Pentax K20D,,what do you think

[dogbert]

Canon doesn't need to offer such a big lineup of digital lenses because their full frame lenses work on their digital cameras too and they are stil lavailable and plentiful.

 

Sure they don't make pancakes or a fisheye zoom, but they make plenty of f2.8 zooms that for the most part are faster than Pentax pancake primes. They also make f2.8 primes in 14/20/24/28/35/60/100/135 focal lengths; f1.8 primes in 28/50/85 focal lengths; f2 100 and 135 mmm lenses; and f1.4 in 24/35/50 focal lengths and f1.2 50 and 80 mm lenses. You can buy any of these and have them on your dooorstop in a few days.

 

So what is Pentax making that you would trade this for? Building a lens kit should not have to be like an antique hunt - years spent scouring fleabay, secondhand shops and third party glass to build a system.

 

 

So what is Pentax actually offering that you would give up this for?

[johnmarsden]

One has to suspect Pentax will be slow in providing product to market given past performance. It is not really much use arguing about the price of the K20D until full specs are available. (It its 14 MP and 12 frames a second and $2000 that would be worth getting. If its 14MP and 3 FPS I dunno,)

 

(I think we?re all happy over 10 MP now cos we really know you only need 6)

 

Now I have thought about hanging off to wait for the K20D, but in reality I do not think it will be available until Christmas in Australia and this will hold the price up. Mid 2009 may see it drop a little. So instead I got a great deal on a Canon 40D. I have a small swag of Canon lenses that were essentially wasting away next to the 1v. Now I can use them.

 

This has led to a new appreciation of the Pentax K10D.

 

I have mentioned this is another thread when I asked a question about the 40D.

 

The two cameras are excellent. And different. The Canon is robust, very fast frame rate - which does make a difference for image capture, and at a reasonable price.

 

The Pentax 10d is a joy to use. The extras, such as sensitivity mode, the little green button, auto range iso selection, in body shake reduction, and more,

 

From previous post http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Nw2A

 

?2 different cameras, that can be described like cars,

 

The Pentax is a high end Toyota Sedan with lots of nice little extras that make driving easier. (Sensitivity mode, auto iso range adjust, algorithm adjustment for shooting preference, multiple exposure modes and more for less cost)

 

The Canon is like a high end Mercedes Sedan - very smooth and strong. Definitely quicker, and the Merc drivers are not worried about missing out on a few fancy gadgets for the pleasure of solid style and power. (Great FPS 6.5, nice and heavy - especially with the battery pack, cool optics, USM fast focus, etc and always more expensive)?

 

Let us wait until we know what we are arguing about before we get into it.

 

PS I think Lindy just loves stirring you up Justin ! :-)

[shots worth sharing]

John, I like your automotive analogy but rather than a Toyota sedan, I'd equate Pentax to Subaru with body-based SR equivalent to FT all-wheel drive. My Forester and the k10d somehow seem a good match.

[mountainvisions]

"They also make f2.8 primes in 14/20/24/28/35/60/100/135"

 

And now my inevitable question? Are they stabilized? NO

 

Geoff, I really don't believe any camera maker is better, I just don't believe any are worse either. So most of my time is spent seeming to be reasonable in some of these really absurd assertions.

 

How absurd would it be if I got on the Leica board and said, I'm really dying to by a Leica and some Leitz glass, but I can't commit till I see they are committed to 2.8 AF zooms and in camera SR. Sounds crazy right, but it happens every day on Pentax forums!

 

Yeah, we know Canon has a huge lineup. But I always have to ask, how many lenses does the average consumer own? Even with LBA there are only so many 28-70 zooms you need, and only so many lenses of any range you need.

 

My biggest dilema with the 21mm is I will have 3 lenses in that range, but I have none that are a perfect hiking lens. Perfect, believe it or not, is a marginally slow pancake, thats built like my old MF primes, that will typically be shot at 5.6/8/11 anyway. So 3.2 is irrelevant, when I consider these lenses. I used a 28mm and a 24mm 2.8 for years as a main lens, this will simply replace those. Of course if they made a 16mm prime, I'd be all set.

