Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   In the market for a DSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/market-dslr-156194/)

photographynut Jun 10, 2009 11:05 PM

In the market for a DSLR
 
Hello,

I have been lurking here reading about every post about DSLR cameras that I can so much so that maybe have myself more lost then before, I started if that is possible. I am looking a good DSLR camera. I plan to primarily shoot wildlife. I also want a camera that will allow me to take some low light photos and also shoot the occasional sports when my son starts them here in the near future. I would consider the following brands of camera Nikon, Canon or Pentax in no particular order. I do have concerns about the Pentax as the autofocus is not fast enough for sports? I would say that my purpose for the camera would be 70% wildlife, 20% family pics and 10% sports. I want to go above the entry level area in DSLR photography. Some models that I have considered are:

Canon 40d, Canon 50d, and the Canon XSI, Nikon D5000 and the Nikon D90 and in Pentax the K20. I would like not to go over the $1300 area. I was thinking around the lines of a kit lens, a 50mm lens for low light situations like school functions for the kids and 70-300 range for starting out with the wildlife and then down the road upgrade to a 500mm area.

Look forward to reading and getting some guidance on which way to go.

Thanks

Photographynut

peripatetic Jun 11, 2009 1:41 AM

Both the Nikon 70-300 VR and Canon 70-300 IS are very nice lenses, and 300 is really the minimum focal length you need for typical portrait photographs.

See the lens tests at slrgear.com for details. Essentially too close to call between the two.

I think you should probably add the Sony A700 to your list too, for lens reasons primarily. The Sony 70-300 is optically also very good, possibly even better than the excellent Nikon and Canon 70-300 stabilised lenses.

And one trump card for the Sony is that there is a very reasonably priced 500mm mirror lens available - and the in-body stabilisation of the A700 will work with this lens too.

The big downside of the Sony is that there is no upgrade for the kind of photography that you are interested in, with Nikon and Canon of course the stuff you are looking at is their entry-level for action photography.

For the long haul though I would recommend you restrict your choice down to the 50D and D90, because if you do find this is a long term interest they will get you started very nicely and allow you to focus on your lens collection.

Mark1616 Jun 11, 2009 3:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976165)
Both the Nikon 70-300 VR and Canon 70-300 IS are very nice lenses, and 300 is really the minimum focal length you need for typical portrait photographs.

I'm thinking you probably mean 300 is the minimum for wildlife LOL.

Photographynut, if you are talking $1300 for everything then the 50D and D90 are out of your range as the 70-300 from both of these manufacturers will be about $500. The D5000 is not an option if you want to use the Nikon 50mm as like the D60 the D5000 doesn't have a focus motor in the body (someone please confirm that this is correct with the D5000 and that I've not made a mistake).

There are cheaper 70-300mm lenses rather than the Nikon G and Canon IS but they are not the same quality and as glass is a very key area for getting good photos I wouldn't skimp here.

As for going Sony, I honestly don't know enough so will rely on others to chip in if that is going to be a good plan.

peripatetic Jun 11, 2009 4:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark1616 (Post 976173)
I'm thinking you probably mean 300 is the minimum for wildlife LOL.

Erm yes quite.

Actually I was getting at "wildlife-portrait" as opposed to "wildlife-landscape" which in my head are different approaches to wildlife shooting with the former being far more common, safer, easier, etc. But perhaps therefore somewhat less interesting to some people (me for example :speechless-smiley:) .

As to pricing I think Mark is correct. Really you are looking at a minimum of around $2000 for D90 or 50D.

I suppose you could drop down if you had to:
Canon T1 + 18-55IS kit ($900) + 70-300 IS ($550) => $1450.
Nikon D5000 + 18-105 kit ($1050)+ 70-300 VR ($590) => $1650

But I really wouldn't want to do anything less than that.

You should also very seriously be looking at a good flashgun + better beamer for wildlife portraits. Budget at least $300 for that.

TCav Jun 11, 2009 6:50 AM

If all we were talking about were the stabilized 70-300 telephoto zoom lenses from Canon and Nikon, I'd say that Canon's was superior. That range would serve you well for both wildlife and outdoor sports photography. And while both Canon and Nikon have good selections of large aperture medium telephoto lenses for use with indoor sports, Canon has the edge here. (I want to point out, though, that neither of them offers a stabilized large aperture medium telephoto lens.)

