[rhermans]

Perhaps Pentax should re-consider their pricing just to satisfy those who perceive value solely by the price tag.

Wouldn't work Ben, have you really made a comparisson between a K10d and a PRO camera, especially those strange settings. Sv and ... TAv.

You surely must know that presets are only available on the amateur range. None of the real pro camera's has that setting

This remark I got when trying to explain the K10d to a pro "@sh*1€" who was explaining me in return what a real pro camera was, oh yes and a pro camera has to have a full size sensor. (just to be sure that you know the brand he was referring to)

So Pentax should ... reconsider pricing, put a full frame sensor in, and remove all the inovation and then you've got a pro, changing there name to kanon or nicon would help to

[benjikan]

And for once, I am going to have to agree with you on that. I was going to reply to the exact copy of this post that he cross posted on ThePhotoForum.com with pretty much what you said there.

Have you done a shoot with both the D200 and the K10D? This is where I put my foot down. The results I have garnered using the K10D for "Actual Published" shoots for the Trendy Press in A3 format is on par or slightly better than that of the D200 for the type of photography I do. The noise levels on the K10D are slightly better. Now being that I guess I am a pro, as that is what I do and have been doing for 27 years, lets just say this...Pentax is an extremely solid and well built camera. I don't shoot 5 fps and I rarely shoot over 1.5 fps. The auto-focus is extremely fast and the RAW images rival anything out there. So, if you wish to discuss the technical attributes of the camera, that is one thing. But RH, don't even consider a discussion based on your pro assessment of this camera in the hands of a pro photographer that has and does use this instrument for highly critical and demanding work. Pardon my arrogance here but....

[RiceHigh]

Have you done a shoot with both the D200 and the K10D? This is where I put my foot down. The results I have garnered using the K10D for "Actual Published" shoots for the Trendy Press in A3 format is on par or slightly better than that of the D200 for the type of photography I do. The noise levels on the K10D are slightly better. Now being that I guess I am a pro, as that is what I do and have been doing for 27 years, lets just say this...Pentax is an extremely solid and well built camera. I don't shoot 5 fps and I rarely shoot over 1.5 fps. The auto-focus is extremely fast and the RAW images rival anything out there. So, if you wish to discuss the technical attributes of the camera, that is one thing. But RH, don't even consider a discussion based on your pro assessment of this camera in the hands of a pro photographer that has and does use this instrument for highly critical and demanding work. Pardon my arrogance here but....

I have to say there is not much to do with whether you work as a "pro" or not. What you say actually tell us one thing:- that is, the K10D meets *your own* requirements and your shooting needs. It's just very simple.

But for the OP you wrote is about the technical differences between the D200 and the K10D, which all the official published specifications and the unpublished performance aspects which many testers and magazines measured and published do show that there are various differences, which some of them can be large ones.

Afterall, may I just to point out that no matter you sell your photos and others don't sell our photos, you are still just an user amongst all and your needs are surely not equal to others (as I am sure that no two users in this planet can have the exact requirements and needs). So, why bother to present "mine *opinions*" are weight more than yours", in such a way? It is just ONE user opinion afterall. Indeed, I always tell the same for Phil Askey's opinions too, unless he could have some scientific figures to be presented which are the results obtained after formal and objective measurements. Even someone as truly authoritive as Phil Askey when it comes to talking about *gear*, Phil Askey is still just one user when it comes to *personal* *opinions* about the pros and cons of a camera gear, that's something we need to think about..

[nathancombs]

ok i have to say that my K100D is keeping pace with my consumptions 1Dmark---- with L glass (i for get witch one it is ) i have had no problems shooting sports, fires, car wrecks and any thing else. i have read the reviews and know the differences but, when i am out shooting the same thing with them there and can produce better photos well convince me i need a better brand of camera.

i have also have a nether paper in the around where the photographer uses the D2Xs (he is a better photographer all around than the other one) i have no problem staying with him shot for shot with my K10D. or at night with my K100D.

i have had little problem focusing at night. the only time i had problems is that the flashing lights of the police cars or firetrucks throw the AF off. or it is almost 0 light out lol.

