Not sure about Pentax anymore

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>Before you crucify me, don't get me wrong. I don't think Pentax is bad, I am just questioning my next camera after using the K200D as a "learning" machine.<br>

Coming back from my New Zealand trip (see previous post) and shooting more the 600 photos I am not so sure I would like to invest in better lenses or the K20D. when I see images taken from amateurs straight out of a Nikon or Canon, the photos are 99% of the time spot on and almost without the need to post process. with the Pentax however I find the images to come out a bit "off" or out of focus.<br>

I am also reading too many complaints about lenses quality issues.<br>

I am not a certain brand fanatic and I did buy this model for the sake of learning and price vs. value ratio.<br>

Don't you think Canikon is after all a safer path for the long term?<br>

Micha</p>

[shaloot]

<p>oh boy, here we go...<br>

but I must ask, how do you know those images are "straight out" of their camera with no PP? If anything, most nikon and canon users I know use PP almost on all their shots... my bro who is a nikon user even says so and questions why I don't do more PP...<br>

so I'm real curious where this 99% stat is coming from... and don't think they don't have issues with their lenses...<br>

but if your longer term is going to be a pro sports shooter, photojournalists or media/advertising, then they are probably the better choice... maybe even wedding...<br>

there is nothing wrong with having 2 systems... never believe all the hype for anything! I love Pentax (and the company... that had a lot to do with my decision) but I didn't rush out for the k20d...<br>

like I said... oh boy, here we go! :O</p>

[revolver]

<p>Micha,<br>

I looked at the Photos you posted and dont see a problem.</p>

<p>Whats wrong with those photos that would be better with a Nikon or a Canon?</p>

<p> </p>

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>"oh boy, here we go! :O"<br>

Please don't go there.... -). I am not looking for a brand fight or comparisons and frankly don't give a F about company A or B. I could easily punch a hole in a box if I could PP after that... he he.<br>

The 99% is just a figure I came out with after getting many images from friends or pro's that all use either C or K. mostly I am talking about the Jpeg not RAW.<br>

"Whats wrong with those photos that would be better with a Nikon or a Canon?"<br /> I don't know. don't have much comparison. would they?<br>

Micha</p>

[snik75]

<p>Hi Micha<br>

I looked at your shots and they look very nice. I doubt they would look better, or even different, with another system with another kit lens, but I haven't used much outside Pentax so hard to say. I believe it is the norm to "post-process" digital images, and I doubt that would change with an alternate DSLR. In film there is a significant process done in making a print, for me the lab always took care of it, hence the need for a good lab. Now I am the lab, which has pluses and minuses (time suck).<br>

The Pentax kit lens, while very good for a kit lens from what I understand, is far from the best lens Pentax makes. I didn't appreciate the difference until I picked up by chance an FA 20-35mm lens that is distinctly sharper and clearer used in similar settings. I haven't used my DA 18-55mm since. I am sure some of the pricier DA zooms would similarly help a great deal. But you don't want to invest significantly in lenses if uncertain of the results? You could try an "A" 50mm F/1.7, whch is also remarkably sharp and can generally be found for less than $100, or a DA 40mm which runs about $250, or even get a M42 adapter for $20-30 and try out some of the old Takumar lenses which are usually under $50 and can sometimes be had for $10. I think you will notice an improvement in many of your pictures using a better lens. Will Pentax get you where you want to go as a photographer? I have no idea. I have a hard time imagining being limited by their current offerings, though.</p>

<p>Now will they go under? That's a whole nother pickle.</p>

[dan_tripp]

<p>I'll jump in. I had a friend who shot a wedding with me and he used his gazillion dollar Cannon and I used my K200d and his pictures were no better than mine.<br>

I asked the same questions awhile back about upgrading to the K200, but most people persuaded me that it's all in the lens. Here is my opinion, save money on upgrading to company A or B and get some great glass.<br>

One more thing, one of the best selling Photoshop books written by Scott Kelby is a Nikon users. Hear PP all of his pictures. Go to the wedding forum, and ask the wedding pros who use Nikon and Cannon and see how much PP they do. I bet every one of them doesn't sell a picture without doing some work on it.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Hmm,</p>

<p>I'm not gonna get into this in the sense of camera A is just as good as camera B.</p>