If you want to avoid flash for your family pictures, Canon and Nikon both have stabilized large aperture standard zoom lenses that are very good, though pricey.

If stabilization is an issue, Sony has image stabilization in the body, and Sony has the 70-300 'G' which is better than the stabilized lenses of the same range from either Canon or Nikon. Sony dSLRs can also use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 which is as good or better than the stabilized large aperture standard zoom lenses from either Canon of Nikon, and it costs a whole lot less. Sony's selection of large aperture medium telephoto lenses for indoor sports isn't nearly as good as from Canon or Nikon, but the lenses they have are excellent (though expensive), and they'd be stabilized on a Sony dSLR body.

peripatetic Jun 11, 2009 8:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 976203)
If stabilization is an issue, Sony has image stabilization in the body, and Sony has the 70-300 'G' which is better than the stabilized lenses of the same range from either Canon or Nikon.
.

A700 + 16 - 105 kit ($1500) + 70-300 G ($850) => $2350, which is probably way too far over budget.

And that is the END of the line for wildlife/action photography with Sony.

Also don't forget to take the high-ISO performance into account. The D90 is a full stop better than the A700 and 50D over the 800-3200 range. That counts a lot under certain circumstances. The D5000 has a 1-stop advantage over the 500D too.

The OP will need flash for his wildlife photography, so gets it for "free" for indoor work with kids. TCav hates flash for kids, though even he will probably admit his loathing is rather eccentric.

For sports stabilisation is essentially irrelevant. Down the line if the OP wants to invest in expensive telephoto lenses - well Sony is not a significant player in that market.

JohnG Jun 11, 2009 8:58 AM

I thought I'd join the party - albeit a little late. I would agree with everything in peripatetic's post. BUT, I wanted to add this piece of advice:

The OP stated 70% of the use will be wildlife.

people have mentioned 300mm is the 'start' of wildlife lens reach. If the majority of your time will be wildlife shooting, I am going to caution you that you'll be VERY disappointed in what you get with only 300mm. For the occasional wildlife shooter 300mm might be OK. But when 70% of your shooting will be wildlife you really need to be looking at 400-500mm lenses. If you're not now, then you will be in 6 months - after you've invested $$$ in a 300mm lens that's too short for the majority of your shooting.

BUT, you say, there's no way to get 400-500mm AND a body for $1300. That is absolutely true. Sometimes what you WANT to do within a budget and what you CAN do within a budget don't mix. I don't say this to discourage you, but only to point out a reality. If wildlife shooting is going to be 70% of your shooting you should plan on needing a lens like the Bigma (sigma 50-500) @ $1100 fairly soon after buying the camera. 6 months of shooting wildlife with only 300mm will be very frustrating IMO. NONE of the 70-300 lenses under discussion are going to produce good results with a teleconverter on - and in all cases with the bodies under consideration, none of the lenses will autofocus with a dedicated TC. They might with a third-party TC that doesn't report aperture but performance will be close to useless and optical quality will be very poor.

When I shoot widlife i use a 400mm lens - and believe me, I'm very annoyed at how short 400mm really is.

peripatetic Jun 11, 2009 9:15 AM

Echoing what John said I may be spoiling the party.

But with a modest-medium budget, I probably would not shoot wildlife with a stills camera.

Instead I would use a video camera. I know that this will not win you wildlife photographer of the year (and I do go to the natural history museum in London every year to see the winners) BUT for a modest-medium budget a video camera has a number of very important advantages.

1. You can get a much longer telephoto.
2. You can get 20+ frames a second.
3. With modern software you can uprez to get decent prints, because with telephoto lenses in the 450-500mm equivalent range (about 300 on APS-C) you will likely be cropping quite aggressively anyway.

Just a thought. :-)

TCav Jun 11, 2009 9:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976221)
A700 + 16 - 105 kit ($1500) + 70-300 G ($850) => $2350, which is probably way too far over budget.

Yes, but so would the Canon 50D and the Nikon D90. I'm not comparing the A700 with the T1i or the D5000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976221)
And that is the END of the line for wildlife/action photography with Sony.

No. Sony also has a very good 70-400 'G' lens and a 500mm f/8 Reflex lens that's inexpensive, sharp, small, light, and autofocuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976221)
The OP will need flash for his wildlife photography, ....

:confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976221)
TCav hates flash for kids, though even he will probably admit his loathing is rather eccentric.

You misunderstand me, and that's my fault. I prefer available light photography for everything. 'Kids' just falls into the category of 'Everything'. It's not loathing; it's a preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976221)
For sports stabilisation is essentially irrelevant.

... but not so for wildlife. Remember that old rule of thumb that the shutter speed should be the invers of the focal length. That would make the minimum shutter speed 1/300 second at a 300mm focal length on a 35mm film and full frame digital SLR. On an APS-C dSLR, that would be 1/450-1/480 second. Take a look at the Wildlife Photos Forum and see what shutter speeds some of those photos are taken at. You may also come across some posts praising image stabilization in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976221)
Down the line if the OP wants to invest in expensive telephoto lenses - well Sony is not a significant player in that market.

Uh, no. In fact, Sony has some of the most expensive telephoto lenses available. :) And the used market is flooded with very expensive Minolta telephoto lenses. :)

peripatetic Jun 11, 2009 11:56 AM

Is this the right room for an argument?

Canon T1 + 18-55IS kit ($900) + 70-300 IS ($550) => $1450.
Nikon D5000 + 18-105 kit ($1050)+ 70-300 VR ($590) => $1650
50D + 18-55 IS + 70-300 IS~ $1850
D90 + 18-105 VR + 70-300 VR ~ $1850
A700 + 16-105 + 70-300 ~$2350

At that price range I think it's a no-brainer. The D90 by a mile. You get a much better camera and sensor than the A700, video, and cash left over to get a decent flashgun at the price of the A700. If money is a real issue then drop down to the T1.

It's not that the Sony 300 f2.8 isn't expensive, it's that it is all alone. Canon has 10 prime lenses from 200 - 800mm suitable for action photography. Nikon has 6. Sony has 1. A 500mm f8 mirror lens doesn't cut it I'm afraid, let's be generous and say 2 though.

But they have no bodies with pro-grade AF systems. None. Nikon has 4 - D300, D700, D3, D3x. Canon has 2 - 1D, 1Ds.

How many of this year's "Wildlife photographer of the year" finalists were using Sony equipment? Zero. All of them used Nikon and Canon. And when it comes to sports?

http://www.lensextender.com/2009/04/...-or-canon.html

Tell me how many Sony cameras you see in there?

Don't get me wrong - I think the A700 and A900 (in particular) are very nice cameras. I just wouldn't recommend them for this particular purpose. For general, landscape, travel, portrait - sure they are great, and for wildlife/sports the A700 is okay - but it leaves you with no upgrade path.

I don't dislike image stabilisation. I think all lenses/cameras should have it. But for wildlife and action photography it is much less important. You are fairly hard-pressed to find modern telephoto lenses from Canon or Nikon without stabilisation any way.

I also prefer available light photography. But when the conditions are not amenable then "take hundreds of photos a few of them will be usable" is simply not a reasonable substitute for controlling the light using flash. Using flash well is difficult, but a bit of effort in learning the principles goes a long way to producing results without relying on a few random successes. That is equally true for wildlife photography, if you are doing wildlife photography without a high-powered flash and better beamer then you are dramatically reducing your chances of getting good shots.

TCav Jun 11, 2009 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976273)
Is this the right room for an argument?

Canon T1 + 18-55IS kit ($900) + 70-300 IS ($550) => $1450.
Nikon D5000 + 18-105 kit ($1050)+ 70-300 VR ($590) => $1650
50D + 18-55 IS + 70-300 IS~ $1850
D90 + 18-105 VR + 70-300 VR ~ $1850
A700 + 16-105 + 70-300 ~$2350

At that price range I think it's a no-brainer. The D90 by a mile. You get a much better camera and sensor than the A700, video, and cash left over to get a decent flashgun at the price of the A700. If money is a real issue then drop down to the T1.

Ok then, how about this?

A700 + 18-70 + Tamron 70-300 Di LD (stabilized, because stabilization is in the camera body) ~$1270

That comes in under your Canon T1, doesn't it?

Granted, the Sony 18-70 isn't very good, but I could drop that in favor of the new Sony 18-55. And the Tamron isn't quite as good as the Canon or Nikon lenses in the range that are stabilized, but it's close, and it's a lot cheaper. In fact, that package fits within the OP's original budget, doesn't it?

