Thinking about trading my K10D for a K100D

JasonS · 11-20-2007, 07:34 AM

I just recently went digital.
I first became aware of the cost of film forcing one to think more about shots 20 years ago. I got a job at a photo processor. We got a significant "discount"

on quite a few prints each week. I was dismayed at how badly my photography initially fared. I wasn't even consciously thinking of the "savings", and I was MUCH more careless and sloppy.
My hit rate declined to the point where I had entire shoots with not a single picture I was happy with.
I try to remember that every time I feel sloppy with my digital.

Flaco · 11-20-2007, 07:39 AM

I want to do just the opposite. I want to upgrade from my k100d, to the k10d. But now waiting to see what pentax has in store on the 24th. I was thinking of putting my k100d up for sale with the 2 kmounts I have, and a few of the m42 lens I have and use that for the k10. But now I'll wait and see if the K20 is announced.

I'm kind of in the same boat about the lens map. Not a lot of those attract me.

jgredline · 11-20-2007, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by stewart_photo

Nothing in film itself, but perhaps in the situation. Those who started in the film era and still remain in the game seriously (beyond family and travel snapshots), to avoid wasting expensive film and processing, developed the discipline early on to look at scenes more carefully before shooting and the skills needed to capture the image well with the least number of exposures. Since post processing (lab work) was even more expensive, they also had greater incentive to capture the image well within the camera itself. As a result, compared to the typical less disciplined photographer, these individuals often still today have a much higher percentage of successful in-camera images for the same number of shots.

By the way (a side note, if you will), this judicious use of film is also why many of these these enthusiasts were initially so unimpressed with the notion of saving film costs with ditigal. They didn't waste film, so their film costs were not that especially high (especially when compared to the high costs of digital cameras just a few years ago). And those doing photography professionally simply passed the costs of film and processing on to the customer or client, so these costs were even less of an issue for them.

Of course, none of this is saying todays digital photographer cannot develop the same discipline and skills. Many do. Instead, I'm simply saying they don't have film, processing, and lab work costs as an very strong additional incentive to do so.

stewart

-

Exactly.....

foxglove · 11-20-2007, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by scottax1

So my real dilemma is whether to cut my losses and sell off all the Pentax gear I've acquired OR keep a small kit comprising a K100D and some of the really nice shorter Pentax glass and my Tamron SPs.

I don't get it - why is keeping the K10 and the shorter glass not an option?

As several people pointed out, you're not going to gain much financially by selling the K10, you'll have the hassle of selling it, and you'll have a less capable camera. I should point out that I have a K100, which I like very much, but I know that there are a few things the K10 does better. But I don't have a pressing need for 10MP (I'm filling my HDs up fast enough, thanks, and I haven't printed anything larger than 8x10) so I'm not considering upgrading. But I can't imagine a situation in which it would make sense to downgrade.

About SR - I had some cruddy results at first, but got a handle on what it can and cannot do, and now find it quite useful. I can't imagine that it works much differently on the K10's 10MP sensor than the 6MP of the K100. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong!

Julie

anomaly · 11-20-2007, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by scottax1

Thanks to everyone for your helpful responses. However, I described my situation poorly so please allow me to clarify.

I bought into Pentax based primarily on the purported efficacy of SR. My intention was to transition from Canon to Pentax. Bottom line -- it ain't working for me. I can't get SR to work consistently when shooting with lenses >100mm. And yes, I've adjusted the SR setting. I have a couple MF SP Tamron telezooms that I hoped to use but the results are disappointing. By way of comparison, my (already sold, unfortunately) Canon 70-300 IS astounded me with the results it regularly could produce handheld at long shutter speeds.

So my real dilemma is whether to cut my losses and sell off all the Pentax gear I've acquired OR keep a small kit comprising a K100D and some of the really nice shorter Pentax glass and my Tamron SPs. The Canon is useless with the Tamrons whereas the Pentax allows a lot of control with them.

