[Marc Sabatella]

I wonder - the OP is coming from film and specifically mentions concern with high ISO noise. Obviously, *any* DSLR will have much better high ISO performance than film - several stops better. But I wonder if many P&S cameras can say that?

[rawr]

But I wonder if many P&S cameras can say that?

None can, if the low-light dxomark.com scores for even the high-end RAW capable point and shoots are any guide.

While many P&S can technically go to 1600 ISO and above (at great cost to various parameters of image quality), their dxo low-light scores will barely exceed 150 (eg the Powershot S100 = 153 ISO, LX5 = 132 etc).

[vonBaloney]

My Canon S90 has a special low-light mode where it won't allow RAW output -- it insists on applying its in-camera noise reduction and spits out a jpeg. The DR is much less forgiving that the DSLR also. But it has a nice wide-angle lens (I sacrificed a bigger zoom range to get a fairly-wide view with this model) and doesn't try to push its sensor too far (10 MP) -- many P&Ss will advertise greater MP but are really using the same sensors and pushing it to get more pixels but at a lower quality. (This is where you have to do your research.)

[TomB_tx]

Coming from manual film cameras I'll admit I don't like dSLRs much. For my shooting style manual focus works best, and I prefer manual exposure control with a semi-spot so I can meter a tonal area that I choose. Yes. my K-5 "can" allow manual focus and manual exposure, but it's harder than on a camera designed for manual work.
The only digital camera I've found that really suits my style is the Leica M9, but of course it is a rangefinder. But I've used Leica since about 1967 (Pentax since about 1964), so in spite of the cost I got an M9 body. I can use it exactly like my M4 or M6 manual film cameras. I love it.
I doubt if I'll get another dSLR; unless Pentax makes a "retro" digital for us old film shooters. But there wouldn't be enough of a market. Leica has sold twice as many M9s as they expected - but that's still not a large enough number to interest most camera companies.

[vonBaloney]

Coming from manual film cameras I'll admit I don't like dSLRs much. For my shooting style manual focus works best, and I prefer manual exposure control with a semi-spot so I can meter a tonal area that I choose. Yes. my K-5 "can" allow manual focus and manual exposure, but it's harder than on a camera designed for manual work.

How is it harder? The big difference from the old days seems to me to be the digital post-processing vs the darkroom, not the shooting.

[TomB_tx]

How is it harder? The big difference from the old days seems to me to be the digital post-processing vs the darkroom, not the shooting.

The smaller viewfinder (smaller frame size) makes manual focusing much harder. Changing to a matte screen helps some, but you can't see the fine detail nearly as well as with the larger LX or MX finder. (That's the main advantage of FF dSLRs, but they are too big & heavy.) Want to stop down to evaluate DOF? For one thing the new bright screens don't accurately show DOF, and on the K-5 you have to pull this tiny hard-to-move lever with your forefinger, which should be able to remain on the release button. Doesn't take long and your fingertip gets sore from the poorly designed (but pretty-styled) control. Try stopping down an MX or LX. The preview lever is right under your second fingertip - just push towards the lens. Much easier.
Exposure compensation on an old SLR? Just meter the area you want and then click the aperture ring a stop or so with your free left finger.
The dSLRs cram too many touchy, tiny controls scattered around your right fingers.
Just give me an MX, or even original Spotmatic. Left fingers operate the silky-smooth focus ring and aperture ring, while the palm supports the camera. Right index finger trips the shutter (or flips the speed dial) while that hand helps steady the body, and the thumb advances the frame. Elegant simplicity where controls are large and separated, but easily located and simple. As Honeywell used to advertize, "Just hold a Pentax." You have a great view and full control over aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Why do we need anything more?

[Hmm]

Alternatively, if you are going to be a jpeg shooter, then get the in-camera post-processing settings to your liking so all the PP happens in-camera, but it is really the same thing. (You just have less options in-camera -- if you use different lenses and you want to get the best out of each of them, you really need to do PP on the computer with some lens profiles -- with digital, you can make lenses perform better than is possible with film because you can apply corrections to some of their flaws (like fringing).

Indeed, I can live with some PP within the camera,but not when it comes to computer software with maybe the exception of cropping and adjusting the contrast.

