K10 and K200d: Same sensors?

I was just wondering, as I still do on occasion use and like my K200d, I know the MP size is the same but is the sensor the same? I haven't used a K10d before and am wondering about the differences and whether it would be worth looking for and exploring the CCD sensors?

Would people rate the K200d as a companion to the K5?

Yes it's the same sensor.

Must admit for low ISO shots I prefer the output of the CCD sensor.

.. please Mike, say a bit more about

thanks

The CCD sensor in the K10D/K200D combined to the Pentax image processor have a very "smooth" look at low ISO. It's something the CMOS sensor doesn't have.

I kept my K10D for studio work just for that CCD "something".

This is why I kept my istD, K10 and Maxxum 7D.

Best regards

Most of my photography takes place in good light and I rarely shoot anything that moves very fast so the K10's sensor is ideal for me. My K5 is easier to use and has a wider dynamic range but the results I get from it are of the "mmm" variety rather than the K10's "wow!" If you see what I mean.

In terms of handling and ergonomics it's also my favourite. In some ways I wish I hadn't bought the K5, it's wasted on me and spends far too much time packed away!

I know it's ancient technology but I dread the day when the K10 finally gives up the ghost.

I think I was just confused as the K200d was supposed to be entry level and I knew nothing about DSLR's at the time. Was just starting an Msc in Geosciences so the weathersealing sold it!

I've just passed 30 but I still struggle with the concept of 2006-08 being classed as ancient technology!!

I still have my K200D as my only DSLR and have no plans at all to get a newer model. The low-ISO image quality is wonderful, the camera is solid and well-designed, and it provides me with just about everything I want in digital photography.

Indeed, actually I used the K200d as my only camera for years, only just got a K5 a year ago and to be honest never felt low ISO images looked all that much better. Main advantage is the high ISO, but faster lenses do aid in that.

I'd be partly tempted to sell the K5 on, as the K200d and the Olympus csc system would probably be quite adequate.

Basically what others have said in this thread.

I always likened the CCD sensor CMOS sensors as glossy and matt photographs. The CCD always gave a glossier look to the images, ideal for macro and studio work whereas the CMOS has a more matt look to it. Hard to describe really but if you had 2 raw files side by side you would be able to see the difference fairly easily.

.. thanks Mike and others; .. you learnt me something precious; .. but, could we conclude by saying that, as long as macro photographing is concerned (I know that Andrew (bwlchmawr) is not fond of it), in low ISO (that means with suitable light) CCD sensor (let's say K10D, K200D) gives better image (especially better detail) than CMOS one (K-x an K-5 series and so on) ? .. I guess the answer : "try and see" .. thats what I'll do guys; .. THANKS again. Precise also that never I use PIP (Pentax image processor) .. miserable stuff .. at least on my Mac Pro hardware ..

No. It's hard to describe. The new CMOS sensors with umpteen megapixels give incredible details. But the "look" of the CCD sensor is different. In a class of it's own.

Actually, the only reason CCD sensors were superseded by CMOS is cost. Had the development of CCD sensor been pushed like the CMOS, we would likely have CCD sensors with the same low light ability as the CMOS sensors. Unfortunately, cost came into the equation...

I think that CCD sensors weren't fast enough to handle video, while CMOS was, so everyone moved to CMOS. I couldn't care less about video and certainly wouldn't be happy at accepting a lower-IQ sensor just to accommodate it.

Strange. I still remember a time when the "nec plus ultra" for video cameras was the CCD sensor.

I think it might have more to do with the rate at which information can be streamed from the sensor, the power consumption and hence heat generation and the noise behaviour. All this became more significant as pixel counts increased.

I also understand CMOS sensors were lower cost to produce, perhaps relating to different failure rates in a batch?