# Pentax K20D or Nikon D300??



## sunbeam (May 20, 2009)

Hi,
I'm new to this site.  It seems like an amazing place for information, advice, and critiques!  

I have a question for those who care to answer.    I currently have a Pentax K100D super, and feel that I am outgrowing it.  I have also been getting alot of requests from people to do weddings, family portraits etc, and would love to eventually start my own studio.  So, I would like to upgrade my camera.  I've been researching as much as I can, and I've kind of narrowed it down to Pentax K20D, because I am familiar with pentax, and love the fact that ALL their lenses can be used on any pentax camera, and the price is great.  OR the NIKON D300..... 

So, any suggestions out there?  Pentax, or Nikon?  Would love some educated opinions, and I look forward to getting to know some of you!  Thanks so much
Sam


----------



## manaheim (May 20, 2009)

D300!!!

I have no real basis for that, I'm just a Nikon wh^H^H^H... I like Nikon a _lot_. 

Seems if you already have equipment in the pentax line it might make sense to stay there.  Lots of people love 'em.  I can't speak to them personally.  It's a fun problem to have, though.  Good luck with it!


----------



## epp_b (May 20, 2009)

The D300 is the king of ergonomics and handling, which is why it would be my choice.  But, since you already have Pentax gear, the K20D is probably the best option for you, and it looks pretty close the D300 in terms of handling.


----------



## SrBiscuit (May 21, 2009)

if you have a bunch of lenses already i'd stick with pentax...
if you just have a kit lens, and are interested in trying out a new system, the D300 seems like a fantastic camera. (i cant even afford to look at them, so im basing this totally on what i've heard others say)


----------



## sunbeam (May 21, 2009)

Thanks for the input!  I only have the kit lenses for my Pentax.  I didn't want to expand my lens collection, because I knew I'd want to upgrade cameras.  So, it looks like the nikon is winning this one?


----------



## Steph (May 21, 2009)

What about the new Pentax K7? It might be worth considering.


----------



## sunbeam (May 21, 2009)

Steph, I hadn't ever heard of the K7?!  Is it out yet?


----------



## benhasajeep (May 21, 2009)

I have been recommending the K20D as a first camera just because its a good deal for the money.  I know it has it faults as others do.  But it also has some advantages other cameras for the same price or higher don't.

But if you are moving into the pro field.  I think the Pentax would be just fine for weddings and such.  But I can't fault anyone who has learned to use a camera to its capability and want something better.  And move to a different system.  Although you know there is a new Pentax comming out right?  K-7.  That would be my question for the post K-7 or D300.  I know the answer would be D300 by most, with some 50D from Cannonites thrown in.  :mrgreen:  Pentax just doesn't have the mainstream following it once had.

I have 2 - D300's


----------



## sunbeam (May 21, 2009)

Ya, I definately notice that Pentax is quite the underdog.  I personally really like my little pentax, but I guess I just wonder if it will 'grow' with me as well as a Nikon would?  But man, it seems like the K20D is just soooo well priced for what it has to offer!  And their lenses are pretty decently priced as well!  That's what's making this decision tough.  And now you go and throw in this talk of a K7, and I'm COMPLETELY torn..   I'm going to have to find some info on this K7.  Sounds promising!


----------



## ANDS! (May 21, 2009)

Nikon D300.  Image quality is nothing.  I'm sure the Pentax is a solid performer for what you would use it for, so you have to look at the OTHER THINGS that go into a camera purchase: ergonomics, lens and first part accessories (and cost), second-hand market (I think a great number maybe even half/half shop primarily through the used lens bin) and on camera features.  

Also, that K7 is new and wont be out until July.


----------



## benhasajeep (May 21, 2009)

sunbeam said:


> But man, it seems like the K20D is just soooo well priced for what it has to offer! And their lenses are pretty decently priced as well!