Tamron makes some excellent lenses. So does Sigma. Here is a link to the Tamron lens database with user reviews. Your 100-300mm is not rated very highly, nor does it have great specs, it is an economy level long zoom. And remember each manufacturer has lenses aimed at different markets and price points, some are really good and expensive, some not so good but cheaper. But my point really was that if you only have that single Tamron in Pentax mount you really are not heavily invested in Pentax gear and can choose which ever DSLR fits what you want

Thanks. I did a bit of checking and the lens is selling in the mid hundred dollar mark on Ebay. I wont let my Tamron lens limit me. I'll check out the above link, thanks

On the one hand you state you are looking for a good deal and are a bit of a cheapo and then on the other you ask if you should wait for full frame. Sorry, but that seems a contradiction to me. Full frame in DSLR is very expensive, used mostly by professionals who make a living at this, usually accompanied by glass that costs more than the camera, and unfortunately non-existent in Pentax mount despite all of the wishful thinking that goes on

I didnt realize until today that the price of FF is that high... so no, I won't be getting one soon. Hopefully, if and when it's introduced it'll drive down the prices of current Pentax cameras.

If you are looking for a good DSLR that can produce good images without a lot of input from you then look at the Pentax entry level camera, the k-r or its probable replacement. If you want a solid semi-pro or enthusiast level camera with complete manual controls then the K-5 is where you want to be. But it is an APS-C camera not full frame and the smaller sensor does affect your lenses if you are used to the field of view shown in a full frame camera. And if you really want full frame, either look to Nikon or Canon or be prepared to wait to see if Pentax ever releases such a thing. And be prepared to invest multi-thousands in good glass or you would have been just as well off with a much cheaper camera.

One of the primary reasons I am looking at a DSLR is full manual and be able to use the optical viewfinder

I am going to play devils advocate for a second. Why do you want a DSLR. In my mind there are a few reasons to get a DSLR. These include greater control over depth of field (being able to blur the background, most other cameras do not have large sensors), an optical viewfinder, and the ability to use multiple lenses.

You've nailed them.

From what you have been saying, I get the impression that the use of multiple lenses is not very important to you (you have stated suing the Tamron, and they you do not want to spend a ton of money). I am unsure how important the control of depth of field is for you, but it will be decently difficult to get nice blurred backgrounds with your Tamron lens at shorter focal lengths (like 24mm-50mm). At longer focal lengths you may have more control over depth of field. Is a see-through-the-lens optical viewfinder important to you?

Two lenses for sure, maybe three. A fast lens and a zoom lens. Perhaps a wide angle lens.

There are some nice compact cameras coming out that have very good image quality. The Fuji x-10 is one you should take a peak at. It is compact, has an optical viewfinder (but the viewfinder is not see-through-the-lens), and it seems to have very good image quality. In my opinion, its only downfall is that it has a small sensor, and thus will not give you very much control over depth of field.

Is there full manual control, great low light performance? Minimal chromatic abrasion?

Anyway, I just thought I would play devils advocate. There are some nice compact cameras out that can produce good very image quality, and that give you full manual control over your pictures. They have both advantages and disadvantages over a DSLR.

No problem. I appreciate the feedback

Yeah, I was thinking the same. If you don't want to do post, and you don't need or want to fiddle with all the "full-control" options of a DSLR, just get a good P&S or other compact that has the features you want. (Do your research and don't just look at the specs -- big difference in quality among models and brands.) My second camera is a Canon S90 P&S (they are up to S100 now I think) -- I can take it anywhere, it generates RAW images if I want so I can still do "pro" processing on the results, it was "only" a few hundred bucks -- it's great for what it is. (It does irk me in a strange way because the most popular image by far that we sell in our web photo shop was taken with this little Canon rather than my more expensive and full-featured Pentax DSLR.)

Lol. Thanks for the tip

I wonder - the OP is coming from film and specifically mentions concern with high ISO noise. Obviously, *any* DSLR will have much better high ISO performance than film - several stops better. But I wonder if many P&S cameras can say that?

