[skieferins]

I am going to buy a Pentax K30 in a few weeks, so can I ask a few questions to you ? The kit I will be getting is the 18-55 wr one, so what I need to know is how close can I get with the macro feature ? Also what is the video footage like ? I will be filming a childrens entertainer in a hall for my sons birthday and I'll be about 20/30ft away from him....Lastly (For now lol) have any of you taken shots indoors that come out clear ? I was debating between the K30 and the RX100 as I want to take photos of my kids in doors - I have blinds and uplighter lampshades - and in ball pit areas, so these I think are considered as low light situations ? I need to ask actual people rather than just reviewers as they never show pics in an indoor low light situation. Many thanks :-)

[JinDesu]

Minimum focus distance (0.34x magnification) is at 25cm. Your body and lens is about 13cm. So about 12cm in front of the lens, give or take a few.

Can't speak on the video. It's supposed to be one of the better video cams for Pentax.

Super long method of explaining #3:
The RX100 has a 10-37 F1.8-4.9 lens. It is equivalent to 28-100mm.
The 18-55mm lens is F3.5-5.6, and is equivalent to 27-82mm.

On the short end, F1.8 is about 1.5-2 stops better than the F3.5. On the long end, F4.9 isn't so different from F5.6.
The k-30's high ISO is probably about 2-3 stops better than the RX100. DXO mark states that the RX100 achieves 30db of signal at 400ISO, while the k-30 can go to 1200ISO. That's about 2.5 stops. So indoor shooting, the k-30 will more than likely be at least as good, or better than the RX100, even with the kit lens. If you ever decide to get a better lens like a 16-45 F4 or a 17-50 F2.8, you will have much better performance indoors than the RX100.

[Transit]

.....I will be filming a childrens entertainer in a hall for my sons birthday and I'll be about 20/30ft away from him........

consider using a tripod for that, nothing like a steady view

[Transit]

.....Lastly (For now lol) have any of you taken shots indoors that come out clear ?

It has a great low noise sensor so you can use high iso and therefore fast enough shutter speed for low light.

edit: and what boriscleto said
and even this one

---

Last edited by Transit; 02-05-2013 at 05:49 PM.

[boriscleto]

Even better than a zoom for indoors would be the DA 50/1.8 or F/FA 50/1.7.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-sample-photo-archive/174806-super-mu...0mm-1-7-a.html

[skieferins]

Honestly, some of that was over my head. But I do get the gist of your feedback. I have seen an offer that might be a better option for me, its to buy the body only and a 18-135 lens...I would save around £100 compared to buying them separately, but again, would this type of lens benefit me with the close ups ? I take it that the 18 is the starting point which will give the 12mm close up you were explaining ? So to get closer I'd need 0-18 ? The video footage using the 18-135 would logically allow me to get a better shot of the entertainer from a further distance right ? I can't leave a camera on a tripod with 50 kids mulling about, so I will have to be further back ,so the 18-135 would be better yes ? As for the 18-55 kit lens, that will allow me to take portrait shots as well as indoor shots but the only difference being the zoom is limited compared to the 18-135 ? In real feet and inches, how far can I be indoors and outdoors to get a clear shot of my subject before it starts blurring ? Sorry if my understanding seems very basic, but I have never used a dslr before only compacts, I don't want to buy one and take it back to the shop thinking it was a waste of money, when all I would have needed was a basic understanding in the first place. To explain, I could never drill a straight hole in a wall, until the technique was explained to me, now my house has shelves everywhere, but boy did I have to use a lot of filler before the basics were shown to me. BTW, Does the K30 have a time limit on shooting video footage ? I know some cameras allow only 10 mins at a time. Thank you :-)

[jbuck92]

The 18-135mm is the focal length range. 18 being the widest the lens can possibly go (think landscapes), the 135 being the narrowest or longest the lens can go (think long-distance). Every lens has a different minimum focus distance based on the distance that the lens elements are apart from eachother in the lens itself. Your 18-135 has a minimum focusing distance of 40 cm which is 15 cm further away than the 18-55.

As far as how far away can you be, with an 18-135 you could probably be up to 40 or 50 feet away and still get good shots. The only downside would be at that distance your aperture would be limited to 5.6 or smaller. The 18-135 is a variable aperture. At 18mm it can open up to 3.5, where as at 135 it can only be opened up to 5.6. Other lenses have a fixed aperture which means no matter what focal length you are shooting at, the aperture will remain the same.

You'd be better off with the 18-135, the aperture is the same as the 18-55, and you get a much greater reach for more flexibility by using the 18-135.

[lister6520]

If you have never used an SLR before and only used compact cameras beware that you might be disappointed unless you understand the SLR concept well.
If you were to compare numbers and features then an SLR with a kit lens will appear vastly inferior to even a low priced compact.

In particular what will look very weak is the zoom and the macro capability. Most compacts have at least 10x zoom, and often even 20x and will focus to less than an inch distance.

