but they don't mean that much in jpeg format.

To really use the extra capability of the K20D, that means shooting in raw. Then the extra pixels will make a noticeable difference. If you're not going to post process every image, or at least most of them, save the money and start saving towards extra lenses or think about a better first lens.

[Ash]

One who is actively interested in photography, if starting off with a K100D/K200D, will soon find the scene modes as obsolete. This does not mean the camera becomes obsolete - it just means such an enthusiast uses these modes less and less - eventually never.

Then the enthusiast may become keen on a more versatile cam with less of the consumer 'gimmicks', as the knowledge and skill level increases, and the settings needed to get each shot right becomes more second nature. Here's where the K10D/K20D/K-7 comes in.

If you find yourself falling in this category, better off starting off with a K10D/K20D

[charlie_lucas]

I pondered the same dilemma a couple of months ago and opted for the K200D to replace my much-loved ist DS.

All the technical advances that I wanted were covered by the K200D (SR, 10MP sensor, weather-proofing, remote flash control) with the extra refinements offered by the K20D (dual controls, pentaprism vf, focus fine-tuning, 14MP) simply not being worth the sacrifice in terms of size and weight.

If you think you need those extra bits and pieces, and don't mind toting around a canonikony-sized hunk of technology, the K20D is probably a very good buy. Alternatively, you could keep saving for the K7, which seems to offer the best of both worlds, maybe picking-up a K200D to enjoy while you're waiting!