<p>Everyone knows I feel gear is a means to an end.</p>

<p>If you can't cut it as a photographer blaming the camera is like blaming the brush because you can't paint.</p>

<p>I seem to be able to shoot every camera I own equally well including cameras that others complain about (like my Dad's W20 which he tells me every time he sees me how much he hates that camera and can't take a decent photo with it). I don't want a medal, or a monument, or any sort of accolade. The point is I shoot both wide open, at mid apertures, teles, wides, everything, and if there was a problem with system A (cause I shoot 2 systems, and I have used just about every brands point and shoots) and not with system B I'd have found it.<br>

<br /> <br /> When ever people come running into this situation they tend to think that it's the camera, and it that is the case, if you don't trust the gear you have, you will NEVER EVER be happy.</p>

<p>I've seen no evidence that Canon or Nikon cameras offer better photos without any thought to composition, exposure, DOF, etc. Where you probably are erring, is on the basis that there are 8 Canikon shooters per every 1 Pentax shooter. This simply means that you see more photos.</p>

<p>So rather than try to keep you as a Pentaxian, I'm very supportingly saying jump ship if need be, but don't be miserable with the gear you use.</p>

<p>I'd love to hear your comparison a few months down the line. I'm assuming you'll be going with a D60 or Rebel XSi, I hope the grass is truly greener!!</p>

 

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Quote Justin :''So rather than try to keep you as a Pentaxian, I'm very supportingly saying jump ship if need be, but don't be miserable with the gear you use.''</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I read the O.P. This was my first thought. I looked at your photos and thought they were pretty good as others have said. There where a few that where under exposed a Tad, but the camera can only do so much. I would suggest you get a hold of Petersons book ''understanding exposer'' and see where that leads you to. Of course, I could be wrong and you understand it very well and so it is the camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[rogerdaltx]

<p>Micha,<br /> <br /> Given comparable bodies and lenses you can get the same shot with any camera system with very, very few exceptions. It is about the photographer. That said every system has a few things it does better than the others. For Pentax the combination of body based SR and value per dollar were the key reasons I sold about $4500 of Canon gear after owning it less than a year and moving to Pentax. For me the switch has worked out well.<br /> <br /> As far as "Is Canon/Nikon a safer path in the long run". Well depends on what you mean by safer. Both are much larger companies with larger yet and more diversified parent companies than Pentax / Hoya. Their pockets are deeper and their marketing machines are far more polished, but that does not mean their products are better.<br /> <br /> And as far as future proof I have to wonder how long the DSLR will be the camera format of choice. I think there are a lot of changes coming and in my opinion it's difficult to say what anyone will be using in about five years time. So it's best to focus on what you want/need in a camera system now. Then if you're a value person decided which meets those needs at the best price point. Cameras are not investments, they will all lose money. Good lenses usually hold their value better and the lens is far more important for your image than the body.<br /> <br /> I think the suggestions here about looking at a couple of higher quality lenses than the kit lens and getting a good book or two (Petersons book "Understanding exposure" that Javier suggested is exceptional) are both excellent suggestions.</p>

[songtsen]

Spend some time on the Canon forums first. Some of the newer bodies appear to have issues. Also, Canon doesn't have any IS ("SR") primes wider than 200mm.

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>Photograph over the last few years has put more emphasis on the equipment you use and less on your artistic interpretation of a given subject and understanding fundamental elements in photography (light, perspective, dov & composition ). A few years ago I was attending a course in photography and some of the best photos present at the end of the course was by a fellow who simply using a shoe box pinhole camera and also a pinhole bud light beer can. His understanding of composition and light produce some of the most interesting & pleasing photos to view. People at this course were more interested in these photos more so than the $5000 Nikons and Canons cameras strewed a crossed the tables of the fellow students(many asking what Photoshop software was used to manipulate these photos and his response bud light aperture ). So when Bud light finally produces a Full Frame 10FPS, 52mp, Role reduction(biggest complaint about the can),& fancy black contoured grip this fellow might have something more to brag about other than his photos. What I am getting at is that you have to look at the body of a camera as an information (or data) gathering device and when you compare non processed data from most camera brands with the same resolution they are pretty much close in image quality. Nikons and Canon seem to post process a sharper images because of the software in the camera where as Pentax I think went for a more natural look and feel to their image. You have to look at the software in the camera as a best all around fit for processing the raw data gathered from the sensor. The major reason I choose pentax is that it’s the best model for me having full and fast control over all the important things in photography to me ISO EV SV MLU at a lower cost. I have no use for FPS so why should I pay the big bucks for something I seldom use. The most important thing I have heard in any photography class (when using the automatic setting in the camera you might ass well sign the photo by Nikon but take a photo with full control over av, sv, iso, focus, raw processing than you are taking the photos and not the camera). </p>

