Digital SLR recommendation for a newb - Pentax?

[Lee Bidwell]

For a while now I've been thinking about stepping up to a digital SLR, and my wife's b-day is coming up, making this a good occasion. I've never owned or used an SLR camera, and I've just been reading online reviews. With my current little point and shoot, I just bought the most megapixels I could get for the money. Huge mistake. That camera is abysmal - super slow and the images all look yellow, with or without flash. I don't want to make that mistake again, so I'm asking you guys with experience.

90% of my pictures are of my little boy, with the occasional pics of woodworking projects (though at my pace, pictures of completed projects are a rarity) so I would like something relatively fast and capable of taking a good closeup. And I also occasionally also like to print in larger formats to put into shop-made frames. The Pentax k-x looks to have a lot of features for the price. Features that appeal to me are autofocus, hd video, and decent speed. I don't want to drop $1200 on my first dSLR. So, do you think this would be a good camera for the type of photography described or, if not, what should I be looking at in the $600 range?

thanks for your help.

Lee

[Dan Hintz]

Lee,

Go to DPReview.com and take a look at their reviews there... it's also a nice place to see a wide range of almost every camera currently (and previously) on the market.

$600 should still get you a decent DSLR, though you may have to skimp on a few features (like probably no movie setting). I picked up the Canon EOS Rebel T2i with basic lens several months back for $900 and I think it was a phenomenal purchase for the money.

[Dan Hintz]

Here's a deal:
Canon EOS Rebel T1i 15MP Digital SLR w/ 18-55mm IS Lens + Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 Mark II Inkjet Photo Printer + 8GB SDHC Memory Card & Accessories for $628 with Free Shipping (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/38103)

OR

Canon EOS Rebel T1i 15.1 MP DSLR Camera (Body Only) + Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 Mark II Inkjet Photo Printer for $579 + $335 - $400 rebate (http://slickdeals.net/?pno=38103&lno=3&afsrc=1) = $515 with free shipping

[Lee Bidwell]

Thanks for the links Dan. I'll definitely check out the reviews, and I'll look into the T2i you recommended, though it's more than I had planned to spend. Heck, that's almost half way to the wider jointer I've been longing for, and I keep comparing these prices to woodworking tools I could buy for the same money :D.

2 questions:
1. The Pentax I was looking at claims to shoot 720p video. Is it really feasible to shoot quality video on these things? I'd love to shoot more vids of my 2 yo while he's still doing hilarious stuff, but I never seem to have the video camera handy and charged up.
2. The second deal you linked is for a body only. could someone give me a quick primer on different lenses, which is used for what, and what would be your general purpose lens if you only had one?

Sorry for the basic questions, but I want to make and informed decision this time.

thanks,

Lee

[Jerome Stanek]

I have an old Pentax spotmatic that I like very much. It is a 35mm that I have used since 1969. I like the fact that the new pentax camras can use tho old lens.

[Dave Gaul]

Lee, I bought LOML a Nikon D40 last year for her birthday. I bought it mostly based on Ken Rockwell's reviews & write-ups (google him, awesome resource on photography). I don't think they make the D40 anymore, but any Nikon DSLR would be a great choice I think. My daughter has a Canon Rebel (not sure which model) DSLR and I like the Nikon MUCH better... I can't suggest checking out Ken Rockwell's sight enough, you can learn just about everything about photography there!

[Sean Troy]

The new DSLR's do shoot fair video but don't buy the camera thinking they are as good as a dedicated video camera. The Nikon D5000 with lens is in your price range and gets Rave reviews. Amazon almost always seems to have the best price but if you do go the Amazon route on any camera, make sure it is sold by Amazon. It will say so on the info page of the camera your looking at. Amazon backs everything they sell but not all things sold on Amazon are actually through Amazon. Do check out DPReviews.

[Scott Shepherd]

I'm not saying that Pentax isn't a good camera, but it seems the majority of products are made around 2 main names, other than Pentax which are Canon and Nikon. Both have excellent reputations and you'll find more help than you could use in a lifetime on their respective forums, along with a variety of lens to pick from that's huge, from inexpensive to very expensive.

