Pentax k-m / k2000

Sorry Håvard, you can just skip this one, it doesn’t feature any arrows showing which direction electrons travel :p

I bought a new DSLR body not long ago, a pentax k-m. It’s a rather cheap 10MP entry-level dslr, going for as low as 3600 NOK new here in Norway – I gave around 2800 NOK for it in the UK. So, what can this “toy”-camera do? Most of what the bigger brothers k10d/k20d can do actually. Here are a few of my own experiences with it.. Pentax k-m with da 21mm limited on flickr (cdehaan):

What have they stripped from it’s much larger bigger brothers – k10d/k20d: Weather sealing (you can’t bring it with you into the shower like the k10d), size, weight, top lcd, selectable focus point (and the red dot focus indicator in the view-finder), front wheel, Tav and bulb mode, cable trigger, and probably a few other non-important things. Quite a few of these could easily have been left on and still kept the cost down if you ask me, especially things that are mostly in software. Even though the camera is quite light, it still feels very solid – not as solid as the armored and sealed k10d (which probably could crush someones skull without getting a scratch), but much more solid than other cameras in the same class. The grip is also smaller, but I don’t find this a problem, especially with lighter lenses. I even manage to wield something like a DA*16-50, anything larger than this though is a bit uncomfortable and looks comical. This camera thrives on smaller primes, something like pentax’ limited series (pancakes) would rock. Normally I keep my FA50/1.4 on it. So, how is it in use..? quite good actually! Even though it lacks some features, I don’t really miss them much – maybe with the exception of the front wheel (especially when shooting manually). The autofocus is quite fast for a pentax (probably the fastest of the family) and doesn’t hunt as much as my k10d. What I do miss though is the screen – it could just be a feeling – but I like the LCD on my k10d better than the k-m’s. It just doesn’t seem as good in daylight. Ok, so what’s the image quality like? From iso 100-800 it’s quite good, and goes a bit downhill at 1600-3200. A sample taken at iso 200 can be seen below, this is using a DA* 16-50/2.8 lens. It might not be fair to display samples taken with a lens that costs twice as much as the camera itself, but I think it really shows that if you have a limited budget it’s better to put your cash on the optics than on the camera – unless you really need all the extra buttons and frills that comes with a more high-end house. Besides, a limited lens / prime will probably give you even more sharpness than this at a lower price.

1:1 crop of the above image:

Other cool points about about the k-m.. it features in-house shake reduction, you barely even get a lens with IS/VR from other brands for the same amount of money as this camera. It uses the k-mount, which means that you use k-mount lenses going back as far as the 1970s – and get shake reduction for them. Even older lenses (M42) can be used with an adapter. Battery-life is surprisingly good, it uses normal AA-cells, and the batteries that came with the camera lasted me many weeks (3-4) and well over 1000 shots. It has some sort of dynamic range function, which seems to give better details in the shadows, I haven’t really used this much, and no-one really seems to know what it actually does. It has a dust-removal system (shakes the sensor) and also a system for dust detection. It supports SDM, for lenses with built in focus-motor. Menu system is quite good, and if you are a beginner – a help button explains everything for you. This help button can be reconfigured to other things if you don’t need it. All buttons (except flash-up and af/mf) can be operated using the right-hand while holding it. If it wasn’t for rather low high-iso performance and the crippled 5-point (non selectable) focus system, I think this camera would completely wipe the floor with the competitors in the same price class (it still does on many points). They are all very good, so it’s only small differences that count. The K-m has some really good sides, but they shouldn’t have crippled it as much as they did if they wanted it to be the best entry-level camera on as many fronts as possible. But, of course, to quote sveinmb, “it sucks goatballs” – because it doesn’t say nikon or canon anywhere on the body :p


7 thoughts on “Pentax k-m / k2000

  1. I too have the Km. Its a lovely camera and performs very well. I dont really need any camera stabilization because I am lucky that I dont have bad “shooting” techniques. In the “old” days there was no such thing anyway. Today everyone goes on about shake reduction. I am glad that Pentax has built this feature into the camera as a bonus to using any lens suited to it. This gives 25 million good reasons for it. My wife pointed out to me why is a camera body that lacks shake reduction features cost equally if not more than one that has considering the infinate capabillities of one that has body stabilization? My answer to her, “these brands want their dedicated film owners to shelve their valuable lenses they have scrap it and have to go out and buy a repeat of focal length they already have with in lens stabilization as the cost. This is a great marketing tool. I love the decsent people at Pentax for respecting the quality and build quality of SMC Super A and other superb Pentax, Takumar, Sigma lenses that can be mounted on Pentax Digital cameras. The ones I have are all alloy with the K mount fixed to ALLOY. Theres no better build quality than these lenses. The modern day equivalents do come with alloy K mounts as do rival brands but are still fixed to plastic within that lens. Km K10 K200 or whatever Pentax for that matter keeps all photographers that use them to be able to utilize their lens collection and surely that must equate to a better option than the rival brands that can cost its owners an arm and a leg and ditch their old lenses. I know someone who has a Canon and has a collections of lenses for a canon film camera and when questioned about the non use of these lenses on his new digital camera, the answer was that these are crappy lenses! My reply “but arnt they Canon lenses? LOL His reply “Yes”! What more can one say. LMAO

  2. ??????! =) ????? ????????? ????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? πŸ™‚ :”?????????? ???????????? ????????????? ????? ??????? ? ????? ???????????? ???? ???? ???????. ? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ? ???????????????? ? ????? ??????????, ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????. ???? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ????????, ???????????, ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ??, ? ??????? ? ??? ?????????, ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ? ???????? ??????? ????????????????? ?????????????. ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? – ??????? ????. ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??????. ??????? ????????? ???? ???????, ?? ??????? ???? ????? ? ??????, ?? ?????? ? ???? ????????, ??? ????????????? ???????. ???? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ? ?????, ????? ???????? ???? ? ????? ??????? ? ??????, ??????? ????? ??? ?????…”????? ??? ??? ????? ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? :))) ????????

  3. This is a Great All-Around Camera that someone can own. Cheap, well built with great features that even bigger frame and more expensive cameras would be jealous.Battery life is outstanding i have it now for 2 and half months in the original energizer batteries.I want to buy another lens though cause i am still with the original 18-55.anyways nice blog πŸ™‚

  4. Cool Article! My spouse and i had been simply just debating that there’s a whole lot absolutely wrong details at this matter and also you precisely replaced the belief. Many thanks for a marvelous contribute.

  5. Sending someone a message…they don’t reply…they must be out…then they post a Facebook status. Great, they’re ignoring me.

  6. Fabulous posting bro. This important is just a tremendously nicely structured post, just the critical info I was looking just for. I praise you

  7. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about information and love learning more on this. If possible,it is very helpful for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s