 
Thats my thinking behind recommending the K20D for new photographers that have no intentions of going pro.  Yes this camera or that does this faster, or does this.  But they pack so much into the Pentax.  It does things others don't until you get into the higher price ranges.  And like you said, you can mount any Pentax lens on them.  It's like the 18-200 of camera bodies.  It's not perfect at any single thing.  But it sure does do a decent job with alot features.


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 21, 2009)

Get the Pentax K-7.  It's going to spank the d300, and is cheaper, and is smaller, and based on everything I've heard, has amazing ergonomics.  It's higher resolution, based on an entirely new sensor, the was developed entirely around better Iq and ISO performance, rather than trying to fit more pixels.  It also is supposed to have much improved AF speed and accuracy.  It just got announced yesterday, so we'll start getting real world results soon, but teh stats are impressive.    It shoots HD video, has 77 weather seals and is designed to work down to -10c.  It's going to be sweet, and will be out in July for $1,299 USD.  

And to back it up, are the supremely sweet DA* lenses which are incredible, small, fully weather sealed, out-resolve my K20d, and are half the price of L or Nikkor glass.  I bought into the Pentax system from the start after doing some research, and couldn't be happier.  I think it is fast becoming the best option for anyone amateur to semi-pro, and a serious contender for the professional market.

And now I will get flamed...


----------



## ANDS! (May 21, 2009)

> And now I will get flamed...



As should anyone who sight unseen recommends a product based on product specs.  And I would hope a NEW camera outstrips the performance of two year old tech.


----------



## Camos1313 (May 21, 2009)

I had a k100d and have now a K20D.  The difference between the two bodies is excellent!  I'm very pleased with the k20d and think it your best option if you dont want to go pro and have fun with a medium-advanced body...


----------



## itznfb (May 21, 2009)

if you're going to be a photographer as an occupation then get the D300 and start working on your lens collection.


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 21, 2009)

Sight unseen has nothing to do with it.  Sure, there's that chance that it's a total flop.  I really wouldn't bank on that.  I've talked to people that have shot with it, and they say it delivers.  What I'm basing my judgment on is the K10d, K20d and assortment of DA* and other pentax lenses I have that are already enough to make want these rather than a D300.  If the K-7 is as good as it should be and most likely will be, then it will be far superior to the D300 for less money, with a growing line of amazing lens for half the price of premium nikkor glass to back it up.


----------



## itznfb (May 21, 2009)

i'd like to know how the K7 is "far superior" to the D300. looks inferior in terms of specs and the first google results when searching for pentax k7 complain about noise.


----------



## ANDS! (May 21, 2009)

About the only benefit I see of this UNTESTED camera over the beaten to death D300 is a new image sensor (from SAMSUNG) that has yet to be put through the proper paces and compare/contrasts with other cameras.  

The thing is, this really shouldn't be compared to the D300.  They aren't the same class of camera.  Compare it to the Nikon D90 (which appears to be its closest competition) and then we might be seeing some actual pros/cons instead of putting it up against older camera tech (in relation to image sensor).


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 21, 2009)

itznfb said:


> i'd like to know how the K7 is "far superior" to the D300. looks inferior in terms of specs and the first google results when searching for pentax k7 complain about noise.



Actually, it wasn't.  The website is called 1,001 noisy cameras, and it was merely just a restatement of the announcement.  No one has released any actual image results to judge the noise on yet, seeing as how it was only announced yesterday.  But going on the fact that they took a pretty darn good 14.6mp sensor, and totally redesigned it from the ground up, with the only goals being better IQ and ISO performance, instead of more pixels, I think it'll do just fine.  I guess we'll find out in 2 months.  

Maybe far superior was an overstatement, but superior in terms of MP, Hd video, smaller and lighter, same size screen with approximately same resolution, similar frame rate, but with out the boost from a grip, same ISO range except that ISO 100 isn't just a digital tweak, and still cheaper.  What specs look inferior to you?