[johnmarsden]

 

<p >Now Micha, it has nothing to do with the make of camera you use. No, its all to do with how many memory cards you own. I have found consistently that my pictures improve the more memory cards I own and fill up, the blues are bluer and the reds redder, the compositions better. It may be that I buy the best I can afford (I use Scan Disk Extreme 3). But filling them up many times over with lots and lots of pictures seems to get the best out of my camera. The cards seem to improve the more times you fill them up.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Its a fact ask anyone else on this form – the memory cards improve with better photos coming off them the more often you use them.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So there you have it. Don't worry about what make of camera you are using just buy the best memory card you can afford. (Oh and get a decent lens on the front of your camera helps too.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Unless you shoot at high FPS rates, all the cameras are very similar in performance – I think they are all take about the same time to shoot at 1/250^th as each other. And there is not much in delay times for pressing the shutter release to image capture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So to improve your photography – get on with filling up lots of memory cards. </p>

<p >;-)</p>

[songtsen]

Re: post-processing, I decided to try film this year and discovered that it's fun not having to babysit .cr2 files!

[14mm 2.8l]

<p>Canon people go Nikon and Visa Versa. You pick one and decide on the other & switch (again)</p>

<p>What lenses do you own? What lenses do you wish you owned to achieve your vision?</p>

<p>For me a thing that ticked me off about Pentax was costly old tech 80-200mm 2.8 FA typically sold for more money than brand new eos or nikon made versions. So this year I added and completed my canon kit. I picked canon over nikon because at the time nikon had no affordable full frame (D700) and I can easily adapt other brand glass to eos: Olympus, Nikon, ect. Then when price made sense I added K20D and now I happily own two brands. One built around my f2.8 zoom desires and the other built around great manual focus K Mount glass I acquired over the years. I find it so easy to accurately manually focus old K-A mount with K20D thus its a joy to use.</p>

<p>It really depends on what lens or lenses you want to persue you photographic vision. Who offers it and then thats the mount you'll need to drive these lenses.</p>

<p>Me, I want to eventually own a D700 and Nikon 14-24mm 2.8. This nikon lens is supposed to be The King of superwide and seeing how this is a hobby where when one waits a year or two the better tools become more affordable. The Nikon pair issued at $3K & $1.8K= $4,800. Less than a year later B&H $2,319 & $1,489= 3,808 delivered. Thus the pair are down $1,000 or fully 20% and thats with a tanking dollar versus yen. Had the Dollar stayed strong against yen (these 2 nikon are made in japan) the discounts may have been deeper. I'll probably bite when the two hit $3000-$3200, so in reality likely a year from now: 2010</p>

<p> </p>

[y_lee]

<p>I would wager you a large sum of money that whatever deficiency you see in your photography is entirely yours, and not the camera's. Either you are not a sufficiently skilled photographer, or you do not yet know how to properly operate your camera. I guarantee it -- I guarantee that anyone who knows what they're doing can take beautiful pictures with your K200d.<br>

But most out there with the same problem don't seem to believe this, believing instead that the next Brand, or the next Lens, or the next Camera, is the cure. As if photography -- and making beautiful photographs -- is just a matter of (1) buying the best camera they can afford, and (2) pressing the shutter button. Unforunately, it isn't as easy as that.<br>

So, good luck to you.</p>

[garydem]

