[Edvard_Grieg]

Hi,

I've been tracking the various dslr models for a few months now, handled most of the cameras, and I'm getting pretty close on making a decision, but wanted to get some thoughts and opinions.

At this point I'm largely debating between getting a K10D body (~500 after rebate), or the K200D kit.

I'm definitely a novice when it comes to DSLRs, but am hoping to learn and do more. My only experience thus far has been my dad's Nikon D50.

So the questions I have are:

Is there anything that would actually be better in the K200D compared to the K10D? (Batteries and size aren't a big deal) I know this will speculative at this point, but given time constraints for the rebate etc, that's all I have.

Will either/both perform better than the Nikon D50?

As a novice, would the K10D be overkill from a complexity standpoint?

If I want to take just a quick picture with the K10D 'green mode', will I still get pretty good pictures? I've read some criticism of the in-camera jpeg rendering, but that all seems to be compared to other dslrs, if I use just typical P&S as my baseline, will the pictures be better or worse?

I also have my dad's old Nikon FT with some nice prime lenses, are there adapters available that would allow me to use the FL lenses on the Pentax cameras? (the lenses are manual focus to begin with, so I'm not concerned with that)

Thanks!!

---

Last edited by Edvard_Grieg; 01-25-2008 at 04:05 PM.

[edl]

1. I personally don't see anything better in the K200D. I love the viewfinder of the K10D, it's much brighter than any pentamirror setup. Compare a D50 to a D80, you'll see what I mean.

2. Given higher MP and newer-gen technology of both Pentax bodies they should outperform the D50 from a technical standpoint.

3. No. The K10D is as easy to use as a traditional SLR. There are no scene modes, but once you understand ISO, aperature, and shutter speeds you'll do just fine.

4. Green mode does not guarantee good pictures on any camera That being said, it depends on your preferences. You can increase sharpening, contrast, and saturation to make it look like Canon or Nikon's JPEG's if that's what you mean. IQ will be much better than a P&S. Also, I'm sure you might have heard this, but shoot RAW. It allows you much more PP control and you can generate a significantly better image with very little effort.

5. I don't think so.

Personally, I would go K10D body only plus a nice lens to start with. The kit lens doesn't have enough speed/DOF control for me.

Also don't get too buried in reviews and opinions posted by people online. If the camera fits your hands well then it should work fine for you. For the price nothing can touch the K10D right now...

[Edvard_Grieg]

1. I personally don't see anything better in the K200D. I love the viewfinder of the K10D, it's much brighter than any pentamirror setup. Compare a D50 to a D80, you'll see what I mean.

2. Given higher MP and newer-gen technology of both Pentax bodies they should outperform the D50 from a technical standpoint.

3. No. The K10D is as easy to use as a traditional SLR. There are no scene modes, but once you understand ISO, aperature, and shutter speeds you'll do just fine.

4. Green mode does not guarantee good pictures on any camera That being said, it depends on your preferences. You can increase sharpening, contrast, and saturation to make it look like Canon or Nikon's JPEG's if that's what you mean. IQ will be much better than a P&S. Also, I'm sure you might have heard this, but shoot RAW. It allows you much more PP control and you can generate a significantly better image with very little effort.

5. I don't think so.

Personally, I would go K10D body only plus a nice lens to start with. The kit lens doesn't have enough speed/DOF control for me.

Also don't get too buried in reviews and opinions posted by people online. If the camera fits your hands well then it should work fine for you. For the price nothing can touch the K10D right now...

Thank you very much! I think that will help a lot. I know I should shoot in RAW, the only thing I was thinking of was that means additional post-capture procesing/conversion on a computer. I'm hking more that I'd switch to jpeg to take a picture of the gf in front of a sign on vacation vs landscape or macro shooting.

I know there are probably other threads, but as I am a novice and just starting out, what would you recommend in the way of lenses/filters/other essentials? I realy don't know what I 'need'.

I was originally looking at the 18-250 lens given the implied convenience, but I don't know the quality of it. I tend to gravitate towards either landscape or macro type shots (and the Rockies sure ofer an abundance :-) )

Thanks!

[Jodokast96]

For the price, I like the concept and what I've seen from the 18-250. If it had been out when I bought my kit, I probably would have gone with the Tamron version of it. I don't know if it's because of any real quality differences, or just that better shooters choose the Tamron, but all of the examples I've seen between the two, the Tamron always looks better. Plus it comes with a 6-year warranty as opposed to a 1-year.

