[7.62lew]

I would look for a K5IIs. This is the first one without the anti-aliasing filter. I've had very good luck with mine. Large dynamic range and very good a higher iso settings. I shoot up to iso 3200 (raw) with no issues and little post processing.

My progression was K100D super, K7 then K5IIs. My flickr page for samples. 7.62lew | Flickr

If you do get a DSLR, pm me and if you pay for shipping I will send you your 1st 50mm prime lens for free (pentax-m 50mm 1.7)

---

Last edited by 7.62lew; 11-06-2019 at 10:28 AM.

[ChristianRock]

You can sometimes find the K-5 (original, not the II or IIs) for 200 or less. That would be a good choice.

Also, to the comment that the K-50 is only good for manual lenses... a lot of K-30s and K-50s including my K-50 are working fine with AF, you only hear about the ones that have issues and while a lot of them do, there's also a lot of them working. Mine has about 40K actuations and thank God it keeps on going. You can also find one that has already been fixed, and in this case it should still cost no more than 200 dollars.

I agree that the K-5 IIs would be the best affordable option though, if the OP could stretch his budget (there's one at KEH right now for 270 dollars - but no lenses...). While the image quality in real use would be similar to the K-5 and K-50, the AF would be better for the sports pictures. Of course if you end up using manual focus lenses like I do, the K-5 would be good enough, but I don't think anyone does this but me...

[Apet-Sure]

Of course if you end up using manual focus lenses like I do, the K-5 would be good enough, but I don't think anyone does this but me...

I use two manual focus lenses with my K-5 IIs due to budget constraints (and two autofocus lenses), but I don't do sports photography. I cut my teeth in the film days, and manual focus still feels quite natural.

[ChristianRock]

I use two manual focus lenses with my K-5 IIs due to budget constraints (and two autofocus lenses), but I don't do sports photography. I cut my teeth in the film days, and manual focus still feels quite natural.

I have AF lenses but for critical focus I actually prefer to manually focus. I find even with lenses like my DA 35 2.4 and Sigma 30 1.4 I can more reliably focus manually. And for sports photography, unless the light is bad, there's a lot of "pop" in the in-focus area in those older lenses that it's not too hard focusing them even on APS-C, after you get used to it.

[mikesbike]

Here we have someone who has a wide number of interests for his equipment to cover, including his son's athletic events, requiring speedy AF and good higher ISO performance to get higher shutter speeds. The original K-5 and others before had more AF issues with some lenses than more recent models tend to have. But from personal experience, I can say the DA 18-135mm lens provides exceptionally reliable AF even with the original K-5.

The K-5 series also does very well when using higher ISO. I too recommend the K-5 IIs if possible. I have both it and the original K-5. Older flagship models like the K-5 also have 2-dial thumb and finger operation, which allows shooting in fully automatic exposure in "P" mode when dealing with rapidly changing scenes, but also allows full access to the exclusive Pentax Hyper System, where one can instantly intercede on the camera's auto choices to select a different shutter speed or aperture on the fly, then switch back to fully automatic with a touch of a button. The controls design of the K-5 series is top-notch.

[Vmax911]

I was pondering picking up a K10d off of ebay when I decided to check the price of a Q/Q7. While I'm leaning more towards a full DSLR, there is something appealing about the smaller camera and being able to walk around with it without getting a second glance from anyone. Not to mention, most places that discourage "professional photography" will probably discount the Q, especially in some of the more "interesting" color schemes.

I'm in no way a professional photographer and haven't done much photography in several years, but I would love to get back into it. I don't have a very large budget, so I'm looking at some of the older cameras such as the K10/20/200d. I also have a line on possibly a K-30 and 2 lenses in around the same price range with a little work and luck, though I have a feeling that will fall through.

The K10d and K200d I can find for around $150 with a lens or two. The K20d looks like it's coming in around $175ish. The Q10 I found with the 5-15mm lens is about $140.

If I can get the K-30 in the sub $200 range, it is probably the best use of my money.

I enjoy random street and landscape/scenery photography the most plus will use it during my son's soccer season. And there's always family photos, both staged and otherwise.

While I've always wanted an ILC (at the time, a nice 35mm SLR) since I was about 8, I've never had one. What do you think would be my best bet for a sub $200 camera and lenses to get started back into photography? And while I'd like to bite the bullet now, I'm not opposed to just looking for a deal on a camera that would be a better match. (After all, only a few more months until tax returns, though I still will need to keep it in the low end of the price range.)

The more I look at cameras, the harder a time I have making up my mind. Thank you for any help you can give.

(Why am I sure that I'm going to get 10 replies suggesting 15 different cameras... lol)

How technically/mechanically inclined are you? You could possibly pick up an aforementioned K-30 or K-50 with the aperture block failure on the cheap (< $50) and repair it yourself. I repaired my K-30 myself and it only cost me a couple hours of time. But I am fairly hands on and not afraid of small screws. There are some great videos out there that step you through the fix.