<p>micha g-i have read what you have said all over these and other forums. the refrain is " if i had dslr A and lens B i would be able to take better(the great) pictures." thje truth is thsatb if you know what you doing you can take quality pic with and camera, period. i m usina 4yr old dslr, a 6mp one, i know that if i change there will little if any differnce in my pics.<br>

my policy and the way i shoot is to take the shots in the field so that pp is unneccssary and and unneeded. the image quality from the field has to be that good. but please this- ALL DIGITAL PICS HAVE TO BE SHARPENED. itry to shoot in such a way that pping is kept to the absolute minamum.<br>

the truth about entry level dslr from sony nikon canon olympus and pentax is this-if you taek the same shot of exactly the same scene and print to 8x10 and then ask to pick the brands from the prints noone will be able to do it consistantly. what makes a differencxe in the quality of mthe final image is the photogragher the lenses and the dslr in that order. the first item named is by far the most important indetermining the quality of the image.<br>

currently, the thinking of dslr buyers is that they buy the dslr some lenses and in a month or two the will be able to learn how to take good/great images. well, it it is not going to happen. the real good photographers have spent their lifetimes learning how to shoot. to shoot properly takes time, a lot of time, like years. you have to be in different locations shooting different scenes under different light conditions and in differnent situations with different gear to be able to learn from all those shots. so that later you then apply what you did 5 yrs ago to the current picture taking problem. i have been shooting a slr/dslr since 1970 and i am still learning. and i will use what i am learning now in the future sometime. i shoot the pentax *istD, which is now over 4 yrs old.<br>

finally, to sum up if you think you will be happier with canikon, by all means spend the thousands of dollars and switch. but DO NOT THINK FOR ONE SECOND THAT CHANGING GEAR WILL MAKE YOU A BETTER PHOTOG, IT WILL NOT. but you might be happier with different gear, though your pics will not get better till you do. my advice is to learn what the different good techniques are and practice them and use them to take your images. learn all about proper exposure proper handholding technique proper stance how and when to use a tripod and not rely on SR to get the job done. and many many other proper ways to take a picture, then with your existing equipment your shots will improve. and also try to malke a max effort to get the good shot in the dslr and not in pp later. in other words take it right and not make it right.<br>

finally, you said you take your shots as a jpeg, as i do. did you know that you have to spend the time to properly setup your dslr to get the good shots or it will not? it is not setup from the factory. it took me 2 1/2 hrs to setup my dslr to get the good jpeg shots. you have to spend the time if you expect to get the shots later. below is a prewritten how to on setting up a dslr to get good jpeg shots. the dslr comes from the factory setup by some technician to take what he calls a good jpeg, it is not your idea.</p>

<p >to setup for jpeg with new camera- </p>

<p >there are 4 functions that may be adjusted. the color mode(or whatever it is called) saturation contrast and sharpening. i assume you are using a calibrated monitor. simply select a scene immediately outside your house. hopefully it has lights darks and colors. all settings in the camera are at zero or default. adjust color mode first then check the shot on the monitor, decide if ok, if not adjust reshoot and recheck. go on to each of the other adjustment settings. the object is to get the monitor scene as close a possible to the real scene outside. do not be concerned if the finished monitor scene has enough color for your tastes; the amount of color can be adjusted in pp. you are going for accuracy between the 2 scenes. the real and the one on your monitor; when done the 2 scenes should look identical or as close as possible. do not hurry. the adjustment process could take several hours. but once done leave the settings alone. at this point you know that the camera will accurately make the best most accurate pics possible of the scene. after i set my dslr up 3+ yrs ago about, i have not ever moved the settings. It took me 2-3 hours to setup my dslr.</p>

<p >if i needed/wanted more color or whatever that is what pp is for. i also try very hard to do my composing in the camera and not crop heavily in the pc. my thinking is why buy a 10mp camera and crop away 40%. you are then no better that a 6mp that is not cropped. besides which the cropped 10mp is noisier.</p>

<p >i would not adjust the contrast to get more DR. to me you just have to get used to the idea that digital has DR limitations. i shoot slides for 32yrs; the DR in digital and slides is about equal. i never had a problem. While DR limits exposure, lighting should/can be adjusted to compensate. if you want more headroom in your camera for taking jpegs, use adobeRGB color gamut. it gives slightly more headroom.<br>

 

<p> </p>

</p>

[john carter]

<p>I still don't see any difference between any DSLR and another in picture taking ability. To me the only difference is personal preference, ergonomics, and if you are really up tight; features. But the differences in pictures, I don't see them. I've seen more lousy pictures from Canon and Nikon than any other brands, but that is because there are more of them. It's easy to take a poor image. Maybe you ought to keep what you have and spend the money on a photo course, there are many online courses and tutorials.</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>1. Invest in glass. I know it's been said, but it's not the system - it's the glass and the photographer. The difference between a kit lens and a DA* lens on your camera will blow you away.</p>