The other slightly less expensive option would be what I did: the kit 18-55 and the Sigma 70-300 APO macro. Not as convenient, but even though not a true macro lens, a better performer in that area than the 18-250. Tamron also makes a similar lens that's slightly cheaper, and while of similar IQ, seems to show more purple fringing.

[WMBP]

At this point I'm largely debating between getting a K10D body (~500 after rebate), or the K200D kit.

Edvard,

Stop debating and place an order for the K10D. Get 'em while they last.

I'm definitely a novice when it comes to DSLRs, but am hoping to learn and do more.

I've been doing this for, well, never you mind how many decades I've been doing this for. My point is that I can't call myself a novice--but I certainly hope to keep learning and doing more!

Is there anything that would actually be better in the K200D compared to the K10D? (Batteries and size aren't a big deal) I know this will speculative at this point, but given time constraints for the rebate etc, that's all I have.

The K200D looks to be a K100D body, with three added benefits: it has a K10D sensor in it (more megapixels), it has weather-sealing, and it supports a grip. In other words, it's a K10D in the body of a K100D. But the body and ergonomics of the K10D are among the very best things about the camera. The K200D, if I'm viewing the photos correctly, has only one e-dial. Try using the two e-dials on the K10D and you will never ever want to go back.

Frankly, I don't understand the point of the K200D at all.

Will either/both perform better than the Nikon D50?

Both will.

As a novice, would the K10D be overkill from a complexity standpoint?

NO NO NO.

The point of all the "complexity" of the K10D is to make the camera easier to use. The basic photographic principles are the same, you're still controlling shutter speed, aperture, focus, ISO. All the K10D lacks are the kiddie modes, and they are an abomination anyway. The K10D does have an easy-auto mode, but even in full manual, there's this wonderful green button that will give you a nominally correct exposure as a starting point.

I have three cameras right now: a K10D, an old *ist DS, and a Nikon N65 film slr. I used to own a K100D. The K10D is the easiest to use of them all, and the most fun to use.

I mean, if you really just want to take nice photos and don't want to learn much about photography--and that's a perfectly okay and responsible position, in my opinion--but if that's where you're coming from, then DON'T BUY A DSLR at all. The top of the line compact fixed-lens cameras right now are awesome photographic tools. My personal suspicion is that 90% of the people using DSLRs really ought to be using compact fixed lens cameras like the Canon PowerShot S5 IS, or the Panasonic Lumix FZ18, or the forthcoming Olympus SP-570 uz (can you say 20x zoom!).

But if you do want to learn about photography, then understand that the reason that pro photographers pay more for better bodies is not that they take better photos--they don't really, not that much better--but because the more expensive cameras are easier to use.

In short, the only reason not to get a more expensive camera is money. And in many cases it's a very good reason.

If I want to take just a quick picture with the K10D 'green mode', will I still get pretty good pictures? I've read some criticism of the in-camera jpeg rendering, but that all seems to be compared to other dslrs, if I use just typical P&S as my baseline, will the pictures be better or worse?

Learn to shoot raw.

I also have my dad's old Nikon FT with some nice prime lenses, are there adapters available that would allow me to use the FL lenses on the Pentax cameras? (the lenses are manual focus to begin with, so I'm not concerned with that)

There may be, but personally I think this is a bad idea. If you have a collection of good Nikon lenses, you really should give some thought to getting a Nikon. They make good cameras, too! I think the Pentax K10D is superior to the Nikon D50, but you can get a Nikon D80 for not so much these days, and with a D80 you're getting into K10D range in terms of features and capabilities. I think the K10D is mostly better--and certainly a better buy--than the D80. But if I had a bunch of good Nikon lenses and could not afford to buy a D200 or D300, I doubt I'd but Pentax, I'd buy a Nikon D80.

Will

P.S. Love your music.

[Edvard_Grieg]

Edvard,

Stop debating and place an order for the K10D. Get 'em while they last.

...

P.S. Love your music.

