18-55mm one more time

tibbitts · 09-17-2010, 09:18 PM

It would help to better identify the subjects you want to photograph in low light. An f4 lens isn't going to help much (at the wide end at least) vs. the kit lens, which leaves me wondering if it's the ability to capture action in low light that's bothering you, or the actual optical performance. I don't have a k10d but I have a k200d with a similar sensor, and it's not an outstanding low-light sensor, even compared to my k100d. But depending on what you want to photograph, maybe even an f1.4 lens wouldn't help, if you need f4 or more for depth of field.

As far as "quality", I feel that even my k100d and the 18-55mm can produce very high quality images that are very satisfying to me, depending on what size they're viewed at, and what subject I'm photographing. There's always another step you can take - better lenses, full frame or medium-format sensors, etc. What aspect of "quality" do you seem most dissatisfied with? What would constitute "better results"? More dynamic range? Different color? Less noise?

Paul

Unsinkable II · 09-20-2010, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

You want better performance in low light, that all about one thing and one thing only: a larger maximum aperture.

Well, that and improved high ISO ability.

Assuming the K-x has even only one stop better high ISO performance than the K10D, the 18-55mm F3.5 - 5.6 can perform like a F2.5 - 4 (other than DOF). Some might say that the K-x has a two stop like-for-like ISO advantage over the K10D. It might well be that the K-r and K-5 have a three stop advantage.

It's not a coincidence that Nikon are putting energy in creating new F4 zooms... sensors have improved so much that other than for DOF requirements, large, expensive F2.8 zooms are often no longer required.

Marc Sabatella · 09-20-2010, 09:13 AM

True; but I was thinking about what to be looking for in a *lens*, not a camera. One should indeed consider whether a lens or camera upgrade makes more sense. Although I'd still say that if you're shooting in low light often, you owe it to yourself to have at least one good larger aperture (aka "fast" lens). f/2.8 may well be good enough.

BTW, I think expectations of the K-7 or K-r having a three stop advantage over *any* other APS-C camera are a bit unrealistic. But the K10D is indeed one of the lowest-performing cameras Pentax made in that department. So to the extent there will be a significant improvement from a camera upgrade, it especially makes sense for a K10D owner.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
help! pentax K-M requires adjust date time all time	carl zeiss	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	10-05-2012 07:27 PM
Long time pentaxian, first time poster	originaljiggy	Welcomes and Introductions	2	05-22-2010 11:28 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-08-2010 02:06 PM
Long time lurker; 1st time post	cmstringer	Welcomes and Introductions	1	01-26-2009 02:16 AM
First time with Pentax SMC 55mm F1.8	Falcons	Post Your Photos!	1	05-26-2007 11:23 AM

09-17-2010, 09:18 PM	#16
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	It would help to better identify the subjects you want to photograph in low light. An f4 lens isn't going to help much (at the wide end at least) vs. the kit lens, which leaves me wondering if it's the ability to capture action in low light that's bothering you, or the actual optical performance. I don't have a k10d but I have a k200d with a similar sensor, and it's not an outstanding low-light sensor, even compared to my k100d. But depending on what you want to photograph, maybe even an f1.4 lens wouldn't help, if you need f4 or more for depth of field. As far as "quality", I feel that even my k100d and the 18-55mm can produce very high quality images that are very satisfying to me, depending on what size they're viewed at, and what subject I'm photographing. There's always another step you can take - better lenses, full frame or medium-format sensors, etc. What aspect of "quality" do you seem most dissatisfied with? What would constitute "better results"? More dynamic range? Different color? Less noise? Paul

09-20-2010, 01:56 AM	#17
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella You want better performance in low light, that all about one thing and one thing only: a larger maximum aperture. Well, that and improved high ISO ability. Assuming the K-x has even only one stop better high ISO performance than the K10D, the 18-55mm F3.5 - 5.6 can perform like a F2.5 - 4 (other than DOF). Some might say that the K-x has a two stop like-for-like ISO advantage over the K10D. It might well be that the K-r and K-5 have a three stop advantage. It's not a coincidence that Nikon are putting energy in creating new F4 zooms... sensors have improved so much that other than for DOF requirements, large, expensive F2.8 zooms are often no longer required.

09-20-2010, 09:13 AM	#18
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	True; but I was thinking about what to be looking for in a lens, not a camera. One should indeed consider whether a lens or camera upgrade makes more sense. Although I'd still say that if you're shooting in low light often, you owe it to yourself to have at least one good larger aperture (aka "fast" lens). f/2.8 may well be good enough. BTW, I think expectations of the K-7 or K-r having a three stop advantage over any other APS-C camera are a bit unrealistic. But the K10D is indeed one of the lowest-performing cameras Pentax made in that department. So to the extent there will be a significant improvement from a camera upgrade, it especially makes sense for a K10D owner.