Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2009, 10:41 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Euclid Ohio
Posts: 77
I've got my K200d last August along with the 55-300mm and the Tammy 17-50mm lenes. I looked at the K20D but I could not justify the added cost at the time I was buying so I used that money for one of the new lenses. .
I like the ability to use the scene modes (occasionally), or aperture priority (most of the time). I like the size of the camera, I love the build quality of the camera and the ability to use my old "M" lenses from my old K1000.
I think my biggest problem with the K200D is the size of the buffer when using the continuous shooting mode, it just seem so limiting compared to the other manufactures offerings. Another gripe is the over hang of the flash when using my "M" lenses, it blocks seeing the aperture setting. I know it's a small gripe.
Overall a very good camera but it is overlook, which is too bad in my opinion.

Rick

07-14-2009, 11:19 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Great photos Marc.
Thanks!

QuoteQuote:
A question though, and I apologise in advance if it is too basic: how do you inject your name into the copyright field in the EXIF for your photos?
I would imagine most photo management software would be able to do that - even the programs that come with windows or MacOS. I use ACDSee Pro, though. It actually populates EXIF and IPTC fields automatically while importing pictures from the camera, but you can also run a batch job on already-imported files to set these fields.

QuoteQuote:
Also does that software allow batch processing of files?
Sure - setting IPTC and EXIF, obviously, but also conversions, image adjustments, etc.
07-19-2009, 05:18 PM   #18
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia (USA)
Posts: 48
I have to agree 100%!

I just upgraded from the K100D when I realized that the K200D may be it (i.e. Pentax staying with the K2000, K20, K7 lines only). I can't afford a K7 and the K20 is too big for me (girl's hands). K2000 looks nice but I can't give up my top LCD and if I was upgrading, I wanted weather sealing too.

I was blown away with how much of an upgrade the K200 was compared to the k100. It is a phenomenal camera. I'm so happy with it. Paired with my FA77 and a setting sun...brilliant!

sue
08-01-2009, 07:19 AM   #19
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arlington Hts. IL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 40
QuoteOriginally posted by GLXLR Quote
The images seem better b/c the default settings on the K200D are cranked up where as the K10D is rather muted. Same sensor though. In reality though, it basically is a K10D with a smaller view finder, larger screen, and uses AA batteries.
I also have the K10D and the K200D and find the IQ of the K200D is better with every lens that I've tested. You say that the default settings on the K200D are cranked up, what would the K10D settings have to be to equal those of the K200D?

08-03-2009, 11:51 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Instead of asking thie question this way, the better way to get a good answer is to shoot RAW, where you will see very little difference between the two cameras when procesisng the image with the same RAW processor (do be sure you aren't fooled into simply viewing the JPEG embedded within the RAW file by the camera). And then, instead of very crude +1/+2/_3 adjustments for sharpness and so forth, you will have much greater control over the results. And if you find settings you like well enough to want to use as the defaults, it should be pretty simple to make those the defaults in your RAW processing software, and still leave open the possibiltiy of tweaking them further with custom processing.
08-03-2009, 12:20 PM   #21
emr
Guest




Marc, in which way do you find K200D better with manual lenses than K20D? Do you mean that using the green button it exposes more accurately? I have both of these bodies, but haven't used manual glass with the little brother and actually rarely with the bigger brother.

Since I bought the K200D out of whim mainly for backup purpose (2 months old with receipt and warranty, with about 2500 exposures, 260€ with v. II kit lens ... not bad, eh?), I've found that I tend to usually take the K200D when I just walk around with the camera. Perhaps because it's a bit smaller (not that much really) and lighter. Or perhaps I feel that since it's so much cheaper I don't have to be all that careful with it. Or maybe I'm a sucker for that tacky silver!

EDIT: typo...

Last edited by emr; 08-03-2009 at 01:04 PM.
08-03-2009, 01:00 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by emr Quote
Marc, in which do you find K200D better with manual lenses than K20D? Do you mean that using the green button it exposes more accurately?
Yes. Well, either method of metering - Green button or DOF preview. With the K20D 9and K10D), both yield very inconsistent results in most people's experiences as you stop down, apparently due to the design of the focus screen, but in my test are all within a fraction of a stop of each other on the K200D, and that matches what other people have reported.
08-04-2009, 12:33 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Cow Belt
Posts: 160
The first of the two concert pictures appears to have very low noise at 1600 ISO. What would be the size of a print at the magnification at which you have posted?
I remember vaguely a post by you on pushing film after shooting at higher shutter speeds on high ISO to reduce shake and keep noise at acceptable levels.

I would have had to use an SMCP-M 80-200/4.5 for your concert shot. I am getting more grain than you are on the K200D even with the SMCP-M 100/2.8 at 800 ISO. After I hear from you, I should like to post some shots which I took recently at high ISO on DNG+JPEG, many of which
have noticeable noise.