Well I did it, just placed the order through shop.com for Beach Camera (25 coupon on shop.com) and got the Tamron 18-250 lens with it. Now I just need to wait for it to get here

Glad you like the music

Thank you everyone for the comments it all helped a lot. I planned on just picking an SD card and filters up locally as I figured there probably won't be a ton of price difference (plus Microcenter has the cheapest SD cards I've ever seen-- 2GB for $14)

On the filter side, it sounds like I probably need a UV filter and a Polarized filter, since there are gobs and gobs of them out there, what is the difference? Any recommendations? Best bang for the buck?

Thanks!

[christinelandon]

Edvard, the main differences among the "name" filter brands (B&W, Heliopan, Hoya, Singh-Ray, and some include Tiffen) are in their proprietary glass and coating formulae and the quality of materials used in the screw-in filter mounts. The main difference within a given manufacturer's line is the number and quality of filter surface coatings, which control light transmission and flare. For ultimate effect on image quality, it's best to go with the multicoated/super-multicoated versions rather than the single coat versions. Guess which ones cost more?

There are also the non-screw-in filter systems, such as Cokin and Lee, that use optical resins instead of glass. The resins are formulated to do many of the things that the coatings do on glass filters.

BTW, I'd heard you were dead...I guess you got better! Darn, now we're going to have to take down the bust of you at the University of Washington until you die again...

[cajuncutter]

Edvard I was in the same boat as you and I decided Friday to pull the trigger on the K10D. It was explained to me by an NDA who got to mess around with the K200D that the K10D was a better camera/value. The appealing thing to me about the K200D were the presets but you pretty much get the same in the K10D, atleast that is what I gathered from the conversatin I had. Soon I will be on here nagging the forum for all kinds of advice . Use shop.com and use the win25 code and get an extra 25 off. Your total after the rebate should be 484 to your door. Good luck!

[Edvard_Grieg]

Edvard I was in the same boat as you and I decided Friday to pull the trigger on the K10D. It was explained to me by an NDA who got to mess around with the K200D that the K10D was a better camera/value. The appealing thing to me about the K200D were the presets but you pretty much get the same in the K10D, atleast that is what I gathered from the conversatin I had. Soon I will be on here nagging the forum for all kinds of advice . Use shop.com and use the win25 code and get an extra 25 off. Your total after the rebate should be 484 to your door. Good luck!

Great! yeah I did the shop.com coupon thing, I was originally excited since I thought I'd be able to use a 10% off coupon, but unfortunately Beach Camera was excluded :-( I got the Tamron 18-250 lens with it too, so I think my total with express shipping was around $1050 and then $950 after the rebate...with an extra lens to cover the telephoto range, I don't think I could have come close to that price.

[Edvard_Grieg]

Edvard, the main differences among the "name" filter brands (B&W, Heliopan, Hoya, Singh-Ray, and some include Tiffen) are in their proprietary glass and coating formulae and the quality of materials used in the screw-in filter mounts. The main difference within a given manufacturer's line is the number and quality of filter surface coatings, which control light transmission and flare. For ultimate effect on image quality, it's best to go with the multicoated/super-multicoated versions rather than the single coat versions. Guess which ones cost more?

There are also the non-screw-in filter systems, such as Cokin and Lee, that use optical resins instead of glass. The resins are formulated to do many of the things that the coatings do on glass filters.

BTW, I'd heard you were dead...I guess you got better! Darn, now we're going to have to take down the bust of you at the University of Washington until you die again...

The camera is here! I'm still looking at filters, and now I'm trying to determine what is the difference between UV. UV-010. UV-415 etc Also, Is there any reason from a 'novice' perspective not to go with the cheapest name-brand uv filter? I'd assume that as I start doing more critical photography it will make a bigger difference, but for the time being to just protect the lens.....and the same type of question for a polarizing filter....in addition to price point, what is the functional difference between the circular and the linear polarizers?

Thanks!

[mattdm]

The camera is here! I'm still looking at filters, and now I'm trying to determine what is the difference between UV. UV-010. UV-415 etc

Unless you have a special application involving high UV lights, you don't need something as strong as UV-415 — a general "haze" UV filter is fine.

Also, Is there any reason from a 'novice' perspective not to go with the cheapest name-brand uv filter? I'd assume that as I start doing more critical photography it will make a bigger difference, but for the time being to just protect the lens.....

You want at least a multicoated filter. Single-coated filters (not to mention cheap uncoated ones) will be more prone to flare and other artifacts.

and the same type of question for a polarizing filter....in addition to price point, what is the functional difference between the circular and the linear polarizers?

