K200d vs K10d which to buy?

[Ydosix]

Hello everyone, I am new poster here and this is my first time posting. I'm currently in the market to purchase my first Digital SLR in order to make my complete transfer from 35mm film SLR.

After much research, my choice is to go with the Pentax DSLR brand, which I've reasoned would be a smart choice.

Based on what I've read about Pentax, the K20d is of course the best model, which I simply cannot afford its price range right now. However I can certainly afford an older k10d kit or the most recent entry level k200d kit. Both models seem to now be around the same price range.

A slight dilema is that I still can't be quite sure which is the better camera , between the 10 and the 200, to buy at this time. Are there some suggestions that can be offered here that could help me make the best choice between buying an affordable K10d or the similarly affordable and newer k200d?
Thanks in advance for any advice offered.
Ydosix.

[loaff]

It's better just try and feel both cameras in your hands. They have very similar features, the main difference is ergonomics. Some people find K10D more convenient, others like K200D better.

[tattoodjay]

I agree with getting into a shop and trying them in your hands and seeing which you like the most, I personally preferred the K200D and got that last week

The K200D is a little smaller and I believe has a smaller buffer which affect continuous shooting if thats a concern, it also uses AA batteries which to me was a plus as you can pick them up anywhere if you run out of rechargeable, but for others thats a minus, again a matter of preference.

The K200D also has more auto and scene settings which is good if you have family who may want to take shots at times and for while your learning how to control the camera yourself.

Choosing which one is never easy and it really comes down to the individual and there needs, good luck

[tuxcomputers]

Pluses for the K10D:

1. Dual control wheels
2. Li-ion battery takes approx 300 photos
3. Compatible chinese battery's are about $15 from ebay
4. The modes are aimed at more advanced users

Pluses for the K200D:

1. Uses AA battery's
2. In a pinch you can get battery's anywhere
3. Later firmware
4. The modes are aimed at less advanced users

If I was faced with the same choice as you, I would buy the K10D every time. The dual control wheels make controlling the camera 10 times easier. I have customised mine so that the alternative control wheel changes the ISO, it's awesome.

[loaff]

If the Li-ion battery in K10D lasts only 300 shots, it's not really a plus. Cheap rechargeable Ni-Mh batteries last over 600 shots in my K100D Super (with occasional use of flash and lots of fiddling around with the screen/settings). And people on other forums said that good non-rechargeable batteries can handle up to 2500 shots (without flash, I guess).

[GEli]

Originally Posted by loaff

If the Li-ion battery in K10D lasts only 300 shots, it's not really a plus. Cheap rechargeable Ni-Mh batteries last over 600 shots in my K100D Super (with occasional use of flash and lots of fiddling around with the screen/settings). And people on other forums said that good non-rechargeable batteries can handle up to 2500 shots (without flash, I guess).

Something's wrong with your battery, then. I'll regularly get 1200+ shots on a single charge on my K10D. Non-rechargeable AAs may get more shots (though 2500 is a lie or with a P+S and no LCD use), but will cost you an arm and a leg to use over any extended period, besides being rather un-green.

I hadn't realized about the control wheel difference. Definitely get the K10D. Shooting without dual wheels would be hell.

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by GEli

Something's wrong with your battery, then. I'll regularly get 1200+ shots on a single charge on my K10D. Non-rechargeable AAs may get more shots (though 2500 is a lie or with a P+S and no LCD use), but will cost you an arm and a leg to use over any extended period, besides being rather un-green.

Not a lie at all. I routinely got around 2500 pictures with my K100D and CRV3 lithium cells. And that's with a lot of review on the LCD. It is a little un-green, but at least they can be recycled (which I did).

And, say you take the equivalent of a roll of film a day for a year. Six sets of batteries will get you through, for a total cost of about $75. Compared to $30 for two sets of high-quality low-discharge NiMH batteries and another $30 for a decent charger, it's not really a lot more — but a whole lot less hassle.

If you only shoot a couple of hundred pictures a month, the lithium primary cell approach is likely to be cheaper for the entire life of the camera ($12 a year!) — and you're always assured a good charge when you take the camera off the shelf.

And to top it all off, the K100D definitely performs better (focus speed in particular) with lithiums.

Obviously the rechargeables are a better deal if you shoot more than that, and there is certainly the eco factor to consider.

(On the other question, btw, 300 would probably be right from the K10D if you use the flash with every shot.)

[loaff]

Originally Posted by GEli

Something's wrong with your battery, then. I'll regularly get 1200+ shots on a single charge on my K10D. Non-rechargeable AAs may get more shots (though 2500 is a lie or with a P+S and no LCD use), but will cost you an arm and a leg to use over any extended period, besides being rather un-green.

Everything's OK with them, except that they are cheap ($25 for 4 batteries with a charger) old Chinese batteries
I realise that a new set will perform much better, but for now I'm satisfied with 600+ shots - it's more, than my memory card can store (I haven't bought a new one yet and use the 1GB card that came with the camera).