I have changed my mind!

edgedemon · 11-16-2010, 09:52 AM

Choices Choices, Im really not sure what to do...
Im looking to get my first dslr, and found my way here after someone recommended a K100 as a cheap starter to learn on..
Great idea, but I have yet to see a K100, K200 or even an ist D/DL go for much less than £200..

So this has me thinking, do I get a K-x or K-r, as if a 2nd hand K100 is going to go for so much, I might as well buy something new, and get the increase in MP and a more modern sensor/features..

I like the price of a K-x, but the lack of AF viewfinder bothers me, I want to go for a full dslr experience, and that is not the norm as I understand it?
The K-r does have the AF points, it also has a few other minor improvements and there is the cashback which makes it closer (though not that close) to the K-x in price..

The other thing is lenses - I understand that I can use manual focus lenses with the newer camera's, that will give me access to a huge selection of old glass that I can pick up cheap and use to learn
However, I have never used a MF lens, how practical is it on say a K-r camera? Is there a high annoyance factor, or is it OK. I guess my doubts come from how cheap the lenses are, as it makes me wonder if they are cheap for a reason ie a hassle to use?

Then there is a K5 - yes, I know, way over my spec, but should I not go for the best I can afford, as the sensor is one of the best (according to Dx0)
Some of the photo's I take will be at places that I will only ever go to once, so it makes sense to get the best possible RAW file I can while Im there? Whatever I buy, will have to do me for a long time, my trusty G2 lasted me for 10yrs and Im thinking a similar timescale for this purchase as well, this amount of money doesn't come to me often so I intend to use it as well as I can!!

On the other hand I could get a K-r and get 1 good lens with it?

Things I like to photograph - Landscape, street, and one thing I will do when I have a dslr is get into macro in a big way..

Im also having to ignore friends who think Im crazy not to get Canon/Nikon, but I wanted something a bit different, and I think it boils down to K-r or K5?

Any advice, suggestions welcome

Daveinozbikes · 11-16-2010, 10:05 AM

From what I"ve read and seen so far K5 seems to be the go, especially if you plan on keeping it for some years. I don't reckon you will regret the purchase. All the Best Dave

Ken T · 11-16-2010, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by edgedemon

Whatever I buy, will have to do me for a long time, my trusty G2 lasted me for 10yrs and Im thinking a similar timescale for this purchase as well, this amount of money doesn't come to me often so I intend to use it as well as I can!!

Im also having to ignore friends who think Im crazy not to get Canon/Nikon, but I wanted something a bit different, and I think it boils down to K-r or K5?

Any advice, suggestions welcome

Then get the best one as you can, which is the K-5 .

chalion · 11-16-2010, 10:16 AM

If you have the cash, I'd also say to get the K-5. From all of the posts and reviews I can find, it's the best of everything Pentax has to offer.

Now, if you can only afford to get the body, but not quality lenses, then you may want to get the K-r and maybe one or 2 good lenses. It won't have all the bells and whistles of the K-5, but it is pretty darn close.

It all really depends on the amount of cash you have to spend. If you can afford the K-5 and 1 or 2 lenses, or can only afford the K-r and 1 or 2 lenses?

markt · 11-16-2010, 10:37 AM

WOW this sound familar to the conundrum I find myself in. I almost bought the K-r but I am looking for the next step up in build quality and options so I looked at the K7 but this is older technology, but I love the feel and build and options, but I hear alot of negatives on this forum about the K7. So the next step up would be the K5 and i really dont want to spend that kind of money.There is a huge jump in price between the 2 new cameras (k-r & k5) where other manufacturers are offering the newly released 'prosumer'models in the price point i am looking for.
Do i wait on the k5 to go down in price? Do I buy the K-r even though I think I want more of a camera? So many questions! Are folks on the forum being too critical of of K7? Will there also eventually be 'issues' appearing about the K5? When the K7 was released how was it received? Was it going to be "the DSLR"?

Rambling again.