Circular polarizers have an extra layer which rescatters the light after polarization, which avoids a theoretical interference with the metering and focus systems. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many people have used linear filters with Pentax digital SLRs without noticing any problems.

[SpecialK]

[QUOTEThe camera is here! I'm still looking at filters
Thanks![/QUOTE]


STOP!

First, congrats on the camera.

Second, don't buy anything else right now (except a bag to hold what you have ) - especially filters. Learn the camera and see what you need - not things people thought you had to have 20 years ago. You may end up with some filters, and fine. But cheap filters are not a good idea, and frankly, ones that cost 1/3 of your lens iseems overkill. Here's the best thread baout filters I know of.
Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page - Forums

Third, Pentax provides adequate software to process RAW. It only takes about 15 seconds to start a batch, and you can do something else for an hour until hundreds of RAWs are now jpgs for your review and editing. It's not the big deal many try to make it. You can go back and tweak individual shots as desired. It's part of the hobby :-)

[Edvard_Grieg]

The camera is here! I'm still looking at filters
Thanks!

STOP!

First, congrats on the camera.

Second, don't buy anything else right now (except a bag to hold what you have ) - especially filters. Learn the camera and see what you need - not things people thought you had to have 20 years ago. You may end up with some filters, and fine. But cheap filters are not a good idea, and frankly, ones that cost 1/3 of your lens iseems overkill. Here's the best thread baout filters I know of.
Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page - Forums

Third, Pentax provides adequate software to process RAW. It only takes about 15 seconds to start a batch, and you can do something else for an hour until hundreds of RAWs are now jpgs for your review and editing. It's not the big deal many try to make it. You can go back and tweak individual shots as desired. It's part of the hobby :-)

Thanks, I ended up getting a case, camera strap, a lens holder (the little bungee thing that goes from the lens cap to the lens itself), and then I bought a Rodenback MC UV Filter, MSRP was 84, and got it for 70 locally....appeared to be a good quality filter, and somewhere in between the $20 no name, and the $150 super high end. My main reason for it was to protect the lens of the camera more than anything.

I haven't decided on a polarizing filter yet, and will probably hold off on that for at least a little while.

Thanks!

[christinelandon]

Edvard, yay for you...now begins the studying and trying stuff out part...good fun lies ahead.

I'll just second most of the advice that Matt offered a couple posts above. However, most DSLR manufacturers recommend circular polarizers over linear ones because of their different effects on metering systems. If a camera's metering system's calibration is a bit off, and some are, a linear filter might accidentally counteract that a bit, so some folks, as Matt wrote, might not have a problem using a linear filter. Most, however, would find a circular polarizer's effects causing fewer metering problems. They're what I've used on my digital cameras, while my old Hoya linear polarizer lives in my Spotmatic's bag.

[RiceHigh]

I would definately choose the K200D since it is newer. In nowadays digital world, the latest digital gadgets in the same line should be improved over the old ones. By considering that the K200D uses the same Sony CCD sensor, I bet it should be better (fine tuned over the K10D). Pentax should know how to debug a camera, shouldn't they?

Hi,

I've been tracking the various dslr models for a few months now, handled most of the cameras, and I'm getting pretty close on making a decision, but wanted to get some thoughts and opinions.

At this point I'm largely debating between getting a K10D body (~500 after rebate), or the K200D kit.

I'm definitely a novice when it comes to DSLRs, but am hoping to learn and do more. My only experience thus far has been my dad's Nikon D50.

So the questions I have are:

Is there anything that would actually be better in the K200D compared to the K10D? (Batteries and size aren't a big deal) I know this will speculative at this point, but given time constraints for the rebate etc, that's all I have.

Will either/both perform better than the Nikon D50?

As a novice, would the K10D be overkill from a complexity standpoint?

If I want to take just a quick picture with the K10D 'green mode', will I still get pretty good pictures? I've read some criticism of the in-camera jpeg rendering, but that all seems to be compared to other dslrs, if I use just typical P&S as my baseline, will the pictures be better or worse?

I also have my dad's old Nikon FT with some nice prime lenses, are there adapters available that would allow me to use the FL lenses on the Pentax cameras? (the lenses are manual focus to begin with, so I'm not concerned with that)

Thanks!!