K20D or new Pentax?

igor_kernes · June 25, 2009

Hello everybody,

I think to upgrade my k100d. What is better to get K20D now or wait for new model and why?

Thank for your inputs

phule · June 25, 2009

[[i think to upgrade my k100d]]

why?

igor_kernes · June 25, 2009

to get options to play.

bueh · June 25, 2009

?

mountainvisions · June 25, 2009

You can't go wrong either way.

The K20D is a big step up and cheap, the K7 is a big step up and more expensive.

Just look at the spec sheet and decide what you need. Since the K7 isn't out yet, all we have is a few people telling us it's a nice camera, but mass reviews, mass complaints, mass praise is what I prefer. What makes a nice camera for Joe X doesn't necessarily make a great camera for Cindy Y. And early reviewers are usually blow away by specs rather than how the camera works, nagging issues don't come out for weeks or months into it.

The K7 is smaller, faster, potentially more durable and better sealed. It also can use AA batteries in the grip. It shoots video, and it has some new features that K20D doesn't besides what I listed.

The K20D is a nice camera, as was the K10D, big steps up from anything Pentax made digitally prior. I would think the K20D would suit most peoples needs condidering that with a little luck you can get 2 K20s for close to the price of one K7, plus used grips and 3rd party batteries are much cheaper, but if you need 5fps and video than the K7 is the only way to go.

michael_elenko · June 25, 2009

Igor,

I think you'll get better quality feedback if you can better articulate why you need to upgrade your camera (though Justin's comments are thoughtful). Otherwise, the situation you are presenting is "a tool looking for a solution."

ME

michael_kuhne · June 25, 2009

The K100D is a very good compact model. It produces very fine JPEG results right out of the camera. It would make a fine compact alternate and backup if you decide to get a K20D. The K20D produces very crisp, sharp JPEGS. It has a wider range of image control options, and a great control layout. The price now for such a camera is terrific. If you live in the US, you can apply for a 3-year warranty if bought by the end of July.

As to the K7, as Justin says, it costs more but has more features. It is regarded as very reasonably priced for what it offers. In terms of image quality and performance, we just don't know yet.

markus maurer · June 25, 2009

Justin, didn't I read here somewhere that the K20D is noisier at ISO 100-400 than the K10D but much better at high ISO? If yes, it would not be such a big step forward for my shooting habits, I mostly use ISO 100-200.

stemked · June 25, 2009

The image quality should be equilivant between the K20D and K-7 so as I read it:

1) K20D is a much better deal

2) The K-7 is a smaller (lighter) body

3) The K-7 has video capability

4) As I read it it should be possible with the screen to do some very fine detailed focusing like I have seen with Canon digitals. This would be useful to me because I have trouble with the K10D fine focusing with my 500mm f4.5 Takumar (my eyes aren't what they used to be). If I could afford the K-7 (unlikely) I think this would be my main reason to buy it.

I also have a LOT of issues getting dirt on the sensor, I haven't been real pleased with how effectively the auto wipe cleans the sensor on the K10D. As Justin notes if the camera is better sealed I would hope this would be less of an issue.

jtk · June 25, 2009

K7 isn't significantly lighter.

As well there seems no hint that it makes a better print than K20D...may actually be inferior. So a key question is, do you prioritize prints? Me, I do. Another question , are you buying for looks or performance? Personally, I like the bowling ball look of K10D and K20D and have no doubt that they're as weatherproof as K7 unless one spends a lot of time at the South Pole.

mike_cruk · June 25, 2009

John - what makes you suspect the K7 will provide inferior prints? I can't think of anything currently known that would suggest that, but I'll admit to not having done an extensive search.

Igor - I'd opt for the K20D and some nice glass. I'm not sure what you have by way of lenses, but the price difference between the K20D and K7 (approx US$650) is enough that you could basically take your pick from lots and lots of very nice lenses. Of course, I also happen to like a larger camera, and the fact that the K10D (which I own) and K20D are very similar in operation would colour my influence.

s_brown2 · June 25, 2009

I'm also considering an upgrade from the k100d (non-super) to the k20d.

The main annoyance with my k100d is poor autofocus. When using heavier lenses (eg. Sigma 30mm f1.4) it's really slow to focus. The focusing points on the left and right-most of the screen are also pretty poor (are these lines rather than cross sensors?) and don't really work at all in low light. In general focusing in low light with a fast lens is generally not great, and trying to focus on a moving target not good either.

