Pentax digital bodies

When the Nikon D40 was announced I got excited. I have been planning to purchase

a dslr but decided to wait till the end of the year as a birthday present to

myself.

 

But reading again through all the reviews and postings about digital cameras has

reminded of something I have always felt is problematic for me when making a

decision about a camera purchase. The fact is that I want a small camera (the

D40 tries to be slim) and I want prime lenses.

 

In reading about cameras I have also been reminded of how wonderful it might be

to get a camera that would take the really wonderful manual SMC lenses that are

still being sold. My first experience with my own camera was a Pentax that I

bought a few SMC lenses for.

 

So I'm wondering if people in this forum can clarify the decision making process

for me. There are the new pentax bodies (K100D/K110D), one generation back (*ist

DL2 and DS2), and the ones from a few years ago (DL, DS and the 2003 D). The

prices for a used body from a year or more ago is about $150-200 less than the

current crop.

 

What do people see as the pros and cons in deciding to go with a K100D/K110D

instead of the DL2/DS2 or even the older DL/DS/D options?

 

My plan is to get the body at a good price and start with a pretty wide fast SMC

manual lens. I'll shoot with that for a while and I'm sure I'll be very happy!

 

ciao, tahir

The K100D and K110D have greatly improved AF over the earlier bodies. WIth the exception of the K10D (which is even better) and possibly the *istD (Powerful Af motor with indecisive sensor) and MZ-S (powerful AF motor with older sensor) these have the fastest AF Pentax has ever done. They aren't as well built as the D,DS or DL series bodies (which are extremely well built for the cost)

 

The K100D has in body stabilization but is otherwise identical to the K110D and apart from the lighter body design and good 11 point AF unit, also identical. Other than that, I'd go for a DS or DS2 instead for use with manual lenses. The DS and DS2 are identical except for the rear LCD (DS2 is 2.5", DS is 2") and write speeds (the DS2 is slightly faster). Otherwise these bodies have the largest buffers (5 RAW, 9 JPEG) and the good pentaprism viewfinder (Shared with the D and K10D). The DL and DL2 differ only slightly, the DL2 having 5 point AF and supporting the electronic DoF preview (where the DoF preview can be set to take a shot and display on the rear LCD instead of stopping down the lens, you can also choose the traditional method). I see no good reason to get a DL or DL2 over the K110D with its better AF unit. I'd avoid the D, while an excellent body and more capable than the others in many ways, it's age really shows in the smallish buffer (4 RAW's) and extremely slow write speeds.

 

Essentially the choice is K100D for stabilization or DS/DS2 for the bigger buffer and better viewfinder.

Which ever body you like, go buy it. I have probably eleven or twelve lenses of all types that fit my Pentax DL. It is small and has been perfect. I see these others guys with these monster cameras and I wonder. BUT I am going to buy the K10d, before Dec. I don't care if it is a little larger, maybe I'll use it when I feel serious. Still, I will probably use the DL the most.

So the CCD in a DS/DS2 does not drastically differ from that found in a K100D?

 

It seems like a DS might be an exciting option for less than $400.

 

Does anyone have links where the output from a DS/DS2 is compared to the K100D?

 

Thanks everyone!

<p><i>The K100D and K110D have greatly improved AF over the earlier bodies. WIth the exception of the K10D (which is even better) and possibly the *istD (Powerful Af motor with indecisive sensor) and MZ-S (powerful AF motor with older sensor) these have the fastest AF Pentax has ever done. They aren't as well built as the D,DS or DL series bodies (which are extremely well built for the cost)</i></p>

 

<p>I have a K100D and an *ist DS. The *ist DS autofocus isn't as bad as some on web forums protest, it's ok, just nothing to get very excited about. The K100D is a marginal, not vast improvement. As for how well built they are, I can't tell the difference.</p>

 

<p>If you shoot RAW, you won't tell much difference in image quality, either. In JPG the K100D is marginally better, I guess, but not so much in the end result to make me care, especially. The *ist DS has a very good viewfinder, for a DSLR. The K100D's is ok, but if you like to manual focus, you're better off with the *ist DS. The K100D has a bigger rear LCD. Some folks think that's a great thing, in practice I find it underwhelming. They both have a similar bunch of wacky exposure modes that I try to ignore. In manual and aperture priority the metering seems pretty good, but as always you can't always rely on it 100%.</p>

 

<p>The big deal with the K100D is shake reduction. It works and probably gains you a couple of stops of hand-held sharpness, in general.</p>

all the ist series cameras used the same sensor and although new algorithms were issued with each for the most part shooting in RAW format yielded similar results.

