Pentax K20D vs Kr

[dave_dejoy]

<p>Here is my question. Should I buy a used K20D or a new Kr if they are about the same price (body only)? Weather seals nice but not essential. Durability important though. Most important issue is image quality. I like my Ist D but remain disapppointed with image quality. have a bunch of Pentax lenses.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I have both. Both are very fine for different reasons. If you have a "D" original model, not "DL" or other variation, you will appreciate the similar pro style control layout of the K20D, with both rear thumb and front finger dials, and more on-body controls instead of in menu. But it is a significantly larger body than either thr the "D" or the K-r, which is quite compact .</p>

<p>In terms of IQ and picture-taking results in general- the K-r is way better than the K20D for indoor lighting, low light use, and for action shooting, especially if not in bright daylight. Much better in terms of low noise at higher ISO settings, much better auto white balance under artificial lighting, has a much better LCD screen, much better live view, and of course it has pretty good video capability where the K20D has none. It also has better adjustments for dynamic range (control of shadow or highlight detail protection), and for customization of lens performance. If you mostly do outdoor shooting under daylight conditions, rarely shoot at ISO 1600 or above, and interested in still photos only, a lightly used K20D in top condition would be the better option hands down if the size/weight is not a factor. That is when I still use my K20D as a preference beyond question. A K20D with a WR lens is also a nice setup for shooting in drippy conditions.</p>

[laur1]

<p>Tough choice - the K20D is better built, the K-r has a better sensor. If you often shoot at higher ISO - above 800 - go for the K-r. K-r also has some features you'll miss in K20D - LiveView, HDR mode, more control for Extended DR setting, maybe a few others. K20D has better controls, better viewfinder, the weather sealing, etc. It's build vs better sensor - take your pick.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Are you shooting the ist D in RAW? Because if you are, the IQ of that camera is excellent for the age of the camera. As a matter of fact, though subsequent D/DS/DL/K100D series cameras using that sensor did see JPEG rendering improvement, the RAW capture on the ist D was virtually identical.</p>

<p>The ist D was definitely not as good as the K10D or K20D, no doubt about it, but it's capable of producing publishable images to this very day when shooting RAW.</p>

<p>That said, it's time for an upgrade. The ist D was a great camera for it's era, but when the Pentax Q is producing similar quality imaging, you know you are hanging on a bit too long. No to mention the LCD is tiny and many useful features are missing.</p>

<p>Also, the K20D does have Live View. Though it's a half hearted beta attempt at it. It could be useful, but I never used it much. When the K-7 came out, I really started using Live View.</p>

<p>Also, why not look at the K-7, I cannot imagine they cost much more than the K20D. Smaller, better build, faster. Fully functional Live View + better LCD. I don't care much about video mode, but if it's a throw-in, I'm fine with having it. And I'm sure that no matter how little you care about video there will be a time or two you are glad to have the option.</p>

<p>The K20D was a lost generation of camera for Pentax. It came in the midst of the Hoya takeover, and when you look at the features, it's clear the camera wasn't finished. Live View should have said BETA on it. And the 21fps burst mode was clearly an attempt at video, perhaps had they had a few more months they could have finished the camera.</p>

<p>IQ of the K-7 is better (overall) than the K20D. Lower ISO I give the K-7 a slight edge. Higher ISO I give the K20D a slight edge. I'm guessing, though, that with a quick look at a print, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the K-7 and K20D at any ISO.</p>

<p>Ironically, the K-7 is universally felt to be an inferior camera to the K20D. The irony is the imaging is about equal, yet the K-7 is significantly more feature packed.</p>

<p>Too me, the K20D will always be the camera Pentax shouldn't have released. It should have been K10D, K-7, K-5. If there had to be a camera between those, they should have made a K10DS with fully baked Live View and ISO 3200!</p>

