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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 27, 2007, 12:27 AM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 71
Default

Trojansoc wrote:
Quote:
chupicabra30 wrote:
Quote:
One thing they say over at the other board is that the IS in the camera bodies is buggy especially at the 400mm or the max zoom of the lens range. Do you find this to be true?
I have had absolutely zaero problems with the IS on my camera through 12-15 thousand shots. I simply leave it on all the time.
No offense and I have no room to talk, but your shots look blurry and bit out of focus?

*ducks*
chupicabra30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2007, 8:07 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I've been using an older lens, A*300 f4for birding (what little I do of it) and this past week tried it with an extension tube (minimum focusing distance otherwise is 15 feet, and I mostly do landscape and macros). Here's a thread of the K10, A*300, extension tube, all handheld: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80.

For birds,here are a couple of threads I've posted with bird pictures (I'm atwork and don't have access toany of my photos): http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80. Another beach thread with birds: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80- these last ones were taken with the K100 and the A*300 lens. The camera can take very sharp pictures with a good lens on it.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2007, 9:41 AM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 42
Default

This may or may not help you but I just wanted to let you know my experiences over the last 2 months of trying to figure out what to buy... it came down to budget for me. My original budget was $1000 but I ended up pushing it to $1500 and managed to fit in everything for $1350 shipped from B&H.

I started off with a Nikon D40 (I only initially looked at Nikon) then to a D40X both of which are great but just not enough for me so I went to a D80 which seemed to be the best choice for me (I loved the feel of it in my hands) but by the time I got to D80 price was reaching $800 just for the body and that made me look at the Cannon line and after seceral days online looking I had decided the XTI (400D) was going to be it. I went in to the store and picked it up and knew imedetly that this wasn't the best for me, it was just to small and again I moved up a notch to the 30D.

So here I am looking at 2 choices, the Nikon D80 with a 18-135 for $1120 or a Cannon 30D with a 28-135 for $1278... man that was alot of money and I still had to buy memory cards, a bag etc.

This is when the Pentax line came into the picture. I started low again with the K100 but for just a little more I was able to squeeze in the K10D with all it's added features. IS in the body is very attractive to me as is the sealed body. It feels GREAT in my hands and I can change settings easily (I'm still learning where things) without looking sometimes.

The Pentax K10D cost me $820 with the kit 18-55 which allowed me plenty room to add a 50-200 lens as well as a couple of extreme III 2GB cards and a slingshot 200 bag (AWESOME bag btw).

If I had had another $1000 or so to buy I probably would have ended up with the Cannon 30D but I'm glad I didn't because I never would have found the K10D and for me it's an amazing camera and will do just what I need to do. My only complaint is that I want a good fast zoom for my son's sports without having to break the bank (the Sigma 70-200 2.8 would work IF you can find one) but I figure the new *50-135 2.8 will get me close to perfect :-)

It can be frustrating with all this information but hang in there, get what fits your needs (and budget) best and you'll be a happy camper.
chepburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2007, 1:44 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Illuminati's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 583
Default

chupicabra30 wrote:
Quote:
One thing they say over at the other board is that the IS in the camera bodies is buggy especially at the 400mm or the max zoom of the lens range. Do you find this to be true?
It's my belief that in-camera stabilization would work better at longer focal lengths than with shorter ones.

I constantly use a Pentax K100D with a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. I'm usually shooting at 300mm with this lens, and typically shoot around late afternoon to dusk; this usually means I need to use the in-camera stabilization, as I shoot handheld. I can testify that the 2 stop recovery Pentax advertises with its in-body stabilization is most likely true, as I am able to shoot slower than the rule-of-thumb max shutter speed at my focal length (1/300s).

Don't believe me? Here's some of my recent work (with EXIF viewable on the site):

1/125s @ 300mm (450mm 35mm-equivalent) f/5.6


1/180s @ 300mm (450mm 35mm-equivalent) f/5.6


- Jason
Illuminati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2007, 4:10 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

not sure if this helps (or if it is true :-))

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...ens-image.html

Ihave found several sites with similar info, that the longer the lens the bigger the sensor deflection needed for in-camera stabilization. The above site indicates about 1/4 inchfor 300mm lens. That would make the diflection huge for really long lenses like 500m or 600mm especially for something that has to move rapidly.

More research needed to verify if this is correct.


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2007, 9:13 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Illuminati's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 583
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
not sure if this helps (or if it is true :-)*)

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...ens-image.html

I*have found several sites with similar info, that the longer the lens the bigger the sensor deflection needed for in-camera stabilization. The above site indicates about 1/4 inch*for *300mm lens. That would make the diflection huge for really long lenses like 500m or 600mm especially for something that has to move rapidly.

More research needed to verify if this is correct.

*
Well I may stand corrected with that point. I do need to point out that the article was citing a white paper published by Canon; an independent source needs to confirm these findings for me to truly believe them.

Trying to relate this back to the original topic, while in-body stabilization offered by Pentax may not be as effective above 500mm, this feature would help keep the cost of lenses within the original poster's budget if he were looking at stabilized lenses. It's a moot point since he said that he would be using a tripod most of the time, but you never know when you may be forced to shoot handheld.

- Jason
Illuminati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2007, 11:40 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:homeyoh, I missed that it was based on a Canon paper.

From what I have seen it seems to work very well for most people with the normal zooms in the 300mm range.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2007, 4:38 AM   #28
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The fact that Canon say it doesn't make it false. The truth of a statement has absolutely nothing to do with the utterer.

Examine the argument - or is that too complicated? Does what they say make sense or not? Do the real-world results confirm the theory or not?

I mean no disrespect but the shots posted in this thread are really no benchmark of anything.

On a budget I would personally go for the K10D and a moderate telephoto zoom. It won't be quite as good as the Canon or Nikon options, but it will be a whole lot cheaper.

Bird photography is very hard and you can spend tens of thousands of dollars to get the kind of kit that even gives you a chance of getting a decent shot. Otherwise hit rates are very low for most people, and even really top-rate birders would struggle with anything less than the best equipment.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2007, 10:45 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Hi peripatetic
no one is saying the Canon statement is false, just that it needs to be looked at closer!
From prior conversations you know I am a big time Canon user :-).
I am looking to the Pentax as an alternate second system, it does have a lot going for it.

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
The fact that Canon say it doesn't make it false. The truth of a statement has absolutely nothing to do with the utterer.

Examine the argument - or is that too complicated? Does what they say make sense or not? Do the real-world results confirm the theory or not?
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2007, 7:42 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
On a budget I would personally go for the K10D and a moderate telephoto zoom. It won't be quite as good as the Canon or Nikon options, but it will be a whole lot cheaper.

Bird photography is very hard and you can spend tens of thousands of dollars to get the kind of kit that even gives you a chance of getting a decent shot. Otherwise hit rates are very low for most people, and even really top-rate birders would struggle with anything less than the best equipment.
Perhaps you can elighten us. Won't be as good in which ways? What does tens of thousands buy that is such an asset that they would struggle without it?
fldspringer 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 6:09 PM.