 

I own the ist D, bought it used, and am very happy with it.

 

It has a powerful AF motor as noted above and isn't always spot on in action type stuff but it works well enough with big lenses that the newer pentax ist cameras couldnt turn (i've heard the DS or DL has issues with turning the 77mm 1.8 among other lenses)

 

The 2003 D can be had for under $500. Which is well worth the money IMO.

 

If your shooting manual focus lenses then the AF motor is a non issue.

 

If your shooting A series lenses and you prefer dual control wheels then the D is a good bet. if you need image stabilization which is definitely a worthwhile upgrade then the K100D is a good option.

 

So you'll have people the prefer each camera model. For me the Ist D was the most full featured (had two control wheels and a battery grip/vertical shutter just for ergonomic advantages) it also had wireless control of the P-TTL flashes which was a nice feature. It also takes CF cards which I still prefer but since it appears no future Pentax camera will take these you will have a few cards that you might not be able to use when you upgrade.

 

I use the CF's for portable storage and for my Canon G3 (and eventually G5)

Forgot to add one important thing:

 

This ist D camera is not menu driven.

 

This is good because it means less lost shots. The camera gives full control to the user.

 

What I mean is no pictogram modes that are the only way to access certain features.

 

Off the top of my head one of these pictograms for instance on the DL is that you can only have continuous AF in sports mode. While on the ist D you don't have modes, you set the modes you need or prefer because the camera has only the normal modes P, A, S, M and of course the green mode.

 

So if you need continuos focos you simply flip the switch, if you need ISO 1600 or 3200 you rotate the dial. No digging into menus to find this stuff.

I only have the *istD and a K100D. I entirely agree with Justin's praise of the switch, not menue control offered by the *istD. OTOH I need the SR of the K100D. The *istD suffers from inferior post capture features. There's no option to show blown out highlights on the small LCD and zooming in or viewing the histogram aren't as pleasant as desireable. Also the *istD produces larger RAW files than the others but has a bigger (5, not 3fr) RAW buffer.

 

What would I buy? - The *istD is a acceptable camera among others. - Means the data handling isn't fast enough for my needs. The P&Sy consumer interface of the K100D (and probably everything besides the *istD or a K10D) sucks but SR is great. - To me each of the mentioned features is worth spending a $150-200 premium over the rest of the crop.

 

If I had to gear up from scratch, I'd wait/go for a K10D, assuming I had some Pentax glass. - Warning: I discovered that I like AF by far more than my manual focussing skills quite soon, so I ended replacing 135, 50 and 24mm with AF lenses.

 

2nd warning: There have been issues about backfocusing (with almost any DSLR brand). So if you go for a used body, seek a chance to do a few test shots with a fast lens like 50mm f1.7 to make clear if the AF is spot on.

So what is the AF motor the only difference between the DS and the D? It seems people really love the AF motor in the D, but are there any features of the DS that would be good for me? Like I said before I'll be shooting mainly with manual lenses but will keep a standard prime AF in the beginning.

 

The K10D seems to be in a price range far above my own. The body should go for around 900. I can get a D or DS right now for 400 and shoot RAW till I have had my fill with the 6mp sensor.

Tahir, Split the cost difference and you can get a brand new Samsung GX-1S.

 

GX-1S is last year's rather hard to find Pentax DS2 that got rebadged and rebranded. They run $649 and some got bundled with 4 year samsung warantees instead of 1 year.

 

Lindy

There's one major issue with the D's controls. You have to drop out of shooting mode to change WB and ISO. With the later bodies you use the Fn menu, which can be overridden by tapping the shutter so you don't miss the shot. The D is superior for changing metering, AF and drive modes though.

 

You'll note the K10D kept the Fn menu, but restored the switches for Metering and AF modes, giving the best of both worlds (Actually, you can change ISO on the mode dial as well, by setting Sv mode, it's sticky).

 

As to build, I find it immediately obvious between the three body designs. The D is the best built, but the grip is too shallow. The DS/DL gives up a little build quality but has a superior grip design, this is the best of the three ergonomically (Too bad it lacks dual control wheels). The K100D is even lighter, more comparable to the competition in build (the D and DS/DL are quite over-built. Note also that the silver DL's have a more flexible plastic case than the black units, and feel flimsier.)

 

As to AF performance, some have noted that the differences are maginal. I've owned the D and K100D myself, but I shoot a lot of low light and the differences do not appear marginal, but rather quite significant. To someone who works in good light, the differences may indeed be marginal, as the D/DS do rather well in good light.