<p>2. I'm sure this has been said, but due to time constraints, I just can not take time to look. I bet you're comparing their JPEG to your RAW. Seriously, that's like comparing apples and eggs. If pics are shot in jpeg, there's a LOT of settings that can be changes in camera to create great looking images w/o running them through PP out of the camera. You can adjust sharpness, saturation, everything to perfect what you're just shooting on your own. I consider that cheating (but I'll let Javi slide, cause he's cool and a pentaxian). I also don't like the amount of information I lose by shooting jpeg over raw, so....</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>one of the few differences with cameras is that a few- very few- were built as professional cameras-- this has no bearing on the quality<br>

of the photos. This has to do with will it stand up to hard daily use and bad enviroment. (tropis or desert cold or hot)<br>

and how may times can you drop it and will it keep on working.<br>

the photos produced will differ little if at all.</p>

<p>te are <br /> ptoblrematic" suck as the mechjanical leaf shutter slrs. and some very cheap brands<br>

some cameras are really " mateur" models with very few features, as oposed top too many features, some of which never work as expected.<br>

I will not mentoin names but a few 1960's models are just junk. or always had terrible lenses.</p>

<p>that said some poorly made cameras could and did take great photos until they broke.</p>

[wpoupore]

<p>

 

Micha,

<br />

Is it that you don't find the pictures from your Pentax to be as vibrant as other's you've seen? I've heard it said the Pentax chose a more "natural" tone for the default jpeg settings than other manufacturers. As a result to some the colours can look look dull compared to the over saturated colours that are produced by default from other camera brands. To be clear, I have not used any other brand DSPR, so I have absolutely no way to say if this is true or not, it's just what I've heard/read.

<br />

 

</p>

[daniel_tong1]

<p>>>>>>Dan Tripp , Dec 22, 2008; 12:33 a.m.<br /><br />I'll jump in. <br /><<<<<<</p>

<p>Dan<br>

I am with you. I only had chance shooting my lowly DL (and FA28mmF2.8) compared with those from a prof setup of Nikon D200, 17-55mm F2.8 and a huge flash bracket. He was paid arms and legs for wedding shots.<br>

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=584746&forum_id=94&jump_to=844312#p844312<br>

Some of the images of that link was not even taken by me. I let a novice shooter (another guest) taking pict of me of course with my setting.</p>

<p>Daniel </p>

<p> </p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Micha,<br /> <br /> As others have noted, your shots are very nice. Out of 600 shots that I would take on a vacation with any camera, any quantity of good'uns better than 5% makes me a very happy man.<br /> <br /> I am curious about too many complaints about lens quality that you are reading. Besides the DA* 16-50mm, which other lenses are you referring to? I also suggest you go to all the other camera brand-specific forums and see how satisfied owners are with every lens made by the manufacturer. And then compare this to Pentax. My intuitive guess is that it's all about the same.<br /> <br /> Regarding that 99% of in-camera excellence figure you threw out, please give me the contact information for all of those amateurs and i will hire them for my projects. Two months ago I led a team of 11 photographers on a grueling 5-day corporate event shoot. We were not able to do any post-processing. I was the only Pentax shooter. Everyone else was using Nikon or Canon. I reviewed about 5,000 jpegs. Across the board the quality of the prints ranged from outstanding to mediocre regardless of the brand of camera or lens manufacturer. I couldn't tell who shot what with what tool. And believe me, more than 1% were stinkers--actually the proportion of 5-star to 1-star photos was the same for all brands. It's the photographer's skills that makes the difference.<br /> <br /> If you find your shots consistently coming out soft, then I would question my diopter setting, then my jpeg settings (if jpegs are what you are measuring as a quality indicator), and finally my basic techniques. If softness was an objective issue with Pentax DSLRs, don't you think this forum and others would be flooded with kvetching? When I look at the dozens of images posted here, softness is one facet that just doesn't come to mind (and online is an inferior method to evaluate images).<br /> <br /> Finally, please help me better understand the meaning of "safer" in regards to camera use and branding. They all seem to work just fine to me.<br /> <br /> <br /> ME</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Hi Micha,<br>

