Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-17-2012, 06:10 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,484
QuoteOriginally posted by A3M0N Quote
Is this used or new? Where at? I could only find the kit from Amazon for $225.

I'll look into the K200D as well, thanks.
I believe there's a couple K100D's in The PF Marketplace at the moment...both in that price range with low shutter counts.

03-17-2012, 07:30 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,065
The K100D is a great way to get your feet wet in Pentax digital land. A solid no frills camera, with great CCD sensor for some spectacular images.
Then there is the K5, just in case you want to go full bore.
03-18-2012, 08:05 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NewYork
Posts: 899
I have a 10mp olympus that I rarely touch since I got my ist-ds (even older 6mp). It is a fine all around camera just like the k100d probably is. There is only one reason I would strongly recommend a k-x or k-r if you can afford it. When people say you can not shoot in low light as well, realize that regular indoor lighting is low light. an outdoor covered but fully open on the sides porch in the middle of the day when its kind of cloudy is low light. I can live without the bells and whistles of more expensive or newer cameras but the greatly improved low light performance is a very functional and important ability. It is the only significant reason I want to upgrade from the ist-ds. If I'm not mistaken, the k100d is similar in low light high iso performance to my ist-ds (someone correct me if I am wrong there). Once you have the k100d, the only way to get that low light performance is fast glass, and fast glass is expensive. The k-x or k-r will effectively turn cheaper glass into more expensive glass (I base that on the fact that you can get some pretty good lenses cheap used just because they are not super fast, where faster lenses of comparable performance sell for a lot more). I of course am talking about without flash. Flash can help in some circumstances but it can not in others and has its own set of limitations and drawbacks. The k-x/k-r will also have shake reduction which further improves low light performance. You might want to read reviews on each and look at sample shots at iso 1600 to see how they compare.
03-23-2012, 07:08 PM   #19
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
The K10d is so cheap there's no reason to settle for the 100 series. I consider anything without both front and rear dials a waste of money since I use them constantly with my A series lenses, then there's the dust and weather proofing, its not about deliberately shooting in the rain or a dust storm, its about oopses and all the crap that sneaks in over time, my old super program has all sorts of dust and moisture and crap worked into the controls and the shutter button half press stopped working because of it (apparently fairly common). I went for the K20D instead of the K10D because it was on average only $100 more than the K10D used and it had other improvements I wanted (not just the much higher megapixels).

I also would love a K1000 digital, unfortunately it doesn't exist, and manual mode is a real pain in the ass on the cheaper line due to lack of extra external controls, so go with the better ones.

EDIT: When buying a DSLR used make absolutely sure you have a return policy or a deal that will allow you to pixel peep the hell out of a few pictures first and return it if there's issues. my K20D has a small dead pixel spot (tiny and off to the side so not a crisis) and I got it used with no returns. These things are a lot more flaky durability wise than any film camera, especially the super expensive to replace sensors.


Last edited by PPPPPP42; 03-23-2012 at 07:14 PM.
03-23-2012, 07:48 PM   #20
Veteran Member
maltfalc's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 371
what exactly is your budget?
03-23-2012, 09:54 PM   #21
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
Don't forget, budget is everything in this case.

QuoteOriginally posted by ripit Quote
but the greatly improved low light performance is a very functional and important ability. It is the only significant reason I want to upgrade from the ist-ds. If I'm not mistaken, the k100d is similar in low light high iso performance to my ist-ds (someone correct me if I am wrong there). Once you have the k100d, the only way to get that low light performance is fast glass, and fast glass is expensive.
What did one do 20 or more years ago? One used flash or one used ISO400 and pushed it to 1600. If one comes from a film body, the argument does not really count (at least it did not for me). 400 ISO is very usable on a 100D, 800 is probably OK with some noise reduction (never really spend time on it). Don't get me wrong, your point that a K-x has better high ISO performance is valid (I did not know what hit me when I switched from K10D to K5 ) but not necessary for every user.

QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
The K10d is so cheap there's no reason to settle for the 100 series. I consider anything without both front and rear dials a waste of money since I use them constantly with my A series lenses,
That's you I'm as happy with my K100D as with my K10D and don't miss the dual dial. I admit, I'm mostly in Av but even in M it does not really matter. And to be honest, I prefer the K100D due to size and weight.
03-23-2012, 11:05 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NewYork
Posts: 899
QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
Don't forget, budget is everything in this case.