----------



## itznfb (May 21, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Maybe far superior was an overstatement, but superior in terms of MP, Hd video, smaller and lighter, same size screen with approximately same resolution, similar frame rate, but with out the boost from a grip, same ISO range except that ISO 100 isn't just a digital tweak, and still cheaper. What specs look inferior to you?


 
i didn't realize it was THAT new. so any data on performance i saw in my quick searches is probably irrelevant. either way, as ANDS basically said, you can't compare an untested camera to a great camera that has been on the market for years. and none of the "specs" you listed mean anything to a photographer except maybe the weight of the body. even that though, the D300 and D700 with grips counter weigh the big lenses much better than the "light" cameras.


----------



## NitroDC (May 21, 2009)

If you're going to be an enthusiast, go Pentax. If you're going to have photography as an occupation, go Nikon/Canon. I myself use a K100D Super and am planning to upgrade to the K-7 this year, mainly because I would love to shoot videos (My friend is a skater) and I'm drooling over the new features.

Pentax is for the enthusiasts that don't have the extreme amounts of money for a Canon 1D or a Nikon D3 and such. I prefer that because I don't really plan on going pro, if anything, I would become a pro videographer... But Pentax offers a LOT of features into a good camera and at a good price. The lenses are great and my father's Rebel XT fails in terms of image quality (18-55mm Canon just doesn't cut it) Nikon and Canon are for the pros in the long run with their luxury bodies and lenses.

I'd go pentax since you have some lenses, but seeing as you have kit lenses, it's ok. I have the 18-55 and 55-300mm (much better than the 50-200, I highly recommend it)


----------



## ANDS! (May 21, 2009)

> The lenses are great and my father's Rebel XT fails in terms of image quality (18-55mm Canon just doesn't cut it).



This is an odd statement.  The XT doesn't have poor image quality, the kit lens does.  Apples and oranges.


----------



## pez (May 22, 2009)

Some links on the K-7 so far:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNCHdsZI88g"]Official youtube vid[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaFfaTkoUn4"]Video "review[/ame]"
dPReview blathering
Pentax site

Regardless of how it compares with big clunky Nikons (and their big, porky glass), I'm sure it will be good enough for me to pick up a body in a few months.


----------



## NitroDC (May 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> > The lenses are great and my father's Rebel XT fails in terms of image quality (18-55mm Canon just doesn't cut it).
> 
> 
> This is an odd statement.  The XT doesn't have poor image quality, the kit lens does.  Apples and oranges.


I'm just saying that Pentax has the best kit lens in the market compared to other brands. Better build quality, better image quality, and the new kit on the K-7 will have weather and dust resistance.


----------



## Montana (May 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Nikon D300. Image quality is nothing.


 

LOL

I thought the Canon/Nikon debates got old......seems the Nikon junkies really like to trash Pentax too.


Get an Olympus just out of spite!


----------



## itznfb (May 22, 2009)

the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR from nikon are both kit lenses. they are superior in IQ to anything that Pentax offers. i'm not as familiar with canon but i'm sure they offer something similar.


----------



## ANDS! (May 22, 2009)

Montana said:


> ANDS! said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon D300. Image quality is nothing.
> ...



Oh that is too sad. . .seriously.  Only someone trolling for a "fight" would take that statement the way you did.


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 22, 2009)

itznfb said:


> the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR from nikon are both kit lenses. they are superior in IQ to anything that Pentax offers. i'm not as familiar with canon but i'm sure they offer something similar.



How much experience do you have with the Pentax kit lens do be able to make that statement?  The Pentax kit zoom is super sharp, but I wouldn't make that statement about the Nikon 18-55 VR, because I've never used it.  

Also, the new pentax 18-55 and 55-20 WR lenses are going to be fully weather sealed for kit lens prices.  And we don't need VR since it's in camera.


