|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-09-2009, 10:38 PM
|
| |
Well I used these cameras for years, successfully. It wasn't fast with them; there's a lot of tinkering with settings and framing and re-framing the shot, and I am certainly not a professional, but I enjoyed using the cameras and I got good results, or results I was pleased with--some of the time. I can't stick with the film cameras because I need digitalized material today--and it just doesn't make sense anymore from a practical standpoint. I am not particularly happy with that fact, but that's the way it is.
In other words, there's no particular advantage to the K10d over the K200d while the K20d has some clear advantages over both?
Low light: sometimes I may NEED to take photographs of a narrow dark city street or a house that sits in deep shadows. Are you saying that the K200d isn't up to this?
Lenses: I see you have a Pentax-M 1:3.5 28 mm (pictured on your site). I guess that would be good for the photography I want to do.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-09-2009, 12:59 PM
|
| |
Thanks, for sharing your insights Will. Obviosuly I don't have the experience with digital cameras to know, but the dials seem like a good idea--more like a camera than a cell phone. Maybe the K10d is a good idea too; I see "like new" ones on e-bay for about $400.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-09-2009, 02:05 AM
|
| |
Thanks a million, pentaxmx! Fantastic information! Very much appreciated.
I do have decent PCs--so that should't be a problem. Yes, I do want to shoot RAW for artistic purposes, you're right, but that's secondary to my main and immediate purpose for purchasing the digital camera: collecting images of landscapes and 'cityscapes' for illustration purposes. This is for my courses and papers at conferences etc.
My original question about RAW came about because I had gathered from reading around the net that performance on the K200d, and the K2000/K-m also, varies greatly between RAW and JPEG--so much so that it makes sense to shoot in RAW and convert. But then you've said that's just nonsense or "nonsuch" to quote Mark Twain.
Thanks again, Luke
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-09-2009, 01:45 AM
|
| |
One other thing, Marc,
I am trying to get myself to the biggest camera shop in Norway today to check out what they have so that I can see how they feel in the hand. I have relatively small hands for a man . . . . so we'll see.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-09-2009, 01:30 AM
|
| |
To Marc,
Thanks a million for your lucid summary of what the K2000 lacks in comaprison with the K200d. In effect what you're saying is that you really cannot effectively use manual lenses on the K2000 since it lacks live metering? Remember, I'm coming from film (and it has been a few years). It sounds as if on the K200d you get a live metering function from the DOF preview page? Thanks, again.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-08-2009, 04:00 PM
|
| |
I have been leaning more and more to the K20d because there has been so much praise on the boards here and elsewhere; a Norwegian newspaper review that I found yesterday called the camera a "coup for Pentax." :lol:
Then I started studying the K20d more carefully on line and what I found astonished me. It's huge—or so it seems—and is quite heavy. I travel often and I need to be able to bring the camera along as well as my laptop, etc. without going through gymnastics at the airport. Will I want to lug something that big around . . . I don't know. It's very questionable. :(
With weight and size suddenly at the foreground of my thinking, I began thinking about the K200d again. It is smaller than the K20d, but still "clunky", according to one reviewer, and a bit on the heavy side. Of course it's weather sealed which is an undeniable plus and I may like the feel of the camera. But I was thinking . . . if I put that high a priority on weight and maneuverability, why not consider the K-m/K2000? It has the same processor as the K200d and a much easier menu system which for me would be a useful feature. I realize there are negatives (no orientation sensor,no raw button, and no indication where the camera is focusing on auto) but it seems as if it has clear advantages over the K200d in speed, size and weight. Here in Norway it comes in at a substantially lower price than the K200d as well.
My question at this point is the K-m worth looking at or is it a substantially inferior camera to the K200d?
I must get to the camera store—after work tomorrow. I’ll check them all out for handling.
Thanks, Luke
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-06-2009, 09:47 PM
|
| |
Thanks for everyone's input. Much appreciated.
1. Quality
They are both very good cameras, but there are reasons to favor K20d which I suppose is logical considering the higher cost.
2. Initial use. I was concerned that K20d might be too complicated to start with.
Good to know--that eliminates that concern as an issue.
Points 1 and 2 suggest I should really go for the K20d. But then . . .
3. It is not the technology itself that matters most (assuming that the cameras being considered are capable instruments and both of these are), but the skill one develops in using it.
No need to apologize, I see your point.
4. Camera's "fit"_
A tool is the extension of the hand (and eye) and must be comfortable, become "second hand." Perhaps the more familiar dials would be very important for me, considering my "earlier experiences" as you say, unkabin. Strong recommendation for the K20d, reeftool.
Yes, losecontrol, "fit" is important!
Exactly, Marc. I must check it out.
5. Trade-offs
Thanks for the analysis, unkabin. Seems to me that weight/size is very important factor. I want something I can maneuver, but that is solid. I'll start there.
Last point, trade-offs. I started this thread by putting price aside. Price comes into the picture in consideration of buying a lens for the camera. I read that he so-called "kit-lens" that you can buy with the camera is not worth it. If I like the k200d's fit, might it not be wise to take the money saved and use it on a good lens?
Thanks again, Luke
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-06-2009, 12:45 PM
|
| |
[QUOTE=losecontrol;479372]Hello neigboor :)
So if you want improve and like shooting. Grab the k20d. (in sweden it's very cheap now).
Takk skal du ha! :D Good advice, but of course as you probably know prices are much higher in Norwaty than in Sweden. Thanks ahgain.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-06-2009, 04:34 AM
|
| |
Hi, I'm new . . .
. . . to this board and to digital photography. I would appreciate opinions on whether to buy a K200d or K20d. Leaving aside the price issue for the moment, I wonder if I can actually handle a k20d.
I'm not exactly a beginner, but the rise of digital photography has completely disoriented me. I still have a Pentax ProgramA which I enjoyed using and before that I had a Canon AE-1 which I loved--both of which I bought used. I had prime lenses, 50mm and wide angle--and still have a Pentax M 1:2 50mm. The Canon had a light meter built into the body of the camera; you took a reading and then set the aperture and shutter-speed. I did o.k. with it and I loved using it. I liked to take the camera into the woods or up in the mountains; or take pictures of buildings and street scenes.
This was years ago. It's amazing the number of people lugging around sophisticated cameras today. When I got my Canon 30 years ago very few people had SLRs. I feel very much like Rip Van Winkle, awakened into an age of pixels and jpgs and raw. Hence my thinking that the K200d would be a better choice, especially considering the fact that I'm going on a trip shortly (two weeks actually) in order to take a set of photographs to illustrate a lecture I'm writing. Hence I need to start taking clear, decent photographs in a relatively short amount of time. According to the reviews the K200d would be foolproof, hence I could rest assured. When you add that to the lower price and lighter weight, it seems as if the K200d is the logical choice.
On the other hand, one major review says that the K200d's jpg conversions are not worth keeping. The recommend shooting in RAW meaning I would have to convert the RAW files on my computer. Is this true? Is it difficult to convert RAW to JPEG files?
The other complication is that I imagine that I'd like to go back as soon as I can to manual mode. What I'm hearing on discussion boards is that the k200d has real limitations in this regard--awkward to use, contains only one dial, and it lacks the capacity to adjust ISO in manual mode(?).
I'd certainly appreciate any comments or suggestions you might have.
Thanks,
LUKE
|
