First DSLR

[Carrots]

Thanks. I have no specific field of photography, but would like to be able to have a camera not severly lacking in any field.

I think your suggestion of looking for used lenses is a great idea, although I dont know how much of an option I will have here in South Africa.

I find it difficult to really find out how bad or good a camera is from reviews, since all of them are pretty good and are not directly compared with one another.

[mtngal]

Carrots wrote:

I find it difficult to really find out how bad or good a camera is from reviews, since all of them are pretty good

All of them reallyARE pretty good. All of them have some specific strengths and weaknesses. If you don't have anything specific feature-wisethat would rule out one or another of your choices, then the best thing to do is go find them at a camera store and actually handle them - ergonomics are important. They are different in size and weight, the buttons are inslightly different placesand some people will prefer one while another would prefer something else. The viewfinders are different, which might or might not make a difference to you (I didn't find any of the ones I looked at a couple of years ago objectionable, and you may not either). The best camera in the world won't take memorable pictures if it is on a shelf in your closet because you don't like using it because it is too heavy/too small/too light etc. If they all feel the same to you, then write their names on a piece of paper and draw one out of a hat. You'll end up with a camera that will be capable of taking great pictures, no matter which one you get.

[Carrots]

About 2% of lenses in the only photography classifieds I could find are pentax. The rest are Canon and Nikon. The people also only sell their very expensive lenses.

I am leaning towards the Pentax still, but have some other general queries.
The pentax K100D starts at iso 200. When trying to get the water blur effect, I had a lot of trouble even at 50 iso and my Canon S2 IS. What are the slowest lenses you get? And am I right saying that the slower the lens, the cheaper it is?

Is the shutter lag of the K100D really as bad as the reviews say? It seems to match that of my S2?

One of my friends just bought a K100D Super, so I will try it out. I just want to know what to expect. Are the others noticibly faster with regards to shutter lag?

I am ruling out the Sony, as it seems to be at least as expensive as the 400D.

[JimC]

You can set almost any lens to a smaller aperture (higher f/stop number).

Lenses are rated by the largest available apertures (smallest f/stop numbers available). But, you can still set them to smaller aperture openings (higher f/stop numbers). Most lenses allow apertures down to around f/22. Some macro lenses even allow you to go as small as f/48 and I've got a number of non-macro lenses that go to f/32. Even a very bright lens like my 100mm f/2 allows settings down to apertures as small as f/32.

But, you really want to avoid aperture extremes for best results (you'll start seeing some softness due to diffraction at the smallest apertures available).

If you want to achieve very slow shutter speeds in daylight for blurring water, you'll want to use Neutral Density Filters. They are specifically designed to reduce the amount of light getting through.

[mtngal]

Hi, almost neighbor (I'll wave in the mornings when I drive through on my way to work).

I can't really address the shutter lag, other than to say I don't notice it at all. I've done a bit of sports (track, tennis, one horse show) but I mostly do macro. I found with the sports I've tried it wasn't difficult to use timing to capture the action. I know very well that I would have far more trouble withsome othersports. Since I haven't used a Canon S2, I have no comparison to it, but it sure is faster than the Sony F717 I used to have. Best thing to do is play with your friend's K100 Super.

One of the problems right now is that the Pentax K cameras have become popular, and many have discovered that the Pentax dSLR cameras can use any Pentax lens ever made. That's driving the price up on lenses that were affordable, and to top it off, a number of non-photo people are buying and reselling lenses, which further drives the price up. It's gottenvery frustrating, though there are still some good buys out there, if you know what you want and what to look for. There are a number of resources on the internet that provide excellent information on old lenses.

I'll second JimC's suggestion of the neutral density filter - works like a charm (along with a tripod because while the camera's stabilization helps, it isn't the end-all. I still can't handhold a 300mm lens for a 1 second exposure).

[Carrots]

Thanks for all the advice, again.

I was lucky enoug that Canon had a small stand at a mall yesterday, so I could play with the 400D a bit. Very nice.

I then went to a photography shop, and could focus a K100D Super about 2 times before the battery died. I disliked the sound of the auto-focus motor, and it felt sluggish after playing with the 400D.

Today I played with my friend's K100D Super. And I was less dissapointed. The memory of the Canon probably faded by now :-p

What I really noticed is how much money I will have to spend to match the functionality of my S2....

The kit lens is F5.6.... Thats 3 stops (right?) slower than my S2's lens!
That why DSLR's have the higher ISO's, they NEED them to compete with the compacts! :-p (yes, I know its not true)

I also read in another thread on this forum that lenses can be slow or fast to auto-focus..... eh? Is that because of the lack of clarity? The sensor cant "see" clearly enough to focus quickly?

[pcake]

perhaps the auto focus motor was slow because the battery was almost dead...

Carrots wrote:

I then went to a photography shop, and could focus a K100D Super about 2 times before the battery died. I disliked the sound of the auto-focus motor, and it felt sluggish after playing with the 400D.