TCav Jun 11, 2009 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976273)
... "take hundreds of photos a few of them will be usable" ...

Where did that come from?

I'm talking about 30%-60% keepers (multiple subjects will reduce the keeper ratio somewhat), and I'll come away with more keepers than someone that must wait for their flash to recharge between shots.

photographynut Jun 11, 2009 5:00 PM

Another option
 
I had the day off work today so made a drive over to the local camera shop. I wanted to do some hands on with the models I was interested in. I talked with the sales person there and he advised me that all the cameras, I was considering were good choices however with my budget he recommended that, I get a Canon XSI and get some camera time with it with some decent lenses to get me started. Then he said as my budget allowed buy additional lenses that I need. He then said after I have a good set of lenses then I could upgrade the body if I decided to pursue the photography more in depth. He also said he could make me a good deal on a Pentax K20 as his store had about 2 left that they are no longer going to sell the Pentax cameras however they still planned to carry lenses for them. How good is the Pentax K20? I will only be shooting sports about 10% of the time most of the time wildlife is the K20 good in wildlife photography? He was offering me the XSI with the 18-55 kit lens with the and the 55-250 and said I could get an additional lens within my budget. He said on the Pentax he would sell me the Pentax with the 18-55 kit and a Tamron I belive it was that zoomed to 300 and a prime lens for under my budget as well. Is either of this a good way to go? I wanted to ask here before going back tomorrow and buying and being taken advantage of since I am new to the DSLR world. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks for looking

Photographynut

TCav Jun 11, 2009 6:29 PM

That's a popular Canon package. The Canon XSi with the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS lenses is available from Adorama for $850 (after a $200 rebate. See http://www.adorama.com/ICADRXSISK55.html ) That's a nice camera and two nice lenses. The 250mm maximum focal length might be short for what you want to do, though.

The Pentax K20 is nice. It's 14MP vs. the Canon's 12MP, and it has stabilization in the body, but it doesn't focus as quickly as the Canon. The 18-55 kit lens isn't as good as the Canon's. Adorama sells the K20D with the kit lens for $770. The telephoto zoom he's talking about is probably the 70-300 Di LD which is quite nice for a $170 lens.

You should try each of them in the store to see which you feel most comfortable handling.

mtngal Jun 11, 2009 10:33 PM

There are those who say the Pentax K20 isn't good for sports (which I won't disagree with at all) or wildlife. The K20's AF is slower than Canon's so it isn't as good for sports (though for many sports you can get good snaps with extra work and practice. It's significantly harder to get high quality shots and you'll miss more shots than if you shot with Canon). It's not a camera I would want to use if I were shooting sports all the time, but I've taken some reasonable tennis and track shots, just playing around (but then, they were ones that any entry dSLR camera would be capable of taking - nothing special).

As far as wildlife goes, you'll find a huge number of wildlife photographers (of varying experience) posting pictures of birds, etc. in the Pentax dSLR section of this board. Take a look at some of the threads and see what you think.

I, personally, find the K20 excellent for what I do - mostly macro and landscape, with some architecture and street photography thrown in occasionally.

The K20 was (well, still is until July when the just announced K-7 comes out) Pentax's top of the line camera. You'll find it for about half what it sold for originally because it's being phased out. It's got a number of very nice features and is a fairly advanced camera. It's weather sealing is very nice for snowshoers, hikers and people who frequent deserts. And it can use any Pentax lens ever made, though the M42 screw-mount lenses require an adaptor and would be completely manual. K-mount lenses retain whatever capability the lens had when it was made (if the lens was auto exposure and auto focus it will retain that capability, while manual lenses will still be manual), so there's the possibility of buying top quality used lenses for less than what new lenses cost.

The Tamron lens (assuming it's the one TCav mentioned) is a nice lens - you'd have to pay at least $100 or more to get a better one. If the kit lens is the older Pentax 18-55, it isn't as good as the Canon's latest kit lens. The new version is much better than the old one, and worth getting (especially since it is so inexpensive).

interested_observer Jun 12, 2009 12:14 AM

Evening, As TCav and mtngal have said, the Pentax auto focus system is not the quickest, however folks have worked with it with good results. JohnG is the resident sports expert and you really can not beat Canon for the sports aspect, and probably the more difficult wildlife shots (especially in shadows).

