Note the buffer issue can be hit with a few closely spaced shots, not just in continuous. This is due to it only holding 4 shots (and the fairly slow write speeds by todays standards, an issue with all SD-based cameras, the new UDMA CF cards are much faster).
Given those costs (God, Aussie prices are bad), I'd look for a lightly used K10D. K10D's were selling new for notably less than the K200D goes for now at the end of their run. You might even find a NOS K10D at a reasonable price. And the K10D's a nice step up from the K200D. -Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, Thanks. > > I'll have to take another look at the specs although the buffer isn't a > major limitation to me. > > I expect to be buying towards the end of the life cycle of the current > models so (hopefully) the price factor might not be so significant by > then. At the moment the Australian price for a K20D with kit lens > (which I don't need) is around $A2000 compared with the 200D at $A1200 > with the same lens. That's enough to make me want to consider the > options carefully. > > I know the viewfinder is an issue as well although I've used by son's DL > and didn't find it noticeably different to my DS. > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:56:25 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> 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 >> >> > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web > > > -- > 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.