There is a similar thread in the Canon forum asking if they should switch to Nikon because they are not satisfied with their Canon 40D, with an L lens which is well above entry level.</p>

<p>I agree with what has been said here, that the way equipment is used effects the outcome greatly, and as Maria said, comparing JPEG with RAW is looking at someone's post processing. I was going to say looking at someone's PP, but that didn't sound right.</p>

<p>I like what she said about cheating, but I go a lot farther in my view that RAW is also cheating (but the end result justifies the means). Any time you have to finagle a photo to make it look good is cheating IMO. And with a DSLR that is always necessary, in camera or out. It is as much or more an electronic device as it is a camera. Sharpening, for example, is necessary, and the amount is arbitrary. Why, they don't even test cameras for metering exposure accuracy any more . They can't. Too many infinite variables. Nothing is standardized. So everyone does their own thing in manipulating the electronics. Then there is an upside and downside to what they decide. I think more like you, Guy, and Javier, preferring to avoid PP and accept good JPEG results most of the time.</p>

<p>If you'd like to try another brand, I'd recommend the compact Nikon D80. Some great deals on it right now. My long-time Nikon shooting friend just bought one. I helped him do the research for his decision. Regardless of Joe Blow's impressions, the D80 is capable of better out of camera JPEGs than the D200, or the D300 as well. it has an extra fine control layout, and is well made, though not up to the standard of our K200D. No SR, of course. My friend still can't get over the quality of the little Pentax K100D I lent him for several weeks. And he loved the SR. The D90 was tested by dpreview and found with a tendency to over expose and blow out highlights, as I saw previously myself, where the D80 is less prone. The C&N kit lenses test similarly well as the Pentax model, but are built far inferior, so their performance could more easily go out of alignment. They don't even supply a lens hood.</p>

<p>What you'd likely see is brighter, more contrasty results with the D80 in default settings compared to the K200D, which I also own. The same is true as well of my K100D Super compared to the K200D. I find myself often setting my exposure comp to +.3 EV or even more on the K200D. I plan to experiment more wiith settings. I thnk its toned-down characteristic is a design decision to minimize highlight blowouts. But I find I have to pull images from it into PS and hit the auto contrast button, and maybe brightness too, far more often than with my K100D Super. But this is a matter of taste. Another poster wanted its output toned down even more for contrast. I found its high-ISO 800 and 1600 performance to be better than I expected for noise, but not quite as good as my K100D. I have not yet tried the in camera noise control. All the pentax K series DSLRs so far have displayed sharper detail preserved at ISO 400 and above compared with other brands, due to less agressive noise suppression. Dpreview found its default sharpening to be overdone. So I am considering trying -1 or a range of -1 to +1 and no more! All in all, I am getting quite sharp results, but some other aspects have needed more adjusting than I like to deal with. More using of camera settings is my next step.</p>

<p>You might even consider possibly picking up a new K100D Super. I still love it. The price is low, and its default JPEGs are very nice. Tristate camera still had some last time I looked. I usually shoot with a +1 or so sharpness adjustment, and that is it!! There is a recent post of photos from this camera. Then next year, after the new models are out and tested, you can go from there. In the meantime, a nice Limited prime lens would provide a unique and true pentaxian experience. The DA 21mm LTD is the focal length of most general, versatile use for a DSLR.</p>

<p>If you'd like to see some scientifically controlled side-by-side image comparisons between camera models, check imaging resource website. Click on compare sample images, and for past models, click on all cameras at the top. Use the house poster sample for detail and sharpness, as well as exposure and contrast. Click on the enlargement icon in the lower corner to get the blowup. I think you will be impressed with the sharpness of the K200D performance, and the K100D super as well. </p>

[ken_yee]

<p>One thing I do like about Nikon/Canon is their focusing sensors are smaller...i.e., when you put the selective focusing dot on something, you're fairly certain it's on that spot. With the K10D/K20D, it's quite a bit larger than the red spot in the viewfinder...not sure if the K200D is like that or whether that's the cause of what you believe is missed focus though. I have on occasion had my K10D lock on the background instead of the subject and I swear I got the focus dot on the subject :-P<br>

Put up an image as an example so we can analyze it...</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I just checked imaging resource, and their site is down for some reason. Hope that is temporary, because they have been an excellent source for info.</p>