Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2007, 05:08 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 66
Pictures and choices

I can say AMEN to every word posted in answer to your original post, but I think there is more that needs to be said.

I was in your shoes in Oct '05. I was and am too old and financially constrained to spend a "lifetime" building a set of lenses so buying the into the Pentax family, which I do not regret, was an easy choice. However, if someone gave me $20,000 tax free to spend on a camera system today, I would bolt to Nikon in a heartbeat simply because they have a modern AF lens of every type I could possible want.

So to you I say, determine what your main focus in photography is likely to be. If you can cover all your wants within a range of 10mm to 300mm, buy Pentax (K10) and be happy. If your passion is birds, as mine has become, Pentax has nothing in newer AF lenses right now that can help you. I am hoping that the success of the K100, K10 and newer bodies will inspire production of lenses in the 500mm or 600mm range and inspire Tokina, Tamron and Sigma to bring out all their lenses in K mount versions.

02-13-2007, 05:19 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by brindlefly99 Quote
Hi folks.

I tried to search for this topic, but couldn't find it, so please forgive me if this is the 6000th time this has been asked...

As a first time DSLR user and soon to be owner, I'm a little overwhelmed at the choices. I have read the rave reviews from many on this forum about the
K100D. I've seen it locally advertised as body only, kit w/ 18-55mm lens and the 2 lens kit w/ 18-55mm and 50-200mm. At approx. 150.00 or so dollars more than the 1 lens kit, is the 2 lens kit the way to go? I thought about body only and just using the lenses I have now, a 24, 50 and a 135.

I also wonder about maybe getting a used DS model, as they are quite reasonably priced. I just worry about warranty issues.
Is the SR feature worth the extra $ (am I correct that that is the only difference btween the K110D and the K100D?) I don't want to spend the money on more camera than I need.

Yikes, I'll stop rattling on now. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
I agree with all the comments regarding shake reduction and the K100 over any used *istDxx body, it is worth it. What no one has commented on except recommending the kit lenses is why you should get as a minimum the 18 -55 mm.

You presently have in your collection a 24mm. While you may be pleased with this as your wide angle lens on your film camera, it effectively becomes a 36 mm equivelent when on the K100 (or any Pentax DSLR) due to the ASP-C image sensor. You bought the 24 originally to get a wide angle, not moderately wide angle. The 18-55 becomes effectively a 27 - 80mm film equivelent on the DLSR body. You will use it quite a bit as general purpose lens.

The only possible disappointment would be that you find it is not wide enough, and then you have a decision.

I ultimately bought an ultra wide, the Pentax is 12-24mm, as is Tokina, and Sigma makes a 10-20mm.

If your 24 mm was important to you on film, you may want one of the ultra wide lenses they are great for travel and in tight places, but you will still probably want the kit lens, since you can't replace it dollar for dollar.

Keep ypur other lenses as they willl be better in low light situations due to the lens speed.
02-13-2007, 05:32 PM   #18
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
Choices

QuoteOriginally posted by xecutech Quote
Well, since you didn't mention a budget, i would highly recommend the k10d if you can afford it. I was in your shoes over a week ago and finally decided to spend the extra money and get what I really wanted.
If price is a factor, then the k100d might be the way to go. I had it narrowed down to the k10d and the nikon d80 and I am very happy going with pentax!
It really comes down to a few things. Budget, size of reproduction and flexability. If you do not plan on going larger than A3 and cannot afford the K10D, I would suggest that you try to get the 16-45 f4 lens instead of the kit lens. It is surprisingly sharp. It is as sharp as my 17-40L lens for my Canon. If you want greater flexibility in terms of cropping the K10D would be the route to take. None the less the K100 is an excellent choice if strapped for funds or don't need to go for 10mega pixels.
02-14-2007, 01:38 AM   #19
New Member
brindlefly99's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
You presently have in your collection a 24mm. While you may be pleased with this as your wide angle lens on your film camera, it effectively becomes a 36 mm equivelent when on the K100 (or any Pentax DSLR) due to the ASP-C image sensor. You bought the 24 originally to get a wide angle, not moderately wide angle. The 18-55 becomes effectively a 27 - 80mm film equivelent on the DLSR body.
This is definitely food for thought, as yes my 24 is a lens I do use a lot. I hadn't realized that the conversion would be that great- from 24 to 36. Thanks for info.