Mark

**blackcloudbrew** · 11-16-2010, 10:56 AM

This is a choice that has an awful lot of factors. Go cheap, learn the whole DSLR deal and grow into it, or go expensive and learn the whole DSLR deal again growing into it. Not really knowing what your experience level is, I think I'd go cheap. Look for a used k100d super if you can or actually a K10d or even a k20d. I find the k100 hard to use compared to my k10/k20 but all produce excellent images. I took me more than a year to really learn to use my DSLR (the K10d) before I picked up other bodies. Going cheap will get you learning how to use the DSLR and you can pick up more lenses that way! Best of luck really.

sterretje · 11-16-2010, 11:15 AM

The lack of focus points in the viewfinder is for most people no issue. The focus on the subject and recompose. So that's no reason not to get a Kx.

Be aware that for the price difference between a 2nd hand model and a new entry level you can also buy a nice lens.

Plenty people still use K100D's with good results. If low light is a requirement however, Kx/Kr/K5 is the way to go.

Decisions, decisions, decisions ....

Good luck

KxBlaze · 11-16-2010, 11:30 AM

You need to weigh the pros and cons between the K-5 and Kx. If you do really plan on keeping the camera for 10+ years and are absolutely sure you will not upgrade then you should definitely get a K5. The Kx on the other hand will save you a ton of $ that you can buy multiple lenses with and the Kx is a GREAT beginners camera.

So ask yourself, would you rather have a K5 (that will be VERY good for a VERY long time) or a Kx (a great beginners camera, and maybe upgrade later) with multiple extra lenses?

edgedemon · 11-16-2010, 01:02 PM

Thanks for the replies guys..

I am a dslr noob, but to be honest, paying £200 for a 2nd hand K100 super sticks in my throat, especially when I can get a k-x or k-r for a little bit more, it just doesn't make sense. They might be good camera's, but Im paying too much for yesterdays technology..
As for keeping the camera, I can only look at past experience, my only other camera before recently was a Powershot G2 which I paid £750 for in 2001 and have only just given away when I bought my S95. So Im presuming that Im a keeper and my next camera will have to last years..
Im tempted by Canon, but only because I think they are great, but as I have only had Canon, I have nothing to bench them against, so want to try something different.
Lenses are an issue, if I get a K5, thats my budget gone, so kit lens only, but that is why Im looking at Pentax, as there are tons of manual lens out there, all under £100, alot under £50, so I can still buy lenses..

If I get a k-r, then I can probably get a decent lens as well, so I think it comes down to K-r and a nice lens or a K5 and the kit lenses.
As a noob, I can grow into both camera's..

KxBlaze · 11-16-2010, 01:21 PM

From your last post I would say a Kx would fit you better than a Kr. Being a noob you will not miss the upgraded features of the Kr over the Kx and with the $ you save you can buy a really nice lens or 2 good lenses or even 3+ old manual lenses. The Kx can be had, brand new, for under $500 while the Kr is around $800.

edgedemon · 11-16-2010, 02:06 PM

I think that I will go for the k-r minimum as when I was trying out a couple of Canon's, I really liked the viewfinder AF. I have never had it before, so thought it was really handy.
The other side of the arguement is that I wouldn't miss something that I never had though :-)
Im going to look at lenses as well and see what prices they are, maybe that will help me decide.
I want to do the whole shooting drops of liquid dripping into a bowl and some macro stuff, the thing that worries me is in 3-4 yrs time Id outgrow the k-x or k-r. Im off to check some sample images on flickr and see what I think..

twitch · 11-16-2010, 02:50 PM

I have a lowly K-x with a bunch of really nice lenses. I'd far prefer that than a K-5 and kit lens.

Lens prices are only going one way, up. Camera body prices are also only going one way, down. My advice would be to buy 1 or 2 nice lenses now (not kit ones) and pair them with a K-x. If you find you love your new hobby, then buy a K-5 in a years time and let the current owners take the hit in depreciation. Realistically I wouldn't worry about trying to get 3 or 4 years out of a body (some do but for an entry level body 2 years is more realistic before it makes sense to upgrade), worry about getting lenses that will last you for many years.

edgedemon · 11-16-2010, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I have a lowly K-x with a bunch of really nice lenses. I'd far prefer that than a K-5 and kit lens.

