Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (
-   -   Pentax *ist DL or Pentax k100d? (

treaty Sep 21, 2006 9:05 PM

First time DSLR purchase. I'm moving up from a point and shoot.

Having trouble deciding on the cheaper, lighter *ist DL or the newer K100D. With the rebate, the *ist DL kit with lens is a steal at about $150 less then the K100D kit, but I'm wondering if I'm going to miss the "Anti-shake" feature that the k100d offers.

Anyone have any experience with the Anti-shake on the k100d? Do you think it's worth the extra $$ for a newbie photographer?

Edvinas Sep 21, 2006 10:53 PM

Shake reduction isn't the only thing what is different in those models.

K100D have faster and better AF system, improved JPEG processor and better tuned exposure system.

mtngal Sep 22, 2006 9:00 AM

The DL is a very nice camera for the price. As was stated above, the K100D does have some improvements over the DL,the way it meters and the AF. Just my personal experience is that the jpg conversion improvement isn't that much, and the metering changeis nice, but not something that can't be dealt with by changing a setting or what you meter from. The AF is the main thing I've noticed with the D100D, as well as the in-camera anti-shake (Pentax calls it Shake Reduction, or SR).

SR is going to be a deal breaker for some people, and not a big deal to others. I've been very impressed with it - thought my pictures were just a bit better overall, and its wonderful whenin non-flash, low light conditions, or if you use long telephoto lenses a lot. I love my K100D, but haven't sold my DS (earlier model than the DL), just keep a wide-normal zoom on it and the telephoto lenses on the K100D.

If money is the biggest thing, then get the DL. If you are a bit shaky, or use long telephoto most of the time, then get the K100D, it will make a difference.

milrodpxpx Sep 22, 2006 9:08 AM

If you can afford the $150 difference i would go for the K100D as well - i tried it out and the autofocus is definitely faster than the DL I have. The DL was a steal at the beginning of July when the drastically cut the cost - i paid $367 after rebate with the kit lens. if i were choosing now i think the newer model is worth the price difference.

mtngal Sep 22, 2006 4:15 PM

Another thought/difference. The DL is a little lighter and smaller than the K100D (it's noticable). That might not mean much to many people, but if both cameras had been out when I was originally looking, I might have chosen the DL over the K100D just because of that (I'm small and a hiker, so weight and sizeare definitely issues for me). On the other hand, since I was used to the added weight/size of a dSLR, the extra ounces that the K100D has over the DL wasn't an issue for me when it came out.

The size and shape of the grip are slightly different, so if you can, go to a camera store that has both and handle them. You may find that you prefer one over the other. I have no regrets upgrading to the K100D and for me, these are very minor issues.

treaty Sep 22, 2006 6:01 PM

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I have gone to a local camera store and held both models... they are pretty simillar, but I did notice the DL was lighter and the grip was a bit more comfortable for me. I also thought I noticed that the DL's AF was a little slower, but good to hear confirmation on that... the k100d was noticibly heavier, but it's likely that there will be lots of low light indoor shots taken with the camera where the shake reduction may come into play, which is why I'm even considering that model... (my wife will also use the camera and she's a cat sitter... lots of pictures of indoor cats;) ).

hmm... well I'll let you know which one I decide on when I make a decision... leaning toward the newer model at the moment, but still undecided...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:26 PM.