Sooooo... how much better is the k20d in this respect. The k7 is certainly expected to be a significant improvement on the k20d, but is the k20d already much better than the k100d? I'm not shooting sport, but I want a body that can handle shooting moving objects indoors when using a heavier lens... for example, a slow moving toddler or a cat.

I understand this area of autofocus (low light, moving objects) is one of the toughest situations for any camera. But it seems the earlier Pentax models (like the k100d) were particularly weak in this respect. I'm interested to know whether I'd notice much improvement going from my k100d to the k20d. Thanks!

les_lammers · June 26, 2009

I would go for the K20 and use it until the K7 has been 'field tested' by normal users. If you later decide the K7 is for you it will be cheaper and selling the K20 will further reduce the cost of the K7. I would like a K7 but do not *need* one. I really don't have any complaints about the K20. :-)

jtk · June 26, 2009

Mike, the entirely unvalidated "rumor mill" has it that K7 files may be slightly inferior to K20D files for large prints. If one doesn't make large prints rumor should be ignored, especially if one orders from a prosumer lab rather than making one's own (if one was more demanding, one would print one's own or use an expensive professional lab, just like in film era, right? )

Whether the rumor's true or not, I've seen NO suggestion that K7 has ANY advantage over K20D for a demanding amateur still photographer.

K7 isn't professional equipment in the sense of Canon 5DII or Nikon D700, but except for lack of strobes as serious as Canon/Nikon's, it's equivalent to D90/D300... as is K20D.

K7 does have video (rival D90?), it promises to work at sub-zero (can be real : I've had antique Leicas freeze @ zero). Otherwise K7 seems a cosmetic improvement for people who prefer its retro-look to K10/20's Leica R9/bowling-ball-blob look.

Pay the extra $800 for looks?

mountainvisions · June 26, 2009

"a tool looking for a solution."

</blockquote>

I was thinking the same thing and started writing a smartass comment which probably wouldn't have been appreciated.

Bottom line is unless the K7 just smokes the IQ of the K20 to the point it is leaps and bounds better, it's a tough call without knowing the OPs needs and wants.

mountainvisions · June 26, 2009

Justin, didn't I read here somewhere that the K20D is noisier at ISO 100-400 than the K10D but much better at high ISO? If yes, it would not be such a big step forward for my shooting habits, I mostly use ISO 100-200.

</blockquote>

Interestingly I've been saying this all along. The K20D really wasn't a camera K10 users should have upgraded to UNLESS they were people who had expendable income and just wanted a new toy. Not saying anyone was foolish for getting a K20D, it was a BETTER K10D in most regards. But not overwhelmingly better as some people desperately wanted to believe. And I'm not going to bash the Samsung CMOS because you have to admit, for a 1st gen CMOS from Samsung in a Pentax camera, the IQ was very very decent, and held it's own against the competition.

The IQ comparison of both cameras was very similar, and even at high ISO it was ONLY a half to 2/3 stop difference with proper exposure. And that difference was more like 1/2 stop overall with 1/3 in the highlights and 2/3 stop in the shadows (and I feel I am being generous at 2/3 stop, but my experience was ISO 2500 = 1600 on K10D). I never saw the 2 stop difference that a lot of early people were claiming, I wonder if they were using flashes for fill ligth. Afterall, remember how crystal clean those Dave Black Nikon D3 images were at 6400...they were also strobed which makes a big difference in apparent noise. Subsequent images looked good, but not nearly as perfect.

So for me, like you, the K20 was sort of a push. I do use high ISO, and i appreciate it being good, but I mostly use ISO 100-400 (and usually <200).

mountainvisions · June 26, 2009

John,

I've never been a fan of generalizations, perhaps it's because I'm so anti-establishment. Probably why I shoot Pentax.

I think quite a few pros use 50D and D300s, thus if the K7 is equivalent to a D300 in your words (and actually it seems superior) than it's a "pro" camera depending on what that actually means.

never been a fan of pigeon holing cameras. I'm sure being a seasoned photographer you know who David Burnett is? I just read a great photo essay in the Smithsonian (this months issue) on his coverage of the 1969 moon launch, he used all sorts of cameras and his base digital cameras are the 10/20/30/40/50D Canons. I do not believe he uses D3/1D level cameras at all, even for his sports coverage, I could be wrong but that was my impression based on interviews I have seen. He does however still use a Speed Graphic!!! http://www.davidburnett.com/

here is a shot with the speed graphic

http://www.davidburnett.com/photos/2004%20Politics/

I live down the block from an AP photographer who uses, Canon XXD series as well. Doesn't own a 1D at all. And when I watch C-SPAN those guys and gals are using XXD series as well with 70-200 lenses mostly.