The main reason for the post is to amplify a bit on what mtngal posted. Pentax has a kit lens 18-55 that came out with the K100 (6MP) which was very good at the time. With the release of the K20 at 14MP, they updated the lens to complement the higher resolution of the K20. So, if you are interested in the K20 I would, rather than purchase the pre-packaged kit as TCav linked to, purchase the body and the kit lens seperately making sure to get the version II of the kit lens, or make sure that the kit contained the version II of the kit lens.

http://www.adorama.com/IPXK20D.html - k20 body $660
http://www.adorama.com/PX1855AFD2.html - kit ver II lens $120

I just recently upgraded from the Pentax K100 to the K20. It is a lot of camera - great capability. You have received a lot of great information all through out the thread and really can not go wrong.

peripatetic Jun 12, 2009 1:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 976305)
Ok then, how about this?

A700 + 18-70 + Tamron 70-300 Di LD (stabilized, because stabilization is in the camera body) ~$1270

That comes in under your Canon T1, doesn't it?

Granted, the Sony 18-70 isn't very good, but I could drop that in favor of the new Sony 18-55. And the Tamron isn't quite as good as the Canon or Nikon lenses in the range that are stabilized, but it's close, and it's a lot cheaper. In fact, that package fits within the OP's original budget, doesn't it?

Well I can think of a good reason:

The OP will be likely using the 70-300 for 90% of his shots, and a high percentage of those at 300mm. Are you serious? Optically it is not close at all.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/455/cat/23

A700 + coke bottle and coke bottle adapter is pretty cheap too. And of course it will be stabilised. :p

How about this? Buy the Canon or Nikon and stick Sony stickers everywhere that it says Canon or Nikon. :)

JohnG Jun 12, 2009 7:22 AM

So comming back to the OP's question about which kit:

First question - you didn't mention what prices the camera shop was offering. People have provided some prices / links to online vendors. So, just make sure the local store isn't ripping you off (sadly, on-sale items can still be more expensive at a local store than a reputable on-line vendor).

As to the kits -
The canon 55-250 is a very nice lens. But, you indicated 70% of your shooting is going to be wildlife. The 55-250 is too short to be a good wildlife lens. So I think you'll be disappointed with the results for 70% of your shooting needs.

In the pentax kit, you still need to verify if the lens being offered is the Tamron 70-300. It's a nice lens too. A little more reach, but still too short for serious wildlife shooting. So the lesson here is - set your expectations correctly. Either of these lenses is just going to allow you to limp along until you save up for a longer lens. I understand not having loads of cash, but if you go into the buy with the correct expectations you're less likely to get down when you realize the lenses aren't long enough for your needs.

As to Pentax vs. Canon. Sounds like sports is a very minor part of the equation so I wouldn't factor that into the decision too much. IMO, it really comes down to what type of wildlife photography you want to do. If you want to get into Birds-in-flight then the focus advantage of Canon comes into play. And, it is a big advantage for moving subjects (both in terms of the camera and availability of fast-focusing lenses at all focal lengths). If you're doing more animal portrait work then both cameras - with an appropriate lens - are quite capable.

The k20 is a great camera and a fantastic bargain. If you're not doing action work then I think it's the better bargain for sure. If you are going to do action work then I would go with Canon. Buying a dslr is buying into a system and right now Canon has a very big advantage as a system (bodies and lenses) for action photography.

Good luck!

TCav Jun 12, 2009 8:51 AM

A lens longer that 300mm will be quite big and quite expensive. The least expensive >300mm telephoto zoom lens is the Tokina 80-400 which, despite it's $550 price tag, is not highly regarded. (It's also not stabilized.)

You may be tempted to use a teleconverter with a 70-300 lens to get the additional reach, but in addition to lengthening the focal length, also reduce the maximum aperture. In this eventuallity, you probably won't be able to autofocus at the longer focal lengths. In addition, inexpensive teleconverters will adversely affect image quality. You might want to consider an inexpensive 70-300 lens now that won't put too much of a dent in your budget, and will serve you well for outdoor sports, and save for a longer lens later.