 

And all the 6MP bodies share the same basic electronics fit, including the same sensor. IQ is essentially identical in RAW (Later bodies are slightly cleaner at high ISO due to redesigned electronics, but that's about it). JPEG output has been tweaked with each family (D then DS/DS2 then DL/DL2 then K100D/K110D).

Could someone explain to me what a "dual control wheel" is? I've tried searching around but haven't had much luck. Thanks. How does it help with low-light auto-focusing? Or am I getting things confused?

 

I love all the help here. The *ist D and the DS seem to be my current choice if I want to stick to the $400 range for bodies. the $900 K10d also seems attractive but I think I have much to learn about digital cameras, and that can be done very well with either the D or the DS.

The dual control wheel layout uses two control wheels, one on the front of the camera below the shutter, and one on the back of the camera. This is better than a single wheel setup as you can adjust both aperture and shutter without having to hold down any buttons unlike the single-wheel cameras which require you to hold down the exposure compensation button to adjust aperture in Manual.

 

That has nothing to do with AF performance at all, except that higher spec bodies tend to have better AF and dual-wheel controls.

I have only used the DS model in digital, and it works beautifully with all of my old lenses -- and some of them are pretty old. I don't use AF at all (although the focus confirmation is useful for someone with aging eyes).

I consider the DL more of the later generation--it has the SD memory and 2.5" LCD of the DS2 and DL2. The DL2 is nearly identical to the DL except that it has more AF points.

 

Hope this summary feature matrix helps:

 

Samsung GX-1L is like Pentax DL, and GX-1S is like Pentax DS2. Samsung offers a better warranty with a possible hit in cachet and resale value.

 

Better viewfinders (bigger, brighter pentaprisms): D, DS, DS2

Larger 2.5" LCD: DL, DL2, DS2, K100D, K110D

Smallest bodies: DS, DL, DL2, DS2 (note, pentaprism viewfinders are slightly heavier)

 

Mildly more powerful AF motor: D, K100D, K110D

More (11-point) AF sensors: D, DS, DS2, DL2, K100D, K110D

Mild in-body JPEG improvements: K100D, K110D

 

Shake-reduction: K100D

SD rather than CF memory: (all but D and DS) DS2, DL, DL2, K100D, K110D

 

Summary: If you're willing to forgo shake reduction and can find one, the DS2 and GX-1S are probably the most desirable (though some might prefer the less compact but more feature-laden D) If you're willing to accept the modest size & weight penalty with probably a small reduction in build quality with the easy to appreciate benefit of shake reduction, you won't go wrong with the easy-to-find K100D. In all reality though, these cameras are all quite similar for the most part.

 

-Andrew

One correction, the DS takes SD cards, only the D takes CF.

I disagree slightly with Adam on the D in one area.

 

I don't find the grip difficult at all, however, I always use the vertical shutter release/battery pack. I immediately got this with my ist 35mm and never had a complaint about the size of that camera either. But with the Ist D i get 2x the battery power (over 2000 shots with and without flash and at 1/4000 to 30sec+ exposures). To grip is also useful for vertical shooting, exspecially action sports where I rotate the lens on the tripod collar.

 

I do agree that the white balance on the dial that locks out shooting is a pain BUT when I shoot in RAW I never mess with white balance. I only change the ISO. Again, I always say this as someone who both shoots film and is still comfortable with this medium, if you could change a roll of film or attach a filter to adjust the white balance with film, changing the ISO via the dial and then resetting it is second nature and significantly faster. I rarely miss many shots because I didn't reset the ISO dial.

 

Not arguing the lack of "post processing" on the ist D but my feeling is that is what a computer is for. No camera, not even the Canon 5D or the new nikons with much enhanced picture production features really make up for Photoshop (or it's equivalent). These IMO are simply marketing gimicks since image quality increases have to a point dropped off, manufacturers need a reason to sell you a new camera every 18 months.

 

Saying that the D lacks picture controls falls into the same catagory as the people that complained that the D's and DS were soft in the JPEGs.

 

All digital images need specific sharpening for the purpose you intend them. This was the same with slide scans. When posting a 640x480 web jpeg I might use .3/125/2 for instance but for a 60MB tiff scan I would probably use about 1.5/150/4 for my sharpening of an 8x12 print. Of course this all depends on the film grain or digital noise.

 

Really I've looked at the picture processing as a novelty that never looks as good as what I can do with 15 minutes on the computer. For batch prints of your kids 6th birthday I think this is a useful feature, but for really high quality prints, you need to shoot and edit on the computer. Sadly, if sitting behind the monitor of your computer is something that you dread then perhaps digital isn't the best medium. Shoot film and have the lab do all the corrections.