 

And I love how quickly the pancakes and limiteds are dismissed, but if anyone dares to dismiss a 2.8 zoom, it's herecy. I just don't understand the logic to that.

 

For this reason, brands exist to satisfy different needs. Pentax caters or at least has a lineup more suited to the pancakes, primes, and street oriented photography that really most consumers are basically into. Very few people shell out for a 300 2.8 to shoot their kids soccer game. Yeah, it's great that my local Ritz can have one overnighted in, but I bet Ritz does that once every 5 years (if that) for the soccer mom who just has the urge to take pro style shots of her little munchkin. On the flip side quite a few do shell out for a few lenses in the 15-200mm range for cataloging family vacations and such.

 

So my real confusion is if Pentax is so poorly suited for you (not you specifically, but anyone seemingly lashing out at the company for failing to meet their needs) then why not use your rights as a buyer, and put your money where it does the most for you? Anything else seems counter productive to me, and it seems like if anyone is losing sleep wondering when the long zooms are coming, it's time to move on, either completely, or buy a second system, and then sit back and relax.

[boris_bashutin]

There are rumors about double system of AF in LV mode with very good work in low light and double system of viewfinders - electronical and optical. K20D can preview the photo on the viewfinder. This was done by installing a small LCD monitor in a viewfinder. The live view is also available on 3 inch LCD.

 

The AF will use a new Contrast Method.

In continuous drive mode, this new model can shoot video 1080p full HD size. Sensor size is 16:9 ratio. APS-H. Approx.28-30*16-17 mm.

[14mm 2.8l]

Wow Boris, you come up with The Cool rumors! Sounds very intersting. Indeed, well worth sitting around and buying nothing new for 13 more days until its official. The happy owner K10D reviews keeps haunting me but the upcoming 2008 product line sounds like a better year to leapfrog to.

 

I read the Samsung Corp Dec26th announcement and samsung said all 14 digital cameras including one dslr would have video mode. I linked it 3 or 4 days after the announcement happened.

 

I like the idea of video mode as I have never gotten a video camera, but kinda wanted one. Yellowstone, my favorite national park with its active gysers would be the perfect location to explore a GX20 or K20D: whichever comes with better video editing software.

 

This should drive up the used K Mount glass market values even further. Which is great if you got great old glass, and a bigger bummer if don't.

 

Lindy

[14mm 2.8l]

Oh, re-reading what your are saying it seems video would only record in AF mode, which means the old manual focus glass wouldn't record video. I wonder if will work with my "fairy dust" 1.7x manual focus lens to AF pentax converter? We'll see.

 

The 16-50mm SDM I shot film at demodays with grossly vignetted. I'd be surprised it it could handle 16:9. The 50-135mm vignetted far less on film so it could handle 16:9.

 

And I wonder if 3rd party lenses whose websites say not their glass is not for use above APS-C would be usable without vignetting on 16:9 format.

 

You've given me alot to think about Boris.

 

Lindy

[boris_bashutin]

I hope that camera will catch signal from all square of sensor (approx.480-500 mm2, it's approx. 30-35% larger than Sony 12 Mp APS-C sensor), but for photo K20D will use 3:2 ratio mask, I think usual APS-C size - 24*16 mm. Maximum IS0 6400, rumors said that ISO3200 is not worse than ISO1250 of K10D. ISO till 1600 will be absolutely fine. Dynamic Range is better too. K20D can shoot 3 fps in 14 bit mode (D300 only 2.5-2.6 fps) and will have several shooting modes and various speed. I hope that I'm right, but...Let's wait a bit...^)))

[14mm 2.8l]

Here's the Samsung video announcement report I posted a couple weeks ago:

 

Samsung newest 2008 DSLR will shoot video too

 

Lindy Stone, Dec 31, 2007; 10:35 a.m.

