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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 21, 2007, 7:58 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Lesmore-

I believe that there could be another option: an excellent ultra zoom, such as the Canon S-5 IS.

It is an excellent ultazoom. Have a great day!

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 10:56 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Chako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 301
Default

Because the Canon S5 IS is almost the same price as a K100D. There would be very little savings, and the OP has suggested that he already has Pentax lenses.
Chako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 11:06 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Chako-

The Canon S-5 IS is currently selling here in the USA for around $(US) 350.00 making it still a lower price option, in as much as no additional lenses are required.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 11:21 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Like you, and others here on the forums, I hark back to the days of film, where a camera body was basically just a box to hold film, and the lens was the most important contributor to a good photo. With digital SLRs, that still holds true, but to much less and extent. The film is the sensor, which is a permanent part of the camera body, and the camera's processor becomes a significant part of the equation. If you shoot RAW, you lessen that factor, but it is still there.

Software allows quite a bit of leeway with lenses, also; sharpening and CA reduction, as well as distortion correction, can almost turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Obviously, starting with a good lens is the best way to go, but the differences between lenses can be reduced, if you are willing to take the time and do the extra work involved.

Having gone digital, and found that I have a level of control over my photos that could not be achived with film, I wouldn't want to go back.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 7:40 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
Like you, and others here on the forums, I hark back to the days of film, where a camera body was basically just a box to hold film, and the lens was the most important contributor to a good photo. With digital SLRs, that still holds true, but to much less and extent. The film is the sensor, which is a permanent part of the camera body, and the camera's processor becomes a significant part of the equation. If you shoot RAW, you lessen that factor, but it is still there.

Good point....I spoke to a local camera expert and he explained the difference between a point and shoot sensor, that let's say is rated at 6 mps and a DSLR that has a sensor that is rated at say 6 mps. My understanding from him is that the DSLR sensor is usually bigger than the P & S sensor...even if they are rated at the same mp. I've got a fairly good P & S digital which is fine...but I want to go with a DSLR.

Software allows quite a bit of leeway with lenses, also; sharpening and CA reduction, as well as distortion correction, can almost turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Obviously, starting with a good lens is the best way to go, but the differences between lenses can be reduced, if you are willing to take the time and do the extra work involved.

Having gone digital, and found that I have a level of control over my photos that could not be achived with film, I wouldn't want to go back.

That's what I want more control over my photos than I get right now from my digital P & S. I have taken pictures for about 40 years. Admittedly I'm no Karsh or Eisenstadt...but having used manual film cameras like Leica, Pentax SLR, Mamiya TLR 2 1/4.. I like using manual controls rather than just , selecting the program and pushing the button. Like you...I want to continue be able to manually control.

brian

I live in Canada and right now there is a big controversy in this country over the cost of products compared to the cost in the States. Our dollar is at par with the US dollar...except we pay significantly more for many products including cameras in Canada. Don't get me wrong , the problem is certainly not caused by the States...it is an issue that many Canadian companies must be making quite an additional profit by charging much more than their American counterparts charge for the same product in the States.

There is mounting pressure and demand on our fed. govt . here to investigate what is the reason and I have a feeling prices may start to drop in Canada over the next year or so.

I have thought about buying a Camera from the USA to avoid paying high Canadian prices...but am concerned about getting warranty service. Still checking this out.

Les
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 7:53 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default


Thank you for suggesting this option.

However, I want to stay with Pentax if possible, as I have a lot of Pentax and Takumar lens. In particular I have a Pentax 35-105 Macro Zoom , that I bought about 23 or so years ago. The performance, durability and build quality of this lens and of my old Takumar K mount 50mm Macro are a big reason why I want to stay with Pentax, in order to continue using them. I realize the the lens range will change from use in 35mm , as opposed to DSLR.

Also the many positive reports and reviews of the K10D, K100 and K100 Super , are also making me think that a Pentax DSLR is a move that makes sense in my situation.

Les

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
Lesmore-

I believe that there could be another option: an excellent ultra zoom, such as the Canon S-5 IS.

It is an excellent ultazoom. Have a great day!

Sarah Joyce
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 22, 2007, 7:59 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default


TCav and Chako,

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. I have some nice, old Pentax and Takumar stuff, that I really like...both K mount and screw mount. I've got Pentax equipment that go back to my original SLR...a Pentax S1a (known as the H (for Honeywell 1a in the US) that I originally bought in 1968. It still works well.

