Pentax K10 out soon. Thoughts?

[Deep13]

http://www.pentaxslr.com/bodies/k10
I'm looking to upgrade from film to DSLR for my Thanksgiving weekend 20th HS class reunion. This one coming out is weather proof, has shake reduction (low light shooting is important to me), will use my old Pentax lenses and flash, is 10 Megapixels and is $1000 with a zoom lens. That seems like a better deal than the Canon D30 or the Nikon D80, neither of which are weather proof or have shake reduction. The reviews for the new Pentax K100 (6Mp) are pretty positive and that camera goes up to 3200 iso.

What am I missing here? Why spend more on a Nikon or Canon with fewer features or twice as much for a Nikon D200? As a side note, 8Mps is more than I will ever use.

[Mrs. Venation]

1. I Love my Pentax Digital

I bought a Pentax *ist DS about a year ago. I've been very happy with it.

[ET Awful]

2. Though not as popular as their Canon or Nikon counterparts,

Pentax dSLR's are pretty damn nice. Great quality images, great functionality, and until recently, the best viewfinder to be had in a consumer priced dSLR (the D200 and D80 are as good, most others in the so-called "consumer" price range have very small and dark viewfinders).

I've actually entertained the thought of migrating from Nikon to Pentax.

[regnaD kciN]

3. What you are missing here...

...is merely brand-name image. Nikon and Canon are, at this moment, the rulers of the SLR roost, and have been for some time. Therefore, people will be more ready to buy their equipment, both for name alone, and because they have the widest range of lenses, accessories, and support.

Under the two "big names" are the other major camera manufacturers: Pentax, Sony (formerly Konica Minolta), and Olympus. It's no surprise to me that the specs for the new Pentax mirror almost exactly those for the new Sony A100 in features and price. (As a matter of fact, they use the same Sony-made imaging sensor, also shared by the Nikon D200.) Those two manufacturers have to undercut Canon and Nikon on price and/or features to attract buyers who would otherwise likely gravitate to the more-recognized brand.

Personally, if you like Pentax, I would also consider the K100D, which is a few hundred bucks cheaper. It is "only" 6.1MP rather than 10.2, but one problem that has been reported about cameras with the newer sensor is that they get noisier at lower ISOs. (It's simple physics -- cramming more photosites on the same size sensor means you have to boost the gain to get the same signal.) By contrast, the older 6.1 sensor is known for very fine high-ISO performance, and has been the mainstay of a whole series of excellent D-SLRs, including Nikon's D70 and D50, as well as the Konica Minolta 5D I use. Unless you're planning to do huge prints (bigger than 12x18), you're probably not going to notice any difference between 6 and 10 MP anyway.

[Deep13]

4. The weather-proofing is more important to me than the image size.

I really like the idea of weatherproofing. When I went to Mt. Rainier in 2001 I brought to cameras. One was an old Kodak Signet range find to use when I could and a Minolta Weathermantic point-and-shoot automatic when the frequent rain required it.

What you said may explain why the K100 goes up to 3200 iso while the K10 stops at 1600. Still the D200 and D80 have 10Mp each and they are not supposed to be noisy. Or are they? I have heard that the Sony model is pretty noisy above 400 iso. The D30 is reported to have very low noise even at fast speeds, but that is 8Mp.

[Touchdown]

5. The D200 has built in NR at high ISOs

It works, but sharpness and detail suffers from it AFAIC. I usually stay between ISO 100-560, and turn it off. It's usually what I shoot anyway. It does get noisy at ISO 800 and above though, and 1600 is VERY noisy even with NR on, at least as far as my taste goes. The D80 has the same NR unit as the D200.

[regnaD kciN]

6. I've heard the same complaints about noise with the D200...

...as with the A100. Don't know about the D80, as it hasn't been out long enough, but I'd be surprised if it's appreciably better than the D200 in that regard (unless Nikon has a death wish).