With file, I never had the opportunity to experiment with low-light and night shots. I found it very cumbersome to have to record my settings of my camera and then the sequence of the shots. With digital, you see the results immediately

[bobmaxja]

Another thread talking about FF, let's return to is need

[boriscleto]

The smaller viewfinder (smaller frame size) makes manual focusing much harder. Changing to a matte screen helps some, but you can't see the fine detail nearly as well as with the larger LX or MX finder. (That's the main advantage of FF dSLRs, but they are too big & heavy.) Want to stop down to evaluate DOF? For one thing the new bright screens don't accurately show DOF, and on the K-5 you have to pull this tiny hard-to-move lever with your forefinger, which should be able to remain on the release button. Doesn't take long and your fingertip gets sore from the poorly designed (but pretty-styled) control. Try stopping down an MX or LX. The preview lever is right under your second fingertip - just push towards the lens. Much easier.
Exposure compensation on an old SLR? Just meter the area you want and then click the aperture ring a stop or so with your free left finger.
The dSLRs cram too many touchy, tiny controls scattered around your right fingers.
Just give me an MX, or even original Spotmatic. Left fingers operate the silky-smooth focus ring and aperture ring, while the palm supports the camera. Right index finger trips the shutter (or flips the speed dial) while that hand helps steady the body, and the thumb advances the frame. Elegant simplicity where controls are large and separated, but easily located and simple. As Honeywell used to advertize, "Just hold a Pentax." You have a great view and full control over aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Why do we need anything more?

You forgot "Get off my lawn!"

[vonBaloney]

The smaller viewfinder (smaller frame size) makes manual focusing much harder. Changing to a matte screen helps some, but you can't see the fine detail nearly as well as with the larger LX or MX finder. (That's the main advantage of FF dSLRs, but they are too big & heavy.) Want to stop down to evaluate DOF? For one thing the new bright screens don't accurately show DOF, and on the K-5 you have to pull this tiny hard-to-move lever with your forefinger, which should be able to remain on the release button. Doesn't take long and your fingertip gets sore from the poorly designed (but pretty-styled) control. Try stopping down an MX or LX. The preview lever is right under your second fingertip - just push towards the lens. Much easier.
Exposure compensation on an old SLR? Just meter the area you want and then click the aperture ring a stop or so with your free left finger.
The dSLRs cram too many touchy, tiny controls scattered around your right fingers.
Just give me an MX, or even original Spotmatic. Left fingers operate the silky-smooth focus ring and aperture ring, while the palm supports the camera. Right index finger trips the shutter (or flips the speed dial) while that hand helps steady the body, and the thumb advances the frame. Elegant simplicity where controls are large and separated, but easily located and simple. As Honeywell used to advertize, "Just hold a Pentax." You have a great view and full control over aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Why do we need anything more?

Isn't the larger viewfinder *only* larger? That is, it just has more stuff in it because the frame is bigger, but the stuff in the frame is the same size so it seems determining detail would be the same. (It has been a while since I've used a film camera.) The "preview" switch on the Pentax I do find hard to use (and so never use it) -- I'll give you that. The rest of the stuff is just a matter of getting used to it and building the muscle memory.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

@Hmm:

- if you don't want to do processing with software, you'll miss a lot about digital. Software like gimp is available for free, so there is no reason to not use it. I can get great images out of my cameras, but rarely are they perfect right out of them - the main reason being that for each scene a different curve brings out the best contrast - you just can't customize the curve in-camera for each shot. Just something to keep in mind

- cameras have passed the point at which they become dated in a few years. A good camera can be used for as long as it works. Sure, there will be new features added each year, but they're not really going to be essential for your photography unless you are pushing the envelope of what can be done with current technology.

- in terms of capability of producing great images, all cameras today have that. Don't spend too much time agonizing over which model to choose. Look at overall features and look at all brands and camera models (i.e. don't fixate on SLRs only, also look at mirrorless and SLT cameras). And then also look at what lenses are available for each system, because they'll determine the quality of your images more than the choice of the actual camera body. Make sure your budget allocates more for lenses than for the body.

Good luck with your choice!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Isn't the larger viewfinder *only* larger? That is, it just has more stuff in it because the frame is bigger, but the stuff in the frame is the same size so it seems determining detail would be the same. (It has been a while since I've used a film camera.) The "preview" switch on the Pentax I do find hard to use (and so never use it) -- I'll give you that. The rest of the stuff is just a matter of getting used to it and building the muscle memory.

The film camera viewfinders are larger indeed, so if you frame a subject the same way, they should be able to show more detail. But in practice, having become used to the contrasty view on APS DSLR viewfinders, I find it harder to focus manually when I pick a film SLR, because the split screens seems to get in my way and the viewfinders seem to have less contrast (maybe because they're older and their light transmission might have changed in time). Whatever is the case, I don't think film cameras have better viewfinders "in general".