<p>The only negative of the K-7 over the K20D is the shutter vibration at 1/50th to 1/160th of a second. This really is only relevant when shooting on a tripod, because all other instances you probably are causing more unsharpness via your hand or focus errors from minute movements. As a matter of fact, with a stout tripod/head combination, the shutter vibration becomes quite a bit less of an issue and can even be virtually eliminated.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ironically, the K-7 is universally felt to be an inferior camera to the K20D. The irony is the imaging is about equal, yet the K-7 is significantly more feature packed.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't get this either. At current values, the K-7 is a real bargain. The difference in IQ are very slight but the feature differences are real. I particularly appreciate the better 920K LCD, quiet shutter, speedier operation (fps, etc.), better 77-segment metering (I know more segments doesn't necessarily mean everything but I feel the K-7 is better at avoiding blown highlights and less-frequently fooled by specular highlights. I think AF and white balance are a bit better too. The smaller body has some trade-offs ergonomically but I think Pentax did a pretty good job making stuff fit.</p>

<p>I found the K20D to be a bit of a disappointing upgrade vs. the K10D. Difference wasn't what I had hoped for. Across all these cameras, including my *ist DS2 (similar to your *ist D), I still don't feel blown away by the differences in image quality. I think the biggest jump for me was to K10D where the improved handling and speed were most obvious.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>You and I could not agree more on this topic.</p>

<p>For some reason, people were very defensive and very proud of the K20D, but I'll always look at it as the camera Pentax shouldn't have produced. Coming off the buzz of the K10D, it was a serious let down.</p>

<p>Why? It wasn't a big enough step up from the K10D, so many people like myself chose not to buy it. The extra pixels were nice, but beyond that the K20D offered very few real advantages. I think it was pushed out by Hoya or pushed out because of the Hoya takeover. In either case, it just wasn't a complete camera. It was the K10DS or the K20D Beta, but not a finished product. And even at the time I was reviewing it, I kept thinking, I wonder why they didn't do this or that to complete this feature or that feature. Then when the K-7 came out it canabilized sales of that camera because the IQ difference between the K-7 and K20D was marginal. People basically said, "I'm not dropping another $1000 because they changed the sheet metal." So Pentax wasted production capacity and probably profits on two cameras when they could have produced one camera!</p>

<p>If someone put both the K-7 and K20D in front of you, with no names on them, and said try both these cameras out for 2 months, I am EXTREMELY doubtful many would actually choose the K20D.</p>

<p>I'll finish by saying this, the K-7 wasn't the K-5, it wasn't what everyone was hoping for, but it was NOT Windows Vista. It was a very good camera, and definitely a better value than the K20D!</p>

<p> </p>

[rparmar]

<p>Justin, your point of view is dated and not relevant to someone making a decision <em>today</em>. I fully support your decision to not buy the K20D since you already had the K10D. But how could the K20D not be "a complete camera" when it was an upgrade to the K10D? I suppose that would mean the K10D was even less a finished camera... yet you did OK with it.</p>

<p>Important K20D features not present on the K10D are the dedicated bracketing button, intervalometer, live view and in-camera RAW development (it's won me publications). The extended ISO and extra pixels don't hurt at all.</p>

<p>I think in some ways the K20D was the pinnacle of the Pentax line-up. The doors and latches, extra switches and base ISO performance have not been bettered. I would choose it over the K-r today, since usability is the number one feature for me. The ability to focus adjust for 10 lenses is also <em>absolutely essential</em> for anyone considering auto-focus.</p>

<p>Of course if you have the money for the K-5 go for it. But I don't remember that being the question.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I suppose you could argue that. But not exactly. Sometimes a product is rushed to market, and anyone with any knowledge of what the feature should have been will see that it was not completed. We see this all the time in the tech world when products (software, hardware, or a combination) are rushed to market. We also see it frequently in first year vehicles.</p>

<p>Live View on the K20D was and is entirely useless. So useless I completely abandoned it. Not to mention the LCD was just too low res to fully utilize it. And getting to Live View on the K20D was no picnic. You either had to give up optical/digital preview or you had to menu dive! Neither option was worth it for the grainy poorly gained image on the K20D's screen. Nor was it worth it when you had to change a setting and exit the mode and re-enter it.</p>