----------



## sunbeam (May 22, 2009)

WOW!  I officially LOVE this site!  What a great debate going on!  I think I have confused myself further as to which camera to buy, haha.  But I definately do plan on going pro.  For now, I am practicing, practicing, practicing.  I just REALLY feel like I've out grown this camera, and I really hate how slow it is to focus, and there's a few other things I'd change about it, as well.  It was a great little well priced entry camera, but I need something to grow with.  By the sounds of it, people seem to lean towards Nikon.  Is that because of popularity or superiority?   I guess from what I've 'researched', Pentax just doesn't have any camera's in the 'pro' level, like Canon and Nikon, so maybe that's it?  Either way, I've got alot alot of info from all of you.  It's going to be a tuffy.


----------



## GeneralBenson (May 22, 2009)

Everyone always says this, but what exactly does a pro need to do that can't be done with high quality prosumer camera?  We know it's not megapixels.  10mp is enough to do almost anything.  It's all relative, and it's all aline that everyone gets fed so they spend more money, or feel like their stuff is inadequate.  The mid level cameras of today, blow away the professional cameras of 5 years ago.  So were the guys 5 years ago subprofessional?  Tech got better and everyone drew a new line, just because better stuff is available.  But I've still yet to find a real world situation where my camera wasn't professional enough.


----------



## manaheim (May 22, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Everyone always says this, but what exactly does a pro need to do that can't be done with high quality prosumer camera? We know it's not megapixels. 10mp is enough to do almost anything. It's all relative, and it's all aline that everyone gets fed so they spend more money, or feel like their stuff is inadequate. The mid level cameras of today, blow away the professional cameras of 5 years ago. So were the guys 5 years ago subprofessional? Tech got better and everyone drew a new line, just because better stuff is available. But I've still yet to find a real world situation where my camera wasn't professional enough.


 
Well, that's not all entirely true.

It's not that you can't do pro work with a lesser camera... you can.  Chris Burke (another site member) does his work with D40s.  It's just that the lesser bodies tend to have limitations which can make pro work harder, and they also tend to be less durable, and equipment tends to get banged around more when you're working with it in more of a pro setting.

For example... the D60 only has three focus points, the D300 has 51.  The D40 and D60 have no internal focus motor.  The D80/90 and below have certain very commonly needed controls that are not physical controls, but must be changed through a menu or through a combination of holding buttons and turning dials, vs. a dedicated physical control, etc. 

There are also capabilities differences- higher ISOs, better high-ISO noise handling, faster shutter speeds, etc.

Simple fact is better bodies are more enabling and lesser bodies can be restrictive or at least slow you down.  Pros don't tend to want to be restricted, and they CERTAINLY do not want to be slow.


----------



## NitroDC (May 22, 2009)

sunbeam said:


> WOW!  I officially LOVE this site!  What a great debate going on!  I think I have confused myself further as to which camera to buy, haha.  But I definately do plan on going pro.  For now, I am practicing, practicing, practicing.  I just REALLY feel like I've out grown this camera, and I really hate how slow it is to focus, and there's a few other things I'd change about it, as well.  It was a great little well priced entry camera, but I need something to grow with.  By the sounds of it, people seem to lean towards Nikon.  Is that because of popularity or superiority?   I guess from what I've 'researched', Pentax just doesn't have any camera's in the 'pro' level, like Canon and Nikon, so maybe that's it?  Either way, I've got alot alot of info from all of you.  It's going to be a tuffy.


When you say planning on going pro, do you mean you will shoot for popular magazines and will have photography as a JOB, or do you mean you want to have your own photography website and do wedding photography here and there?

Choose whatever, although I'd lean towards pentax, but just don't choose Canon. It will take a hell of a long time getting used to the controls (ie. Reversed Zoom (18 on left and 55 on right) Unless you really want to, that is.
I was thinking about switching to Nikon but decided not to because I have a quality lens and a high-end flash, and once I saw the K-7 information released, my jaw dropped and I stayed forevurs.


