[audiobomber]

I disagree strongly, the old Pentax metering would completely PANIC at the slightest hint of a highlight in the frame, it would force you to pull the rest of the image in pping as the mid levels were almost always underexposed. Very few scenes don't have an area that can't be lost to shadows or highlights without damaging the image, this obsession with keeping everything in the frame within clipping points leads to dull images.

My default Ev comp is +0.3 to +0.7 on the 20D as it will otherwise underexpose.

I haven't seen it to be anywhere near as prone to underexposure as you say. The OP photographed a dark room with a bright light in the frame, which is an extreme. When I photograph a landscape on a bright day, I add .3 or .7. Maybe your camera is calibrated differently, or maybe you like brighter looking photos. My K100DS meters just like my K20D and it suits me fine.

As long as one understands how the camera exposes, it shouldn't matter much.

[Marc Sabatella]

I disagree strongly, the old Pentax metering would completely PANIC at the slightest hint of a highlight in the frame, it would force you to pull the rest of the image in pping as the mid levels were almost always underexposed. Very few scenes don't have an area that can't be lost to shadows or highlights without damaging the image, this obsession with keeping everything in the frame within clipping points leads to dull images.

True, but still, I'm perfectly happy to have the camera tell me where I'd need to have exposure to avoid clipping, and then I can adjust from there. No biggie to me either way.

In any case, that's not really the case here - the picture was shot pointed directly at a lamp. Of course you're going to need some serious positive compensation to get detail anywhere else.

[kasv]

I'll try to compliment my comparison once I have a little time. It wasn't meant to slag K20D and prove it's a bad performer. I like it very much and I have no objections against its noise, I just dislike the banding/stripes/lines that appear in low light even at 800ISO. Recently, I shot at 6400 pushing up the exposure by +2 I believe and printed A4, about letter size - not bad I have to say, the stripes were visible onscreen but hardly in the print. Example enclosed. Still, I will hand in the cam for another try to get it fixed, as it seems not all units are prone to that. Anyway. Kx is far more reliable when it comes to low light:
no banding/Streaks whatever, just pure grainy noise when NR is off (I suspect a rest of it to remain active however in high ISO),
no dark frame subtraction necessary in long exp. (just like with Nikon stuff)

I like that, but will never trade in K20D for its unique IQ.

kai

an addition: what you do not see in the miniaturized shot are the streaks in the darker portions in the upper part. They are hardly visible in a 100% crop either. Overexposure (actually by +2) helped retain detail in the darkness while doing no harm to the highlights to my liking. Good performance on K20D, however, Kx to my short experience delivers cleaner results when looking closely.