[silverbullet]

Why does everyone here discuss 'Pro' cameras, like there is only one solution for 'Pro' photographers. There are many types of pro photographers (Landscape, sports, photojournalism, fashion, stock, etc.), and each will have different requirements.
Ben has found that the K10 is suitable for his style of pho shooting. I would suspect that the slow FPS count and lack of long, fast, weather-sealed glass would make the K10 less suitable for Pro sports photogs.
Pro photographers have always used cameras of varying price and perceived quality (can you say Holga?), and will continue to do so. There will never be a single 'Pro' camera to suit every photographer or situation.
Maybe we can all just agree that the K10 is capable for Pro use, but not necessarily in all situations?

[Falcons]

Rice high, you are either into pain and self humiliation or you have an agenda to push.

Now you supposedly own a pro level camera - please post a photo in this thread that shows myself and others just how a superior pro level camera (like yours rice High) can produce results better than Benjikan with a K10D.

This should be an easy task for a photographer (you state you are a photographer on your blog) of your calibre, experience and of course utilising a technically perfect camera.

Look forward to seeing it.

[stewart_photo]

Ben, I have to disagree with you. The K10D is not in the D200 class and it is never a D200 equivalence.

I have to disagree. The K10D is very similar to the D200. Both cameras deliver similar performance (image quality, etc), with each having certain advantages over the other. The D200 has it's faster continous 5 fps shooting mode, for example, while the K10D has built-in shake reduction, multiple RAW modes, optical viewfinder, sensor dust reduction, and so on. Both cameras also have similar issues, including slightly "soft" images and some image noise with occasional vertical banding at higher ISO settings. Ultimately, the only huge difference is the price - $850 for the K10D versus $1500 for the D200.

It focuses much slower and less accurate than the D200.

Auto focus on both cameras is "accurate" and "fast" (quotes - dpreview reviews for both cameras). Performance with DX lenses is similar (fast & accurate), with both cameras exhibiting somewhat slower auto focusing with non-DX lenses.

It meters far less accurately and consistently than the D200.

Nonsense. Metering accuracy and consistency is very good on both cameras - no significant difference.

Low light AF speed and accurate is of huge difference.

Not when the K10D is used properly, using the AF assist provided by the built-in flash. Actually, when used in this manner, the K10D performs even better than the D200 in extremely low light. ("accurate low light focusing" - dcresource K10D review)

Time lag figures as measured by the Imaging Resource in lab is a huge difference.

In time lag tests, the K10D's performance is about average (somewhere in the middle compared to other popular DSLR's), which doesn't really matter since the differences are virtually undetectable in the "real world" outside testing labs. ("lag was not an issue" - dcresource K10D review)("short lag times" - dpreview K10D review)

Construction and build are felt differently. D200 is of metal alloy body whereas K10 is of plastic.

Both cameras employ a similar metal sub-structure. The D200 employs an thin Magnesium alloy (two thirds aluminum) outer shell (non-reinforced polycarbonate top) which is likely less robust than the much thicker fiber-reinforced polycarbonate shell found on the K10D.

In the end, a "pro" camera is any camera a pro uses. In that regard, both the K10D and D200 can easily be "pro" cameras.

stewart

---

Last edited by stewart_photo; 07-07-2007 at 09:41 PM. Reason: spelling mistake.

[benjikan]

Why does everyone here discuss 'Pro' cameras, like there is only one solution for 'Pro' photographers. There are many types of pro photographers (Landscape, sports, photojournalism, fashion, stock, etc.), and each will have different requirements.
Ben has found that the K10 is suitable for his style of pho shooting. I would suspect that the slow FPS count and lack of long, fast, weather-sealed glass would make the K10 less suitable for Pro sports photogs.
Pro photographers have always used cameras of varying price and perceived quality (can you say Holga?), and will continue to do so. There will never be a single 'Pro' camera to suit every photographer or situation.
Maybe we can all just agree that the K10 is capable for Pro use, but not necessarily in all situations?

Well said and so true.

[benjikan]

I have to say there is not much to do with whether you work as a "pro" or not. What you say actually tell us one thing:- that is, the K10D meets *your own* requirements and your shooting needs. It's just very simple.

But for the OP you wrote is about the technical differences between the D200 and the K10D, which all the official published specifications and the unpublished performance aspects which many testers and magazines measured and published do show that there are various differences, which some of them can be large ones.

