|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-17-2008, 08:24 PM
|
| |
I went ahead and bought a used K10D for $500. Thanks for everyone's help.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-13-2008, 09:55 AM
|
| |
I guess I do realize that it won't stop motion as well but I figured it would be still usefull when their not moving around too quickly.
In your opinion, is the high ISO performance of the K200 good enough to do just what your saying?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-12-2008, 08:55 PM
|
| |
Thanks so much everyone for your input. As I've been sitting on the dSLR sideline for the last 2+ years itching to jump in, I was always planning on getting a Canon. I can say that I've now changed my thinking from the last 2 years in the course of three days. Four days ago I didn't even know Pentax was making a dSLR. Weird. But the shake reduction built in to the body, the quality of the primes, and the price of obtaining a whole system is just too good to ignore. Plus, it really seems that Pentax is building a lot of momentum recently.
I want to do low light portrait work indoors and assumed the 50mm 1.4 was the best choice for me. After reading some of the lens reviews, it seems maybe the 40mm F2.8 is the better option. Any thoughts? You guys have been so great thanks.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-12-2008, 08:34 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the tip. I may be holding off just to save up the cash.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-12-2008, 12:20 PM
|
| |
Wow, thanks for the active thread. I'm not going to using a tripod, so I think image stabalization would be fairly important for my indoor low light portrait work. I appreciate all the comments although in some respect it hasn't made my decision any easier as there are so many different opinions on even what is important for my application. Unfortunately, I'm not experienced enough to have an opinion.
I did like the advice of trying out the cameras for myself and deciding which one I like better. I have sort of done this for the 30 minutes I was working with the salesman, and I did like the K200 way better than the XTi. To me the 40D and the K200 were both nice as far as the handling and feel.
If I try to aggregate and filter all the opinions I've received here and apply to them the type of photography I'll be doing (low light indoor portrait work) here's where I'm:
1. I don't plan on using a tripod so SR/VR/IS is important to me -- seems like Pentax wins here
2. Getting the best quality lenses without spending thousands is important to me -- the first lens I plan on buying is going to be a fast prime in the 50mm to 85mm range, I believe that will suit my indoor portrait needs best -- again seems like best bang for the buck goes to Pentax
3. It doesn't seem fps are even a concern when doing indoor portrait work.
4. It seems AF is important for low light work and it also seems everyone agrees Canon easily bests Pentax in AF ability
I'm really leaning in the direction of the Pentax here. I can get a K200 and the 50mm 1.4 for less than $850. It seems that would do really well for my needs. Since I haven't really done any work with SLR's I'm not even sure what having a "lesser" AF system would mean to me when taking photos. Can someone explain this to me? I assume, as your all owners, there is an effective way to shoot photos even though the AF isn't great.
One of my thoughts is that Canon is not going introduce IS into their dSLR bodies since they probably have so much invested into their IS lenses. Which in my opinion is the draw back of the Canon as applied to my specific needs. With that said, there isn't going to be a whole they can do to ever change that draw back for me as the evolution of the dSLR continues into the future. I'll be forced into expensive lenses to get the IS.
And, it seems to me that the biggest drawback of the Pentax, as applied to my specific needs, is the AF system. Which I'm hoping you'll tell me I'll be able to work just fine with it. To me though, there is at least hope that sometime down the evolutionary road of dSLR bodies, Pentax could fix this drawback and introduce a better AF system. Unlike Canon, which I'm not sure will really be able to ever address the one drawback for me (no IS in the body).
The biggest investment in a system is the lenses and it seems that investment would be significantly less in a Pentax system vs Canon when comparing the same quality lens w/IS.
So can I work with the "lesser" AF system in the Pentax for low light indoor portrait work? Am I missing anything obvious with my analysis as it applies to my needs?
Thanks
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-12-2008, 06:15 AM
|
| |
Thanks to everyone who responded so thoughtfully, it is appreciated. I've got a better understanding of the differences between the two and I feel I'm getting closer to being able to make an informed decision. In the back of my mind I really didn't think 6.5fps is anything I would really care about, I think your responses have confirmed that.