In addition to the SR issue described above, it has finally sunk into my thick skull that even if Pentax manages to get its act together on fast glass it will remain so expensive that it won't be practical. Even now I can buy a brand new 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens brand new for less than a used Pentax lens of comparable spec -- primarily because of demand.

In short, I have to decide whether I keep a small Pentax kit for personal use or just give up. It's clear to me that I can't use it for the type of serious work I want to do. The lack of effective SR combined with the high cost of premium glass is a deal killer for me.

Sorry about the confusion caused by my original post.

Scott

Didn't read beyond this post but did you have it on a tripod? SR does not work on a tripod.

switters · 11-22-2007, 05:07 PM

I'm really surprised no one mentioned the one objective advantage the K100D has over the K10D (many other differences are subjective, i.e. smaller isn't necessarily better for some): one more stop of light (ISO 3200) and less noise at ISO 800 and 1600.

Okay, so it's not totally subjective. You lose the creaminess of ISO 100. But some people really do prefer the K100D for this reason, if they shoot a lot in low light.

I am actually thinking of picking up a 100D Super as a second body for this reason. But I think I'll wait and see what comes in January, and put that $350 towards a K20D with usable ISO 6400 (one can hope).

jgredline · 11-22-2007, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by switters

I'm really surprised no one mentioned the one objective advantage the K100D has over the K10D (many other differences are subjective, i.e. smaller isn't necessarily better for some): one more stop of light (ISO 3200) and less noise at ISO 800 and 1600.

Okay, so it's not totally subjective. You lose the creaminess of ISO 100. But some people really do prefer the K100D for this reason, if they shoot a lot in low light.

I am actually thinking of picking up a 100D Super as a second body for this reason. But I think I'll wait and see what comes in January, and put that $350 towards a K20D with usable ISO 6400 (one can hope).

What K20D???

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thinking of upgrading from K100d to K-x....	Brian Wahl	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	12-28-2009 12:03 AM
What IS my K10d thinking??	dresden_phoenix	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	01-15-2008 01:04 PM
Trading down from K10D to K100D?	vinzer	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	08-16-2007 06:33 AM
Thinking about K100D	Oldschool	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	06-23-2007 02:51 PM
Trading versus buying (DL vs K100D)???	sandpiper6	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	12-01-2006 10:37 AM

11-20-2007, 07:34 AM	#31
JasonS Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Omaha Posts: 74	I just recently went digital. I first became aware of the cost of film forcing one to think more about shots 20 years ago. I got a job at a photo processor. We got a significant "discount" on quite a few prints each week. I was dismayed at how badly my photography initially fared. I wasn't even consciously thinking of the "savings", and I was MUCH more careless and sloppy. My hit rate declined to the point where I had entire shoots with not a single picture I was happy with. I try to remember that every time I feel sloppy with my digital.

11-20-2007, 07:39 AM	#32
Flaco Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Outside Chicago Posts: 218	I want to do just the opposite. I want to upgrade from my k100d, to the k10d. But now waiting to see what pentax has in store on the 24th. I was thinking of putting my k100d up for sale with the 2 kmounts I have, and a few of the m42 lens I have and use that for the k10. But now I'll wait and see if the K20 is announced. I'm kind of in the same boat about the lens map. Not a lot of those attract me.

11-20-2007, 08:48 AM	#33
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by stewart_photo Nothing in film itself, but perhaps in the situation. Those who started in the film era and still remain in the game seriously (beyond family and travel snapshots), to avoid wasting expensive film and processing, developed the discipline early on to look at scenes more carefully before shooting and the skills needed to capture the image well with the least number of exposures. Since post processing (lab work) was even more expensive, they also had greater incentive to capture the image well within the camera itself. As a result, compared to the typical less disciplined photographer, these individuals often still today have a much higher percentage of successful in-camera images for the same number of shots. By the way (a side note, if you will), this judicious use of film is also why many of these these enthusiasts were initially so unimpressed with the notion of saving film costs with ditigal. They didn't waste film, so their film costs were not that especially high (especially when compared to the high costs of digital cameras just a few years ago). And those doing photography professionally simply passed the costs of film and processing on to the customer or client, so these costs were even less of an issue for them. Of course, none of this is saying todays digital photographer cannot develop the same discipline and skills. Many do. Instead, I'm simply saying they don't have film, processing, and lab work costs as an very strong additional incentive to do so. stewart - Exactly.....