[Gorgarath]

Oh wow. First off, thank you everyone for all the responses and I'm sorry for not getting back to this thread sooner. I ended up sitting and watching some videos with my oldest, and while I'm normally fine, I just ended up getting really motion sick during it and ended up being nauseous for the rest of the day and didn't check on the thread.

I'd like to reply to everyone individually, but there are way too many replies to come back and do that now. I'm also probably going to ramble a lot in this reply and jump around as thoughts re-occur to me and what-not, so I apologize for that as well. I'm quite bad at rambling. (Or good I suppose, depending on how you look at it...)

I also have a couple PMs that this post has generated that I still need to get to, though I did see the contents in a couple of the e-mails. There is a K5 currently for sale by one of the forum members for just under my $200 price range that I mentioned. I did see it the other day and then forgot about it. I don't recall if it includes lenses or not but believe it had at least one if not 2. (Another perk of a K5 is the O-GPS module down the road for geotagging photos out in the wild.)

One of my biggest wants with going with the K10/20/200 was that they also were the first models with weather sealing. The K200 is tempting for the AA battery usage which would allow for much easier hiking/backpacking battery swaps and getting more pictures. Though I doubt I'll end up doing any extended trips any time soon where I'd need that kind of battery life. The K10 was pretty much just looking for the cheapest option to get me a really nice camera, if older and slower. The K20 was looking at an upgraded version that's a bit faster but still relatively "dirt-cheap" though it doesn't seem to come in that low. I also saw that B&H actually has a refurbished K10 listed for not much more than e-bay pricing which is also tempting.

The Q, while not weather sealed, is a camera I'd be more likely to have with me as it's generally going to be a lot easier to carry on me which is why I really like the idea. (I had looked pretty hard at the Olympus cameras in the m4/3 format for this as well.) If I'm more likely to have a camera on me, I'd be more likely to take pictures.

I still have that little 8 y/o me dream of owning a DSLR though which keeps me second guessing any thoughts on getting a Q. I'd love to own a Q and a DSLR, but that's not quite in the budget. From what I've read, the Q (and especially the Q7/S1 especially) would probably fit most of my requirements and get me back into photography. But it just feels like cheating in a way.

I was also just reminded of the need to be buying Christmas presents for the kids this morning when my wife sent a text talking about some of the things. So I'm going to have to re-evaluate my budget and see if I can buy myself something in addition to the kids or just wait another couple of months for a tax refund, though it keeps growing smaller and smaller.

@7.62lew - How long does that offer on a lens for the price of shipping last? If I don't have to worry about buying a lens with the body, that opens up some better model cameras that can be had in my range as body only.

I've been looking to pick up a Pentax now for the past couple of years but keep looking at the latest and greatest and wanting that and hoping maybe in a few more months I can afford it or the price will come down... But by then of course, something else has come out and I want to wait until I can get that. I'm tired of all the waiting and just want to start shooting again which is why I was looking at the older stuff, just so I can finally get my foot in the door. But at the same time, I don't want to toss money away at something that just isn't going to work well for what I want to do. It also doesn't help that my interests are so wide and varied. (I don't recall, did I mention that I'd also like to do some astrophotography? Granted, my telescope isn't in great condition, but I do have a friend with some really nice ones, just would need the adapter. But I need to work on my basic photography skills before worrying about getting into that.) I've also never really had to deal with manual focus before, though I am not opposed to learning. (I've only ever shot 1 roll of 35mm film on a camera that was a manual focus on my dad's work camera. I've had several 35mm P&S cameras, which were also usually out of focus when trying to capture anything with movement.) Manual focus is one of the things I'd like to actually learn, so not having a fast autofocus isn't necessarily a bad thing. Though, I wouldn't mind a good autofocus for when I just want to get the photo captured.

A lot of you reference my son's soccer games, they're usually during the day, so there is usually some pretty good natural lighting. And you mention the slow autofocus. As I said, I'd like to learn manual focusing, which with sports I know can actually be quite difficult, so perhaps autofocus for the games until I can manual focus on still images at least. But at the same time, even poor pictures would be better than the lack of any pictures that we currently have now. The Q I believe (or at least the 7/S1) would even be pretty decent for getting these pictures even. There's also the fact that there's a grand total of what, 8 games a summer? Maybe another 6 or 8 if he does indoor soccer again this year? While I'd love some great action shots, it currently isn't a huge reason for the camera, though motion has always been the bane of getting good pictures with my old P&S cameras of yore.

Oh, and someone asked if I had looked at the reviews, yes I have. The trouble is I keep going round in circles and get confused as to what would actually work best for me.