Lens prices are only going one way, up. Camera body prices are also only going one way, down. My advice would be to buy 1 or 2 nice lenses now (not kit ones) and pair them with a K-x. If you find you love your new hobby, then buy a K-5 in a years time and let the current owners take the hit in depreciation. Realistically I wouldn't worry about trying to get 3 or 4 years out of a body (some do but for an entry level body 2 years is more realistic before it makes sense to upgrade), worry about getting lenses that will last you for many years.

Good point, and I sort of agree with you..
Sort of because it seems that the bodies do hold their prices quite well, as the K100D is still going for 200 quid and the ist* for 180-200
My heart says K5 and my head says k-r/k-x and a nice lens..
I think that there is a good arguement for a cheaper body and better lenses, the k-whatever will be a damn site better than what I have now, but I think it will be 5yrs before 2nd hand K5's dip down in price by any significant margin

psychdoc · 11-16-2010, 03:57 PM

Just my 2 cents worth:

I bought a k2000 some time ago when I was new to slr cameras and recently made it my back-up/take-it-in the-car-everywhere body as I purchased a k5.

I still love the k2000 and will continue to use it regularly. However if I had purchased something like the k5 as my first DSlr, I would have been overwhelmed. There are just too many options that you can change in a camera like that-the end result would been that I would have ended up fiddling too much with the controls and not enough time taking pictures.

My advice is this: buy the cheapest camera body you can live with and the best lens/lenses you can afford. If I were you I would buy the kx and get the nicest lens I could find and then avoid these and other forums except photo challenges until I have shot at least 10,000 pictures with it.

SpecialK · 11-16-2010, 04:06 PM

The K100D is a decent camera, but it has an embarrassingly loud shutter/mirror. I kid you not. It does handle low light pretty well thanks to having only 6 MP, but.. it has only 6 MP...

If you can afford the K-5, that's what I'd do. Or a used K20D for 1/3 the cost, plus a nice lens.

11-16-2010, 09:52 AM	#1
edgedemon Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: London Photos: Albums Posts: 309	I have changed my mind! Choices Choices, Im really not sure what to do... Im looking to get my first dslr, and found my way here after someone recommended a K100 as a cheap starter to learn on.. Great idea, but I have yet to see a K100, K200 or even an ist D/DL go for much less than £200.. So this has me thinking, do I get a K-x or K-r, as if a 2nd hand K100 is going to go for so much, I might as well buy something new, and get the increase in MP and a more modern sensor/features.. I like the price of a K-x, but the lack of AF viewfinder bothers me, I want to go for a full dslr experience, and that is not the norm as I understand it? The K-r does have the AF points, it also has a few other minor improvements and there is the cashback which makes it closer (though not that close) to the K-x in price.. The other thing is lenses - I understand that I can use manual focus lenses with the newer camera's, that will give me access to a huge selection of old glass that I can pick up cheap and use to learn However, I have never used a MF lens, how practical is it on say a K-r camera? Is there a high annoyance factor, or is it OK. I guess my doubts come from how cheap the lenses are, as it makes me wonder if they are cheap for a reason ie a hassle to use? Then there is a K5 - yes, I know, way over my spec, but should I not go for the best I can afford, as the sensor is one of the best (according to Dx0) Some of the photo's I take will be at places that I will only ever go to once, so it makes sense to get the best possible RAW file I can while Im there? Whatever I buy, will have to do me for a long time, my trusty G2 lasted me for 10yrs and Im thinking a similar timescale for this purchase as well, this amount of money doesn't come to me often so I intend to use it as well as I can!! On the other hand I could get a K-r and get 1 good lens with it? Things I like to photograph - Landscape, street, and one thing I will do when I have a dslr is get into macro in a big way.. Im also having to ignore friends who think Im crazy not to get Canon/Nikon, but I wanted something a bit different, and I think it boils down to K-r or K5? Any advice, suggestions welcome

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
is it just me of has Flickr changed?	cdurfor	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	20	07-13-2010 10:31 PM
Has the marketplace policy changed?	zoltan1983snapper	Site Suggestions and Help	3	07-06-2009 11:03 AM
To those who've changed focusing screens	pingflood	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	10-23-2008 02:42 AM
My, my, how things have changed	racinsince55	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	12-07-2007 06:36 AM