<p>As far as usability. The K-7 is far more usable. But it depends on what you shoot. If you read my review I note how suited the k-7 is for shooting off a tripod, and how I actually used the new features. If you read it and went, "who gives a rats behind", then you are correct, the camera wasn't necessarily a better camera for you (or the OP).</p>

<p>The K-7 is also a much faster camera and it has improved auto focus over the K20D as well, not to mention real video. So it also has many advantages over the K20D.</p>

<p>As I noted above, just because a feature is important to me, doesn't mean it should be to you. I get that and am not arguing it at all. For example, I never used the in camera RAW (which BTW, was present on the K10D), aside from a long train ride where I needed to kill time. I haven't used the intervalometer (which is present on the K-7) more than a few times on both cameras combined. And I actually feel the base ISO imaging of the K10D is better than the K20D. I'm not the only one that felt this way. The only flaw the K10D had was the banding at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>I'm not 100% sure what you mean my point of view is dated and not relevant. The K-7 is a superior camera to the K20D, it's also built better than the K-x. If the OP was looking at the K-x but thinking about the K20D, it would seem to me the camera that gives him the features and size of the K-x + the build/sealing and external controls of the K20D is not the K20D, but the K-7!</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Let us not forget yet other advancements, like user control of NR for higher ISO, Pentax' first implementation of DR highlight protection, both of which also appeared on the K200D and are useful features- at least to some including myself. Then there's the K20D's first ever fine tuning of lens focus adjustment. Very useful. jpeg quality was also considerably improved for those who shoot jpeg images. All in all, I felt it to be a worthy set of advancements over the K10D. I am kind of coming from a different point of view than Justin's as my shooting methods differ. I was never really taken with the K10D, although I respected its design and build. When the K-7 emerged, I could not see enough advancement in it over the K20D that would address my needs, and was a little disappointed with its higher ISO performance, so there was no justification in my case to spend so much more for a K-7 over the tremendous deal offered for a new left-over K20D. I understand Justin's point of view, but it doesn't fit for me. If Pentax would have just kept with the K10D until the K-7 came out, but merely introduced the K200D as they did, I would have just gone with only the K200D and still skipped the K-7, even though the K-7 has so many more features.</p>

<p>Now for me, the K-5 is another ball game. Great feature set with fast operation plus superb high ISO performance, should be super fine for sports, other action, and low light conditions. Its reputed excellent DR is something I have seen in images K-5 owners have presented. That capability will have me shooting RAW+jpeg more often for certain shots!! The K-r is no slouch, way above average for its class, and I will certainly hang on to this little baby for quite a while. But the K-5 appears to be really something. I have seen reference regarding a greater tendency for purple fringing, as was the K10D, but not a problem with K20D or K-7. That seems to me a minor imperfection compared to all that the K-5 offers. It has my head turned, especially with the latest rebate offer, presumably to clear stock to make way for the new model soon to come.</p>

<p>I have a feeling that a good used K20D is substantially less costly than a good used K-7. I will look and find an exaple of IQ in lower indoor lighting with both K20D and K-r, but not right now.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Justin wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not 100% sure what you mean my point of view is dated and not relevant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's dated because the question is not now between the K10D and the K20D (as it was when the K20D was first released) though several of your comments were made in light of that viewpoint. It no longer matters that the K20D was a relatively small advance over the K10D, not worth the money (to some) at the time of release. It <em>was</em> an advance and that's what matters now. Used prices being a wash between these bodies, anyone would go for the later model, despite any limitations of Live View (which I do find useful, BTW, for macro and product shots). The camera has too many useful and one or two indispensable tools not present in the K10D. (Though thanks for the correction on RAW development. I can see how some would never use this, but the feature got me a publication when I had to shoot an event and then submit immediately from a mobile press station.)</p>

