Pentax K20D vs. Sony Alpha A330

[Phrasikleia]

OK, it was a bit hyperbolic. If you just look at quick specs, it seems like the K-x is on par or better than the K-7 in some areas.

Well, the K-x is better is exactly one regard: it has a higher possible expanded ISO. That's it. That's the one thing it has over the K-7.

But like I said, it uses AA batteries. The PowerShot A720 IS I have now burns right through them, so (just an educated guess) a DSLR must go through them even faster,

Actually the reverse is true. A point-and-shoot camera uses its batteries for a number of things (like zooming, for example) that are manual on a DSLR. You'll also end up using the screen a lot less, unless you're a big fan of Live View.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Well, the K-x is better is exactly one regard: it has a higher possible expanded ISO. That's it. That's the one thing it has over the K-7.

The Engadget article made the K-x sound much better.

Although if I get a color, I won't necessarily be able to get colored lenses that go with it. BTW, I really like the red.

Actually the reverse is true. A point-and-shoot camera uses its batteries for a number of things (like zooming, for example) that are manual on a DSLR. You'll also end up using the screen a lot less, unless you're a big fan of Live View.

True. I haven't been using live view lately on my point-and-shoot lately anyways.

 

[Phrasikleia]

The Engadget article made the K-x sound much better.

I think you may have misread this bit:

"Sized up to the K-7, its wider ISO range is the only improvement, otherwise on par in features or lacking, as is in the case of AF / AE, video, and continuous shooting speed."

What the author is saying is:

"Sized up to the K-7, the wider ISO range of the K-x is the only improvement over the K-7, otherwise the K-x is on par in features with the K-7 or is lacking features belonging to the K-7, as is in the case of AF / AE, video, and continuous shooting speed, none of which are as good on the K-x."

(The bold bits are my additions to add clarity to his convoluted and confusing sentence.)

At any rate, the K-x is a great entry-level camera, and you would probably be very happy with it.

Although if I get a color, I won't necessarily be able to get colored lenses that go with it. BTW, I really like the red.

If you get a camera that has some black on it, then black lenses ought to coordinate well enough.

 

[pdxflint]

Well, most other camera makers have changed their mounts, so Nikon is still ahead of most. Pentax is just at the top of the hill. Canon cut off the FD mount (adapters aside), so they don't come close to Nikon's compatibility in that department.

I make the observation that there are plenty of cheap old AF lenses that will work on entry-level Nikon DSLRs, though most won't autofocus on the D40/60/3000/5000. You're in good shape with a D70/80/90.

You forgot the D50... it also works with older AF lenses. I have several legacy Nikkors (AF 50mm f/1.8 - non D, 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D, and AF 300mm f/4.0 ED) which all work very well with my little old D50...

Back on topic (sorta..) My first SLR was an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II, with screw-type lens mount. It worked in stop-down metering mode, fully manual. I had two incredible lenses with it, the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and the SMC Takumar 135 f/2.5. I learned photography with this camera, and wish I still had it - sadly it was stolen 25 years ago. I bought it all new in 1971 overseas when I was just a little pup. A nice thing about the Pentax options is the ability to use jewels like these lenses, if you can find good copies. They were built like engineering marvels, and the focusing action was smooth and well damped. Nothing like 'em.

I'm voting for the Pentax all the way here. They invented the modern SLR.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Full disclosure: I have a Pentax MX that is one of my prized possessions; and my husband has a K20D, along with an arsenal of amazing lenses that, put together, probably cost less than any one of my Canon lenses.

 

[Buschmaster]

OK, it was a bit hyperbolic. If you just look at quick specs, it seems like the K-x is on par or better than the K-7 in some areas.



But like I said, it uses AA batteries. The PowerShot A720 IS I have now burns right through them, so (just an educated guess) a DSLR must go through them even faster,

About every 1,500-2,000 shots or so. Depends on a lot of factors though. Like how often you shoot with shake reduction, how often you auto focus, etc.