As to how mechanically inclined I am in regards to being able to fix a camera myself. While I've never worked on cameras, I'm in IT for a living and have also tinkered with phone repair, so I'm not completely foreign to possibly doing the work myself, though I'm not sure I'd want to attempt this on my own. (Though, while saying this, I've also pondered doing my own full-spectrum conversion on a camera as well. Did I mention I think IR and UV photography is really amazing? Baby steps though. I can get to that in time. At the least, I'd need a camera with Live View for when blocking out the normal light spectrum, which is where the K20 really came into play.)

I'm sure I missed a couple of points that were brought up, but I've probably rambled enough for now. So thank you everyone for your suggestions. I look forward to narrowing down what will work best for me. Oh! And someone I remember mentioned posting in the wanted section. I might do that after narrowing down a little more. I thought of posting this there to begin with but wasn't sure if that would be appropriate or in poor taste or something.

(And it seems I was only a little off on getting 15 different answers from 10 different people. Instead it's about 8 different answers from 12 people with 2 of them probably being out of my price range. lol)

Seriously, thank you all for taking the time to respond and give me more food for thought. I look forward to hopefully finally joining in this journey with all of you.

[7.62lew]

@7.62lew - How long does that offer on a lens for the price of shipping last?

Take your time, I'm not doing anything with the the lens. Just PM me when you get something.

[Gorgarath]

Take your time, I'm not doing anything with the the lens. Just PM me when you get something.

You are much too kind. Thank you.

[BrianR]

I'd go for the Q10+lens and get a mini tripod to go with. For getting into (or back into) the convenience of having something so light and easy to carry is hard to overestimate. Continue saving pennies and in another year or two if you're still interested in photography and want a larger dslr, get a used k5 or later 'advanced' model. You can sell the Q for more funds, convert it to IR/UV, or continue to use it as is, so it won't be money wasted imo.

Disclaimer - I don't own a Q, but I do have a small & pocketable nikon j1 (bought used long after it was discontinued), and it's nice to have a small option with good image quality as an alternate to a larger dslr system.

[Gorgarath]

I'd go for the Q10+lens and get a mini tripod to go with. For getting into (or back into) the convenience of having something so light and easy to carry is hard to overestimate. Continue saving pennies and in another year or two if you're still interested in photography and want a larger dslr, get a used k5 or later 'advanced' model. You can sell the Q for more funds, convert it to IR/UV, or continue to use it as is, so it won't be money wasted imo.

Disclaimer - I don't own a Q, but I do have a small & pocketable nikon j1 (bought used long after it was discontinued), and it's nice to have a small option with good image quality as an alternate to a larger dslr system.

This is kind of the lines I was thinking, but that little voice inside screams to get a DSLR. And if I can get a DSLR for around the price of a Q, I find it really difficult to pull the trigger on a Q.

I know you say you don't have a Q, but would you recommend the Q10 over the other models? I just was looking at the ratings on the reviews on the site and the Q10 has the lowest rating, though it only has 5 reviews. (Going off the specs, I like the Q7 image quality better, but something like that Evangelion color scheme on the Q10 just makes me smile. And it will probably produce better pictures than any of the old P&S digital cameras I've had in the past.)

[BrianR]

I know you say you don't have a Q, but would you recommend the Q10 over the other models?

That's a question best left to the Q experts. You should check out the Q subforum, here's a thread to get you started if you haven't seen it already - Considering Used Q--which one? - PentaxForums.com. I only specifically mentioned the Q10 as you'd found one in your budget. We've been spoiled with digital cameras for some time so photographers sometimes gripe about minor differences. So even if the Q10 was objectively the 'worst of the bunch', it might still be more than enough camera for your use. I'd consult people with first hand experience, and also check out as many sample images as you can to decide if it's capable of what you need.

I would be more confident in saying any of the 16mp dslr's have more image quality packed in them than most people will ever need. That's not to say that the older cameras won't be awesome, but the 16mp generation gets a ton of love (I've been enjoying my k5iis for 6 years and no plans to replace it), and if you go the dslr route it might be worth penny pinching for.

[TaoMaas]

Of course, you could always combine the quirkiness of the Q with the sensor and electronics of the K5 and get a K-01. I'm not recommending that, btw. Just poppin' off. I love my K-01, but I use it mostly for video...and it probably wouldn't be the best thing to use for shooting soccer games. For what it's worth, there's a guy in my camera club who has been using a K5 for astrophotography for a number of years and has been getting great results.

[aslyfox]

bottom line

you have gotten a lot of good advice ( no surprise there )

and information on where to find more about various cameras as well ( no surprise there )

but only you can decide what is best for you, your situation, timing and budget

we all wish you well

and, if you are willing, we will really like to know the outcome of your search when you get the new gear

you might post the answer here

and in this thread as well

Your latest acquisition - PentaxForums.com

[Apet-Sure]

Speaking of Christmas, in 2017 I asked for $$ for Christmas from family for photography. I didn't expect, and didn't get a lot, but it wasn't insignificant either. Every little bit helps.