11-16-2010, 10:05 AM	#2
Daveinozbikes Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Dawesville,Western Australia. Photos: Gallery Posts: 128	From what I"ve read and seen so far K5 seems to be the go, especially if you plan on keeping it for some years. I don't reckon you will regret the purchase. All the Best Dave

11-16-2010, 10:08 AM	#3
Ken T Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: California, USA Posts: 536	Originally posted by edgedemon Whatever I buy, will have to do me for a long time, my trusty G2 lasted me for 10yrs and Im thinking a similar timescale for this purchase as well, this amount of money doesn't come to me often so I intend to use it as well as I can!! Im also having to ignore friends who think Im crazy not to get Canon/Nikon, but I wanted something a bit different, and I think it boils down to K-r or K5? Any advice, suggestions welcome Then get the best one as you can, which is the K-5 .

11-16-2010, 10:16 AM	#4
chalion Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: SE Pennsylvania Photos: Albums Posts: 628	If you have the cash, I'd also say to get the K-5. From all of the posts and reviews I can find, it's the best of everything Pentax has to offer. Now, if you can only afford to get the body, but not quality lenses, then you may want to get the K-r and maybe one or 2 good lenses. It won't have all the bells and whistles of the K-5, but it is pretty darn close. It all really depends on the amount of cash you have to spend. If you can afford the K-5 and 1 or 2 lenses, or can only afford the K-r and 1 or 2 lenses?

11-16-2010, 10:37 AM	#5
markt Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 12	WOW this sound familar to the conundrum I find myself in. I almost bought the K-r but I am looking for the next step up in build quality and options so I looked at the K7 but this is older technology, but I love the feel and build and options, but I hear alot of negatives on this forum about the K7. So the next step up would be the K5 and i really dont want to spend that kind of money.There is a huge jump in price between the 2 new cameras (k-r & k5) where other manufacturers are offering the newly released 'prosumer'models in the price point i am looking for. Do i wait on the k5 to go down in price? Do I buy the K-r even though I think I want more of a camera? So many questions! Are folks on the forum being too critical of of K7? Will there also eventually be 'issues' appearing about the K5? When the K7 was released how was it received? Was it going to be "the DSLR"? Rambling again. Mark

11-16-2010, 10:56 AM	#6
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	This is a choice that has an awful lot of factors. Go cheap, learn the whole DSLR deal and grow into it, or go expensive and learn the whole DSLR deal again growing into it. Not really knowing what your experience level is, I think I'd go cheap. Look for a used k100d super if you can or actually a K10d or even a k20d. I find the k100 hard to use compared to my k10/k20 but all produce excellent images. I took me more than a year to really learn to use my DSLR (the K10d) before I picked up other bodies. Going cheap will get you learning how to use the DSLR and you can pick up more lenses that way! Best of luck really.

11-16-2010, 11:15 AM	#7
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	The lack of focus points in the viewfinder is for most people no issue. The focus on the subject and recompose. So that's no reason not to get a Kx. Be aware that for the price difference between a 2nd hand model and a new entry level you can also buy a nice lens. Plenty people still use K100D's with good results. If low light is a requirement however, Kx/Kr/K5 is the way to go. Decisions, decisions, decisions .... Good luck

11-16-2010, 11:30 AM	#8
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	You need to weigh the pros and cons between the K-5 and Kx. If you do really plan on keeping the camera for 10+ years and are absolutely sure you will not upgrade then you should definitely get a K5. The Kx on the other hand will save you a ton of $ that you can buy multiple lenses with and the Kx is a GREAT beginners camera. So ask yourself, would you rather have a K5 (that will be VERY good for a VERY long time) or a Kx (a great beginners camera, and maybe upgrade later) with multiple extra lenses?

11-16-2010, 01:02 PM	#9
edgedemon Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: London Photos: Albums Posts: 309 Original Poster	Thanks for the replies guys.. I am a dslr noob, but to be honest, paying £200 for a 2nd hand K100 super sticks in my throat, especially when I can get a k-x or k-r for a little bit more, it just doesn't make sense. They might be good camera's, but Im paying too much for yesterdays technology.. As for keeping the camera, I can only look at past experience, my only other camera before recently was a Powershot G2 which I paid £750 for in 2001 and have only just given away when I bought my S95. So Im presuming that Im a keeper and my next camera will have to last years.. Im tempted by Canon, but only because I think they are great, but as I have only had Canon, I have nothing to bench them against, so want to try something different. Lenses are an issue, if I get a K5, thats my budget gone, so kit lens only, but that is why Im looking at Pentax, as there are tons of manual lens out there, all under £100, alot under £50, so I can still buy lenses.. If I get a k-r, then I can probably get a decent lens as well, so I think it comes down to K-r and a nice lens or a K5 and the kit lenses. As a noob, I can grow into both camera's..

