narrowed to Nikon D80 or Pentax K20D which to buy?

[jdemoss99]

<p>I have narrowed the choice to a Nikon D80 or Pentax K20D. Both feel good in my hands and have what I need I think. This is new to me remember. I will learn as I go on how to take better pictures and more techniques on things. right now I want to make sure which ever I get will give me the best poosible pictures image wise. I know Pentax has the edge in some points and nikon in others but which will be the better camera for outdoor nature pics and then portraits for the kids and family.</p>

[paul_noble]

<p>Two major differences between the D80 and the K20D: the D80 has a 10.2 Megapixel sensor, while the K20D has a 14.6 MP sensor; the K20D has in-camera stabilization, while all Nikon cameras require stabilized lenses.</p>

<p>The 10.2 MP in the D80 is sufficient for most enlargement sizes. The 14.6 in the K20D allows you to crop the image quite a bit and still have plenty of enlargement capability.</p>

<p>The in-camera stabilization of the K20D means that any lens mounted to it will be stabiliized. This is not true on the D80. There are some great lenses available for Pentax out there on the used market. Pentax likes to claim that any Pentax lens made for 35mm or dslr cameras ever made will work on a K20D. There are some bargains out there. If you're going to buy all new lenses and have no lenses at the moment, this is a non-issue.</p>

<p>Theoretically, lenses for Pentax <em>should</em> be less expensive than the equivalent quality for a Nikon, because they don't need to stabilization mechanism in each lens. In reality, I'm not sure how true this is.</p>

<p>Both will give you great pictures.</p>

<p>Paul Noble</p>

[jdemoss99]

<p>I have read that in camera stabilization is not as good as the lens stabilization. are image quality equal or is one better than the other and what I mean by this is one better as far as clarity, sharpness, and accurate deep rich colors.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Yes in general in camera stabilization is probably not as good as VR or IS on the lens. I don't really know and can't definitively tell you one way or the other. I did find in my personal experience that a VR or IS lens can really boost shutter speed about 4 stops. I have not done in depth test of the in camera stabilizer with my Pentax but I am guessing that I get 2 may be 3 stops at the most.<br>

OTOH the in camera image stabilizer will work on every lens you mount on that camera body and you need a VR or IS lens to get image stabilization in every lens. That in itself is a substantial cost over time.<br>

With image stabilization you don't get higher quality image as far as clarity and dynamic range. You get less motion blur at slow shutter speed. The motion blur that is induced by your shaky hands.<br>

So you can do the math and see how much you want to pay for image stabilization in the lens.</p>

[jdemoss99]

<p>as far as the factors of image quality I stated is one better than the other</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>Jordan & Hansen are wrong about the SR (shake reduction) in-camera not being as good as in-lens IR. We shoot a LOT w/ natural light, sometimes because we can, sometimes because we HAVE to (weddings). We can shoot down to 1/10th of a second hand-held w/o problems, other than motion blur. How do I know? Shooting cars in dark parking lots, for starters. My husband has hand-held at 1/5th and we pixel peeped. No motion blur, no camera shake. We've easily gotten 3 & 4 stops out of SR. <br>

Also, SR has a LOT fewer moving parts, decreasing weight and helping long-life. The best part is, our 30 year old MF lenses are now "stabilized" lenses. No spending over $1k on lenses just to get stable images. No, stabilization will NOT affect your saturation and clarity (other than no hand-shake induced motion blur). That is determined by the quality of your glass.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Theoretically, lenses for Pentax <em >should</em> be less expensive than the equivalent quality for a Nikon, because they don't need to stabilization mechanism in each lens. In reality, I'm not sure how true this is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The DA* lenses easily save a LOT of $$ over buying IS lenses for Canon or Nikon. That is, we spent about $700 on our DA* 16-50 f2.8. Because of in-camera SR, I just saved at least $500 over buying a similar quality IS lens for the Nikon. And then we go back to the older lenses. It's not just a "claim" that all Pentax lenses work on this camera. Get an adapter (making sure it's a good, brand-name one) and you can now use your very old screw-mount glass on the brand new digital camera. You can also use your beautiful FA* lenses on this camera, have the same quality of glass as a DA*, get SR in-camera, and you just saved over $1200, not having to buy a brand-new Nikon lens w/ IS built in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pentax likes to claim that any Pentax lens made for 35mm or dslr cameras ever made will work on a K20D. There are some bargains out there. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, this is absolutely true. Unfortunately, it is precisely because the old lenses work on the new body, prices on used have been shooting up. The bargains are out there, but you have to be willing to look, and savvy enough to not over-pay on e-bay.</p>