TCav Jun 12, 2009 9:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 976471)
How about this? Buy the Canon or Nikon and stick Sony stickers everywhere that it says Canon or Nikon. :)

This may be about the brand to you, but it's not about the brand to me.

interested_observer Jun 12, 2009 10:37 AM

You have received excellent advice from some of the best of Steve's here. I thought I would just throw this in... In the end, a camera is just a tool, its the person with the skill, knowledge, experience, practice, patience, eye, etc. that creates and actually takes the image. You can have the absolutely best equipment, and take some of the worst possible pictures.

As said previously, Pentax is not known for sports or birds in flight (BIF), in that other camera system do have technical advantages. That being said, take a look at this one posted thread...

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pe...peeds-wit.html

.... you need to scroll through the entire thread.

The photographer certainly understands photography, has tremendous skill, terrific eye, wonderful knowledge to work out how to take the images in a wide range of situations, practiced for quite a while, great patience, and with all of that - certainly uses a $4,500 lens to its fullest extent.

... best of luck in your decision...

photographynut Jun 12, 2009 6:50 PM

Went back today
 
I went back and the sales man said they only had the one Pentax K20 remaining and still the deal on the XSI. His boss happened to be up working the counter and offered me a great deal on the Pentax K20 the kit lens 18-55 plus a Pentax prime lens and the Tamron 70-300 for the same price as the XSI. I played with both while the auto focus was a little slower I jumped on the K20 as I felt with the lenses it gave me a better deal. I could always switch brands down the line if I pursue the hobby more and get some camera time.

TCav Jun 12, 2009 7:30 PM

Excellent! Good luck with it!

And come back and post some photos.

Photo 5 Jun 12, 2009 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 976308)
Where did that come from?

I'm talking about 30%-60% keepers (multiple subjects will reduce the keeper ratio somewhat), and I'll come away with more keepers than someone that must wait for their flash to recharge between shots.

I get 75% keepers with my Sony A200 if I have the ISO set properly...... I recently did a Children Miracle Network Telethon and got over 85% keepers although some were duplicates.

dave

interested_observer Jun 12, 2009 8:39 PM

Congratulations on your acquisition. Once you make it through the manual, here is a link to a supplemental book/manual on the K20 that may explain thing a bit better and clearer - essentially adding why you might want to do various things, etc. You might need to scroll down a bit to the K20 book (they have both a hard copy and a on line softcopy available) along with books for the K100 and K10.

http://www.k10dbook.com

Also, there is the Pentax dSLR forum here on Steve's and a separate one on Pentax lenses (actually what ever lenses that mount on Pentax camera bodies). There are a lot of folks who use various Pentax models, a lot of K20/200/2000/10/100/110 users along with *ist DS/DL users too. The regulars on the forum are very friendly, and extremely knowledgeable, and always eager to help and answer questions. Plus we all like to see pictures!!!

The K20 is a very capable camera. I just upgraded to it about 2 months ago from the K100 (after several years). You will have somewhat of a steep learning curve. Don't be surprised if your images are not up to your expectations for a while, since there is a lot to learn about the camera. Hint - start with just placing the camera in the "green" mode (or when ever in doubt) and shoot in full automatic, and then start changing one capability at a time - but that is just a suggestion. There are quite a few folks who just upgraded to the K20 on the forum, posting a lot of questions, so don't be shy....

Also, to put your mind somewhat at ease. What ever camera system you purchased - you will run into items where by you may start second guessing your decision. No camera is perfect, however there are probably at least 2 or 3 different workaround solutions, so you just have to think the problem through (out in the field), and / or come post a question.... and that is called learning (which can be tough).

hope that helps...

mtngal Jun 12, 2009 8:52 PM

Congrats - sounds like a very good deal! Don't hesitate to wander down to the Pentax dSLR section of this board and ask questions about the K20 (everyone has them, I've owned the K20 for a year now and still have questions!). We all are happy to answer questions. By the way, which Pentax prime lens did they also sell you with the kit lens and the Tamron 70-300?

peripatetic Jun 13, 2009 12:57 AM

Well done. The K20D is an excellent camera and is fantastic value for money at the moment.

I'm sure you'll have a blast.

TCav Jun 13, 2009 6:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photo 5 (Post 976681)
I get 75% keepers with my Sony A200 if I have the ISO set properly...... I recently did a Children Miracle Network Telethon and got over 85% keepers although some were duplicates.

Ok, but I'm talking about available light photography in a typical home; you're talking about a brightly lit television studio. Not quite the same thing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.