Also, I recently was surprised to discover just how well I can manually focus on a mirrorless camera using LiveView (not even an EVF).

[jatrax]

One of the primary reasons I am looking at a DSLR is full manual and be able to use the optical viewfinder

Any DSLR that I'm aware of can be used in full manual. Certainly any of the Pentax ones can be. Sometimes I think they spend too much time trying to build a camera that hides the fact it is a dslr by adding all the 'modes' and 'scenes' or whatever. Just put it in 'M' or maybe 'Av' and shoot away.

You may find yourself disappointed in the optical viewfinder on dslrs though. They are designed for auto-focus lenses and manual focusing is not as easy as it was on film cameras. You can change out the focusing screen which helps but I think that is one of the commonest complaints about dslrs. But then I am not sure how many people outside enthusiasts like those on this forum really use manual anymore.

[Hmm]

@Hmm:

- if you don't want to do processing with software, you'll miss a lot about digital. Software like gimp is available for free, so there is no reason to not use it. I can get great images out of my cameras, but rarely are they perfect right out of them - the main reason being that for each scene a different curve brings out the best contrast - you just can't customize the curve in-camera for each shot. Just something to keep in mind

Really? Which s/w do you recommend that's free? I hear people talking about photoshop and i checked the prices and they're not cheap.

- cameras have passed the point at which they become dated in a few years. A good camera can be used for as long as it works. Sure, there will be new features added each year, but they're not really going to be essential for your photography unless you are pushing the envelope of what can be done with current technology.

How long on average would that be?

- in terms of capability of producing great images, all cameras today have that. Don't spend too much time agonizing over which model to choose. Look at overall features and look at all brands and camera models (i.e. don't fixate on SLRs only, also look at mirrorless and SLT cameras). And then also look at what lenses are available for each system, because they'll determine the quality of your images more than the choice of the actual camera body. Make sure your budget allocates more for lenses than for the body.

Good luck with your choice!

Thanks

Any DSLR that I'm aware of can be used in full manual. Certainly any of the Pentax ones can be. Sometimes I think they spend too much time trying to build a camera that hides the fact it is a dslr by adding all the 'modes' and 'scenes' or whatever. Just put it in 'M' or maybe 'Av' and shoot away.

You may find yourself disappointed in the optical viewfinder on dslrs though. They are designed for auto-focus lenses and manual focusing is not as easy as it was on film cameras. You can change out the focusing screen which helps but I think that is one of the commonest complaints about dslrs. But then I am not sure how many people outside enthusiasts like those on this forum really use manual anymore.

Oh. What should I be looking at then for comparison purposes in terms of optical viewfinder to get a feel for it and how it would compare with a film SLR?

[jatrax]

Oh. What should I be looking at then for comparison purposes in terms of optical viewfinder to get a feel for it and how it would compare with a film SLR?

The first thing you will notice is that the viewfinder on APS-C camera is much smaller and usually dimmer than a film camera. Remember, film SLR's are by definition 'full frame' and the larger frame means a larger viewfinder. APS-C cameras have smaller sensors and smaller viewfinders. One of the advantages of a full frame digital is that it has the big bright viewfinder, but as discussed these are very pricey.

Full frame cameras have a sensor size (or film size) of 36mm x 24mm
Pentax APS-C cameras have a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.7mm (Canon is a little different, Nikon is the same, in fact Pentax and Nikon sometimes use the same sensors)
Point & Shoot cameras by comparison have sensors that are around 7mm x 5mm

Also the focusing screens provided today are designed for auto-focus lenses and it is harder to actually see when something is in focus when focusing manually. If you are using auto-focus lenses this is really a mute point, but it does make using manual focus lenses harder.


"Really? Which s/w do you recommend that's free?"
The poster here mentioned Gimp. But if you are not familiar with image processing software you might not know that the name of the program he recommended is 'GIMP' which I think stands for GNU Image Processing or something like that. I greatly prefer Lightroom and Elements, but GIMP is very functional and many people swear by it. If I did not have Lightroom I would probably use GIMP but Lightroom and Elements integrate so well that's what I have stuck with. Do an internet search for GIMP, it is a free download and does a large portion of what Photoshop does, probably as much as the average photographer needs.