<p>Why I am I so strongly on the Pentax band-wagon? Because of the value for price. <br>

We have 1 "stable" income (you know, the ones that come w/ benefits) and our photo business. Our equipment was bought without taking loans, we have high-end cameras, with high-end glass, taking sharp pictures, and making crisp, large prints. No way we could have done this with a brand other than Pentax. I am loyal, and 95% of that is the value I got for the price I paid, which was well within our budget.</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>PS - we take both outdoor (landscape) photos and portraits. I do not have direct experience with the Nikon in my own hands, BUT - other than already knowing what brand I carry, I would challenge anybody to post their best portrait and their best landscape against one of ours. I would then dare you to guess the brand based on image alone.</p>

[benjaminoliverhicks]

<p>I believe the pentax is weather sealed too. That is a big advantage for some.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>LOL, well Maria I may have a different opinion on the shake reduction capability of my Pentax camera versus the VR performance of my Nikon or IS performance of my Canon but I don't think I am wrong.;-) </p>

[jptreen]

<p>Benjamin, with reference to the weather-sealing, try doing this with a Nikon D80 and without having a heart-attack...</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3417/3252977408_8cc57018fb.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="500" height="334" /></p>

[musings]

<p>I have briefly shot with both the D80 and K20 (I own a K10, though), and found that both cameras were excellent. The advantages of the K20 that others stated above are quite clear, and I have seen diehards of both Nikon and Canon make the switch to Pentax K20 without ever looking back.</p>

<p>While both cameras produce excellent images, overall the edge belongs to the K20: (1) higher MP, (2) weather sealing in the body AND DA* lenses, (3) in-camera shake/vibration reduction (works on all lenses), and (4) generally lower unit prices.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>I have used a D80 and a K10D (my main camera), and I have to give the nod to the Pentax, which means the K20D would get an even bigger nod.</p>

<p>However, it all depends on what your photography goals are. Both cameras will take great pictures, as will most DSLRs on the market. If you shoot RAW (and even JPEG), the difference in the pictures themselves will be impossible to see. The differences between the two cameras lie in their features: The K20D is much more feature-rich than the D80. Here are just some features of the K20D that the D80 is lacking:</p>

<ul>

<li>in-body stabilisation</li>

<li>multiexposure mode</li>

<li>custom autofocus adjustment (this alone makes it worth the buy) </li>

<li>weather-sealing</li>

<li>ability to use old, manual focus lenses (the D80 won't meter with them)</li>

<li>in-camera RAW-to-JPEG conversion</li>

<li>in-camera dynamic range extender</li>

<li>mirror lock-up not buried in menus </li>

</ul>

<p>If any of these are important to you, then the K20D is the camera for you; if they are not, then go with either camera. In the end, the quality of the pictures you take is going to depend solely on...you. :-)</p>

<p>I should also mention that they are different sizes. The K20D is slightly bigger. I find it very comfortable and think it has great ergonomics, but this is always a personal matter. I would recommend that you handle both cameras to figure out if size and shape will be an issue for you.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I'm another Pentax shooter, have a *ist DS2, K10D, and K20D; am happy with the Pentax system. That being said, if there was no Pentax, it would be a D80 or D90 for me. Others have listed the many benefits here. If you want to save a few dollars, pick up a used K10D as it also deserves to be in this group. I will say that these are both full-featured enthusiast-level bodies with only modest concessions to price point--mostly framerate and APS-C sensor. </p>