As to weatherproofing -- I can understand your concern. Last November, I went out shooting with my Nikon 5700 on a rainy day. Although I was trying to keep it dry, it locked up after about forty-five minutes and took a couple of hours before it, fortunately, started working again. That seemed to me enough of a reason to go for a camera with weatherproofing...until I found out the 5700 was weatherproofed. Go figure. :shrug:

In short, built-in weatherproofed seams will provide some protection, but are no panacea. I think the best weatherproofing is simply to have an umbrella or plastic bag over the camera at all times. There's also a new waterproof cover called a Shutter Hat (www.shutterhut.com) that clips on to the hot shoe and seems to work quite well, although I haven't tried it myself.

[Deep13]

7. What about the Canon D350?

Do we like those?

[regnaD kciN]

8. 350D = Digital Rebel XT...

...which has now been superceded by the Digital Rebel XTi (400D), so the same "buy an earlier model or go for the latest thing" question applies there.

Lots of people here and on other photo groups have used the 350D with great success. My only gripes about it were a) no spot metering and b) it was uncomfortable to hold for those of us with big hands. The 400D fixes the first of those, but the body size remains the same. I'm sure it's a good camera, but I haven't worked with it myself.

[Deep13]

9. If I select a smaller pic size on a 10Mp camera...

...will that reduce noise levels or is it determined by the hardware. I visited a website that compared highly magnified images in the D80, D70, D200 vs. the D20 and D30. Despite the pixel differences, they were all similar. While noticeable, the difference between iso 100 and 3200 was not big.

[regnaD kciN]

10. I don't think so, because...

...the number and size of the photosites and the gain needed to record them would remain the same. For smaller picture sizes, the camera's circuitry would simply down-res the image before recording it to the memory card. Now, while it's possible that said downconversion would smooth out some of the noise, I wouldn't count on it -- just as often, it might create a smaller image with an entirely different, but just as noticeable, noise signature.

My recommendation would be to do what I did when shopping for a DSLR: get one or more CF cards, then go around to camera stores and ask to try out the cameras in question. Using one of your own CF cards, take as many photos as they allow you to. (While they generally won't allow you to leave the store, you can get lots of images inside the store -- usually good for checking out low-light performance -- and out the windows.) When you're done, take the memory cards home, download the images to your computer, process them as you normally would, then print out selected common results as 8x10s. Looking over the results should give you a sense of which camera you prefer, or even whether there's a difference worth noting and/or paying a higher price. (I found, for example, that there was no perceptible difference between a 10.2 D200 and a 6.1 KM5D...and that the latter had slightly cleaner noise performance than the similar-MP-count D70. YMMV, of course.)

[Deep13]

11. How do we like these sample pix?

http://www.pentax.co.uk/_uk/photo/products/index.php?cameras&gruppe=digital%20slr&produkt=19095&id=bilder

[BrightKnight]

12. The main problem with Pentax has always been the lenses.

My first film SLR was a shiny new Pentax K1000. It was a very well made camera. I shot hundreds of feet of film with it. It was definitely worth what I paid for it. It did not take me long to figure out that the lenses were like K-Mart clothes.

My second camera was a Nikon FE2. The Nikon was a huge leap in quality for both the lenses and the body.

Pentax will always be a solid entry level camera. No professional photographer would be seen using a Pentax. Nobody is every going to bother to make a really good lens for it.

Why not invest in a Canon or Nikon? You could use the lenses on your next body too. The Pentax is a dead end street.

[regnaD kciN]

13. I have to disagree with you on that...

No professional photographer would be seen using a Pentax. Nobody is every going to bother to make a really good lens for it.

...but that's simply not the case. I can think of several of the best-known nature photographers in the world (Tim Fitzharris immediately comes to mind, but there are others whose work I have been looking at over the past few months) who have done most of their film work on Pentax 67 variants. Granted, that's medium-format rather than 35mm (which some professional nature photographers would likewise never want to be seen using), but the universally-admired lenses for that camera came from Pentax itself, most likely from the same factories that produced their 35mm lenses.

