[kevingt01]

I'm debating between the K100D Super and K2000 and am looking for opinions.

I picked up the K100D Super last month (my first DSLR) and am loving it. I got it on a great deal from Wolf Camera. A week ago I found another great deal on the K2000 and grabbed it as well for my wife. I currently have two lenses: the kit 18-55mm and tamron 70-300mm di.

We've decided that we really only need one of the cameras and I'm trying to decide which to keep. I've only take a couple shots with the K2000 but here are a couple things I've noticed:

- Auto focus is faster in the K2000
- Shutter seems a little more quiet in the K2000
- K2000 is slightly smaller (not a factor for me)
- In auto, K2000 tries to use higher ISO indoor than the K100D which causes too much noise.

I've read that the K100D Super's sensor is better in low-light? Is this true? IQ is my main concern. What other opinions/suggestions does everyone have? The price difference between the two was only about $40.

Thanks!

---

Last edited by kevingt01; 06-29-2009 at 04:22 AM.

[Ash]

In my mind, your trying to compare a newer generation camera with more resolution and reasonable noise control with an older cam without much of an advantage in high ISO noise.

IQ isn't an issue when using the same lenses - it's more if you want to be printing images any larger than 8"x12" at any stage, which is where you would 'need' the 10Mp.

Both are good cams, it really boils down to your preferences, but I'd personally go for the K2000

[raz]

In my mind, your trying to compare a newer generation camera with more resolution and reasonable noise control with an older cam without much of an advantage in high ISO noise.

What are you talking about ???
The K100D was a high ISO winner, especially in RAW mode. The 6Mp sensor was better than the 10mp concerning noise, you can use 1600 or even 3200 in RAW without regrets with the K100D. And in JPG Iso 100-800 is very good, not to soft, not to sharpened.

K100D has other week points, very slow AF in tungsten or low light, pour AW ballance on artificial light, etc.

[RubyT]

K100DS lets you toggle the focal points.

[Ash]

Well, I didn't mean K2000 was better with high ISO noise than the K100DS, but IMO comparing high ISO images between the two, with the 10Mp K2000 image downsized to 6Mp for comparison with the K100DS's image, I'm not sure there will be much to write home about...

Again, this is not a deal-breaker as I think both are awesome cameras.
It's a personal choice.

[Just12hvFun]

I use the K100DS and love it

Never use the K2000 before, can't comment :ugh:

If your wife is going to use the camera too, I suggest you let her choose or at least participate in the decision making process

You will enjoy this hobby more when you have PEACE back at home

You can't really go wrong with either one; especially since you have gotten them at very good price

Just enjoy it

[kevingt01]

If your wife is going to use the camera too, I suggest you let her choose or at least participate in the decision making process

Thanks for the advice My wife's played around with them a bit too. She notices the slight size difference and also likes the quicker auto-focus of the K2000, but she'll also probably continue to use the auto features for awhile and the noise from auto selection of higher ISO indoors is a little annoying.

Another thing we noticed, some of the PEF's generated from the K2000 appear corrupt in Picasa, but open fine with Pentax's software. I haven't tried directly to DNG yet.

[jantjooh]

Thanks for the advice My wife's played around with them a bit too. She notices the slight size difference and also likes the quicker auto-focus of the K2000, but she'll also probably continue to use the auto features for awhile and the noise from auto selection of higher ISO indoors is a little annoying.

Another thing we noticed, some of the PEF's generated from the K2000 appear corrupt in Picasa, but open fine with Pentax's software. I haven't tried directly to DNG yet.

Maybe you would like to invest in a faster (Prime)lens for indoor photography.

[Marc Sabatella]

Since you have both cameras, you can compare IQ yourself. I have the K100D Super and have also had the *istDS (same 6 MP sensor), and I currently use K200D (same 10 MP sensor as K2000), and my evaluation is that the much-claimed superiority of the 6 MP is a myth. Compare apples to apples - similar scene, similar lighting, similar exposure, image viewed at similar sizes - and you'd be hard put to tell the difference. To the extent I see an advantage, it is to the 10 MP sensor, which provides noticeably more resolution and hence stands up to more NR if you care to do so. Still, we're talking about pretty small differences either way.

