[Andi Lo]

Okay... you might be wondering what the K100D is doing there

I have the K100D and have been thinking of an upgrade, especially for low light shooting. I don't need D300 capabilities and clean ISO 1600 is enough for me. I know that low light ISO wise, K20 and K-7 is pretty much equal. Now the question is...

I've heard reports that K20D AF isn't "that much better" than K100D. Is this true? I find K20D, while not as snappy and silent as k-7, still feels faster (af wise) and more silent than k100D from me trying it in the store. To those who have used both (or better, all three), how did you feel about K20D in terms of AF especially low light?

I thought I was set to save for K-7, but I just can't get used to the ergo... :/ my middle finger always seem to go to an uncomfortable position that makes me feel that the grip isn't deep enough.

Thanks for the answers

[Raybo]

I went from the K100DS to the K20 and the AF is much better on the K20, the shutter is much quieter too.

Ray

[Urkeldaedalus]

I own the K-7 and K20D and I bought my sister a K100D Super for her starter camera.

In my opinion, the K20D has much more pleasant autofocus to use than the K100D Super. When using the K100D after using the two newer cameras, I often get frustrated and opt for manual focus instead. I would definitely rate the K20D as an improvement in this area and a lot of others, particularly things like WB and resolution. The K100D does have the better (cleaner) noise characteristics at ISO 1600 going for it, though.

The K20D autofocus is actually pretty good when you use it in good light. The only place where you can really tell that the K-7 is much better in this area is during situations with challenging light. I sometimes take pictures when I'm newspaper assignments and when I'm covering school board meetings in darkened rooms with terrible tungsten lighting the K-7 is so much more pleasant to use than the K20D. When you add the silent K-7 shutter to the equation it really make a big improvement in situations like this.

I think the K-7 ergonomics take awhile to get used to, but now I prefer the deep grip. To be honest, though, I think the K-7 feels much better with smaller prime lenses than zooms, although I'm not sure why.

The K-7 is a great camera, but if you don't like the ergonomics of it I think the K20D will serve you very well. I think it would be a great step up from the K100D, especially for the great prices it is going for now.

[nostatic]

I think the K-7 ergonomics take awhile to get used to, but now I prefer the deep grip. To be honest, though, I think the K-7 feels much better with smaller prime lenses than zooms, although I'm not sure why.

I think is has to do with height of the body and the way they balance. I did not like the 50-135* on the K7 at all. On the K20d it is great. I did not like the 15/4 ltd on the K20d. On the K7 I think it would be perfect. Of the FA ltds, the 43/1.9 was about perfect onthe K7 (preferable to the feel on the K20d).

This is all highly personal wrt handling and feel though.

[Ash]

Andi, I've had a K100D and now have a K20D and certainly agree with the above comments about them. Although I have shot both the K100D and K20D at ISO 1600 and still find the K20D superior in noise control - provided exposure is correct.

Perhaps when exposure is not right and there is a need to 'push' it up by more than half a stop, the K20D images can exhibit a more unsightly blue banding type of noise, but the K100D's chroma noise isn't much of an improvement aesthetically.

The K20D IMO is still the better choice in every way to the K100D - and yes, low light AF is definitely faster and hits the mark without hunting as much on the K20D.

[Ash]

I think is has to do with height of the body and the way they balance. I did not like the 50-135* on the K7 at all. On the K20d it is great. I did not like the 15/4 ltd on the K20d. On the K7 I think it would be perfect. Of the FA ltds, the 43/1.9 was about perfect onthe K7 (preferable to the feel on the K20d).

With the stealthier body design suited to the ltd primes, I wonder how balanced the K-7 would feel with one of the 70-200s or a Bigma?

[aleonx3]

I am in the same boat, have the K100D and the K10D waiting to upgrade for either K20D or K-7. My preferences are:

-smaller and lighter body for traveling
-some video capability (not essential) but not cheesy 24fps
-quieter shutter (not to scare the birds)
-less hunting in low light situation (not that critical)

The K100D is a good backup and I like the size especially with the Limited lens on; but I am spoiled on some features given in k10D
-two edials (this is a luxury)
-have to go menus to change metering option and also AF point selection to auto.

[Urs]

I had the K100, then the K20 and now the K7

If its AF speed and accuracy that you want then the K7 is the best in low or good light, the K20 was a bit faster then the K100. Besides the AF issue, the K100 makes quiet good low light images with little noise compared to the other 2.

Today I think I should have kept the K100 (as second body) as resale value is normally low, better to keep it if possible.

[GLXLR]

Just another reason to go for the K-7.

The green button is silent when using your old manual focus lenses compared to the big CLUNK with the K20D/K10D.

[Andi Lo]

Thanks for all the answers everyone. I guess I'm back to square one on deciding which to upgrade to now

Well, back from the camera store. I brought my 28-75 today and found out that K20D really isn't that much faster than K100D when using this lens. K-7 on the other hand is much snappier. Argh! Makes the decision even harder now, especially that with the 28-75 the K-7 feels really nice... (weird that I actually find K-7 with big lenses nicer than with small lenses, maybe I'm just not used to it?)

Anyone have K20D with latest firmware and K-7 and 28-75?

[MidwestMax]

I upgraded from the K100D to K20d and I think the AF is much more accurate with the K20d. Compared to the K100D, I wouldn't say the AF speed is dramatically faster with most lenses, but it is more reliable. Basically, it's easier to get the shots you intended to. And that goes for low light indoor situations and elsewhere.

[Ash]

True that Andi.
I've used the 28-75 on a K100D, *ist D and K20D, and hands down the K20D locks on more swiftly and accurately than the other two. AF speed may be only marginally better than the K100D, but its the faster locking and low-light snappiness that proved it to me.

Sorry can't help you with the K-7, though. I'm sure it's significantly faster again...

[PentaxPZ]

My question is why a K100D when the K-m is out there?

The K-m works well in low light!
I use it in a night club with a 28-210mm lens!

quick and fairly accurate focusing too!
just my 2 pence!

[rparmar]

Just another reason to go for the K-7.

The green button is silent when using your old manual focus lenses compared to the big CLUNK with the K20D/K10D.

Really? I wonder how that can be, since the sound of the green button is the sound of the lens stopping down, I always figured. Intriguing.

[schmik]

Weird about the ergos. I went from k100d to k7.... for ages i would forget it was the k7 in my hand, i thought it was still the old k100d.

BTW, the performance difference is HUGE. Still getting used to the exposure though. Metering is fin with the DA lenses but a bit erratic with the takumars. The k100d didn't always get it right either but it was a lot more consistent, ie it would always get it wrong in the same way, the k7 is just more erratic.

mike