11-16-2010, 01:21 PM	#10
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	From your last post I would say a Kx would fit you better than a Kr. Being a noob you will not miss the upgraded features of the Kr over the Kx and with the $ you save you can buy a really nice lens or 2 good lenses or even 3+ old manual lenses. The Kx can be had, brand new, for under $500 while the Kr is around $800.

11-16-2010, 02:06 PM	#11
edgedemon Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: London Photos: Albums Posts: 309 Original Poster	I think that I will go for the k-r minimum as when I was trying out a couple of Canon's, I really liked the viewfinder AF. I have never had it before, so thought it was really handy. The other side of the arguement is that I wouldn't miss something that I never had though :-) Im going to look at lenses as well and see what prices they are, maybe that will help me decide. I want to do the whole shooting drops of liquid dripping into a bowl and some macro stuff, the thing that worries me is in 3-4 yrs time Id outgrow the k-x or k-r. Im off to check some sample images on flickr and see what I think..

11-16-2010, 02:50 PM	#12
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I have a lowly K-x with a bunch of really nice lenses. I'd far prefer that than a K-5 and kit lens. Lens prices are only going one way, up. Camera body prices are also only going one way, down. My advice would be to buy 1 or 2 nice lenses now (not kit ones) and pair them with a K-x. If you find you love your new hobby, then buy a K-5 in a years time and let the current owners take the hit in depreciation. Realistically I wouldn't worry about trying to get 3 or 4 years out of a body (some do but for an entry level body 2 years is more realistic before it makes sense to upgrade), worry about getting lenses that will last you for many years.

11-16-2010, 03:17 PM	#13
edgedemon Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: London Photos: Albums Posts: 309 Original Poster	Originally posted by twitch I have a lowly K-x with a bunch of really nice lenses. I'd far prefer that than a K-5 and kit lens. Lens prices are only going one way, up. Camera body prices are also only going one way, down. My advice would be to buy 1 or 2 nice lenses now (not kit ones) and pair them with a K-x. If you find you love your new hobby, then buy a K-5 in a years time and let the current owners take the hit in depreciation. Realistically I wouldn't worry about trying to get 3 or 4 years out of a body (some do but for an entry level body 2 years is more realistic before it makes sense to upgrade), worry about getting lenses that will last you for many years. Good point, and I sort of agree with you.. Sort of because it seems that the bodies do hold their prices quite well, as the K100D is still going for 200 quid and the ist* for 180-200 My heart says K5 and my head says k-r/k-x and a nice lens.. I think that there is a good arguement for a cheaper body and better lenses, the k-whatever will be a damn site better than what I have now, but I think it will be 5yrs before 2nd hand K5's dip down in price by any significant margin

11-16-2010, 03:57 PM	#14
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Just my 2 cents worth: I bought a k2000 some time ago when I was new to slr cameras and recently made it my back-up/take-it-in the-car-everywhere body as I purchased a k5. I still love the k2000 and will continue to use it regularly. However if I had purchased something like the k5 as my first DSlr, I would have been overwhelmed. There are just too many options that you can change in a camera like that-the end result would been that I would have ended up fiddling too much with the controls and not enough time taking pictures. My advice is this: buy the cheapest camera body you can live with and the best lens/lenses you can afford. If I were you I would buy the kx and get the nicest lens I could find and then avoid these and other forums except photo challenges until I have shot at least 10,000 pictures with it.

11-16-2010, 04:06 PM	#15
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	The K100D is a decent camera, but it has an embarrassingly loud shutter/mirror. I kid you not. It does handle low light pretty well thanks to having only 6 MP, but.. it has only 6 MP... If you can afford the K-5, that's what I'd do. Or a used K20D for 1/3 the cost, plus a nice lens.