Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (
-   -   K100D worth extra dollars over DL? How does it compare to o (

Contriver Sep 12, 2006 9:08 AM

I am still looking for 'my' ideal first DSLR. Basically, price is the biggest factor. Thus I have been set on going for the Pentax DL since it already has a low base price and in addition there is the $100.00 rebate til October. Currently, at Beach Camera, the DL is $569.00, $469 after the rebate. They have the K100D for $589.00. So, the K100D is $120.00 more then the DL. Is the $120 worth it? As I understand it, the K100D offers two advantages over the DL, better autofocus and the big thing is the image stabilization.

I am interested in the image stabilization, however I am curious to find out more about it. What types of shots is image stabilization good for? What types of shot is it not good for?

Also, what disadvantages does the K100D have when compared to other brands in the same price range?

Thanks for your help!

Contriver Sep 12, 2006 9:36 AM

What do you all think about the night time examples shown in these reviews? How do you think the K100D compares to the D50? To me it looks like the D50 did a better job. Does anyone else agree?

gadgetnut Sep 12, 2006 9:52 AM

Check out the shots someone posted in this thread:;forum_id=80

They were all hand-held with the K100D. I doubt that would have been possible without the image stabilization.

Contriver Sep 14, 2006 10:31 AM

So what do you guys think? Is the K100D worth the extra dollars over the DL? It appears that image stabilization will improve all types of this correct?

gadgetnut Sep 14, 2006 11:05 AM

Contriver wrote:

So what do you guys think? Is the K100D worth the extra dollars over the DL? It appears that image stabilization will improve all types of this correct?
It won't improve all types of shots (it doesn't help if the subject moves) but it will help in most shots. I personally think it's worth the extra money. I've lost count of how many pictures Ihave deleted from my current digicam because theywere slightly blurry. The image stabilization probably would have savedmany of those shots. To me, anything that improves the number of "keepers" is well worth a little extra.

rfortson Sep 14, 2006 11:53 AM

I shot this hand held with the K100D, ISO800, 1.5 second exposure. I don't think you can do this with other cameras.

Contriver Sep 14, 2006 12:04 PM

Thats a cool picture!

mtngal Sep 14, 2006 3:55 PM

I have both the DS (the camera before the DL) and the K100D. I was surprised how much difference the SR made for some of my shots. I posted a couple of comparison shots where I was looking for differences in the jpg processing, but found instead that the K100D picture was sharper due to a bit of camera shake (think the photos were taken in good light at 200mm). The shutter speed was fast enough that I normally could handhold (125 sec), but apparently not. I also posted some night shots taken in Las Vegas that were taken between 1/10 and 1/20 sec without signs of camera shake, something I've never been able to achieve before with any camera.

Is it worth the extra $120? That will depend on the individual and what they are taking pictures of. If you are always going to be taking pictures either with a tripod or else daytime outdoors, and/or you have a really steady hand, then save the money and get the DL. I didn't seehuge differences in comparison shots between the DS and the K100D. The metering is different (DS tends to underexpose more than the K100D, which can be either good or bad). My answer was that the K100D is a better camera for me, and the extra money definitely money well spent.

norm smith Sep 14, 2006 6:28 PM

If cost is an issue, check out the Samsung GX 1L

This is basically a rebadged *istDL2 but is very cheap,

I just paid £400 for a body and 2 lens kit (the lenses are also rebadged) which is superb value.

My initial impression is that picture quality is excellent but auto focus can be slow.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:10 AM.