Originally Posted by GoneTomorrow
The Pentax K20D seems to be an excellent DSLR. Still though, the Canon 40D has a faster burst mode and performs better noise wise at 1600 and 3200 ISO. Plus Canon makes the best lenses in my opinion, it's L class lenses are unbelievable. Plus the 40D is about $200 cheaper.
However the K20D is no slouch so if you went for it you wouldn't be disappointed. It does have the in body stabilization, but I did read a review where it claimed that Canon's in-lens stabilization is more effective, but I'm not sure if there's any truth to that. Considering that Olympus, Pentax, Samsung, etc. are making in body stabilization and Canon and Nikon still aren't, there must be some reason why they put it in the lens. I have my doubts that they do it simple for profiteering; my sense is that there is some advantage to having optical stabilization in the lens.
One other thing I would look into is how many and what kind of lense Pentax offers. And read reviews on their lenses! Lens reviews are as picky or more in my experience.
Well, I've had a look into the In-Body VS In-Lens IS question and it appears there are two major benefits to In-Lens IS over In-Body. They are:
1. You can see the effect of the IS in the viewfinder.
2. Telephoto lenses are (allegedly) better stabilised with in-Lens stabilisation.
The benefits are kinda' negated a bit for me though:
1. The FZ50 I currently use has two modes of IS. Mode 1 stabilises the image on screen (and in the viewfinder) but doesn't stabilise the shot well. Mode 2 doesn't stabilise the image through the screen or viewfinder at all, but stabilises the shot very well indeed. Guess which I use? Yeah, you guessed, mode 2. So, I'm used to not seeing the effect of IS on screen, or in the viewfinder anyway, so I don't really loose out by not having the first major benefit of in-lens IS.
2. Again, for me, the telephoto stabilisation benefit isn't really an issue as I very rarely shoot at anything much over 200mm (about 6x zoom) anyway. Very occasionally, I will shoot at up to the full 12x (420mm) but again, I use the FZ50's mode 2 IS, so I never see the effects of IS in the viewfinder or screen anyway and I've never had a problem yet.
The benefits of the in-body IS are:
1. Any lens you choose to use will be stabilised. The is especially true for the K20D which apparently can be manually, or automatically adjusted to work with just about any lens that'll fit on the body. Also, so I've read, the K20D's IS can be fine tuned to work with whatever zoom you're using, so it can be adjusted for 17mm, 200mm or 600mm, apparently; this somewhat negates the benefit of in-lens IS for telephoto lenses.
2. The cost of non-IS lenses is less than IS lenses, so a little greater investment up-front in the camera, will pay for it's self and then save money, later on. I might want to end up getting four or five lenses, which could save hundreds. For example an 18-50mm F2.8 Sigma lens with
IS cost's around Â£300 in the UK online, while the same lens without
IS cost's around Â£200 in the UK online. That's 33% more, for the in-lens IS and a saving of Â£100 ($195 USD) right away, if I get a camera with IS in the body. ...and that's just one lens; multiply that over five lenses and the camera has almost paid for it's self
With regards to Pantex lenses, I will indeed look into the quality. However, A few of the reviews I've read for the K20D speak quite highly of Pentax as a lens manufacturer. Indeed, even I'd heard of them in a good light in terms of their glass, although I didn't know they made camera's before I started researching DSLRs
. With this in mind, the hope is that the Pentax lenses will be good, as they seem to have a reputation for being. I will look into it though, as, as you know, the glass is as important as the sensor (if not more so) with DSLRs.
I'll keep reading up on the EOS 40D though, as I haven't done so yet and don't really want to rule it out until I've done the research. My only reservations with regards to it so far though (with the little I currently know) is that it's only a 10.1 mega-pixel camera (VS the K20Ds 14.6 mega-pixels) and, as it's a Canon, it'll undoubtedly require the more expensive IS lenses (unless I go without any
IS (if that's possible), which I'd prefer not to, to be honest).
Also, although I'm sure the 40D has got great low noise high ISO capability (I've come to learn now that Canon's supposedly have the edge, when it comes to really low noise high ISO) it seems unlikely that I'll need to go higher than ISO800 very often anyway, as the kind of subject matter I enjoy shooting, doesn't really require it. If I do need ISO1600 or 3200, the K20D can produce pretty damn clean images (although not as good as many Canons no doubt) that only really need a gentle cleaning in NeatImage to bring up to par with other camera's such as the one you mentioned. I know this, because I've downloaded sample images and tested the theory with Neatimage and the results were very good and took little time to implement.
Still, as much as the arguments for the K20D seem to mount in my mind, the cost's involved in going DSLR are going to end up being around Â£1200 ($2350 USD), to possibly even Â£1500 ($2930 USD) so I'm keen not to make a rash decision and I want to make a sound judgement, based on facts. So although I'm personally putting the K20D on the top of my list, I'm not adverse to having it knocked off if a better alternative presents it's self.
Just thought I'd mention that the Pentax K20D has built in HDR capability, so you just turn a setting on and it automatically turns every shot into an HDR shot if you want
Originally Posted by ecoyd1
Where has mugan been?
Yeah, I was thinking that. Where is he? Hey, mugan! Where are you?
Highly-AnnoyedEdited by Highly-Annoyed - 5/19/08 at 3:52am