K-01 vs D200 vs ?

[Nesster]

My Pentax K100D is starting to annoy me a bit as it does seem to think the batteries don't last very long - even fresh Eneloops.

So I'm starting to think about low cost alternatives. I'm not looking for a NEX type of thing; rather, a Pentax or Nikon that mounts my existing lenses for each brand, retaining exposure and aperture automation. Ie. I'm lazy and want something with full legacy support.

So I've been looking at the D200 from Nikon and the K-01 from Pentax, each around $300 or less in the market right now.

I have Nikon Ai primes from 24mm to 105mm, plus a passel of Adaptall 2's to take me to 210mm. I have Pentax A primes from 28mm plus a couple of Limiteds and the 16-45 zoom, plus the same passel of Adaptalls, down to 24mm.

The D200 is from '05 and will give me a more traditional film type of experience, with decent ISO to 800 and noisier thereafter. A range I'm used to and with which I'm comfortable. But the K-01 does the high ISO thing, something I could grow to love.

The D200 is a traditional look through the vf kind of camera; I like that. But I could get used to the LCD viewing of the K-01, and that could be the future of things...

The D200 is large-ish, maybe larger than I normally like. The K-01 is small, of course, but chunky and not so light, and comes in white and yellow.

The D200 will give me a taste of the things Nikon is better at - even in a 7 year old body - than Pentax ever has been: auto focus speed and flexibility, metering, flash support. But the K-01 has the modern sensor, focus peaking, and for ~$80 more the cutest, smallest 40mm pancake ever, a lens that would give me a fabulous tiny film camera with a MX or Program Plus.

So I dither. Any thoughts, everyone?

[Spotmatic]

Interesting question, Jussi. Maybe I'm stupid but could it be possible that the K-01 focuses faster than the D200? After all, the D200 is VERY old and contrast detection AF algorithms have improved enormously.

BTW, I'm surprised to see that you use relatively simple bodies. Is there a reason for not wanting, for instance, a second hand K-5? Going from a K100D to a K-5 is something like the difference between night and day. The K100D, I know from experience, is a super slow camera in all aspects (slow focusing, slow SD card write speeds, slow startup time), so a K-5 would be nothing short of a wonder im comparison

[Nesster]

That's true... also, my daughter has a K-X, and I see these are going in the $300 vicinity too, so that would be another split the difference item.

I think the Nikon idea is because I accumulated all those lenses and don't use my FE so much.

[kuuan]

or a K-30? for how much does it sell now?
I believe it offers pretty much everything you mention as advantages of both the Nikon and the K-01, of course besides having a Nikon mount, most Nikon lenses mount on Pentax though, right?

[Nesster]

[kuuan]

that doesn't make it easier, amazon got a great deal for the new, yellow K-01 right now, 319.- incl. the 40mm pancake:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00740MRBE/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new

[Nesster]

Yes, I see that, delivery in 1 to 2 months though.

Hey! I could order it, forget that I did, get the K-30, and in March find I also have a yellow K-01. My daughter who normally is into yellow and has good taste (not inherited from dad) does not like the yellow K-01.

[ManualFocus-G]

I'd go for a K30 or a used D90

[Nesster]

[sichko]

[ManualFocus-G]

[schen]

I shot Pentax back in my film days and loved it, but switched to Nikon when I went digital. I'm pretty satisfied with my Nikons having worked my way through D70, D70s, D200, D50 and D300. Have you looked considered the D300 in place of the D200? With the rush to adopt full-frame, the price on them seems to be dropping rapidly. Careful watching could net you one for not much more than a D200 and they are usefully more advanced in a number of areas such higher ISO performance, as well as "LiveView".

[Karhallarn]

I would also look for a D300 if going Nikon! The D200 seems to have reached the bottom of it's price range by now an stays there since half a year! (I'm also always looking at D200s, as I loved mine and still can't really justify having sold it )

So the D300 is not much pricier and is still going down and it is very improved over the D200, as it has bigger viewfinder (100%), better high iso, better screen, liveview and better metering.

[schen]

I tell you what, the thing that would really push me either over might be the pancake. I've always had a bit of an obsession with those things even back when the only ones around were the Pentax and Nikon 45s. Before they were "cool". However, I don't really care for the feel of them on a full-sized body and not really much even on my MX.

So, I'll probably get one for my GF-1

Back on the topic of D200 vs. D300, I really think that the main difference to me is the versitility. The D300 is just better at everything that the D200 can do while being able to do a few more critical things. As far as the systems are concerned; if legacy is a main issue, I'd have to go Nikon. Of course I'm biased since that's the reason I made the choice that I did when I made the switch.