I agree in regard to the K200D, but I wouldn't call the K10D a mistake. It represented great value for the money, and that helped put Pentax on the consideration list for many buyers. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no > justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to > 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant > price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and > not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of > its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at > least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as > 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their > current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW > buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and > JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the > Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does > lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer > spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to > mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than > the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most > regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better > flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally > comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash > system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in > response. > > Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, > uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, > over-specced). > > -Adam > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... > > > > I'm interested in your statement "....cheap ones aren't as bad in > > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." > > > > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about > > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? > > > > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either > > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D > > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've > > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the > > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of > > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm > > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a > > lens or two I'd like as well. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Brian > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Brian Walters > > Western Sydney Australia > > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than > >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly > >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most > >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 > >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the > >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the > >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't > >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. > >> > >> -Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > Jaume, > >> > > >> > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. > >> > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. > >> > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. > >> > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. > >> > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. > >> > > >> > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with > Pentax. > >> > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early > >> > expertise for digital. > >> > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. > >> > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and > >> > printing. > >> > > >> > Regards, Bob S. > >> > > >> > > > -- > > > > > > -- > > http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: > > http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow > the directions. > > > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
