Upgrade frm K100

varnco · 02-03-2011, 07:12 PM

I have a K100 that I've had for several years and love it. I have a Pentax DA 50-150 2.8 lens that is awesome and have a Sigma 2.8 24-60 as well that is great.

I think it's time for an upgrade, but don't have a bunch of $$ since I spent it all on my lenses.

The type of pictures I bought this for is strictly personal pictures of my family kids. Pictures of the kids are playing basketball and dance (both action, low light), which is why I have the DA 501-50

What's a good match to upgrade my k100?

Thanks!

tibbitts · 02-03-2011, 07:33 PM

My understanding is that there are only 3 bodies that would be a substantial low-light upgrade, so you'd probably have to choose between them.

Not having much money available would probably narrow your choices to, at most, 2 bodies, and possibly only the k-x.

Paul

JeffJS · 02-03-2011, 07:36 PM

When did Pentax release a Pentax DA 50-150 2.8? or do you mean DA*50-135 f2.8?

To answer your question, collect all the money you can or want to spend, and buy the best camera you can get for that money. A K-x or K-r body seems the next logical step for you unless you're looking to step into flagship territory.

Adam · 02-03-2011, 10:08 PM

Pentax doesn't really have a dedicated "mid-range" body out right now, but I'd recommend either the K-x or the K20. Both should have better IQ and about the same price, but their control layouts are much different. If you really want to keep the top lcd, get a k20.

Pentax Cameras | Pentax K20D vs. Pentax K-x - Pentax DSLR Comparison - PentaxForums.com

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

varnco · 02-04-2011, 07:18 AM

I meant DA*50-135 f2.8... ooops.

varnco · 02-04-2011, 07:18 AM

thanks for the link for the comparisons... I'll check them out.

varnco · 02-04-2011, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by tibbitts

My understanding is that there are only 3 bodies that would be a substantial low-light upgrade, so you'd probably have to choose between them.

Not having much money available would probably narrow your choices to, at most, 2 bodies, and possibly only the k-x.

Paul

What would the other 2 bodies be that users feel have the best low-light capabilities, which is what I am looking for. I start looking for the cheapest, but sometimes will go higher, if I find it worthwhile. I started looking at Sigma f2.8 zooms, but ended up with the Pentax 50-135 after I saw the picture quality and have never been disappointed.

Thanks!

The_Reasonable_Man · 02-04-2011, 07:41 AM

I was in the same situation as you (wanting to upgrade from k100d for primarily family-type photography) and went with the K-R. It was a good choice for me - the KR is a significant upgrade from the K100d in every respect (including low-light), except handling as its noticeably smaller.

I shoot almost exclusively with primes, which balance fine on the K-R. With your bigger zooms, they might not balance well with the smaller K-R (or K-X, for that matter).

sterretje · 02-04-2011, 07:59 AM

The 3 low light options: K-x, K-r and K-5

GlennG · 02-04-2011, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by The_Reasonable_Man

went with the K-R. It was a good choice for me - the KR is a significant upgrade from the K100d in every respect (including low-light), except handling as its noticeably smaller.

It is good to know that it is such a significant upgrade, for what appears to be a quite reasonable price. I'm still working out my upgrade path (from k100dS) and contemplating what it should be. Your size comment surprises me a bit as I just did a comparison on size and weight with the camera comparison tool here. The k-r is smaller than the k100d by just a tiny amount - I'm surprised that the difference to you is that noticeable.

**Ash** · 02-04-2011, 10:24 PM

Without knowing your budget, it can only be assumed the K-x is the body for you. Under $400 second hand it will offer the best bang for your buck in low AF performance. Unfortunately not only will you forgo the upper LCD but also the AF point indicator in the viewfinder.

Steve Beswick · 02-04-2011, 10:41 PM

If you don't mind bright blue or green, the k-x can be bought new from Adorama for $460.

gp1806 · 02-04-2011, 10:41 PM

I think the K100Ds with batteries is heavier that the K-R with battery. It is a little larger too and fits my hand a little bit better than the K-R. The K-5 (or K-7) feels better in my hand than either the K100Ds or the K-R, but that is me, you might think different. One thing I can say, the speed increase of the K-R over the K100Ds will impress you. Shot to shot, write to the memory card, AF, etc are all very much faster. The Auto Focus is so much faster, you just need to try it. Yes, the K-R misses in low light levels under tungsten lighting, but my daughter's K100Ds doesn't want to lock focus at those low light levels and hunts back and forth. So now you've been warned about the K-R and tungsten light.

GlennG · 02-04-2011, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by gp1806

So now you've been warned about the K-R and tungsten light.

Yea, thanks. I've heard lots of warnings about the tungsten light AF thing on k-r.

donallison13 · 02-06-2011, 06:59 AM

You may want to pick up the K-5 as it appears to be the cat's meow in so many directions. However, given the sensor stain issue and other QC issues, you may want to wait until the serial number begins with "4" on this unit; also, the price point at $1,500 is absurdly high when compared to its Nikon/Canon competitors with similar features. Wait a few months until the price drops to about $1,100 - $1,200 and QC has been addressed and then get yourself this camera if you're so inclined. Cheers. Don