Afterall, may I just to point out that no matter you sell your photos and others don't sell our photos, you are still just an user amongst all and your needs are surely not equal to others (as I am sure that no two users in this planet can have the exact requirements and needs). So, why bother to present "mine *opinions*" are weight more than yours", in such a way? It is just ONE user opinion afterall. Indeed, I always tell the same for Phil Askey's opinions too, unless he could have some scientific figures to be presented which are the results obtained after formal and objective measurements. Even someone as truly authoritive as Phil Askey when it comes to talking about *gear*, Phil Askey is still just one user when it comes to *personal* *opinions* about the pros and cons of a camera gear, that's something we need to think about..

Hello RH;

I wish to share my thoughts with you in regards to your analysis of the K10D, Canon 5D and your frames of reference in general. I was quite impressed with your logic in the above response to my post. From a purely analytical point of view and when you do express analytical conclusions, your computational results are probably sound, even though I cannot confirm the figures that you cite on your blog. I also appreciate your tenacity. I think problems arise due to a lack of your describing the paradigm from which you wish to approach the subject matter and therefore the ensuing violent reactions.

We are dealing with a tactile "human" interface here that does not function in a vacuum. These tools, i.e. DSLR's are built to very high tolerances in all aspects. The differences are so minute that under most circumstances the resulting images from a Nikon, Canon, Sony or Pentax would only be discernible under laboratory conditions. We are using these tools as an interface for capturing a moment as a mode of artistic expression and not as a laboratory tool for cataloguing information, even though I can understand and appreciate the importance of that aspect of the spectrum.

Perhaps you might preface much of what you share here with an expression of "Intent" so that those reading the post will understand the perspective from which you are approaching the issues. For example, "these are my findings based on this type of controlled experiment...". In doing so you will allay any misunderstandings and the subsequent visceral and highly charged emotional responses. There is a huge separation between the pure analytical and the artistic expression.

I now understand what your frame of reference is and appreciate the context and it is for this reason that I would ask that you accept my apology for some of my own reactions that came from a place outside of the frame of reference of your intent. I believe that is was purely Cartesian.

Ben

[stewart_photo]

(snip) What you say actually tell us one thing:- that is, the K10D meets *your own* requirements and your shooting needs. (snip)

The K10D doesn't just meet Ben's requirements and shooting needs. It also fits my requirements and shooting needs, and I suspect the requirements and needs of a vast majority of the other photographers here (pro & amateur alike). If the K10D doesn't meet your needs or requirements, why do you still own one (as you claim) and why are you still wasting time talking about it here?

(snip) Afterall, may I just to point out that no matter you sell your photos and others don't sell our photos, you are still just an user amongst all and your needs are surely not equal to others (as I am sure that no two users in this planet can have the exact requirements and needs). So, why bother to present "mine *opinions*" are weight more than yours", in such a way? (snip)

Since you're constantly pronouncing to the world (in forum after forum) your negative viewpoints of the K10D (even to the point of posting a blog to that effect), I would ask you the same question - why repeatedly present your opinions as having more weight than others. I have yet to see you (here or on your blog) say that you're just a user or your comments just the opinions of a user. Instead, you're constantly trying to present yourself as an expert with greater knowledge of the K10D than everyone else (using dubious facts and figures to support your claims), when I've seen no evidence whatsoever of either expertise or greater knowledge. Ben, on the other hand, has posted clear evidence of his photography expertise, and has been published in magazine after magazine as further evidence of that. Given that, when it comes to photography, I would give his opinions far greater weight than yours every single time.

stewart

[PDL]

Please note RH's signature -
He does not own a K10D he has a K100D.

Hat - and talking through it - get the picture?

Oh - RH does not show his pictures.

PDL - I tried not to respond - I really did.

[stewart_photo]

Please note RH's signature -
He does not own a K10D he has a K100D.

Hat - and talking through it - get the picture?

Oh - RH does not show his pictures.

LOL. Well, I don't know what he actually owns. But I believe he has claimed to own a K10D, which he has used as the basis for some of his comments here and elsewhere. However, since he has posted so much, I would be hard pressed to find any such claim at this particular moment. As such, I'll just leave my comment and let him correct me if I'm mistaken.

PDL - I tried not to respond - I really did.