08-04-2009, 09:25 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by chhayanat Quote
The first of the two concert pictures appears to have very low noise at 1600 ISO. What would be the size of a print at the magnification at which you have posted?
Do you mean me? I have no idea, really, how this works in practice. My gut impressions, though, is that the physical size of the images as displayed is a pretty good predictor of the print too. That is, if the image on screen is 4x6", that's about how a 4x6" print will look too. More or less, anyhow.

QuoteQuote:
I remember vaguely a post by you on pushing film after shooting at higher shutter speeds on high ISO to reduce shake and keep noise at acceptable levels.
Again, not sure if you mean me, but I haven't shot film this way - just digital. I wouldn't call it a way of reducing noise - just of getting a fast enough shutter speed. Noise happens. I find that 10MP provides plenty of leeway for NR, though. My norm is to be fairly aggressive with the color (chroma) NR since that can be done with very little detrimental effect on detail, but apply just a tiny bit of luminance NR, as that takes a more noticeable toll.

QuoteQuote:
I would have had to use an SMCP-M 80-200/4.5 for your concert shot. I am getting more grain than you are on the K200D even with the SMCP-M 100/2.8 at 800 ISO.
Assuming you took them in RAW, I'd play with the NR controls in your PP software - you might be surprised at how they clean up. try different programs if necessary. I've actually tried a couple of the dedicated noise reduction programs, but I don't like the output I got - too "plastic" for my tastes. So I just use the basic NR controls in ACDSee Pro, but PPL seems to do at least as good a job. Another technique for controlling noise include applying a curve to keep the shadows dark while bringing up the mid-range where the skin tones are. Also, strongly colore light is much worse for noise than whiter light. Red light is the worst, since it pretty much renders your green and blue pixel sites useless.
08-06-2009, 01:40 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 328
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Do you mean me? I have no idea, really, how this works in practice. My gut impressions, though, is that the physical size of the images as displayed is a pretty good predictor of the print too. That is, if the image on screen is 4x6", that's about how a 4x6" print will look too. More or less, anyhow.



Again, not sure if you mean me, but I haven't shot film this way - just digital. I wouldn't call it a way of reducing noise - just of getting a fast enough shutter speed. Noise happens. I find that 10MP provides plenty of leeway for NR, though. My norm is to be fairly aggressive with the color (chroma) NR since that can be done with very little detrimental effect on detail, but apply just a tiny bit of luminance NR, as that takes a more noticeable toll.



Assuming you took them in RAW, I'd play with the NR controls in your PP software - you might be surprised at how they clean up. try different programs if necessary. I've actually tried a couple of the dedicated noise reduction programs, but I don't like the output I got - too "plastic" for my tastes. So I just use the basic NR controls in ACDSee Pro, but PPL seems to do at least as good a job. Another technique for controlling noise include applying a curve to keep the shadows dark while bringing up the mid-range where the skin tones are. Also, strongly colore light is much worse for noise than whiter light. Red light is the worst, since it pretty much renders your green and blue pixel sites useless.
You make a lot of good points Mark. I have noticed though that you can be more aggressive with Luma noise cleanup and still get a very good result. It gets "plasticky" in plugins like Noise Ninja more than using Lightroom.

Using ISO's like 1000-1600 never really scared me. I guess after using 3200 on my K100d I fear NO hi-ISO noise! A lot of times youre using those to capture the immediate moment, not to record minute details. That helps me when I'm in situations where ISO 400 or 800 just wont cut it.

I went to a friend's live performance at a loung a couple of months ago. It was the debut of my FA50 1.4. Good thing I had it because the lighting was terrible as the singer had no lighting above her whatsoever. I had to use the lens wid eopen at 1600 ISO and I was still getting 1/20sec. How you like THEM apples?! But at least the pianist had some overhead light as you can see in the picture.

The pianist picture has some NR but I didnt fix up the singer pic. Too bad the lens front focussed on her hand or it would have been a better shot. I didnt want to risk using manual focus because it was way too dark and she moved alot. It felt like trying to shoot a housefly with a rifle!

I used my k200d for these but I wonder if I should use my 100D for situations like this since it goes to 3200 and the lower resolution can get you less noise.
Attached Images
   
08-06-2009, 06:42 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by jboyde Quote
I went to a friend's live performance at a loung a couple of months ago. It was the debut of my FA50 1.4. Good thing I had it because the lighting was terrible as the singer had no lighting above her whatsoever. I had to use the lens wid eopen at 1600 ISO and I was still getting 1/20sec. How you like THEM apples?!
Yep, that's unfortunately not too uncommon in small clubs. Nice job in a tough situation!