 

I googled up some dead Samsung links and found this one. Samsung has been pretty quiet. No rep to chat with at demo days either. I am glad they've got one dslr for 2008 to launch and Digital video would be a nice feature to have:

 

"Samsung to launch 14 new digital cameras in 2008 Samsung Electronics will launch 14 new digital cameras in Taiwan in 2008, aiming to hike its market share from 4-5% in 2007 to 12% to become one of the top three vendors, according to general manger Chul-young Lee for Samsung Electronics Taiwan at a year-end press conference on December 26.

 

Out of the 14 new cameras to be launched, four will be in the NV series, three each in the L, S and i series and a DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) model developed jointly by Samsung and Pentax, Samsung Taiwan pointed out. The 14 digital cameras cover a wide spectrum from entry level to middle range and high end, the company indicated.

 

All of the 14 models will feature the Samsung-developed DRIM (data rendering innovation matrix) engine which is capable of easy connection with LCD TVs or monitors and recording 720p video with built-in H.264 compression software, Samsung Taiwan noted."

 

Jimmy Hsu, Taipei; Adam Hwang, DIGITIMES

[morgan lee]

O. K. Peolple are bringing up this video capability and, I suspect I am way in the minority on this but I have to ask: Am I the only one that thinks that video capability on a DSLR is cheesey?

 

 

I don't think I'm a snob. I know a lot of people who are really into their point and shoots and firmly believe they can legitimately call themselves artists and photographers.

 

 

Heck, one of my favorite photographs of all time was taken on a cell phone.

 

 

Still, whatever the release price on the K20D is, I would have rather seen them meet that price point with more money put into another fps or a sturdier interior to be rated for more shots with more solid cogs and springs, faster AF, higher MP etc. Anything instead of making it capable to shoot video.

 

Am I the only one? I know I am in one of the last American households to not have cable/satelite television but am I really that weird to think that photography is a craft/art completely separate from video?

 

It just strikes me as a "Ginsu Knife" marketing mentality instead of a serious tool for photographers: "It slices, it dices! How much would YOU pay for this camera!...."

[michael_kuhne]

Pentax has its Toyota line, to be sure. But of its best lenses, it has traditionally been equated with Zeiss and Leica. It has also been a highly-respected medium format maker, and now with speculation as to that being continued. Most of its Limited series primes range from f/1.8-2.4, with one at f/2.8 and one wide angle at f/3.2 which is has no practical disadvantage from f/2.8.

 

That Pentax discontinued so many of its better lenses has been a source of bewilderment. It was an error, in my view.

 

I wrote to Herbert Keppler about this when the nice *ist-D camera was discontinued. He said Pentax was going for stable success first in the digital amateur market, then having gained that success, look for a comeback. His remarks seem to be the case now.

 

If one now wants/needs a large variety of fast lenses, especially telephoto, Nikon and Canon offer that. If you need to go out and shoot wildlife or action with a $10,000 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4, Canon or Nikon are where it is at right now. But if you want to shove some high quality DSLR performance and optics into a coat pocket, or need fine performance and quality in the shorter to medium focal range, Pentax now has a lot to offer, and no doubt more coming up.

[michael_kuhne]

I would probably make use of video on occasion, because I am a practical person. It can be useful and enjoyable. Not every effort has to be for a work of art. For those not wanting it, don't use it.

 

I guess auto ISO could be called cheesy, as well as scene modes.

 

BTW try telling film cameramen and editors that video is not art.

[michael_kuhne]

But I am for solid build quality.

[morgan lee]

Markus,

 

WOAH!!!!

 

As someone who makes his living in the film and themed entertainment industry, I would NEVER say that video is not art!!!

 

What I (I sincerely thought clearly) stated is that Video is NOT Phohtography.

 

I was simply stating that from a company that, on this forum, prides itself in being the "poor man's Leica" touting a camera that includes video is a step down in their stalwart commitment to quality.

[mountainvisions]

"O. K. Peolple are bringing up this video capability and, I suspect I am way in the minority on this but I have to ask: Am I the only one that thinks that video capability on a DSLR is cheesey?"