02-03-2011, 07:12 PM	#1
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100	Upgrade frm K100 I have a K100 that I've had for several years and love it. I have a Pentax DA 50-150 2.8 lens that is awesome and have a Sigma 2.8 24-60 as well that is great. I think it's time for an upgrade, but don't have a bunch of $$ since I spent it all on my lenses. The type of pictures I bought this for is strictly personal pictures of my family kids. Pictures of the kids are playing basketball and dance (both action, low light), which is why I have the DA 501-50 What's a good match to upgrade my k100? Thanks!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Upgrade Advice: Upgrade Lenses or Camera	krs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	07-17-2009 05:24 AM
K100	rk_dresser	Welcomes and Introductions	3	01-25-2009 06:51 PM
K100 vs K10	axl	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	10-20-2008 09:51 PM
K100 D	Danny001	Welcomes and Introductions	1	06-15-2007 04:45 AM
First shots with new K100.	Sean K	Post Your Photos!	18	12-19-2006 02:35 AM

02-03-2011, 07:33 PM	#2
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	My understanding is that there are only 3 bodies that would be a substantial low-light upgrade, so you'd probably have to choose between them. Not having much money available would probably narrow your choices to, at most, 2 bodies, and possibly only the k-x. Paul

02-03-2011, 07:36 PM	#3
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	When did Pentax release a Pentax DA 50-150 2.8? or do you mean DA*50-135 f2.8? To answer your question, collect all the money you can or want to spend, and buy the best camera you can get for that money. A K-x or K-r body seems the next logical step for you unless you're looking to step into flagship territory.

02-03-2011, 10:08 PM	#4
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Pentax doesn't really have a dedicated "mid-range" body out right now, but I'd recommend either the K-x or the K20. Both should have better IQ and about the same price, but their control layouts are much different. If you really want to keep the top lcd, get a k20. Pentax Cameras \| Pentax K20D vs. Pentax K-x - Pentax DSLR Comparison - PentaxForums.com Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-04-2011, 07:18 AM	#5
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100 Original Poster	I meant DA*50-135 f2.8... ooops.

02-04-2011, 07:24 AM	#7
varnco Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Albums Posts: 100 Original Poster	Originally posted by tibbitts My understanding is that there are only 3 bodies that would be a substantial low-light upgrade, so you'd probably have to choose between them. Not having much money available would probably narrow your choices to, at most, 2 bodies, and possibly only the k-x. Paul What would the other 2 bodies be that users feel have the best low-light capabilities, which is what I am looking for. I start looking for the cheapest, but sometimes will go higher, if I find it worthwhile. I started looking at Sigma f2.8 zooms, but ended up with the Pentax 50-135 after I saw the picture quality and have never been disappointed. Thanks!

02-04-2011, 07:41 AM	#8
The_Reasonable_Man Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: People's Republic of Portland, Oregon Posts: 30	I was in the same situation as you (wanting to upgrade from k100d for primarily family-type photography) and went with the K-R. It was a good choice for me - the KR is a significant upgrade from the K100d in every respect (including low-light), except handling as its noticeably smaller. I shoot almost exclusively with primes, which balance fine on the K-R. With your bigger zooms, they might not balance well with the smaller K-R (or K-X, for that matter).

02-04-2011, 07:59 AM	#9
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	The 3 low light options: K-x, K-r and K-5

02-04-2011, 09:20 PM	#10
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Originally posted by The_Reasonable_Man went with the K-R. It was a good choice for me - the KR is a significant upgrade from the K100d in every respect (including low-light), except handling as its noticeably smaller. It is good to know that it is such a significant upgrade, for what appears to be a quite reasonable price. I'm still working out my upgrade path (from k100dS) and contemplating what it should be. Your size comment surprises me a bit as I just did a comparison on size and weight with the camera comparison tool here. The k-r is smaller than the k100d by just a tiny amount - I'm surprised that the difference to you is that noticeable.

02-04-2011, 10:24 PM	#11
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Without knowing your budget, it can only be assumed the K-x is the body for you. Under $400 second hand it will offer the best bang for your buck in low AF performance. Unfortunately not only will you forgo the upper LCD but also the AF point indicator in the viewfinder.

02-04-2011, 10:41 PM	#12
Steve Beswick Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ontario, California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,736	If you don't mind bright blue or green, the k-x can be bought new from Adorama for $460.

02-04-2011, 10:41 PM	#13
gp1806 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago suburbs Photos: Albums Posts: 848	I think the K100Ds with batteries is heavier that the K-R with battery. It is a little larger too and fits my hand a little bit better than the K-R. The K-5 (or K-7) feels better in my hand than either the K100Ds or the K-R, but that is me, you might think different. One thing I can say, the speed increase of the K-R over the K100Ds will impress you. Shot to shot, write to the memory card, AF, etc are all very much faster. The Auto Focus is so much faster, you just need to try it. Yes, the K-R misses in low light levels under tungsten lighting, but my daughter's K100Ds doesn't want to lock focus at those low light levels and hunts back and forth. So now you've been warned about the K-R and tungsten light.

02-04-2011, 10:56 PM	#14
GlennG Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 824	Originally posted by gp1806 So now you've been warned about the K-R and tungsten light. Yea, thanks. I've heard lots of warnings about the tungsten light AF thing on k-r.

02-06-2011, 06:59 AM	#15
donallison13 Banned Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 102	You may want to pick up the K-5 as it appears to be the cat's meow in so many directions. However, given the sensor stain issue and other QC issues, you may want to wait until the serial number begins with "4" on this unit; also, the price point at $1,500 is absurdly high when compared to its Nikon/Canon competitors with similar features. Wait a few months until the price drops to about $1,100 - $1,200 and QC has been addressed and then get yourself this camera if you're so inclined. Cheers. Don