What would you do now

It's worth mentioning that I now know of two D300 users who upgraded from the D200 and are both less than happy.

As for the k10D, you are missing something Mike-P because the K20D is a much better camera.

I know a lot of very happy D300 users .. horses for courses as they say.

Yes the K20D is a better camera than the K10D but not in the areas that I would like it to be, the K-7 on the other hand is looking to be more interesting to me but the pricing is hard to swallow when it is so much cheaper elsewhere. I have thought about a K20D but I know that in 3/4 months time it would go in favour of a K-7 so it seems a bit pointless paying out for one now.

I have been watching these debates over the last few weeks while everyone was waiting for the K-7 and debating whether to stay with Pentax or go with one of the others and have been finding it pretty depressing to think so many people are unhappy with their cameras. Maybe as a true amatuer I am not at the standard where these things affect me? So I had a look round some of the wildlife professional photographers websites to see what they were using. And while they all use either Canon or Nikon I was impressed to read the following quote on Andy Rouse's website under his gear section

"Andy and his Gear
Andy believes strongly that it is the photographer and how they use the light that makes a great picture rather than the gear."

Yes Andy does use or is testing a Nikon at the moment and has probably never used a Pentax in his life, howver, it would be interesting to see the results if he did. Just a thought.

My Grandfather always said, and I mean at every opportunity as some Grandfathers do, "A bad workman always blames his tools."

That's the same as Andy Rouse is saying, but possibly blunter!

a friend of mine has a d300,and there sees to be a 'good reason' for this/that shot being just not quite right. But, it is never him!with my k20d however, if the picture is poor i know it is me, not my camera

I think the reason professional wildlife photographers (as well as sports shooters) use Nikon or Canon is mainly down to lens choice. They need something in the region of a f2.8 300mm plus which Pentax (or Sigma in a Pentax mount) do not provide. Most of us will never need anything like that (note I said need, not want) so it is not so much of an issue. There is currently a "debate" going on in another forum where a Canon user cannot understand why his friend would want a Sony over his Canon, his reply to one answer was : "So you'd suggest buying a Sony, buying a few lenses and accessories only to realise a few months down the line you need a Canon or Nikon? Why not just start there?"

Someone else came back with: (And this is from the owner of a Canon and Nikon lens hire company)

This is so much carp.

If you're seriously into sports or wildlife, and you need something bigger than a 300mm f/2.8, then you need a Canon or Nikon.

If you're seriously into architecture or product photography and you need a tilt-shift lens, then you need a Canon or Nikon.

If you're seriously into extreme macro, you need a Canon and the insane MP-E 65mm.

But if you're amongst the 99.9% of us who don't fit any of those categories, you don't need a Canon or Nikon.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

The funny thing about all this is that I don't care what the rest of the world uses. I like my equipment, I can see no need to change it. End of story. About the only thing I would like is a Pentax-fit tilt-shift lens but at the prices the Canon/Nikon ones go for I couldn't afford one anyway so it is all academic (and hence the Horseman!) I'm off to shoot some more BW with my MX/43mm Ltd.

What would you say are the ways in which it is "much" better?

G

Lower noise at higher ISOs and multiple lens focus corrections.

Image quality is much better. Just as the jump from the *istDS to the K10D brought a real jump in quality, the K20D gives a similar jump to a new much higher level.

The Premium JPEG setting, with relatively little compression, gives me the convenience I need and also means that selective cropping can be used with more leeway available.

The release catch for the SD card door is much easier to find and operate.

The AF seems snappier.

The exposure is more accurate and doesn't need the same degree of adjustment that the K10D did.

Noise levels are lower.

Colours are more accurate.

The battery lasts longer, presumably because of the move to a CMOS sensor.

Hope I haven't missed anything, but to be honest I've grown used to it so I might not be thinking so much about how it's better any more. The primary thing is better image quality, by a good margin.

Well I have looked at K20 pix and K10 pix on this site. I don`t perceive much difference and I like my K10. However now the K7 has arrived I am hoping the K20 price will tumble like all of the other models have. I would like a second body.

Cedric

You won't see much quality difference on the web as the limitation is the resolution of your monitor.

The difference will shout out at you if you view prints of any decent size.

If you don't make large prints then maybe you don't need a K20D or K7.

He uses Nikon DSLRs now, having switched from Canon when the D3 came out.

And yes, he has used Pentax in the past - the 645. I'm pretty sure this was shot with it, with a wide angle lens.

Dan

To be frank, I'm not sure that I would characterise most of your list as being things that make the K20D MUCH better. Somewhat better, perhaps.

The significant thing is image quality. Although I seldom make prints, I can tell whether I used a good or less good lens to make a picture, and I would hope I would notice the difference between the K10D and the K20D on screen.

G

If the kit doesn't matter, why did he switch?

G