That it did, but I can't help but think Pentax would have done better with it if it had remained near its initial pricepoint rather than descending into K100D territory. By the end of its run it was only about $50 off a K100D kit in price, which is a bit non-sensical.
-Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >> > PDML@pdml.net >> > 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 >> PDML@pdml.net >> 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 > PDML@pdml.net > 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