In comparison the 18-55 lens will give you just 3x zoom and the macro capability will be way inferior.

One of the main reasons for buying an SLR (but of course not the only one) is that you can change lenses and unless you intend to purchase some lenses you might not gain much compared to a much cheaper compact. I know people who have spent over $3000 on an SLR with a kit lens and then be disappointed when they find out that their smartphone can make much better macro photos. The problem is of course not that the phone is better but because they were using the wrong lens.

If you are on a limited budget and cannot afford more lenses beyond the one that comes with it I would suggest to go for a cheaper SLR, perhaps even a second hand one such as the Pentax K-r or K-x and spend the money you save (compared to a new K-30) on a couple of lenses. With the money you save buying a second hand K-r instead of a new K-30 you might for example get a Tamron 18-250 zoom and a Tamron 90mm Macro. The former will give you what would be called 13x zoom in a compact, but of course much better quality while the Tamron macro will give you exceptionally good quality macro photos. The only reason I mention Tamron is because I have those two lenses. There are probably equally good lenses from Pentax and Sigma. (The Tamron 18-250 is nowadays badged as a Pentax product if I'm not mistaken.)
There are also many old second hand lenses that can be used which can also give very good results, the downside being that they require more effort because most of the automatic feature of the camera won;t work so you do everything manually.

To summarise, the message I'm trying to convey is that
1. unless you intend to invest in lenses you will probably find the SLR as a step backwards from what you are used to
2. if your budget is limited it is better to spend more on lenses and less on the camera.
3. if you don;t mind the extra effort you can do some fantastic things with cheap second hand lenses

[Transit]

All the numbers and jargon are confusing eh ?
Read up on DSLR basics such as aperture and it will become clearer.
There is a learning curve and initial results can be disappointing. It's well worth persevering.
Pete

[skieferins]

The advice is all very welcome. The reason I have chosen the K30 aside from the actual look , the blue really is a looker, is the weather sealing. I read about the Nikon D5100 and on a Pentax forum they actually recommended the Nikon over the K30 and a Canon Rebel 4ti. However, again the weather sealing is the icing on the cake to me. In a nutshell, I want to take photos indoors of my family, maybe a few portrait pics again most likely indoors and capture my kids as they run around without getting blurred pics. As my kids are still at the age to go to ball pit play areas which are low light, I want to capture their expressions and action shots of them playing without the blur. Another incentive is the bigger sensor, the RX100 has a 1 inch sensor , but in low light situations I have always found compact cameras require flash , which usually turns my kids faces from glowing pink to ghostly white with red eyes at times, no amount of photoshopping can help, unless I go black and white and mess around for hours, this is far too time consuming with four kids. The video mode is a bonus. I already have an amazing quality Kodak sports video camera that takes stunning video in full hd, but I would rather carry just one piece of equipment around with me. As for the macro feature, I am not really fussed about taking a photo of a fly's eyelashes, I would just like to take a clear photo of say an object which is around 3 inches away from the camera, if I need to get closer I can crop and zoom with photoshop seeing as the camera is at 16MP. I currently have a Ricoh CX4 which takes incredible outdoor photos as well as a very fast continual shot feature albeit that the quality drops from 12mp down to 3mp, I have never found a compact that takes even IMO descent indoor low light pictures, let alone good pictures. This is why I am going for a DSLR, So now you've read exactly what I want from a camera, does in your opinion a DSLR sound like a step up or backwards ?

[Transit]

You can wind up the sensitivity (iso) heaps in the K30
so the shutter speed is still fast in low light thus hopefully avoiding the blur.
The bigger and newer sensor means it will not get the blotchy coloured grain (noise).

The DSLR is most definitely a step up in what you can achieve.

[skieferins]

I have been thinking about what you have all written...Whilst looking up prices I noticed another model being mentioned the K-01, From what I saw the only real difference between the K30 and The K-01 is the weather sealing and the K-01 is smaller/lighter. For the price difference of £100 less I would get a k-01 18-55 AND 50-200 lens ? Can any of you tell me the differences in real terms between the 2 cameras given my needs which are listed above. Thank you

[Transit]

Yep the K-01 has no viewfinder, just the screen on the back. It ISN'T weather sealed.
It isn't much smaller and refered to fondly as 'the brick' by afficienados
They hired some unknown famous designer to do it. It is a one off model with no more coming apparently.
Plenty of Pentax faithful are buying it and many enjoy it. Launched overpriced, they have slaughtered the price to clear them out.
Quite like one myself
Pete

[Transit]

also, the 18-55 and 55-200 combo is cheaper than the 18-135 though less versitile as you have to change lenses.
The 55-200 is good enough but not great.

[boriscleto]

They hired some unknown famous designer to do it.

Marc Newson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2005, he was selected as one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people of the year.

Newson was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2012 New Year Honours for services to design.