11-20-2007, 01:48 PM	#34
foxglove Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Atlantic Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,049	Originally posted by scottax1 So my real dilemma is whether to cut my losses and sell off all the Pentax gear I've acquired OR keep a small kit comprising a K100D and some of the really nice shorter Pentax glass and my Tamron SPs. I don't get it - why is keeping the K10 and the shorter glass not an option? As several people pointed out, you're not going to gain much financially by selling the K10, you'll have the hassle of selling it, and you'll have a less capable camera. I should point out that I have a K100, which I like very much, but I know that there are a few things the K10 does better. But I don't have a pressing need for 10MP (I'm filling my HDs up fast enough, thanks, and I haven't printed anything larger than 8x10) so I'm not considering upgrading. But I can't imagine a situation in which it would make sense to downgrade. About SR - I had some cruddy results at first, but got a handle on what it can and cannot do, and now find it quite useful. I can't imagine that it works much differently on the K10's 10MP sensor than the 6MP of the K100. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong! Julie

11-20-2007, 07:47 PM	#35
anomaly Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Barbados Photos: Gallery Posts: 264	Originally posted by scottax1 Thanks to everyone for your helpful responses. However, I described my situation poorly so please allow me to clarify. I bought into Pentax based primarily on the purported efficacy of SR. My intention was to transition from Canon to Pentax. Bottom line -- it ain't working for me. I can't get SR to work consistently when shooting with lenses >100mm. And yes, I've adjusted the SR setting. I have a couple MF SP Tamron telezooms that I hoped to use but the results are disappointing. By way of comparison, my (already sold, unfortunately) Canon 70-300 IS astounded me with the results it regularly could produce handheld at long shutter speeds. So my real dilemma is whether to cut my losses and sell off all the Pentax gear I've acquired OR keep a small kit comprising a K100D and some of the really nice shorter Pentax glass and my Tamron SPs. The Canon is useless with the Tamrons whereas the Pentax allows a lot of control with them. In addition to the SR issue described above, it has finally sunk into my thick skull that even if Pentax manages to get its act together on fast glass it will remain so expensive that it won't be practical. Even now I can buy a brand new 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens brand new for less than a used Pentax lens of comparable spec -- primarily because of demand. In short, I have to decide whether I keep a small Pentax kit for personal use or just give up. It's clear to me that I can't use it for the type of serious work I want to do. The lack of effective SR combined with the high cost of premium glass is a deal killer for me. Sorry about the confusion caused by my original post. Scott Didn't read beyond this post but did you have it on a tripod? SR does not work on a tripod.

11-22-2007, 05:07 PM	#36
switters Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 346	I'm really surprised no one mentioned the one objective advantage the K100D has over the K10D (many other differences are subjective, i.e. smaller isn't necessarily better for some): one more stop of light (ISO 3200) and less noise at ISO 800 and 1600. Okay, so it's not totally subjective. You lose the creaminess of ISO 100. But some people really do prefer the K100D for this reason, if they shoot a lot in low light. I am actually thinking of picking up a 100D Super as a second body for this reason. But I think I'll wait and see what comes in January, and put that $350 towards a K20D with usable ISO 6400 (one can hope).

11-22-2007, 05:16 PM	#37
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by switters I'm really surprised no one mentioned the one objective advantage the K100D has over the K10D (many other differences are subjective, i.e. smaller isn't necessarily better for some): one more stop of light (ISO 3200) and less noise at ISO 800 and 1600. Okay, so it's not totally subjective. You lose the creaminess of ISO 100. But some people really do prefer the K100D for this reason, if they shoot a lot in low light. I am actually thinking of picking up a 100D Super as a second body for this reason. But I think I'll wait and see what comes in January, and put that $350 towards a K20D with usable ISO 6400 (one can hope). What K20D???