<p>Justin wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The K-7 is a superior camera to the K20D, it's also built better than the K-x. If the OP was looking at the K-x but thinking about the K20D, it would seem to me the camera that gives him the features and size of the K-x + the build/sealing and external controls of the K20D is not the K20D, but the K-7!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Last time I checked the K-7 cost a lot more, which might be why the OP is not considering it. But in any case it is not true that the K-7 is superior on every point, one of those being image quality. I have the K-x, which is widely accepted as having significantly better IQ than the K-7, and yet I never shoot with it. My own tests have shown the high ISO performance to be largely exaggerated by in-camera processing. I can accomplish (almost) the same in post if I need to, and the K20D images are more robust when subject to post-processing. To be clear, the K-x is better at high ISO, but not enough for me to give up the superior low ISO performance of the K20D (or K10D for that matter).</p>

<p>I admit that this is a small point and the differences may not matter to anyone else.</p>

<p>The K-5 I have not shot with enough to know how it fares (only one wedding). But its myriad other improvements would recommend it over the K20D even if IQ suffered slightly. It's a matter of degree and tipping scales. We all have different priorities, as you say. I would especially like the quiet shutter of this and the K-7.</p>

<p>Between the K-r and the K20D I would shoot the latter <em>no doubt at all</em> for these reasons: two dials, per lens focus tuning, Pentaprism finder, base 100 ISO. These are not frills but essentials to me. Many would add weather-sealing to the list.</p>

[henkc]

<blockquote>

<p>It wasn't a big enough step up from the K10D, so many people like myself chose not to buy it. The extra pixels were nice, but beyond that the K20D offered very few real advantages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was if you already had a K10D. When I upgraded from my K100D, the K20D (which was the next step up at the time) offered a great deal more camera. When the K7 came out, it didn't seem that much of an upgrade.</p>

[doug_nelson3]

<p>I am considering doing exactly that. I gave my K20D, the kit zoom and the 55-300 to my son. It's the best way to get pics of the grandkids out of him. I use Canon full-frame gear for my most serious stuff, but I find myself missing Pentax. I still have my DA 21 and FA 35 f2. I want to be able to use these little gems, adding a 70 Limited. I am considering the K-r because of its compact size, light weight, half a grand price, it's distortion correction of jpg's, intervalometer, and decent RAW captures. I found nothing wrong with the K20D's performance, and am happy to find that many of you think the K-r is even better. I may even wait for a price drop on the K-5.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The K-5 is now being offerd with a $300 instant rebate from its now current list of $1,500. This means $1,200 out the door with free shipping from Adorama and B&H, two of the most reliable stores. I suspect that's about as low as the new price will get, since no new stock is being sent out pending the new incoming model. I just ordered one from B&H!</p>

<p>Here are two good examples taken under indoor lower light conditions using the same lens, same subject, at the same event. I was taking some practice shots to evaluate the situation during the speakers' time at a graduation so when the graduates' turn came I'd be ready. Both cameras had expanded dynamic range set to "on" . The K-r did a better job in that department. White balance on auto with both cameras. The K-r being far better here. I've occasionally had some difficulty adjusting WB with the K20D. The K200D has been better in this regard. I shot at ISO 1250 with the K-r, and at ISO 800 with the K20D in order to reduce noise with this camera, with the camera's user NR adjustment at the middle setting. The K-r's user NR setting was on default "auto". Both shots were at 1/320 sec with the lens opened up a bit with the K20D, since I cut the ISO to 800. I subsequently tried various adjustments of the K20D, but none could make that much difference to approximate the fine results I was getting right out of the camera with the K-r. Needless to say, I used the K-r from that point on for this event. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Again, the above shot at ISO 800.</p>

<p>Here's the K-r shot, again at ISO 1250.</p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Now, I was able to fiddle around in photoshop to do white balance correction and a few other adjustments to make the K20D images fairly close to that of those by the K-r, but never quite as good. The K-r's noise factor was definitely better, white balance better, DR better, and just the overall IQ was better. Although I could get good results from the K20D by this fiddling around, it was great to get even better right out of the camera from the K-r!</p>