Between the two, I'd personally keep the K100D since I use manual lenses a lot and would miss the DOF preview, which is the only way to display a meter reading with a manual lens. Otherwise, it would be the K2000, no question.

[Ash]

Since you have both cameras, you can compare IQ yourself. I have the K100D Super and have also had the *istDS (same 6 MP sensor), and I currently use K200D (same 10 MP sensor as K2000), and my evaluation is that the much-claimed superiority of the 6 MP is a myth. Compare apples to apples - similar scene, similar lighting, similar exposure, image viewed at similar sizes - and you'd be hard put to tell the difference. To the extent I see an advantage, it is to the 10 MP sensor, which provides noticeably more resolution and hence stands up to more NR if you care to do so. Still, we're talking about pretty small differences either way.

I rest my case. Thanks Marc.

It'll be the subtleties between these great cams that will ultimately determine whether you keep one or the other. Enjoy making that decision together!

[GerryL]

..but then again that won't be comparing apples to apples 'coz one is 10mp and the other is 6mp, right?
I'd rather keep the K100D super not unless you want more of auto everything and like an "idiot proof" (as they called it before in Japan with automatic cameras) camera (K2000D).
I also use more of the manual lenses so AF for me is no biggie.
The faster my hand and eye is, the faster my focus (..and I really trust my eye better than the camera sensor AF).
Even with my AF lenses, I still grab the focus ring after the AF to tweak it a bit more.
It's all a matter of choice actually.
..and I like the 6mp as it is good enough for large prints but won't eat up too much of memory card space or computer HD space.
Easier to archive too as doesn't eat too much space (memory..CDs or DVDs).

[GaryM]

Since you have both cameras, you can compare IQ yourself. I have the K100D Super and have also had the *istDS (same 6 MP sensor), and I currently use K200D (same 10 MP sensor as K2000), and my evaluation is that the much-claimed superiority of the 6 MP is a myth. Compare apples to apples - similar scene, similar lighting, similar exposure, image viewed at similar sizes - and you'd be hard put to tell the difference. To the extent I see an advantage, it is to the 10 MP sensor, which provides noticeably more resolution and hence stands up to more NR if you care to do so. Still, we're talking about pretty small differences either way.

I used a *istDS for 4 years, and now use a K200D & K2000 combo, and this is my experience as well. I never considered the ISO3200 output from the DS as more than 'barely useable', and I think the ISO1600 advantage of the 6mp sensor is minimal, more than compensated by the greater resolution and scaleability of the 10 megapixel output. After getting rid of the VPN from the early K10's, the 10mp sensor used by Pentax is a superb imager, IMO.

[Michael Barker]

Well, I didn't mean K2000 was better with high ISO noise than the K100DS, but IMO comparing high ISO images between the two, with the 10Mp K2000 image downsized to 6Mp for comparison with the K100DS's image, I'm not sure there will be much to write home about...

Again, this is not a deal-breaker as I think both are awesome cameras.
It's a personal choice.

From what I have seen, downsizing doesn't do much to reduce apparent noise. (Maybe that's a matter of taste). Best to actually try this experiment and let us know what you find.

[GaryM]

From what I have seen, downsizing doesn't do much to reduce apparent noise. (Maybe that's a matter of taste). Best to actually try this experiment and let us know what you find.

Why would anyone downsize except when posting to the web? The proof is in a print, and for prints large enough to see noise you are probably going to be *upsizing*. A 10mp image needs less of it for a given print size than a 6mp image, therefore the pixels will be smaller, including noise pixels.

[Marc Sabatella]

Of course downsizing reduces noise - as a series fairly small specks, they become smaller and smaller still to the point where at some point they disappear entirely. of course, until it disappears entirely, it's still in the same proportion to "real" data, but it will indeed become harder to notice at smaller sizes. That's why a 100% crop will always appear to show more noise than a reduced size version of the same photo. And a thumbnail view will make it difficult to tell there is noise at all.

The point being, again, that when comparing at the same sizes (eg, "full screen" for a given monitor, or a given print size), it's pretty difficicult to support a claim that the recent 10MP cameras show more noise than the 6MP cameras.