Reading mode: Light Dark

Playing with K20D

Go to last post
A

alex_virt

Senior Member
Messages
4,413
Solutions
10
Reaction score
3,036
Location
CA
c01eaf0f8c204143a03391842b498a72.jpg

The most comfortable to hold and the best ergonomics of all Pentax cameras I've used (except the K10D, which is identical). I thought of buying it with the battery grip, but decided against it, because I'm not a wedding photog and don't need to carry extra weight to impress anyone :)

The sensor made by Samsung isn't great, but I think that Pentax managed to squeeze some extra juice out of it. A few pics taken with different lenses processed in ACR.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6
Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6

DA 50mm F1.8
DA 50mm F1.8

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6
Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6
Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6
Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8

DA 35mm F2.4 (ACR)
DA 35mm F2.4 (ACR)

DA 35mm F2.4 (RPP)
DA 35mm F2.4 (RPP)

--
www.flickr.com

Alex Gridenko

Explore Alex Gridenko’s 250 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Alex, very good pictures. Was this the last CCD-equipped Pentax (Samsung) camera? Pity that you didn't get with it any Schneider Kreuznach (kit) lens. They were far better than the Pentax ones.
 
flektogon said:
Alex, very good pictures. Was this the last CCD-equipped Pentax (Samsung) camera?
Click to expand...
No, it's a CMOS sensor made by Samsung. It even has live view, although rudimentary. The same sensor was in my first mirrorless Samsung NX10.
flektogon said:
Pity that you didn't get with it any Schneider Kreuznach (kit) lens. They were far better than the Pentax ones.
Click to expand...
My DA 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 are better anyway.
 
Alex, is this all taken from your place? You have a nice view! Except that ugly (condominium?) on the first picture...
 
flektogon said:
Alex, is this all taken from your place? You have a nice view!
Click to expand...
Yes, from my balcony on the 22nd floor.
flektogon said:
Except that ugly (condominium?) on the first picture...
Click to expand...
That new condominium is a real eyesore :( There are also a couple of dark brown highrises to the right from it that are even uglier. The North East view of the golf club is much nicer (pic. 3). Is it just me, or does this picture look wonderfully 3-dimensional? :)



aacd7fcd51ca449aa7fd1296b38b6b76.jpg



--
www.flickr.com

Alex Gridenko

Explore Alex Gridenko’s 250 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
alex_virt said:
The most comfortable to hold and the best ergonomics of all Pentax cameras I've used (except the K10D, which is identical). I thought of buying it with the battery grip, but decided against it, because I'm not a wedding photog and don't need to carry extra weight to impress anyone :)

The sensor made by Samsung isn't great, but I think that Pentax managed to squeeze some extra juice out of it. A few pics taken with different lenses processed in ACR.
Click to expand...
This was my first Pentax DSLR, you summarized it nicely - great to use but the image quality wasn't anything special. I wish the KF has the same ergos.
 
tilted_horizon said:
alex_virt said:
The most comfortable to hold and the best ergonomics of all Pentax cameras I've used (except the K10D, which is identical). I thought of buying it with the battery grip, but decided against it, because I'm not a wedding photog and don't need to carry extra weight to impress anyone :)

The sensor made by Samsung isn't great, but I think that Pentax managed to squeeze some extra juice out of it. A few pics taken with different lenses processed in ACR.
Click to expand...
This was my first Pentax DSLR, you summarized it nicely - great to use but the image quality wasn't anything special. I wish the KF has the same ergos.
Click to expand...
If I could take the K5 sensor and put it into the K20 body, that would make a perfect Pentax camera! 😀
 
These two underexposed pics were taken in terribly dim tungsten light. Both cleaned up beautifully in ACR. New software is breathing new life into the great cameras of yore!



54678300885_ae76740ef7_o.jpg




54677975441_c3bbf9fe19_o.jpg




--
www.flickr.com

Alex Gridenko

Explore Alex Gridenko’s 250 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Yes, those are very nice pictures. now I am beginning to be intrigued by ACR. Can you somehow post/e-mail me the (first image, for example) original file? I would like to process is as best as my ACDSee can to compare it with your result. Then I might abandon ACDSee finally.

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
flektogon said:
Yes, those are very nice pictures. now I am beginning to be intrigued by ACR. Can you somehow post/e-mail me the (first image, for example) original file? I would like to process is as best as my ACDSee can to compare it with your result. Then I might abandon ACDSee finally.
Click to expand...
Emailed
 
alex_virt said:
These two underexposed pics were taken in terribly dim tungsten light. Both cleaned up beautifully in ACR. New software is breathing new life into the great cameras of yore!

54678300885_ae76740ef7_o.jpg
Click to expand...
O.K. I downloaded your picture as you posted it here ~ processed by ACR. And compared with what my ACDSee (and Topaz) delivered. And I think that I can continue using ACDSee. It is not bad at all. It delivers great colours/tonality, and even its noise reduction process is acceptable. Of course, its not a match (but this applies to ACR) to what Topaz can do. Just I need to wait at least 2-3 min to clean one picture. But the time is what I have in abundance :-) . Here is the pp picture in ACDSee (just its tonality) and Topaz used to clean the noise (just in the case that someone else is following this tread).

Btw. my wife admires those glasses. Like Czech crystal (maybe they are :-) ).

e6e02e9ff95a4ef29229dfd9c0ec4a09.jpg

--
Regards,
Peter
 
Last edited:
flektogon said:
alex_virt said:
These two underexposed pics were taken in terribly dim tungsten light. Both cleaned up beautifully in ACR. New software is breathing new life into the great cameras of yore!

54678300885_ae76740ef7_o.jpg
Click to expand...
O.K. I downloaded your picture as you posted it here ~ processed by ACR. And compared with what my ACDSee (and Topaz) delivered. And I think that I can continue using ACDSee. It is not bad at all. It delivers great colours/tonality, and even its noise reduction process is acceptable. Of course, its not a match (but this applies to ACR) to what Topaz can do. Just I need to wait at least 2-3 min to clean one picture. But the time is what I have in abundance :-) . Here is the pp picture in ACDSee (just its tonality) and Topaz used to clean the noise (just in the case that someone else is following this tread).
Click to expand...
The image processed with Topaz looks great, I like it. ACDSee NR isn't very good.
flektogon said:
Btw. my wife admires those glasses. Like Czech crystal (maybe they are :-) ).
Click to expand...
They very well may be! The hosts are avid travellers, I'll ask them. The drink was calvados.
flektogon said:
e6e02e9ff95a4ef29229dfd9c0ec4a09.jpg
Click to expand...
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/202837760@N02/
 
Last edited:
It reminds me of my other old camera, the Canon PowerShot G10. Both have not so great image quality, but are so nicely designed and so comfortable to use, they beg you to pick them up and start shooting.

I will continue using both cameras just for fun and pleasure :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top