I have lots of indoor sports shots in my SPORTS galleries via my link below. The last six galleries or so are all with the K20. Some lenses include the now departed FA*200mm, but also the current DA55-300mm and the DA*50-135mm.

To answer your question, the K20 is infinitely superior to the K10 in terms of high ISO noise *when proper exposure is achieved*. I have already captured frames at ISO 3200 that are cleaner than the K10s 1600 was.

[rfortson]

High ISO performance of the K20D is very good (much better than the K10D).

Check this thread here for lots of good examples.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/27927-pentax-k20d-...o-gallery.html

[ManuH]

Comparing the K200D to the K10D, I'd say the K200D is already improved against its older big brother. And especially the VPN in some K10D deep shadows is completely gone on the K200D.
The K20D retains more details at high ISO than the K10D. At ISO 1600, you could get good shots from the K10D if the exposure was good and with a bright subject (the histogram is mostly on the right). The nature of the noise on the K20D is also more pleasant with fine grain. The K10D in comparison is more "blotchy".

I recently shot some indoor tennis at ISO 3200 on the K20D with the 50-135 and the results was very satisfying and you could probably easily print clean 8x10".

One important thing about the K20D is that you have to nail the exposure. I feel that it's a bit more difficult to lift shadows on the K20D vs the K10D. It seems to me that on the K10D/K200D one could easily underexpose 2-3 stops and get clean shots. Not so with the K20D.

Interestingly on the DxOmark the K20D and the K200D show almost the exact same performance for noise. But the K200D, like the K10D supports only ISO 1600. I think on the K200D an ISO 3200 should have been possible and I'm glad it's supported on the K-m.

[joelovotti]

I want to thank everyone for all the very relevant comments and information.

It looks like the K20D would most likely push me over the line on my indoor photography.

I won't be shooting indoor sports again until October so I have time to wait out the next Pentax and make a final decision based on how much better the new K? is. By then the decision will be tough because the K20D will most likely be at a lower cost point.

Thanks again, I very much appreciate all your help.

[kenyee]

One important thing about the K20D is that you have to nail the exposure. I feel that it's a bit more difficult to lift shadows on the K20D vs the K10D. It seems to me that on the K10D/K200D one could easily underexpose 2-3 stops and get clean shots. Not so with the K20D.

That's a fairly known issue....I think it was traced to the less expensive A->D converters that Pentax used on the K20D (14-bit vs. 22-bit on the K10D). This leaves more noise in the shadows, so when you try to bring them up, the noise comes with it...

[cputeq]

In the April issue of Popular Photography they have a good article on APSC vs Full Frame DSLRs.
Long story short:
They see no compelling reason for people to move to full frame.

While I subscribe to their magazine, I take their articles with a grain of salt.

Only the photographer can decide whether the move to FF is warranted. Glass is more expensive, the bodies more expensive, etc.

If you need high ISO performance or wide angle stuff (or huge MP count) or advanced pro features, then FF is a good thing.

Crop SLRs still have great life in them, though.

Personally, I wish someone would make a lower MP APS-C camera, maybe 8MP-10MP, using advanced sensor technology -- it would greatly improve high ISO performance I think.

[kasv]

As I was very unhappy with the first (but plenty) of shots from my new K20D (vs. K100Ds, which was more easy to get fair results with), I tended to look what Nikon offers - in my understanding THE manufacturer of low light capable cameras, namely D300 and now, D90. Yes, it is true to push the shadows quite a bit, much further in fact as on K100Ds and its predecessors, which had already been better i this respect than K20d for what I found, BUT detail rendering is outstanding with K20D regardless of its higher resolution than D90 and D300. What is just black on Nikons, is a muddy grey on Pentax, thus making it less attractive to tweak. Also the appearance of horizontal and vertical banding is annoiing. Nikons are entirely free of it Nikon RAWs can be "developped" by +4 and still show little noise and bright colors, which is where Pentax should be after. The results I acchieved when comparing D90 and K20D were in fact not as discouraging as I suspected. I was shooting in the office under dim daylight conditions rather than incandescent light. The latter had caused a lot of funky color artifacts and hefty noise. I think Pentax still has to learn a lot on how to get the best from its sensors. Hope they make it soon. In terms of detail preservation at high ISO however, they are already done.

[joelovotti]

While I subscribe to their magazine, I take their articles with a grain of salt.

Only the photographer can decide whether the move to FF is warranted. Glass is more expensive, the bodies more expensive, etc.

If you need high ISO performance or wide angle stuff (or huge MP count) or advanced pro features, then FF is a good thing.

Crop SLRs still have great life in them, though.

Personally, I wish someone would make a lower MP APS-C camera, maybe 8MP-10MP, using advanced sensor technology -- it would greatly improve high ISO performance I think.

The perspective of the article was that all us APS-C shooters long for FF to get back to the day. The conclusion of the article was that, in the digital arena, FF is the new Medium Format.

They made some of the same comments as you do regarding High ISO performance and big pixel count and if you want 'em go for 'em.
They didn't say FF was a waste of time.
They just made the case that the attributes of FF are beyond the needs of most amateurs and even some Pro's.