I want to keep using many of these lenses as they still take tack sharp pictures.

Les

TCav wrote:
Quote:
If I had a substantial investment in Pentax lenses (and hadn't just won the lottery) I'd pick a dSLR that would let me use the lenses I've got.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2007, 8:46 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

lesmore49 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I live in Canada and right now there is a big controversy in this country over the cost of products compared to the cost in the States. Our dollar is at par with the US dollar...except we pay significantly more for many products including cameras in Canada. Don't get me wrong , the problem is certainly not caused by the States...it is an issue that many Canadian companies must be making quite an additional profit by charging much more than their American counterparts charge for the same product in the States.
Do those prices include your VAT? Even without it, I understand that taxes on business are generally higher, even than here in Vermont. This has to be a factor.Of course, prices could start to come down naturally, since Canadian companies will be purchasing their inventory with higher valued money. Maybe, and then again, maybe not.

There is a move afoot here in the States to start temperature compensation of gasoline pumps, since some of our geniuses in Congress have found out that a gallon of gasoline weighs less when hot. They seem to think the oil companies will install these devices for free, and not charge the consumer more for the fuel.

brian

VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2007, 10:48 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
lesmore49 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I live in Canada and right now there is a big controversy in this country over the cost of products compared to the cost in the States. Our dollar is at par with the US dollar...except we pay significantly more for many products including cameras in Canada. Don't get me wrong , the problem is certainly not caused by the States...it is an issue that many Canadian companies must be making quite an additional profit by charging much more than their American counterparts charge for the same product in the States.
Do those prices include your VAT? Even without it, I understand that taxes on business are generally higher, even than here in Vermont. This has to be a factor.Of course, prices could start to come down naturally, since Canadian companies will be purchasing their inventory with higher valued money. Maybe, and then again, maybe not.

Nope those prices don't include GST and PST (VAT) which is another 13 % tacked on, over and above the selling price of the camera. Some taxes are higher in Canada, but right now on the CBC news...some Canadian marketeers are saying the difference (one of) the significant differences is shipping. I don't think it costs anymore to ship a camera from Tokyo to Fargo, North Dakota or Calgary. In fact it should be less to a big Canadian city...then a small American city ..I think it is just Canadian companies trying to gouge the Canadian consumer.

I think it will stop as with the stronger Canadian loonie (dollar), apparently Canadians are streaming across the US border to get the better deals.

There is a move afoot here in the States to start temperature compensation of gasoline pumps, since some of our geniuses in Congress have found out that a gallon of gasoline weighs less when hot. They seem to think the oil companies will install these devices for free, and not charge the consumer more for the fuel.

brian

I'm all for private enterprise..but not when they start gouging. I hope that our government also starts looking at temp. compensation devices. When you figure out how many gallons of gas are sold in both counties each day...that makes a big difference.

Les
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2007, 6:10 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
There is a move afoot here in the States to start temperature compensation of gasoline pumps, since some of our geniuses in Congress have found out that a gallon of gasoline weighs less when hot.
Ok, now we're in my area of expertise.

To affect a 1% change in the volume of gasoline, the temperature of gasoline need only change 15°F, and for Diesel fuel, 22°F. Yet the devices that measure volume at the pump need to change 377°F to affect a 1% change in volume. (See http://www.ncwm.net/events/annual2007/ATC_Issues.pdf ) So while the devices used to measure the volume of gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump are relatively temperature stable, the volume of the fluids they measure fluctuate significantly. When you increase the temperature of gasoline, it expands, becomes less dense, and so there's less gasoline in a gallon.

So the oil companies make more money selling gasoline in Phoenix in July than they do in Minneapolis in January. But the oil companies can't choose to sell gasoline in Phoenix in July and not sell it in Minneapolis in January. So it all balances out. As an issue of Metrology, it's an interesting intellectual exercise, but as a political issue, it's smoke and mirrors.

And if you want to ensure that you get more gasoline in your gasoline, move to Minneapolis. (... or VT.)

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
They seem to think the oil companies will install these devices for free, and not charge the consumer more for the fuel.
Actually, this is a 'one time' cost rather that a recurring cost, much like the improvements to gasoline storage tanks required by law a few years ago to protect ground water. But while that was a considerable expense to the station operators, forcing some out of business, this is a minor additional expense, comparatively speaking. And while costs are always passed on to the consumer, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a significant cost.

Are we off topic yet?
TCav 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 6:20 AM.