Unfortunately, I'm still a little fuzzy about what I actually should be concerned with as far as features when searching for a dslr system aimed at low light indoor portrait work.
Would anyone be willing to take the time to point out what features are most important for this type of use, regardless of brand? When I'm done deciding I'd really like to be able to say: "I bought company xyz's camera because I want to do low light indoor portrait work and the dslr system has this or that feature over the other brands, which, when working within a budget, made it the best choice for me."
Maybe that's just a dream, but I'd like to think I'm getting an informed decision.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-12-2008, 05:57 AM
|
| |
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm curious about the K10D vs the K200, I hadn't heard about the K10D but after your suggestion I looked it up. It looks like the K10D was the flagship Pentax until the new K20? But now the new K200 is basically the same as the K10D? Is there nothing else different about the K200? It looks like the K10D has similar controls as the K20D, which others have stated is better than on the K200. If I go Pentax, I'd probably go with the K10D then.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-12-2008, 05:30 AM
|
| |
Honestly, they really did suggest Pentax, probably because I wasn't at a big box store, but an actual camera store with knowledgeable employees.
I handled the K20 and the salesman basically said the same thing you did about why the K20 is better than the K200. Granted I've never used an SLR but the K20 seemed usable to me, especially when compared to the digital Rebel.
Other than more pixels, what about the sensor is better over the K200?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-11-2008, 09:44 PM
|
| |
First of all, I own no dslr equipment and have been wanting to get a new system going for a while. After lurking around various camera forums but without actually handling any cameras, I thought I would be purchasing a Canon XTi, I liked the price, and thought I would invest the real money in good glass.
About a week ago, I handled the the XTi and realized I didn't like the feel of of it in my hand at all. So, I tried handling the next step up in the Canon line, the 40D. I really liked the size and feel of the 40D and it's a much better camera than the XTi. Okay, so I just hold off and save a little extra cash and get the 40D. Budget is a concern, but I'd be willing to stretch if I have a reason to.
At the same time I was handling the Canons, the salesperson asked if I had looked at the Pentax cameras. I had only heard the name and honestly had never taken a look at them. So I handled the K200 and really, really liked the feel of it. Certainly way better than the XTi and very close if not better than the 40D, plus the price was better than the 40D. Also the rep pointed out the shake reduction is built in the body, which helps keeps the cost of lenses down. Also the rep stated that similar quality lenses are typically quite a bit less expensive than their Canon counterparts.
So I'm sold on Pentax right? I'm not sure. For my uses, I'm not sure what I should be concerned about. To me the biggest differences are:
40D
1. The 40D can shoot 6.5fps
2. The 40D has a better AF, especially in low light? (I think)
3. The 40D is cleaner at higher ISO's?
K200
1. The K200 has built in shake reduction
2. The K200 is ~$400 less for the body
3. The K200 lenses would cost much less than comparable Canon lenses
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.
So I guess my real question here is, what should I be concerned about given the type of photography I want to do. First and foremost, I have two boys ages 3 and 6 that I would mainly be taking indoor portrait type shots, preferably without a flash. Secondly, I'd probably be taking some outdoor sporting event shots like T-ball and soccer, but not nearly as much as the indoor portraits.
My thought is I'll get a really fast prime with either camera to begin with. I'm aware of the Pentax 50mm 1.4 and Canon has well reviewed 85mm 1.8 (~$340). So, what should I be concerned about? Do I need to be able to shoot 6.5fps for these uses? Do I need the better AF system of the 40D? I honestly don't know.
My biggest problem is I'm really intrigued by the 40D and it's 6.5fps and AF quality. I'm just as intrigued by the K200 and it's built in shake reduction and the less expensive but high quality lenses. So, I'm looking to you fine folks for some wisdom on what might suit my needs best and what features would be most utilized by my low light indoor portrait work.
Thanks for reading this wordy post!
|