 

Nope, I do.

 

I don't know if I think it's cheesy, but I'd find little use for it. I do find the scene modes cheesy, and I'm glad to say I'm finalizing the ist 35mm (my only camera with scene modes) being shipped off. It will pay for the 21mm DA, just about.

 

If I was going to shoot video I'd prefer a video camera with it's layout.

 

I'm not saying I'd never use it, but in light of the fact that I've very occasionally used this feature on digital compacts, I wouldn't expect it to increase on a DSLR. To me it's a gimmick but I'm sure others would find it useful.

 

It's like camera phones, I have a very nice one, and I hardly ever use it. To me it's a gimmick, great for documenting and accident, or some bizare event that I happened upon, but not something I set out to take pictures with. Mostly I use it to annoy my wife with scenes of filthy toilet seats or what I ate for lunch in a text message. So it's gimmick.

 

However, someone will be the first to add this feature to SLR, and there are people who do want it, and as long as it doesn't come at the cost of something else I want, the publicity and buzz it will stir would be a good thing.

 

Video is art, but more from the editors input than the cameraman, I do have two good friends that are cameramen, and I have learned from them about in camera techniques which go deeper than one would think, but even they spend tons of time cutting the scenes just right. Straight video from the camera is extremely rare for something more than a few seconds long. the biggest thing I learned, tight crops and quick transitions. Kind of like good cropping in a photograph and not running your slides too long in a slide show, don't spend too much time on any one scene no matter how interesting, or conversely even the most mundane things can seem intersting with just a quick take before people have a chance to realize how boring it is.

 

I believe Matt M is/was a camera man, and still does video for weddings, I'm sure he could input quite a bit about the artistic techniques that go into making boring video look interesting, and that's and art.

[michael_kuhne]

Well when I am out to shoot video, I prefer my separate camcorder. Obviously it is better suited for yhay with its specs, layout and features. In fact, I like to leave it running on a tripod, while I move about shooting still frames.

 

But if I am out to shoot still frames and a video opportunity comes up, I'll use a video feature if there is one. But I agree it should not be at the expense of quality elsewhere. And neither should any of the other camera features.

[robert_clark]

Morgan, I totally agree.

 

Money spent on a larger sensor would be much better, and filling the gaps in their glass range would be great. Roll on the 35mm equivalent of a 35/2 or faster.

[dogbert]

"And now my inevitable question? Are they stabilized? NO"

 

My answer to this is that Canon has about 1-2 stops lower noise than Pentax. ISO 1600 on the 40D is very useable, so Pentax's in-body stabilisation is not as storng advantage as it might seem. Believe me, I have thought about this becuase I have Pentax glass (and film bodies) but I haven't plunged for a DSLR in the Pentax rnage yet becuase I doubt the IS would show much advantage relative to bumping up the ISO on Canon models.

 

"Yeah, we know Canon has a huge lineup. But I always have to ask, how many lenses does the average consumer own?"

 

There is no average consumer. I Penatx want to appeal to the twin kit lens market fine, but they won't get my $.

 

"So 3.2 is irrelevant" Not when you look through viewfinder compared to an f2 lens. Seriously what photogropaher would not want faster glass, all else being equal.

 

I don't dismiss the pancakes, I think they are great and probably the only thing that keeps Pentax alive. I just wish they had a couple of f2 or f1.4 primes at normal to short tele range and some f2.8 or even f4 constant zooms up to 200 mm that were delivered on time instead of years late.

 

"Very few people shell out for a 300 2.8 to shoot their kids soccer game. " Heaps of people shell out $560 for the optically superb Canon 70-200 f4L or the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens to shoot their kids playing sport. This is why Canon sales far outstrip Pentax even in Pentax main market - entry/enthusiast level.

 

"why not use your rights as a buyer, and put your money where it does the most for you?"

 

I did. I moved from Pentax to Canon long ago. I am the example of why Pentax has gone from being one of the biggest makers of slrs to a bit player.

