[fractal]

At first, I did some thorough research as I usually do before purchasing something pricey. There were rave reviews on the K200D from everywhere. When I went to the shop I picked it up and played with it. It felt pretty good in my hand. Very sturdy and I felt secure that the camera was weatherproof. So It was an easier purchase. What I did not realise at that time was how expensive the lenses were... haha

I totally agree with the lenses being to pricey. I love the feel/size/weight of my K200D, although i'm having AF issues that I believe to be linked to the body. And of course they don't make it easy at all to fine tune the AF.

[khaz0r]

Guys I have ordered the Canon EOS 550D from a grey importer. $1370AUD with the 18-135mm IS lens + UV filter + 16GB Class 6 SDHC + extra battery. I chose this because the canon was a bit more advanced than the K-x, the 550D to me physically felt sturdier and better in the hand. I thank you all for your input. It was a tough decision but I think this will be a longer term investment than my current K200D which on second thoughts I will keep as a backup camera.

[khaz0r]

Oh also, does anyone know where I can get a 3rd party battery grip for the 550D? Apparently it is different to the 500D's grip which is available everywhere.

[fractal]

I don't think you will be disappointed with the 550D. If only it had a top LCD panel..

[khaz0r]

I don't think you will be disappointed with the 550D. If only it had a top LCD panel..

Yeh it is a shame. I think I'll miss the top LCD screen...

[Marc Sabatella]

high ISO noise.... hmmm, I have been using K10D for over 2-years and most of the time, I keep it under ISO 800 (may be 10% of time I will use ISO-1600). Is high ISO really that important? To me it is not - nice to have but not critical unless you are like Marc specialised in concert/musician photography.

And even for someone like me, I'd agree it' *important*, but I'd also suggest - as I have many times - that the actual difference in practice between *any* APS-C cameras is fairly negligible in the real world. Sure, looking at resolution charts at 100% and so forth can show differences, but pictures of actual subject printed or viewed at typical sizes - any APS-C camera is pretty much as good as any other. I'd decide based more on other factors.

[er1kksen]

And even for someone like me, I'd agree it' *important*, but I'd also suggest - as I have many times - that the actual difference in practice between *any* APS-C cameras is fairly negligible in the real world. Sure, looking at resolution charts at 100% and so forth can show differences, but pictures of actual subject printed or viewed at typical sizes - any APS-C camera is pretty much as good as any other. I'd decide based more on other factors.

I would have to disagree. I feel there are noticeable differences (to me) in the images produced by the various APS-C cameras I've had, even viewing at reduced size on screen. I think a large part of this has to do with how one uses the files from their camera (minimal post on one end, heavy manipulation on the other. I dig into the shadows a lot, where there's a noticeable difference between K-x files and files from my previous K20D and 40D) and will therefore vary from user to user. A tiny difference for you could be a large difference for me, so it's really impossible to make an objective, definitive statement on the subject.

@Khaz0r: get yourself an 18-55 WR and make that K200D your go-anywhere, all-conditions beast!

[tr13]

You must also note that it is best to sell DSLR after year(best) or two.
As prices are going down rapidly after and features go up.
This especially concerns screens, sensors and video.
Year from now 550D will be joke considering his video abilities, and now it is best HD Video cam under $1000.

The more I am looking for Canon, the more I con't understand them. They could loose the market they think they dominate.
As soon as we'll see $800-$850 K7 analog with good FullHD video, good build in sensor based stabilizer, Full HD HDMI output during recording, video things (like level, zebras, audio meter, abulity to have no AGC or AGC+SET option) and usable manual video controls. And this is all. They'll lost the 50% of 550D sales.
Only thing hardware here is more channels in sensor, and new compressor (preferably cheaper MJPEG with huge datarate for Class 10 SD cards only).
All else are just software things.

Ability to work with manual lenses without stop down (and this is software only!) could be also deadly. As these lenses are better suited for video then modern plastic crap that breathes.

[Internetpilot]

Two key points....
I dont need to say anything for the first but the second:
Thats not true at all. I don't care what DSLR you use IQ when using ISO 200 will always be better than at 400. Likewise IQ will always be better at ISO 400 than 800. So yes it simply does matter even with the K-x....

Well, this is, as always, even as it is with your reply, just opinion. In my opinion....ISO within the automatic range that I have set on my K-X (200-3200) simply doesn't matter anymore. Now, of course, it depends on what, why, and who you're shooting, but for MY use and in MY opinion, ISO simply not a factor anymore with the K-X.

Another dependency is the end product -- if all you're doing is printing 4x6 or posting relatively low resolution on the internet, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the K-X's ISO 200 and ISO 3200. I can't tell the difference in my own photos, so I seriously doubt anyone else would be able to tell (I'm rather picky and self-critical of my photography).

...and that's why I normally leave mine set to ISO 100, because the image quality there (false low ISO with some fancy histogram tricks=amazing) is just so good. But the point is that while ISO 100 and 200 may be better than 1600 and 3200, those higher ISOs are now comfortable to use. It always surprises me when I get done working an image that I thought was probably at ISO 200 and I check and discover that it's actually an ISO 800 or 1600 image. K20D, 40D, E-330... none of them gave me those surprises. Usually more on the lines of "why is the noise so bad in this exposure at only ISO 400?" (and I know how to expose for a clean file).

The same thing happens to me when processing K-X images, too.

[Marc Sabatella]

I feel there are noticeable differences (to me) in the images produced by the various APS-C cameras I've had, even viewing at reduced size on screen.

When you put it this way, I cannot disagree. I'd adjust my statement to say, the differences won't be noticeable "to most people", or to the extent they are noticeable, they won't necessarily *matter*.

