First Post - Purchasing opinions.

but the point of turning it off is not that it doesn't get done, it's that it doesn't get done NOW. When I'm shooting astro, I take my dark frames manually and subtract them later myself using UFRAW. Taking just one DF per exposure setting litterally doubles the number of exposures you can take on a night.

Hi All

I am looking at upgrading soon too, currently have an ist DS (though I do also have a 10 Mp Sony R1).

Does anyone have a definitive list of the main deifferences between the 10D and the 20D? My impressions so far from various threads are as follows:

Resolution - 20D 14Mp, 10D 10Mp
Sensor type has changed to CMOS in 20D
Less high ISO noise in 20D
Live view in 20D
Larger LCD in 20D
AF more precise in 20D?
Shutter quieter in 20D?

Anything else to justify the £400 difference in price currently?

Thanks
Lee

I may be wrong but I don't think the AF system has changed between K10 and K20.

K20 ISO settings go all the way to 6400 where the K10 tops out at 1600. My brief play with a K20D in SRS last weekend seemed to show that 6400 is a real weapon of last resort, 3200 might be usable but without seeing the shots on a computer it's hard to say. Certainly I would expect the K20 to be better at 1600 than the K10 is, and with noise reduction the K10 is quite usable at 1600.

My impression was that the K20D has a quieter shutter, not completly sure though. It's far from silent, but it seemed more refined somehow.

K20D also adds dynamic range enhancement which effectivly seems to use 2 ISO settings at once to give better highlights and shadows. Not clear on how it works, but it will be neat if it does what it claims to.

Well I took the plunge and bought a K10D. I'm excited to receive it next week.
Thanks for the info guys.

Toby

The difference between 10MP and 14MP is not that great in terms of increased print size -- it is an incremental upgrade. Unless you are printing for exhibition I doubt it matters. (However, the jump from the K100D to the K20D is definitely significant.)

The live view to me is a bit of a toy. If the screen was articulated so it could work from various angles then it would be useful in place of a right-angle viewfinder add-on, but that is not the case.

The improvements in quality at low light levels seem very real from examples posted. If that is important to you there is a good reason to upgrade, since even the K100D is better than the K10D in that regard.

The Dynamic Range Enlargement gives the equivalent of 1 EV more, not 2, as I understand it.

In particular cases the intervalometer, in-camera RAW processing and autofocus correction may be what you need. I would like the fact it's generally quieter in operation.

Only you can decide if these factors are enough.

I am a happy K10D guy, you won't be disappointed with it. As has been pointed out the increased MP size matters only if you print large size and as someone has mentioned the Canonexile Benjikan, just look at his work with the K10D...

Mine is sitting about 6 inches from my left elbow as I write this and I am trying to think where to go this weekend to take photos with it... I have to make the most of it this week as I am about to splash out on a Mamiya lens this week (a dramatic price drop because the 645 and the RB have been discontinues )....

I hope you enjoy the camera...

Peter

I bought my k10d a month ago at £50 more than this, that is a real bargain and one you will be very happy with.

Now I wish I'd waited, but Chris emphatically assured me he would not be lowering prices as it simply wasn't possible ...nevermind.

I am really sorry about that.... a lot can change in a month in the wonderful world of photo retail...

Last week Pentax approached me with a final 'bulk' buy of the K10D. This is going to be my last shipment and in order for me to take 'the lot' they gave me a better price. This sort of thing happens occasionally with all the manufacturers, not just Pentax.

I am glad you like the camera - when you want something else give me a call and I will see what I can do!

Chris

That's okay Chris, I'm not blaming you or angry in any way. Obviously I'm a little put out - no one likes losing out on money, especially when it is very tight (I'm unemployed), but you weren't to know, and you were nice to deal with and someone I'd recommend in a flash.

I'll bear it in mind about the offer, when I get a job I'm thinking of treating myself to something shiny and new. I've got my eye on too many things; the 50mm 1.4 as a lovely fast prime (not sure how it would benefit me with my kit lens), the Tamron 18-250 as a general walkabout, perhaps a flash? I think in many ways I messed up and should have bought a body only and the fore-mentioned two lenses, as I just don't like the combo I have (18-55 kit + FA100-300). But you live and learn they say .

More advice could be given if you said why you do not like the double kit zoom combo. One thing I can suggest is that the 50mm is a world away from the kit lens in terms of light capture. It is great as a portrait lens, equivalent to 75mm, for those cases where you want to manipulate DOF, or simply don't have enough light. However it may be too telephoto if you need a lens to capture groups inside... a bunch of friends in a pub for example. All depends on what limitations you find with the kit zoom.

It is more of a case where I would like a one size fits all lens as the lens strapped to the camera most of the time, and also nice prime as a portrait/low-light lens. My point about the 18-55 kit lens was simply that should a 50mm lens really be top of the list? I currently almost never use my zoom at the moment so am only considering replacing it with the 18-250 which sort of replaces them both.

Anyway this has gone a little off topic, and I see that the OP was after a body-only anyway!

It is well worth having a 50mm lens in addition to your normal zoom - for portraits, low light, still life, macro*, etc.

To minimise the expense you could get a second-hand manual-focus Pentax-A 50mm F1.7. It's a very common but very good lens. Look on eBay.

* by using extension tubes or a reversing ring.

Why not? I don't think it's redundant. To replace the kit lens I bought a 16-45mm and the 43mm limited at the same time. Though the focal lengths overlap they have different uses. The zoom I can use for cityscapes and to capture group shots, the 43mm for low light interiors and portraits.

I was tempted to get the 77mm limited instead of this prime, to give a wider focal length range overall, but decided I'd use it significantly less of the time. I will get one eventually, but first went for a cheaper 100mm macro.

I guess I've given up on the idea of "one size fits all" since even inmy limited case that would have to be a 16-100mm f/1.8 macro with low distortion and high resolution out to the edges. I don't think that exists, and if it did it's cost more than I'm worth in a year.

[quote="rparmar"]Quite so. The whole point of an SLR is its ability to take different lenses. If one wide-range zoom lens could meet everybody's needs satisfactorily, SLRs would cease to exist.

G