Both have products in your price range and those products have great reviews.

Don't just look at the camera, look at the support, and support forums. Canon and Nikon both have huge forums, not run by the company, but individuals, and both of those forums are HUGE and packed with people they can and will help you with any issues.

[glenn bradley]

Canon Rebel has been working well for me. Plenty of flash for the shop and many settings to play with if you want something besides "auto".

[Lee Bidwell]

Thanks all for the advice, and Dave, thanks for the link. I've got some more reading to do.

Lee

[Dave Gaul]

Thanks all for the advice, and Dave, thanks for the link. I've got some more reading to do.

Lee

No problem Lee! I read for hours on Ken's site... it was like reading Pentz's site on cylcones!!

Hope you find what works for you, let us know what you decide and how you like it when you get it. LOML loves her D40, but of course wants a D700 or better eventually!

[Mike Cutler]

Lee

In looking at the Pentax spec's and reviews, there are two things that would concern me.
1st is the minimum aperature of the lens that ships with the camera. It's pretty limited. I'm absolutely certain that it will take nice pictures, but it is going to require good lighting. An 18-55mm lens is a nice lens, but your'e going to want to push that focal length out, and have a wider aperature to capture motion in lower light, be it video, or photo. This can all be resolved with a different lens though, so it's not a show stopper. If Pentax offers a wide selection of lenses for the body, it's just a matter of choosing the one(s) that meet your needs.

2nd are the comments on focus. If I am reading the reviews correctly the camera does not disply the focus point in the view finder. This would be difficult for me, not knowing exactly where the camera is focusing prior to taking the shot.

My current camera is a Nikon D90.

[Alan Trout]

Lee,

the Pentax KX is an excellent camera and probably takes the best quality pictures with the ASPC sensor at its price range. What is nice about the Pentax is you can use legacy glass on it which can be generally found at a reasonable price. Also it uses AA batteries so if you run out of juice and can't charge your batteries that is no big deal.

Having talked with a couple of my friends that are professional photographers it came highly recommended as an entry level DSLR. It is on my short list right now for my first DSLR. Unfortunately I just need money.:(

Alan

[Tom Wilson42]

How large do you mean when you say you want to print for your own frames? This will have a great impact on what you get.

How do you plan to print them? At home or use a lab?
How much time do you like spending infront of your computer?
How camera literate are you?
How much time are you willing to invest?

Most people want the same things: small, light, easy to carry, reasonable cost, and able to blow up the photo to fit half of the planet. Oh, and they want it to last until they die.

Just like wooodworking tools, it don't work that t'way.

The more bells and whistles you add the less the camera will last but the more they'll charge you for it.

I hate to be mean but if you don't have a video camera around to shoot video it's perhaps dubious you're more likely to have a photo camera around to shoot video. Sometimes the facts need to be faced. And the amount of video the vast majority of DSLR's can shoot is very time limited. Yup, they're handy when they're at hand but they're not video cameras.

I own more cameras than I care to admit and have been teaching photography for years, and in my humble opinion I would recommend one of the better point and shoot cameras, and here's why: the quality is good and one of their best qualities is they're small. You've already found out that MP count means nothing. I'll put my old 4.1 MP D2H against most 12 MP cameras for prints up to 8x10, which most people rarely ever print larger than. Like saw blades, pixels come in different qualities.

To cut this short, before you invest in a whopper of a camera take a look at something like the Canon G11 (I'm a Nikon guy and even I own one). The results are very good, and although it pains me to say it, that's the camera I pick up more often than the others.

There's a forum around with info about a guy who has won photo contests shooting with a disposable camera with no settings. The reason is wins is he shoots to the camera's strengths and he knows what he's doing - in part to prove it's not the camera it's the photographer. If you really want to take better photos consider taking a course, and you can even do that before getting the camera.

Best of luck traversing the camera jungle :)
If I can help you in any way please feel free to let me know.