While it's true that different people will have different requirements, and obviously differences between cameras *do* exist, I'm just trying to put a little perspective on them. Sometimes one reads these reviews or looks at 100% crops in threads like this and gets the impression that we're talking night and day, even-my-grandmother-would-reject-the-lesser-camera kinds of differences. if a person has examined the images *in practice* (not just test samples at 100%) and truly determined that for their purposes the differences are significant, then fine. I'm just suggesting out that one shouldn't *assume* the differences will matter that much to him as much as one might imagine from the degree to with people obsess about this.

In particular, as I said, I'm someone who shoots high ISO a *lot*, and of course I can see the differences between cameras when I look for them. But even to me - someone who by necessity shoots high ISO a lot for concert photography - the differences in high ISO performance are not really enough to outweigh other considerations in choosing a camera for my own usage. Sure, high ISO performance is a factor like any other, but I wouldn't weigh it more important for my purposes as a concert photographer than, for instance, ability to do DOF preview (and without a mirror flip). I would of course reject a camera if it were *terrible* at high ISO compared to others, but as I said, the actual differences in practice just don't appear that large to me - and I've done about as much of this sort of comparison as anyone, I'd wager.

But I don't deny that for some, these differences may be more significant.

[UnknownVT]

When you put it this way, I cannot disagree. I'd adjust my statement to say, the differences won't be noticeable "to most people", or to the extent they are noticeable, they won't necessarily *matter*.

Couldn't agree with this more - tests and reviews tend to highlight differences and we tend to take things out of proportion.

That does not mean that I can't tell the difference between the highISO shots I take with those from the already sterling K100D (all else being equal) - I can - and I would be a fool if I bought the K-x if there wasn't at least some advantage.

BUT in all practicality for most practical usage there isn't that much difference - except in the low available light - very highISO - like ISO3200 and above.

Having said that let's try these two shots -


EXIF attached
- this was used on a CD cover
Mr. Frank Edwards: Chicken Raid

and some have seen this shot before
(it's because it's one of my favorites) -

EXIF attached

OK the "trick" is that both these were taken on
a 2Mp p&s with NO manual control
(Canon PowerShot S100 - the original Digital ELPH)

[Marc Sabatella]

No fair! But you got me :-) I've got that same camera, BTW - it was my first digital camera, and what I used before getting my first DSLR (the DS).

Still, I note these were ISO 65, and the first was with flash. For the second, the only surprise (to me) is that you managed to get a shutter speed s high at 1/10" at ISO 65. Although I guess they do look like pretty powerful stage lights. Anyhow, had you been shooting in conditions that require ISO 1600 or above, I dobn't think that image would have looked so good even at the displayed size.

[Pablom]

Guys I have ordered the Canon EOS 550D from a grey importer. $1370AUD with the 18-135mm IS lens + UV filter + 16GB Class 6 SDHC + extra battery. I chose this because the canon was a bit more advanced than the K-x, the 550D to me physically felt sturdier and better in the hand. I thank you all for your input. It was a tough decision but I think this will be a longer term investment than my current K200D which on second thoughts I will keep as a backup camera.

congratulations on your new camera. interestingly the physical grip is one of the main reasons for me to prefer the K-x over Canon.
also I am ver surprised you passed on the K-7, you must really have a grudge for Pentax

[UnknownVT]

No fair! But you got me :-) I've got that same camera, BTW - it was my first digital camera, and what I used before getting my first DSLR (the DS).

Yeah, they were lovely little cameras - tiny all stainless steel bodies - ultra portable so it went everywhere with me.

Still, I note these were ISO 65, and the first was with flash. For the second, the only surprise (to me) is that you managed to get a shutter speed s high at 1/10" at ISO 65. Although I guess they do look like pretty powerful stage lights.

I was a bit surprised at the ISO65 - because the camera's specs says the rating is ISO100 and there are no adjustments in the menus/functions- so maybe it was doing a kind of AutoISO?

Did you know immediately the first was a flash pic? or did you have to look at the EXIF?

Yes, those were pretty bright stage lights (good as well - by one of my favorite lighting persons - and that was my first gig/encounter with them).

Anyhow, had you been shooting in conditions that require ISO 1600 or above, I dobn't think that image would have looked so good even at the displayed size.

Quite right -
But this was exactly my point -
even with dSLRs - at this state of the art -
it's the High ISOs that make the difference
- and why I went from a reasonable K100D to a K-x
- not that I needed to go from 6Mp to 12Mp
- as you see I have gotten away with a mere 2Mp
(although I would not recommend it)

[Marc Sabatella]

Yeah, they were lovely little cameras - tiny all stainless steel bodies - ultra portable so it went everywhere with me.

For whatever reason, even though it was very portable, I didn't use mine all that much. I didn't really get the photography bug until I got my DSLR. I suppose the lack of user control did not appeal to the techie in me.

Did you know immediately the first was a flash pic? or did you have to look at the EXIF?

I was pretty certain from looking at the image; but checked the EXIF to be sure.

- as you see I have gotten away with a mere 2Mp
(although I would not recommend it)

Agreed on both counts! FWIW, although I shoot 10MP RAW, the JPEG's I routinely generate from my "keepers" are only 2MP, and that's what I use for almost everything I actually do with my pictures - posting online, sharing with friend, making small prints, etc. It's enough resolution to more than fill my screen at 100%, and enough to print 4x6" at 300dpi. It's only when I do larger prints or want to share images with someone who wants to do the same that I return to my 10MP originals.

Of course, having 10MP allows me to crop pretty heavily if I want and still end up with 2MP. I don't do this a lot, but it's nice to be able to. Still, I have to say I find it kind of ridiculous the amount of attention pixel count gets in comparing cameras. More than 2MP is great, sure, but the difference between 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 is also something I'd say is not very relevant for most people most of the time. Unless maybe you shoot a lot of wildlife and depend on the cropability.