Pentax is like any other major lens manufacturer -- some of their entry-level lenses are mediocre (for that matter, the same can be said for Canon and Nikon), but their top-line optics are very good, indeed.

[BrightKnight]

14. Medium format is a different game but Hasselblad and Mamiya

Medium format is a different game. Medium format is not an entry level market. Hasselblad and Mamiya have a huge market share advantage and always will. Hasselblad designs its cameras to be top level professional tools and they are. If you show up to a job with a Hasselblad it tells the client that you serious and professional.

I don't know why Tim Fitzharris would choose a Pentax. Perhaps he doesn't like Mamiya for some reason. Perhaps it is more durable in the field or cheaper to replace. The 6x7 market is its own little niche. Wildebeests probably don't care about the brand of your camera.

For digital medium format Pentax does not have anything to compete with the 39 mega pixel Hasselblad H2D-39.

-----------
For small format Pentax has always been an entry level student and yearbook staff type camera. This is their market niche. They have never tried to compete directly with Canon or Nikon. The body and lenses are simply not professional grade. The best Pentax 35mm lenses are not good enough.

Pentax has earned a reputation for building solid cameras. Another high end player would be good for consumers. They will have an uphill battle if they want to convince professional photographers to buy their small format cameras. In the end I suspect that they will market and build their cameras for a different market segment.

[regnaD kciN]

15. ...which is entirely beside the point.

The point being that Pentax lenses for that particular line are known to be of very high quality, and thus don't rate the casual dismissal you're giving them.

And it's not just Tim Fitzharris, either. I have been struck, over the past few months, by how many times I have seen a series of really good landscape photos in a book, checked the technical information, and found that they were taken with one of the Pentax 67 family.

[Deep13]

16. I was thinking of a Tameron lens actually.

Anyway, I am not a professional photographer and I am not paying $2000 for a D200. The S-mount lenses for my SP1000 work just fine. I understand the kit lens for the Canon 30D is pretty lousy.

I'm an amatuer astronomer and I can tell you that Pentax makes the best telescope eyepieces on the market. The Pentax XW eyepieces give the best color fidelity, light transmission and image sharpness of any wide-field lens and that includes Naglers. Televue has slightly better edge correction in the long focal lengths, but that is it.

[Deep13]

17. Here's what I'm thinking.

It has a big viewfinder, bigger than the Canon D30. My wife wears glasses and really liked the viewfinder on the K100. It has weatherproofing. It has that shake reduction. It is less than $1000. It is rated for 100,000 shutter cycles and is made of metal, not plastic. My old Pentax SP1000 with no hot shoe and screw mount lenses is completely reliable despite have been made in the Johnson administration.

I have a whole lot of 35mm stuff. I want to upgrade to digital, but I only want one.

My second choice is the Canon 30D which is 50% more expensive, has smaller images, no shake reduction and no weatherproofing. On the other hand it is known to take excellent photos. My only real concern with the Pentax K10 is that the images will be as noisy as the Sony Alpha has proven to be. It has all the same features (except the weather seals) at about the same price, but makes noisy images about iso 400. That's no good because I take a lot of photos in low light. If the image quality turns out to be good when someone finally does a test review, then that's what I am getting. If not, it will be a toss-up between the K100 (my wife likes the ergonomics) or the Canon D30 for twice as much because of its proven low-light capability.

[regnaD kciN]

18. I suspect you'd like the K100D...

...if the low-light performance of the K10D proves unsatisfactory. It uses the same imaging chip as my Konica Minolta 5D, which has great image quality and very good low-light response.

[JeffR]

19. Off topic:

They'll get my SP1000 when they pry it out of my cold dead hands. Of the various cameras I own and have owned, it's by far my favorite, still.

I wish you the best with whatever DSLR you choose.