[Dan Hintz]

Sorry, but I can't agree with all of that, Tom.

While extra bells and whistles mean more things to fail on something like a car (more physical components), the same hardly holds true on a camera. Since most of the b's and w's are done in software, there's little extra hardware-wise moving from an $800 camera to an $1,800 camera. Sure, the $1,800 camera will have a different sensor, for example, but it wouldn't likely have a higher MTBF than the sensor in the $800 camera.

I'm not a Canon fanboy, I just happened to purchase two Canons because I liked their features at the time. My $900 T2i blows the doors off of my Elph SD500 point-n-shoot, and it's not all due to the higher resolution... the sensor is more sensitive, the glass makes for crisper detail, the list goes on. If I wanted to take pictures in daylight conditions every time, then both cameras would be a bit more on equal footing... but I take pics in varied conditions, and it's in those non-ideal conditions that a better DSLR outshines a point-n-shoot. As you said, the guy who wins photo contests with his point-n-shoot carefully chooses shots that stick to the strengths of his camera... with a better DSLR, I don't need to be so choosy with my shots, which means I get more of them.

[Paul Ryan]

After Tom's post I will through my hat into the ring. 1st let me say I am not photography expert. I have never taught it, taken a course, or collected cameras. But I take on the average about 15k pictures per year. Most are at the lowest settings my camera will do. My job requires a minimum of 20 pictures per car I look at. On occasion I take many more, wed I took 102 of 1 car. I have used a cheap kodak M830 for 2 years. The pictures we nothing special but they got the job done. After 30k pictures it finally bit the dust, but for $90 it didn't owe me anything. I replaced it with a canon SD1200, again a cheap camera. But it takes pictures 10 times better than the kodak and does it quickly. It is a 10mp camera that has no bells and wistles. This is my work camera. But for personal use I still use my trusty old Sony DSC-S85. It is a 4.1 mp camera that will be 9 years old in oct. And it still takes pictures on auto mode as well as most of the point and shoots that are 10mp or more.

I guess what I am getting at is. That old sony even though it is 9 years old, and it is as slow as molasses in January to take the picture. Picture quality hasn't increased that much in 9 years. But my biggest gripe is it is large. It wont comfortably fit in a pocket. So it must swing from my neck when on the go, or in a case. The quality of those photos have never bothered me in 9 years and I have blown some of them up to 11x17 just for fun. So if I can buy a smaller point and shoot to have in my pocket for those unexepected moments, I would go for that. For a personal camera to take nice family photos I would take Tom's suggestions. Save yourself some money and buy a quality point and shoot. It will save you headaches and $$. And the video on those isn't terrible either. But they are made for stills not motion.

[Lee Bidwell]

Lee

In looking at the Pentax spec's and reviews, there are two things that would concern me.
1st is the minimum aperature of the lens that ships with the camera. It's pretty limited. I'm absolutely certain that it will take nice pictures, but it is going to require good lighting. An 18-55mm lens is a nice lens, but your'e going to want to push that focal length out, and have a wider aperature to capture motion in lower light, be it video, or photo. This can all be resolved with a different lens though, so it's not a show stopper. If Pentax offers a wide selection of lenses for the body, it's just a matter of choosing the one(s) that meet your needs.

2nd are the comments on focus. If I am reading the reviews correctly the camera does not disply the focus point in the view finder. This would be difficult for me, not knowing exactly where the camera is focusing prior to taking the shot.

My current camera is a Nikon D90.


Lee,

the Pentax KX is an excellent camera and probably takes the best quality pictures with the ASPC sensor at its price range. What is nice about the Pentax is you can use legacy glass on it which can be generally found at a reasonable price. Also it uses AA batteries so if you run out of juice and can't charge your batteries that is no big deal.