<p>To add to Miserere's feature list, the K20D also has a (very rudimentary) live view feature. I don't think you'd want to shoot with it often but I have used it for more precise framing. The main reasons I upgraded to K20D from K10D were the AF adjustment capability plus another ~2/3EV improvement in high ISO quality. TAv shooting mode (manual shutter & aperture combined with auto ISO) can be very handy, as far as I know this is unique to Pentax right now. Even if VR is slightly more effective (on the lenses that offer it) than SR in-body stabilization, it would be offset here by the slightly better high-ISO performance which would allow for slightly higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Some niceties the D80 offers that K20D does not - On-demand LCD gridlines in viewfinder, and configurable minimum shutter speed for auto-ISO. Also has a dedicated AF illuminator rather than strobing the built-in flash.</p>

<p>I think you should make your decision based on the lenses you're planning to buy. For one thing, they're likely to outlast whichever of these bodies you choose. Pentax DA17-70/4 (or DA 16-45/4) and DA55-300/4-5.8 make for a really compelling mid-range zoom kit if that's what interests you. And Pentax has some marvelous recently designed-for-digital compact prime lenses available. There's some great used glass out there too, all can be stabilized.</p>

<p> </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>". . .which will be the better camera for outdoor nature pics and then portraits for the kids and family?"</p>

<p>Okay, sometimes when people ask this kind of question, I think maybe they overlooked something obvious. All camera companies know that their customers want to take these kinds of pictures. Unless the "kind" of picture is so highly specialized, like underwater or in space or mounted to an aircraft or something, the camera companies pretty much have designed their cameras to operate well within the tolerances of taking those kinds of photos. So really, any major camera company's product will be able to do well with those types of pictures.</p>

<p>For the outdoors (and for a household where kids spill stuff), the Pentax has the weather sealing built in. That might help out. Otherwise, they are both good cameras. Personally, I would recommend the Pentax because I like that company and have used their equipment for years; "any Pentax lens ever made", I have a telephoto from at least 1968 that I still use with my K200D and my film cameras. That said, Nikon is such a reputable company, that if you like their products, there is no reason why they wouldn't be a good choice for you. Occasionally a big company will produce a dud, but it's not like Nikons are the Edsels of the camera world. I would really advocate Pentax for economy, durability and quality. It's been a really good company that has a long history of innovations and successes. But, you'll have to make up your own mind, and go for what you know. It's very unlikely, unless you happen to get some kind of unusual "lemon" of a unit, that the brand name of the equipment is going to be what limits you. [psst, Go Pentax!] Good luck. J.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Those kinds of pictures might affect focal length choice in lenses. So, the Pentax offers more choices in that area. But, the kind of picture is not likely to affect the camera body itself. You probably already realized this, but sometimes it gets buried in the back of the mind during the problem. Proceed with confidence!</p>

[rparmar]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=939884">John-Paul Tree</a> : nice shot!<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4838265">Jordan Tyler</a> : just buy the K20D and a fast 50. Then learn about photography by doing photography. You can be sure it won't be your camera holding you back.<br>

Or, buy the Nikon. Same thing. Except not in the snow.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p >This is one of my photos I use to illustrate how affective SR is , This shoot was taken with K10d with a sigma 50-500mm lens at 500mm F8 1/6sec iso280 with a tripod. You might say well you used a tripod that’s not fare to judge SR, well that day was a very windy day mounted on a tripod fully extended at 1/6sec shutter is a very long exposure for a focal length at 500mm. I tried a bean bag on the lens, MUL, stabilizing the tripod with camera bag with no luck, I bumped up the iso to1600 and under exposed the shot at 1/320sec with no luck. As a last resort turn on the SR and got a prettygood shot at 1600iso, dropped the iso to 640 shutter around 1/80sec not a bad shot dropped the iso to 280 shutter 1/6sec bang and there’s the shot. I hope this helps you <br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8477926&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8477926&size=lg</a><br>

Ian Forsyth</p>

 

[jdemoss99]

<p>Damn nice shot with one of those non market leading pentax. The more I look at what people have to say the more I am impressed with this little unknown company called Pentax :)</p>