02-14-2007, 01:46 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 261
Don't hesitate to buy a new K100D. It's a money well spent. During 2007 you probably can sell it well under an hour time should the need arise so there's no harm trying it out.

Since you already have some lenses you probaly know your needs and preferences. If your budget allows then I'd suggest dropping the 18-55 kit lens and getting something sharper. You'd notice the difference between your existing lenses and shorter kit and would soon upgrade it anyway.
02-14-2007, 02:19 AM   #21
New Member
brindlefly99's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
Original Poster
Again, I'm so glad I found this site, and appreciate all of your comments.
I definitely know I want to stick with Pentax, my old cameras were/are Pentax and I've never been let down yet.

I played around with the K100D today to get a feel for it. I liked the way it felt in my hand. It had a nice feel and weight to it. (just like my film camera). Honestly the transition to digital is really due to the cost factor in film and film processing, otherwise I'd be happy with film forever.

I already know that I do not want the K10 - simply more camera than I need and at this point, and I'm not looking to spend that kind of money. Plus as a digital beginer, I've got enough basics to learn without adding extra bells and whistles to confuse me! I think my decision now lies with the K100D vs the K110. So I guess I need to determine if the SR is worth the extra $200. I have no qualms using a tripod and I have pretty steady hands. ( just ask my patients - I take blood for a living!)
02-14-2007, 02:38 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 261
QuoteOriginally posted by brindlefly99 Quote
I think my decision now lies with the K100D vs the K110. So I guess I need to determine if the SR is worth the extra $200. I have no qualms using a tripod and I have pretty steady hands. ( just ask my patients - I take blood for a living!)
My take (as is mostly everyone else's) is that yes, it is worth it. You definitely can do without it - hey, you've been doing fine for all those years, right? - but it's an added bonus. It's not such a great deal when you venture outside during daylight and/or can steady yourself against the walls, support camera on various objects or just using a tripod. But if you're taking indoor social shots then it could mean the difference between walking away with 30 keepers from 50 shots taken with SR and 23 keepers from 50 taken without SR. (numbers are just for example, don't analyse)

Just imagine that you'd suddnely have a lot less arms where you have to search the vein, and lot more those where you just can stick the needle in within a second and be done with it

Consider that with Canon or Nikon you could start without stabilisation and add it later by buying respective lenses but you can't do that with Pentax. It's a case of "now or never". You can't spend that extra $$$ later, you either spend it now or buy a new camera later.
02-14-2007, 09:31 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta
Posts: 212
QuoteOriginally posted by brindlefly99 Quote
I think my decision now lies with the K100D vs the K110. So I guess I need to determine if the SR is worth the extra $200. I have no qualms using a tripod and I have pretty steady hands. ( just ask my patients - I take blood for a living!)
Brindlefly,
You must be looking in the wrong places. The K100 should only be $100 more than the K110. Here in Edmonton the K110 is $699 with 18-55, and the K100 is $799. Subtract $100 for body only (I'm not sure if you can get the K110 as a body only). These are regular prices, so you might do better on sale.

Chris

02-14-2007, 10:05 AM   #24
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by brindlefly99 Quote
Plus as a digital beginer, I've got enough basics to learn without adding extra bells and whistles to confuse me!
For what it's worth, I disagree with this reason. The K10D is a better piece of equipment that the K100D - that's why they charge more for it - but it's not necessarily that much more difficult. Cameras are a bit like cars. Here in the USA, you can spend $15K for a car, or you can spend $100K or more. The car you get for $100K works pretty much like the car you could get for $15K, it's just better built (well, one hopes it is), has nicer upholstery, has a few more amenities, and may have some features that actually make things EASIER rather than harder. Same thing with cameras. The main reason to get the K100D rather than the K10D is that the former is cheaper than the latter, and that difference in price allows you either to avoid spending money you don't have, or spend money on lenses. There are a few other small differences that I don't mean to ignore - the K10D apparently feels different in your hand and some people simply don't like the feel. But in terms of features, if I could have afforded the K10D, I would have bought it without hesitation.