Don't try so hard next time, PDL. Responding to RiceHigh has become almost a national sport. On this side of the ring, we have RiceHigh. And over there, we have the challenger...(insert ony one of a long list of names). RiceHigh has a career record of 7 wins and 934 losses. Not a great win/loss record, but he deserves at least some minor credit for sheer determination. The fans, on the other hand, are ready to throw the bum right out of the ring. Pentax fans, that is.

stewart

[wlachan]

Hello RH;

I wish to share my thoughts with you in regards to your analysis of the K10D, Canon 5D and your frames of reference in general. I was quite impressed with your logic in the above response to my post. From a purely analytical point of view and when you do express analytical conclusions, your computational results are probably sound, even though I cannot confirm the figures that you cite on your blog. I also appreciate your tenacity. I think problems arise due to a lack of your describing the paradigm from which you wish to approach the subject matter and therefore the ensuing violent reactions.

We are dealing with a tactile "human" interface here that does not function in a vacuum. These tools, i.e. DSLR's are built to very high tolerances in all aspects. The differences are so minute that under most circumstances the resulting images from a Nikon, Canon, Sony or Pentax would only be discernible under laboratory conditions. We are using these tools as an interface for capturing a moment as a mode of artistic expression and not as a laboratory tool for cataloguing information, even though I can understand and appreciate the importance of that aspect of the spectrum.

Perhaps you might preface much of what you share here with an expression of "Intent" so that those reading the post will understand the perspective from which you are approaching the issues. For example, "these are my findings based on this type of controlled experiment...". In doing so you will allay any misunderstandings and the subsequent visceral and highly charged emotional responses. There is a huge separation between the pure analytical and the artistic expression.

I now understand what your frame of reference is and appreciate the context and it is for this reason that I would ask that you accept my apology for some of my own reactions that came from a place outside of the frame of reference of your intent. I believe that is was purely Cartesian.

Ben

Hi Ben! You have made a very valid point but please excuse my intrusion. As I mentioned in a distant post when RH was not bent from dpreview, there is a huge gap between chinese & western culture on many things, communication included. The way we think, talk and express ourselves are simply too different. What comes naturally to most westerners might be difficult for us Chinese to grip. Being in Melbourne and Vancouver for sometime, I have noticed local people are more, what I call "artistic" (I am sure this is not the right word lol) when it comes to communication, while we chinese are usually more direct and sometimes might seem aggressive or intrusive. The matter complicates when we are further limited by the use of foreign language (English in this case). I think RH has much to offer, though I didn't read everything he typed, but the "expression" is just not very inviting sometimes, and I am afraid I have suffered from the same syptoms as well. But if I was wrong about you, please forgive me RH.

[benjikan]

Hi Ben! You have made a very valid point but please excuse my intrusion. As I mentioned in a distant post when RH was not bent from dpreview, there is a huge gap between chinese & western culture on many things, communication included. The way we think, talk and express ourselves are simply too different. What comes naturally to most westerners might be difficult for us Chinese to grip. Being in Melbourne and Vancouver for sometime, I have noticed local people are more, what I call "artistic" (I am sure this is not the right word lol) when it comes to communication, while we chinese are usually more direct and sometimes might seem aggressive or intrusive. The matter complicates when we are further limited by the use of foreign language (English in this case). I think RH has much to offer, though I didn't read everything he typed, but the "expression" is just not very inviting sometimes, and I am afraid I have suffered from the same syptoms as well. But if I was wrong about you, please forgive me RH.

Of course and it is with this understanding and his analytical leaning that I wished to write a formal apology to him.

Best Wishes
Ben

[matix]

Hello RH;

Perhaps you might preface much of what you share here with an expression of "Intent" so that those reading the post will understand the perspective from which you are approaching the issues. For example, "these are my findings based on this type of controlled experiment...". In doing so you will allay any misunderstandings and the subsequent visceral and highly charged emotional responses. There is a huge separation between the pure analytical and the artistic expression.

I now understand what your frame of reference is and appreciate the context and it is for this reason that I would ask that you accept my apology for some of my own reactions that came from a place outside of the frame of reference of your intent. I believe that is was purely Cartesian.

Ben

Woohoo.. Ben, I wish I had said that... well done!!

Phil