----------



## itznfb (May 22, 2009)

both canon and nikon provide a higher quality product with more consistency. which is what a professional or enthusiast looks for. once you start buying high end glass it's not very easy to switch to another brand without a decent hit to the wallet. so my advice is always to buy the best you can afford that you are most comfortable with.
i went the nikon route because i liked the way it felt when i held it, and my dad has nikon gear as well (has for 30+ years) so being able to share lenses is a huge benefit.
i don't see why people are so hyped about the K-7 though. the specs are nothing spectacular. they look standard for this years mid-level DSLRs although late to the game.


----------



## NitroDC (May 22, 2009)

itznfb said:


> *both canon and nikon provide a higher quality product with more consistency.* which is what a professional or enthusiast looks for. once you start buying high end glass it's not very easy to switch to another brand without a decent hit to the wallet. so my advice is always to buy the best you can afford that you are most comfortable with.
> i went the nikon route because i liked the way it felt when i held it, and my dad has nikon gear as well (has for 30+ years) so being able to share lenses is a huge benefit.


Examples? I haven't run into a situation where Canon's or Nikon's same-level product was better than Pentax. Pentax has always been better for me. For instance, the kit lenses, which fail in Nikon and Canon. Pentax bodies feel a lot more durable and comfortable to hold. The lens mounts are made of metal and not plastic. Tell me something that Canon and Nikon have done to out-do the Pentax (Don't compare a 1D or D3 to a K20D, they're on different levels)
Canon and Nikon glass is a LOT more expensive and has the equal quality as the same Pentax lenses. Canon and Nikon are the Apple of the camera industry. They are flashy, shiny, cost a lot, and are branded with a popular name. Down deep, they're not so amazing. I have compared the K100D and Rebel XT multiple times, guess which one was better? Pentax.


----------



## itznfb (May 22, 2009)

NitroDC said:


> Examples? I haven't run into a situation where Canon's or Nikon's same-level product was better than Pentax. Pentax has always been better for me. For instance, the kit lenses, which fail in Nikon and Canon. Pentax bodies feel a lot more durable and comfortable to hold. The lens mounts are made of metal and not plastic. Tell me something that Canon and Nikon have done to out-do the Pentax (Don't compare a 1D or D3 to a K20D, they're on different levels)
> Canon and Nikon glass is a LOT more expensive and has the equal quality as the same Pentax lenses. Canon and Nikon are the Apple of the camera industry. They are flashy, shiny, cost a lot, and are branded with a popular name. Down deep, they're not so amazing. I have compared the K100D and Rebel XT multiple times, guess which one was better? Pentax.


 
examples? all the returns on pentax glass due to bad copies. they don't have consistent production. they have lower level of quality control.
i get very bored with debating pentax vs nikon/canon because it's a stupid debate. they are in different leagues.
to say nikon and canon are more expensive but equal to pentax is just an ignorant statement.
take the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses from both nikon and canon. pentax offers nothing even remotely close to the quality of those lenses.
honestly i could list about 30 lenses from canon/nikon that just aren't available in a pentax varient in either function or quality or both.


----------



## Joves (May 22, 2009)

I can only say I love my D300. I havent shot with any of the Pentax Dslrs myself so, Im not sure how their upper line performs. I used to shoot Pentax in my film days with my last being the MX, they have always had great lens selections in my opinion. But since they were late to show up in the Dslr market I went with Nikon and, havent looked back.


----------



## Steamy-Lens (May 24, 2009)

There is alot of great equipment out there but none of it is going to make you or help you become a pro. If your not born with the eye as they say it could take years to learn it. Everyone else masters Photoshop.
Before I bought my first dslr I went and read all the camera forums, then went and had the guy at the store line up the different brands and models and I held them in my hands, (I have big hands) and the Pentax cameras felt the best in "my" hands. And it didn't feal cheap like the other brands.

I don't know how much you know about photography, but If your asking a forum about buying a camera it can't be too much. Start with some reading, there is alot to learn.
Most Pro's carry more than one brand of camera.

Just some things to think about before spending a small fortune.

Thanks for letting me rant and posting in your forum.


----------