That said, I'm very happy with my K100D and you will like it too. It's an excellent choice.


QuoteQuote:
I think my decision now lies with the K100D vs the K110. So I guess I need to determine if the SR is worth the extra $200. I have no qualms using a tripod and I have pretty steady hands. ( just ask my patients - I take blood for a living!)
Here I just want to add my voice (again) to what others have said. In-camera shake reduction is super. I would not want to live without it. If I WERE going to live without it, I'd have purchased the Nikon D50 or D40. If you've got a bunch of old Pentax lenses lying around, well, they will work with your K100D just as well - and you'll get the benefits of shake reduction. Don't kid yourself that your hand doesn't shake. Some people shake more than others, but we're not made of steel, and everybody's hand shakes. A while back, I did the standard test - taking a few shots at various slow speeds from about 1/200s down to 1/4s, with and without shake reduction. Verdict: shake reduction really works.

I see that you are in Canada, so your $200 < $200 US, but still, a $200 Can difference between the two models sounds wrong to me, too.

Good luck.

Will
02-14-2007, 10:06 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
QuoteOriginally posted by brindlefly99 Quote
Again, I'm so glad I found this site, and appreciate all of your comments.
I definitely know I want to stick with Pentax, my old cameras were/are Pentax and I've never been let down yet.
Yea! Pentax has both an old and good name and a new and good name.




QuoteQuote:
So I guess I need to determine if the SR is worth the extra $200. I have no qualms using a tripod and I have pretty steady hands. ( just ask my patients - I take blood for a living!)
I would strongly suggest getting the K100D. This way you get the SR in addition to your steady hands. Say for instance you can hold a camera steady enough to take a picture from 10 meters away at 1/30 of a second. You can still do that but you can now go down to 1/15th! Or maybe you are trying to catch movement in relatively poor light. With the SR you can get two stops better shutter speed. I own a DS, my camera works very well, but I would upgrade to the K10D only for the SR if I could afford it. There is not a lot of difference between the DS and the K100D to make it an "upgrade" but I would seriously consider it if the K100D had a penta prism like the DS instead of the penta mirror. I would do it only for the addition of the SR. And I have steady hands too.

NaCl(the SR is worth it)H2O
02-14-2007, 09:34 PM   #26
New Member
brindlefly99's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by silverbullet Quote
Brindlefly,
You must be looking in the wrong places. The K100 should only be $100 more than the K110. Here in Edmonton the K110 is $699 with 18-55, and the K100 is $799. Subtract $100 for body only (I'm not sure if you can get the K110 as a body only). These are regular prices, so you might do better on sale.

Chris
In the Vancouver area, the prices are pretty much consistent at all the stores I've been to or called for pricing, within a few dollars. The K100D with the 18-55mm lens sells for $779.00 and the K110D with the same lens is going for $599.00. Thats at the big shops, little shops both actual camera stores and places like Future Shop. The K100D with the 2 lens kit, sells for 849. (after rebate). Hmmm... $70. more to get the 50-200mm? Might just be the best way to go.
02-14-2007, 09:41 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 106
QuoteOriginally posted by brindlefly99 Quote
Honestly the transition to digital is really due to the cost factor in film and film processing, otherwise I'd be happy with film forever.
I can't imagine digital being cheaper than film by the time you're done purchasing applications, upgrading your PC, backing up your data, eventually you'll want to pick up a monitor calibration tool, maybe pick up a photo printer for instant test prints, etc., etc.

Holy cow... I think digital is a way to extract huge amounts of money from consumers. Even if digital prints were free, it would take a ton of prints to pay for a reasonably compplete digital system.

I love digital photography but it hasn't been cheap for 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!
18-55mm, 1st dslr, body, camera, dslr, kit, lens, photography, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my 1st dslr... davedds Welcomes and Introductions 6 09-30-2011 02:56 AM
Nature 1st time try DSLR zheric Photo Critique 5 12-16-2010 10:00 PM
K-X, K-M or other for 1st dslr dinneenp Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 04-09-2010 11:11 AM
1st theatre shoot - lens choice?!? axl Photographic Technique 6 05-04-2008 03:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 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