<p>When it comes to normal outdoor daylight conditions, however, the K20D is great. Rich colors and fine IQ. Maybe a tad better than the K-r, although I could not swear by this as I've not yet set both up to test them side by side as I have under that indoor lower lighting event. Just my impression. I usually run my K20D at around + .3 exposure compensation outdoors, except under very bright daylight, but no comp at all with the K-r. It is the K-r I turn to when I want the greatest degree of capabilty and compactness, but not wanting to resort to a p/s camera. With a small lens it can even go into a large jacket pocket. </p>

<p>So again, if you are not especially interested in compactness, outdoor daylight is mostly what you are dealing with, rarely doing low light shots, and nearly all indoor shots you do are with flash, it is the K20D for the best choice over the K-r in the same price range. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Just to be more fair, I have noticed that a lighting change took place after the first K20D shot. A video was being run by someone from the university, and this likely was responsible. So here's another from the K20D with the same lighting change as with the K-r shot. That's not noise in the floor tiles- just the texture of the actual material, and maybe some dirt. I checked that out on location.</p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Upon rechecking, with this last K20D shot I found I'd decided to hike up the exposure to 1/200 sec f/3.5 at 800 ISO instead of 1/320 sec. The K-r shot is at f/4 and 1/320 sec, ISO 1250. The main advantages for the K-r under these conditions are in the realm of white balance and noise control, but there may be better exposure results for such conditions as well.</p>

<p>Here is one more shot taken at this event with the K20D, again at ISO 800, 1/200 sec, and f/3.5 after I fiddled around to get color balance correction and a few other adjustments. It turned out quite decently after these post process measures, so I did wind up using this shot, its being the only one of this speaker. All these shots using the same lens. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[dave_dejoy]

<p>This has been a very helpful and insightful debate. My original question was for about the same money should I get a new k-r or a used k20D body? Which should I choose? High ISO performance is good but not essential. Dollarwise, I am not interested in purchasing the latest or greatest. Again, thanks so much to all. </p>

[snik75]

<p>Dave, the answer is not that clear. Probably either will do you quite well. I have both a K20 and a K-X, and if I only had one of them I would be fine, either one. There are pros and cons to each. The ability to fine-tune autofocus on the K20d really does help me get the most out of my AF lenses, although the better live view on the KX makes manual focusing a bit more spot-on. Weather sealing, batteries, 2 dials vs. 1 dial, high ISO vs. low ISO quality - trade-offs across the board. In a pinch, I would go with the newer camera, as it will likely hold its value a little better than an older one (not a sure thing) and plus, video is kind of fun every now and then. But I wouldn't argue against either.</p>

[kelvin_o]

<p>I was using istDs in the past. It is great camera that i ever have. Later, I upgraded my camera to K20D and gave the istDs to my cousin Actually there is great problem for night shot on 20D. The noise control is very bad as pentax use the samsung CMOS, although it is up to 14.6 million pixel. If you plan to use for night shot that it is nightmare for buying K20D as it has compulsory device that for long exposure more 0.3 second , the noise reduction function will be automatically on and no way to turn off this function. That means you take 20 seconds for long exposure then you need other 20 seconds for noise reduction.<br>

I think you had better buy used K10D , K-R, K-5 if you want to have night shot.</p>

 

[kelvin_o]

<p>I was using istDs in the past. It is great camera that i ever have. Later, I upgraded my camera to K20D and gave the istDs to my cousin Actually there is great problem for night shot on 20D. The noise control is very bad as pentax use the samsung CMOS, although it is up to 14.6 million pixel. If you plan to use for night shot that it is nightmare for buying K20D as it has compulsory device that for long exposure more 0.3 second , the noise reduction function will be automatically on and no way to turn off this function. That means you take 20 seconds for long exposure then you need other 20 seconds for noise reduction.<br>

I think you had better buy used K10D , K-R, K-5 if you want to have night shot.</p>

<div></div>