 

While Pentax makes products I find interesting, they don't go anywhere near providing me with a system I am prepared to commit to or that gives me any confidence.

 

I like the fact that they do odd-ball things, but they should really do this around the core of a stable and conventional system, rather than the odd-ball things being their core.

[mountainvisions]

Maybe the 40D is 2 stops better. But I would challenge you to show me real data the 30D was, or the 20D? I think I've repeatedly shown just how usuable the K10D is at 1600.

 

And, in fairness the K10D was the challenger to the 30D, not the 40D, I think we should reapproach this when the K20D comes out and compare it.

 

You'd be suprised how bad the 30D is at 1600, as was the Rebel XT and XTi, I hear so many complaints about high ISO with those cameras despite the marketing. Just look at the sports forum on this site, where people always remark how they avoid using high ISO with those cameras in marginal lighting. And to not single out Canon, for all the talk of how amazing the D1H was at 1600, it's quite on par with the ist D (and researched it before buying and after with my own images in 100% crop side by side comparisons), I was amazed that the D with 2X more pixels stuffed into the same sensor size was on par, yet it was.

 

 

I'm not as convinced as you are about the noise advantage, but I'm comfortable conceding the 40D is superior, and it should considering it's far newer than the K10D and a CMOS. Since the K20D is supposedly a CMOS, and will come out after the 40D we should compare them then.

 

If the noise isn't quite 2 stops difference, than most people not needing long fast glass are better off with the advantage of SR, but if it is than you made a great point, and certainly can feel free to remind me of it. However, I'm really skeptical the 40D will have a 2 stop noise advantage, and I'm not skeptical but correct in saying the 30D didn't have a 2 stop advantage over the K10D.

[14mm 2.8l]

I liked this post by Alan concerning shake reduction of K10d versus Eos 40D:

 

Alan Gage, Jan 04, 2008; 01:42 p.m.

 

Here's my quick down and dirty test compared to a 40D-

 

 

Alan

 

I think shake "reduction" should be viewed as a different technology than Shake "elimination". I think using the tripod is the standard as it its true shake "elimination". All my pic are tack sharp when I use a tripod.

 

Both the phone handset pixs look blurry to me and I think seeing the same handset image taken via a tripod would make for a better baseline, like Alan's waterbottle pix link.

 

Thats why most of the proponents of inbody shake reduction pics seem like a gimmick to me, as they are Rarely TACK SHARP. Sure shake is reduced is it really eliminated?

 

I'd say Alan's waterbottle test is very revealing in studying inbody reduction versus lens stabiliztion versus simply using a tripod for tack sharp imagery.

 

Concerning the issue dates of

 

Eos 40D: September 2007 & K10D: November 2006

 

"I'm not as convinced as you are about the noise advantage, but I'm comfortable conceding the 40D is superior, and it should considering it's far newer than the K10D and a CMOS."

 

Indeed 40D is 10 months newer than K10D.

 

Lindy

[mc2imaging]

I don't know where to begin. I've ignored this thread since 15 minutes after it originated

because the premise that it was based on was so unbelievably ignorant that I couldn't

stand it. I just decided to flip through and see what had happened and I've been dying to

get to the end of this thing to tell everyone how ridiculous this is.

 

First of all, video on an SLR is cheesy, on the surface. I was as busy as I was this year

because of my video production skills. I KNOW video. I've been shooting and editing video

since the early 90's, longer than I've been using an AF SLR. There is no way you'd sell me

a K20D based on video capability. However, if properly implemented, the video might

hold a surprise for you 10FPS freaks. I'm not saying this is the case, but it is a possibility,

that the video system capturing in progressive scan mode can give you guys 30FPS

shooting. I have an old Canon Optura (the original Optura, not the crappy variants) This

camera is about as good as it gets for a ONE CHIP video camera (more on ccd's in a

minute) but one interesting feature of it was the way is was built as a hybrid video/photo

camera. It even had a hot shoe (that unfortunately only worked with specific Speedlights).