What did one do 20 or more years ago? One used flash or one used ISO400 and pushed it to 1600. If one comes from a film body, the argument does not really count (at least it did not for me). 400 ISO is very usable on a 100D, 800 is probably OK with some noise reduction (never really spend time on it). Don't get me wrong, your point that a K-x has better high ISO performance is valid (I did not know what hit me when I switched from K10D to K5 ) but not necessary for every user.


That's you I'm as happy with my K100D as with my K10D and don't miss the dual dial. I admit, I'm mostly in Av but even in M it does not really matter. And to be honest, I prefer the K100D due to size and weight.
If budget were not a major issue then I wouldn't still be shooting with an ist-ds, lol. Then again if I would quit buying lenses I could probably afford a kx/kr.
Mine is about the same. iso 400 is good, 800 is ok but getting grainy and 1600 starts to look pretty bad. It does a fine job within its abilities and I have taken many pictures with it. My shutter count is near 10,000 and I bought it new so thats all my shooting. I can not say I have 10,000 good shots to show for it (sometimes I might have just been leaning on the shutter button in continuous mode hoping the odds would throw me some good ones) but it has been serving just fine for a few years since I bought it (new old stock close to 4 years ago I think). I also opted for an older model based on available budget (paid $275 new with kit lens). Flashes can also compensate like you said in some instances. I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and got many large, medium and small flashes for next to nothing (all quantaray, most rebadged promasters). All bodies have built in flash (though I really don't ever like it having used external flashes), and adding a flash to any body is easy and sometimes cheap. Adding high iso capabilities is not doable. Under limited circumstances I would rather have a good external flash than I would the extra ios abilities but under many more circumstances I would rather have the high iso (and shake reduction as my model lacks that too).

The original poster asked if the lower MP would really matter a lot. This is what I think I was trying to get at. Using a 6mp dslr and having higher mp point and shoot cameras, its not often I find myself thinking I really need more megapixels with the dslr. I use the lower mp dslr often and the higher mp point and shoot almost never. Sure it depends on what you shoot, and sure it limits your cropping, but personally I have not noticed it limited my ability to get the shot. It's not often (if ever), I think after the fact, that shot could have been a lot better if I had a higher mp camera.
In contrast, it is often before the fact when shooting and after the fact, I say I could have got that shot if I had higher iso, or that shot sucks and I wish I had higher iso capabilities. Higher mp is not something I find my self wanting much using the ist-ds. Higher iso (and shake reduction on mine) is something I find myself wishing I had all the time (I do a lot of indoor shooting which may be why).
Blowing this irreplaceable shot is one of the many times I regretted not having a higher iso camera (at least it cleaned up good enough for small prints).
batman at.jpg photo - Richard Homeyer photos at pbase.com
fyi, I got a couple of shots, and that one was the best. It looked much worse and it has been cleaned up as well as I could (I'm not an expert with post processing). God knows why I didn't use flash (probably because flash works beyond horrible at that location so I didn't even think about it and didn't have an external with me).

I'm kind of sounding pretty hard on the camera so I'll reiterate I love the camera and have gotten many great shots with it. Its low light abilities is defiantly one of its weak points though (compared to newer cameras).

Of course like you said, you have to stay within your budget (why I havent got a kr/kx yet and got an ist-ds in the first place). To me, high MP is not a huge priority on a budget (for the shooting I do) but high iso and shake reduction are. Things like high mp if you get the newer camera are just a bonus to me.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
budget, camera, dslr, k100d, megapixel, photography, slr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
41 Megapixel Nokia 808 smartphone camera falconeye Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 374 01-02-2014 10:30 AM
Capturing the “megapixel myth” RioRico Photographic Technique 27 10-03-2011 12:39 PM
Hasselblad's 200 megapixel H4D-200MS camera now shipping jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 07-01-2011 09:23 AM
using a lower megapixel setting dh4412 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 21 03-08-2011 12:55 AM
80 Megapixel Sensor from Phase One. Hypocorism Photographic Technique 12 01-26-2011 05:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:26 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top