Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 20, 2006, 11:20 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
Default

I've read great things about all these cams. I narrowed it down to these three since they are the only ones that have the built in IS.

Downsides to the A100? So far, noise levels at ISO800+

Downsides to the K10? Well, according to Phil at dpreview: soft jpeg images (although forum members say you can sharpen them by using 'bright' mode and turning down saturation). Also, for me the K10 is borderline too BIG.

Downside to the K100? Only 6 mp but has the lowest noise levels of all these cams.

I do crop some (mainly trim) and have plans enlarging up to 13x19. I also read that the K100 has a slower auto focus in low light.

Not sure what to do here... I'm needing something to take good pics of my kids, family events, plays, trips to the beach, hiking in the mountains, landscapes.

I love the price point and size of the K100... but I almost feel like I need to buy my 2nd camera first so there will be more to grow into and learn with.

I'm starting new here - I have no lenses. Any suggestions?












TN Mary is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 20, 2006, 2:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

For the indoor stuff, the K100d has the advantage as it will perform better in low light, and the money you'd save can be put towards lenses that would enhance low light ability, like a 50mm f/1.4.

The extra resolution of the K10 gives it an edge in well lit situations as your pictures will obviously be sharper.

Both cameras may have some issues with JPGs, like the soft JPGs you mentioned, and I know the K100d isn't good at auto white balancing some indoor light situations. Both problems can be avoided if you shoot RAW and don't mind processing them manually on your computer. They come with pretty good software so you don't need to buy Photoshop if you don't have it.

In my opinion, the Sony is just far too noisy. I'm probably going to be getting a K100d myself, and was considering the Sony, but at ISO 800 the Sony loses so much detail that even with the extra pixels it's less detailed and much uglier than an ISO 1600 photo from the K100d. At least from what I've seen by comparing the high ISO shots at dcresource.com.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2006, 3:02 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I'd get the K100 and be very happy with it. I actually have both the K10 and the K100, and am keeping both of them (like having two camera bodies for certain occasions). I did not buy the K10 because of the extra MP, I bought it for the weather sealing and having some of the extra controls, but mostly because my hubby found out about it and thought it would be a great Christmas gift for me.

I haven't tried printing anything from either camera larger than 8x10 so can't address that part of it. I crop quite a bit and haven't felt particularly hampered by the K100's 6 mp.

I don't find the images from the K10 much different than the K100. I even posted two examples here a while back where I resized the same full frame picture taken with both cameras and you couldn't tell the difference (obviously you could when you looked at 100% crops). I think the "softer jpg" images that Phil found is very small difference(he even says this) and wouldn't affect your enjoyment of the camera.

The main reasons I would choose the K100 over the K10 is the fact it is lighter, smaller and less complicated. The K10 has all kinds of features and adjustments that many (most?) people will never use, while I think the K100's feature set is about right (auto for those who don't want to mess with much, adjustments possible for those that do). The K10 has a much bigger learning curve.

Advantages to the K10 are (to me) better auto white balance (and better set of WB adjustments, though the K100's custom WB works well), several new exposure options and the ability to make some common changes by dials on the camera body, instead of in menu options. I'm still trying to figure out all of the features it has, and how things work. For a heavy camera, I find the K10 to have nice ergonomics.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2006, 3:28 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 43
Default

Thanks guys... apreciate the advice.

I was thinking along the same lines.

I wish I could get both too!

Should I stick with the kit lense and maybe the DA 50-200?

Or get the body + the Sigma 17-70 and the DA 50-200?

I need something that will work great for Christmas pageants (need zoom) and something that will be pretty good in low light.

Thanks!










TN Mary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2006, 3:40 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

I like the K100d's kit lens, I plan on getting it because it's typically only $60-$70 more than just the body.

I don't know if that's a good telephoto lens or not for indoor use. If it didn't sound like you were trying to get the camera real soon, I might suggest trying to get a used zoom or prime on Ebay that might give you a wider aperture.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2006, 6:40 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

It all depends on what you want to do. I have both the kit lens and the DA 50-200 and use both quite often. The kit lens is a very good lens for the little they charge for it so I think it's worth getting. The DA 50-200 is a reasonable workmanlike lens, not horribly expensive and sharp through its zoom range. I use it quite a bit, but will look at possibly replacing mine when some of the top quality lenses Pentax is supposed to release next year.

Neither lens is very fast, so if you are going to do lots of low-light stuff, you might think about getting the FA 50mm 1.4 or one of the other fast primes (either new or used). It all depends to a certain extent on your budget and whether you think you would mind using old manual lenses (I have 2 manual lenses that I use frequently - they are 25 year old fast primes, and my currentfavorite lens is an auto exposure/manual focus lens). My suggestion is to get the kit lens and the DA 50-200 first. Find out what you can do with them and where their limitations are and go from there.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 AM.