This video camera could make some decent 5x7s and if you think about where digital

cameras were in 1999, thats not bad at all. With high speed progressive scanning, you can

break out some decent stills (until recently all broadcast TV was interlaced images which

meant that half of the image was scanned with every other line, then the other half was

filled in on the skipped lines, making stills with motion jagged around the edges).

 

It sounds cheesy, and very well could be cheesy, but it could surprise a few of us.

 

A major source of noise comes from signal bleed. In video, we got rid of the noise by

keeping the colors separate through the process. We split the image into RGB and send it

to 3 independent CCDs and keep the colors separate with Y/C component (s-video) and

RGB component standards. This is why betamax was better quality than the composite

vhs standard.

 

All of my video cameras are 3 CCD units, and once you experience its quality everything

else looks like junk. If Pentax can figure out a way to make to make a 3CCD DSLR, THEY

WILL SHUT NIKON AND CANON DOWN (I don't expect a 3 chip DSLR to happen anytime

soon, but there will be alot of people crapping their pants when it does). Anything video

that isn't 3 chip means nothing to me.

 

I could go on for days, I wonder if anyone will read the whole thing...

 

Pentax has alot of great glass. Those of us who are filling our kits with 'pawn shop' glass

are doing so because we can. I have an image stabilized Pentax-M 50mm f2 lens that I

bought from a pawn shop for $2, I also have an image stabilized Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4

that I bought new for $175. Did I mention that my dad has an image stabilized 500mm

that he bought new for $100? Each lens has its own purpose, and if it fits the users

purpose and budget, shut yer pie hole.

 

It is late and I can't believe I wasted this little section of my life on this thread, but what's

done is done. I'm going to go do something with my wife that doesn't require shake

reduction...

[boris_bashutin]

Michael Kuhne wrote "That Pentax discontinued so many of its better lenses has been a source of bewilderment. It was an error, in my view."

 

Remember this time. Pentax was near the death. Financial situation was near full failure. ist D's sales were very poor. Only cheap ist* DL helped with sales a bit in 2005. They cut FF lenses not from good life. It was 2004 year, not 2006 or 2007.

ist* D was on the shelves of shops till the middle of 2007.:))))

 

Pentax was shocked themselves from success of K series.

They didn't even wait or plan this...^)))

To make too many various lenses which they can't sell...

I remember the time when I can buy even FA*200/4 macro or FA*80-200/2.8, but nobody had any interested in Pentax.

Pentax was outsider. Near the death.

[mountainvisions]

Matt,

 

I somehow knew you'd be the guy to answer the video question...looking at your site it was clear you'd have "a bit" of experience in it.

 

thanks for the long explanation.

 

As far as pawnshop/fleabay glass I scrounge for it because I want bargains. I've yet to find one but I do like the quality of those old screwmount lenses.

 

And as far as the phone keys, no I didn't say it was "tack sharp" but at 100% it looks decent, and I'm pretty certain I could print a quite usable 5x7 from it. Just as I'd probably be able to print the same 5x7 from a lens based SR system. The point is it's not for replacing tripods but for when you have no other option. 5 stops, and a printable 5x7, I'll take that to the bank and ask for another.

 

Hey, did you know this forum was about photography? From all the crying I thought it was a nursery school.

[boris_bashutin]

Justin Serpico, you are absolutely right. I have several friends who have 2 system - K10D and 30D.

30D at ISO800 and 1600 is not better than K10D. Maybe a bit - 1/3 stop. But it's hard to compare - another noise structure. I'm boring from myth of noiseless Canon's cameras of low and middle-end line. 40D has good ISO1600, but maybe 1 stop better than K10D. K10D is older and much cheaper than 40D. We can't compare old and new machines from different price niche and different class. 40D has CMOS sensor, K10D - CCD.

 

TO LINDA STONE

As for Shake Reduction - IS in Canon's lenses works not much better and % of sharp and soft shots are approx. the same.

Before use SR - don't forget text from manual!!!

Switch ON SR only when it's really need.

[14mm 2.8l]

Boris, I am Lindy