K110D Emergency Camera!

I couldn't do it. I couldn't wait until the end of the month to get a K-m, what with all the wintry weather that was being forecast and me having no camera. So I bought a K110D from SRS following Chris' ad on here for refurb stock. I'm still gunning for a K-m and 18-250, but I can now be more relaxed about it. No doubt I probably won't get the chance to use it now I bought it But I suppose it never hurts to have a spare.

But here's what interests me: it's shaper than the K100D I sold a few weeks ago. I'm using the same lens under very similar conditions. But the pics are definitely sharper. How's that work then?

Maybe your K100D had a minor front/back focus problem - it does happen from time-to-time

I'm thinking you could be right. If my K100D was like this K110D, I'd never have even thought about getting rid of it towards a K-m. I'm really considering now whether to continue towards a K-m or just put the money into glass instead

If you're happy with the body then stick with it 'til it breaks (that's my intention with my K10D), glass is always a better "investment" I reckon.

You can not beat a good bit of glass. My glass list is getting longer and longer

You might be dissapointed with the k-m. There's no top plate LCD, and much worse, only a 5-point autofocus system with NO indication as to what it's pointing at in the viewfinder.

Wait a bit longer and get a K200. You know it makes sense

Having said that, my own K100 is so good I won't ever sell it.

Going from a K100D to a K-m must be a step backwards in my opinion. Better to reach for a K200D.

Yeah, I can see the sense in that, but it was a size thing.

The lack of point indication is only an issue when using Auto point selection (which serious users do not use), because otherwise there is only one point available - the central one - which some serious users use exclusively even on a K10/20D.

Disappointing not to have manual point selection, or an LCD top panel, but these things wouldn't put me off the camera if I did need such a small DSLR.

K-m: 122.5 x 91.5 x 67.5 mm, 600 g
K200D: 133.5 x 95 x 74 mm, 690 g
Difference: 11 x 3.5 x 6.5 mm, 90 g

I fail to see that this (imo) small increase should make any difference. If anything, a heavier camera is easier to hold steady. But then again, I may have large hands .

More important is the number of features available - the K200D will last you longer before feeling a need for an upgrade. Also, the metal mount on the lens seems more durable.

The size difference is significant in terms of volume.

While I'm sure they're good cameras, the idea of an inbetweeny model like K100/200D doesn't excite me very much. I'd rather have either the better spec of a K20D, or the better portability of a K-m.

Well, the K200D has the same sensor as the much praised K10D, so what would be the difference in spec, apart from the extra wheel?

The K10D has a larger viewfinder image as well as the extra wheel.

Personally, I would only be interested in a pentamirror model for the sake of reducing size, and if doing that, I think I would go all the way and get the smallest model. The K-m is about 24% smaller in volume than the K200D.

It's really is entirely about size. AF indicators aren't that important to me or indeed the number of points. I tend to use MF for 90 percent of the time anyway, but at the moment I don't have any AF glass anyway. The K-m has tons more 'features' than I'd actually use already. What I'm trying to get away from is my tendency to not bother taking a camera with me when I go out as I've always got my hands full with three to six dogs, so my camera needs to be as small and light as possible. The camera I need doesn't exist yet, so in the meantime I'm trying to make do with the best small camera I can find.

No need to defend yourself. Obviously you have given it a good thought. And from what I read, the K-M does everything you want. So seen in that light: Good decision

Martin.