K7 does have video (rival D90?), it promises to work at sub-zero (can be real : I've had antique Leicas freeze @ zero)

</blockquote>

The ist D, K10 and K20D all worked below 0F with no issues. Spent 2 nights with daytime highs never reaching double digits, and night time lows being well below 0F with the only warmth the camera or batteries got was during cooking snow melting time with the hanging stove. For those 2 hours it was close to 40F in the tent.

Pentax K10D, DA 21mm, diffused on camera flash.

mountainvisions · June 26, 2009

http://www.davidburnett.com/photos/Personal/2/5/

Here is David with a Canon camera with a popup flash, 1D series don't have these!!!

jtk · June 26, 2009

Justin, a few pros have always shot Pentax (some even shoot Holga), but they're a small minority for good reasons. The Spotmatic had very sloppy registration between view and frame, for example...that earned Pentax a sub-professional reputation by comparison to Nikon F and, later, Canon F1. As well, Pentax prism couldn't be removed/replaced for specialized prisms. Pentax became known as a great "student" camera. My oldest friend carried a Spotmatic in Vietnam combat for two years and he still uses it today, no CLA. Tough camera.

Pro" doesn't refer to build quality or image quality IMO, it refers something a professional should reasonably get involved with ... IMO that excludes a camera that has crucial built-in limitations (iffy Pentax strobes, lack until K20D of proper PC plug) .

If somebody figured out a way to make Nikon strobes FULLY compatible with Pentax, a lot of Pentax shooters would buy Nikon strobes. And nobody would buy Pentax strobes. Disagree?

mountainvisions · June 26, 2009

John,

I wouldn't disagree with that as far as the strobes.You could also add long fast glass...300 f/4 doesn't cut it either.

That said, I wouldn't agree the PC port is a biggy. Pentax did have a PC port on most prior cameras, and the ones that didn't could be fitted with hot shoe F (i think that is the magic letter).

Overall, with the increase in build of the K7 (I'm assuming the build is good, better than K10/20 which I felt was very solid), better shutter (again from what I've heard), and finally a legit 5fps, it's really only lacking improved flash support which I've been vocal about for a long time.

I'm not really sure the Nikon CLS is the gold standard though, I see a lot of complaints about it as well (though seemingly fewer as it's evolved). It might be better than Canons version, but I don't think it's perfect. Are both better than Pentax? Almost definitely, but quite a few pros don't work with any fancy strobe setups, so I'm not entirely sure Pentax should be disregarded unless strobing with IR is necessary. I know you follow strobist, the basis of strobist is "dumb" flash and RF triggers which have fewer variables.

I'd say the biggest arguement against Pentax at this point (and really this debate isn't something I particularly care about) is the lack of a "Professional Services" division.

Nevertheless, the system certainly is upward bound as a whole.

jtk · June 27, 2009

IMO Pentax became the best possible prosumer DSLR (for this momentary marketing era) with K10/20D, for people who want solid simplicity with superb sensor, superb pancake primes. Not the same as professional needs. I'm not professional. I bought Pentax because I wanted something better overall than the midpriced Nikons/Canons...I didn't need fancy strobes, but I would if I was a serious news, sports or wedding photographer. When time comes to replace K20D I want something a lot better than K7, like a far-less-expensive Leica digital M. Oly's new mini 4/3 is promising, but the sensor's too tiny for me. Maybe Pentax will make a a compact APS in that style, non-DSLR...big, bright optical finder. That wouldn't be "professional," just as Leica M8 probably shouldn't be considered that way.

timothy_wong · June 30, 2009

I am happy with both my k10d and my k20d. the k7 looks like a very nice upgrade. both are very capable cameras and im sure you would be happy with either.

Sample images k10d

k20d

photom · July 7, 2009

K7 is clearly a better value if you add up all of the additional design features. The price difference is $650. I think someone earlier said $800 which is incorrect. BUT, if these numerous body and function features are not important to you to take good photos (for example landscape shots only with tripod) then the $650 in features will not mean much to you and it is probably a waste. The sensor image quality by itself will not enable you to justify the cost difference.

talmage · July 15, 2009

I upgraded my *-ist DL to a K20D. I'm enjoying the bigger pictures I can make with it. I'm not enjoying the weight or the size. Compared to what I'm used to, it's big and heavy.

Sign In

K20D or new Pentax?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in