Having talked with a couple of my friends that are professional photographers it came highly recommended as an entry level DSLR. It is on my short list right now for my first DSLR. Unfortunately I just need money.:(

Alan

Thanks for the input guys. The lack of autofocus points in the viewfinder is one of the things that is holding me back. Also, the AA batteries are actually a negative for me. I'd prefer a rechargable pack. After some reading, I think I've narrowed it down to the Pentax and the Nikon D5000, leaning towards the Nikon for the reasons above. The Pentax is about 500 new, the Nikon is 700 new and available factory refurbished for 520. I know hand held power tools are great candidates for buying refurbished, but what about cameras?


How large do you mean when you say you want to print for your own frames? This will have a great impact on what you get.

I've only printed up to 8x10 from my point and shoot with good results. Above that (I printed some pics about 12x15 or so last Christmas) it gets sketchy. Cropped images are definitely no good. The only thing larger than this that I've printed was shot professionally.

How do you plan to print them? At home or use a lab? lab
How much time do you like spending infront of your computer? I don't mind spending time processing images for print. I have access to photoshop and some experience using it.
How camera literate are you? Not very. I'm a research scientist, and I work daily with micrscopes, so I have a good understanding of optics (as in high mag objectives), CCDs, etc; but I have no experience with cameras or their lenses.
How much time are you willing to invest? Like any hobby, I'm not opposed to putting in time to learn. The trouble is finding the time between the job, the family, and the numerous projects in the shop and around the house.

Most people want the same things: small, light, easy to carry, reasonable cost, and able to blow up the photo to fit half of the planet. Oh, and they want it to last until they die.

Just like wooodworking tools, it don't work that t'way.

I am quite aware of the limitations of each type of camera, and the trade-offs that come with each.

The more bells and whistles you add the less the camera will last but the more they'll charge you for it.

I hate to be mean but if you don't have a video camera around to shoot video it's perhaps dubious you're more likely to have a photo camera around to shoot video. Sometimes the facts need to be faced. And the amount of video the vast majority of DSLR's can shoot is very time limited. Yup, they're handy when they're at hand but they're not video cameras.

I'm not looking to shoot hour long high quality videos. For birthday parties and such, I'll get out the video camera. My queation was whether these SLRs can shoot acceptable short clips, or whether this feature is just a throwaway. My reason for this is that my videocamera is packed away in a bag in a closet, while I keep the photo camera sitting on a shelf near the TV. When the little guy does something cute (like the other night, walking around with a diaper on his head), I'd like to be able to grab the camera and catch a quick video.

I own more cameras than I care to admit and have been teaching photography for years, and in my humble opinion I would recommend one of the better point and shoot cameras, and here's why: the quality is good and one of their best qualities is they're small. You've already found out that MP count means nothing. I'll put my old 4.1 MP D2H against most 12 MP cameras for prints up to 8x10, which most people rarely ever print larger than. Like saw blades, pixels come in different qualities.

To cut this short, before you invest in a whopper of a camera take a look at something like the Canon G11 (I'm a Nikon guy and even I own one). The results are very good, and although it pains me to say it, that's the camera I pick up more often than the others.

There's a forum around with info about a guy who has won photo contests shooting with a disposable camera with no settings. The reason is wins is he shoots to the camera's strengths and he knows what he's doing - in part to prove it's not the camera it's the photographer. If you really want to take better photos consider taking a course, and you can even do that before getting the camera.

Best of luck traversing the camera jungle :)
If I can help you in any way please feel free to let me know.

Tom,
Thanks for all the advice. I definitely considered a point and shoot for a while. I actually misplaced my crappy one a couple of weeks ago, and I haven't really tried too hard to find it. I am borrowing my MIL's Panasonic point and shoot, and it's a good little camera. But, I think I'd like to step up to an SLR. Plus, my wife said, after looking enviously and her friend's pictures of her little boy, "I want one of those fancy cameras so I can get pictures like that." Who am I to argue with that :)? Of course, I'll have to learn the camera and teach her to use it (don't get me wrong, she is plenty competent, but lacks a little in the area of patience), but that's half the fun.

Lee

[Jim Becker]

Look at the new Nikon D3100 that's about to be released...$699 street with an excellent lens. Even includes HD video.