QuoteQuote:
The pianist picture has some NR but I didnt fix up the singer pic. Too bad the lens front focussed on her hand or it would have been a better shot. I didnt want to risk using manual focus because it was way too dark and she moved alot. It felt like trying to shoot a housefly with a rifle!
Indeed! What I often do is manual focus on a spot and only shoot when the singer is in that spot. Note the use of the term "front focus" is kind of inaccurate here; that refers to a specific lens defect. The only defect here is the camera's inability to read your mind, but I'm pretty sure they can't fix that one :-)

QuoteQuote:
I used my k200d for these but I wonder if I should use my 100D for situations like this since it goes to 3200 and the lower resolution can get you less noise.
I don't find that to be the case. I find noise very similar between the K100D and K200D by default when viewing at the same size, and since the K200D starts out with more pixels, you have more leeway to be aggressive with NR if you like. As for ISO 3200, that's actually just "simulated" on the K100D - all it does is shoot underexposed at ISO 1600 then push the results in the camera's firmware processing. It's nothing you can't do just as easily and more effectively in PP.
08-06-2009, 08:52 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 328
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Note the use of the term "front focus" is kind of inaccurate here; that refers to a specific lens defect. The only defect here is the camera's inability to read your mind, but I'm pretty sure they can't fix that one :-)
Oh, Im sure that'll be in the next firmware update.

Thanx for the info about ISO3200. I relegated my 100d to the "backup" world and I don't want to sell it because Murphy's Law will happen.

I didn't know I was using the "front focus" term wrong. Nice to know its not a defect. It just seemed that the camera would focus on whatever was in front of my subject but never behind. I guess it would hone in on the biggest stationary object it could find.

I definitely consider the K200 to be a great camera that fills the advanced pro-sumer market. Too bad it was discontinued.
08-07-2009, 08:54 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by jboyde Quote
I didn't know I was using the "front focus" term wrong. Nice to know its not a defect. It just seemed that the camera would focus on whatever was in front of my subject but never behind. I guess it would hone in on the biggest stationary object it could find.
First, you need to make sure it's using the focus point closes to the thing you want it to focus on - the default is it might pick anything at all in the scene. But assuming you are telling the camera which focus point to use, it will focus on something "near" that point (and that's about as specific as one can get). What exactly is chooses is something of a mystery, which is why it's important to not trust AF blindly, and indeed, I often find MF more reliable. I think the camera will tend to focus on the *closest* thing that is "near" the selected focus point, unless it is moving and something behind it is not, or something in the background has a harder / higher contrast edge to lock onto, or the lens was *already* focused on the background, or it just felt like it.

"Front focus" refers to a situation where you have verified the camera has indeed chosen to focus on a particular subject like the singer and not the microphone, but still manages to come out in front. There would be absolutely no way to tell the camera actually chose the singer in this case, since the microphone was also a legitimate target. You'd need a scene in which there was nothing else in front of your subject that was "near" the selected focus point - if it gets focus wrong in those cases, *then* it would be worth testing for this defect using a focus test chart. As it is, there is no point - it seems your camera is just fine aside from lacking the mindreading function.
08-07-2009, 01:28 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,833
A buddy has the K200D and I have the K10D and the KM. To my understanding the K10D, KM and K200D all use the same sensor.

The big difference between the K10D is I can be more 'creative' with the controls. The diff between the K200D and KM...assitional info screen on top of K200D, weatherproofing and kit 18-55 in K200D has metal lens mount and lens hood, where KM kit 18-55 has plastic lens mount and no lens hood.

I'm very happy with both my K10D and KM. Pictures from both are great, seem equal.
08-08-2009, 04:52 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Cow Belt
Posts: 160
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Do you mean me? I have no idea, really, how this works in practice. My gut impressions, though, is that the physical size of the images as displayed is a pretty good predictor of the print too. That is, if the image on screen is 4x6", that's about how a 4x6" print will look too. More or less, anyhow.
I did mean your work and regret that I did not point it out earlier. I will now use some kind of marker so that I know who has replied to my questions. I find all your observations most useful and intend to continue to work on high ISO pictures and submit queries where I am not satisfied with the noise level. Chroma noise seems to be bothering me most.
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!
camera, dslr, images, k10d, k200d, machine, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SMC-M 75-150/4, anyone else gobsmacked by this sleeper? 123K10D Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-18-2013 01:29 AM
How many Pentaxes have you sold? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 08-23-2010 08:41 AM
Camera Calibration / Camera Profile Setting for K200D in ACR? LensScribe Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 07-23-2009 07:21 AM
Painted Pixel Pentaxes: 6.4 Kilopixels! Spongefingers Photographic Technique 9 06-29-2009 10:25 AM
Where are the pentaxes? charliezap Photographic Industry and Professionals 45 05-17-2009 08:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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