newbie dslr , Pentax k200d VS Sony A200 VS Nikon d40

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>so a newbie to photography here. <br>

Upgrading from film and digital p&s . <br>

All 3 are pretty competitively priced. <br>

Planning to film landscape, vacations , city and day to day. And maybe makeup (make up on people) <br>

which would you pick of the 3? <br>

Im leaning towards the sony or pentax because of the in-camera stabilization ...<br>

however the d 40 is like $100 cheaper, and its pretty popular.</p>

<p>Opinions anyone?</p>

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>edit: im also considering the d60 </p>

[kevin_hess]

check the price of image stablised lens for the alternative me i like pentax plus you can use those old lens that you find at yard sales thrift shops pawn shops and the like not an optin on sony.

[tibz]

<p>If you're sure you want the DSLR get a D40; the D60 has higher resolution but costs a lot more. Otherwise get the cheapest point and shoot you can find that's reasonable (not 640x480). 6 mp is fine.</p>

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>thanks nicholas, but keep in mind the d60 comes with an image stabilization lens.<br>

Would that and its higher res, be worth the extra ? the price difference is only $80 , on amazon the d60 costs $480 and the d40 is going for $400. not too much of a gap <br>

oh and im also looking at the Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP, any opinions on that?</p>

[michael s.]

<p><strong>All</strong> the cameras you've mentioned are capable of taking excellent photos.<br /> <br /> D40 and D60 allow autofocus only with Nikkor AF-S and AF-I lenses and those third party lenses that have internal autofocus motors, since the bodies themselves do not have af motors. That would bother <em>me</em> since one of the Nikkor lenses I use and like is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D -- a comparatively inexpensive lens that's fast, sharp, and when mounted on a dslr with 1.5x "crop factor," makes for an excellent portrait lens. You can still mount and use that lens on a D40 or D60 ... but manual focus only.<br>

<br /> D40 and D60 do not have autoexposure bracketing, a feature that allows you to take essentially the same photo three times rapidly in succession, getting three different exposures without having to manually adjust exposure after each shot. That wouldn't be an issue for me, but some use that extensively and regret its omission from those cameras.<br /> <br /> Nikon D40/D60's lack of in-body image stabilization (Canon lacks this, too) is somewhat less critical now than it was a couple years ago when not many lenses offered "VR" (Nikon's name for image stabilization) or "IS" (Canon's phrase). But depending upon the lenses you see yourself using and buying, that may be a factor for you.<br /> <br /> The Pentax has, as I understand it, a significantly better level of weather-sealing than the other cameras you're looking at -- unusual for a camera at that price level. Again, that may or may not matter to you.<br /> <br /> I hesitate to comment in any detail about the Sony, since I know so little about it.<br /> Nikon and Canon now offer a comprehensive array of lenses, flash attachments, and other accessories far more extensive than those offered by Pentax or Sony, and a pro support network to match. Not a factor for most hobbyists, but they have it.<br /> <br /> Have you actually handled the cameras/lenses you're considering ? If not, I would urge you to do that if at all possible. Since any of them can do the job -- and do it exceedingly well -- that might be the deciding factor. As is true with so many of these decisions, the "best" camera for you is likely the one that's most comfortable for you to use, the one whose ergonomics suit your hands best, the one whose menus are easiest for you, etc.<br /> <br /> Good luck, Petrina.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

<p>I agree with you that the Sony and Pentax are attractive due to in-camera stabilization. Also the K200D takes standard AA batteries.<br>

It's more a question of lenses. The Canon and Nikon kits come with 18-55 lenses that don't zoom very far, and the Canon one isn't very good. You might be interested in the Tamron 18-250 so you don't have to change lenses a lot. Also I should mention that the Pentax 17-70/4 is an excellent lens with better image quality than any mentioned so far. On Sony mount, you need to (over)spend for a Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 to get comparable quality. The Tamron 18-250 comes in all four mounts, but on Nikon and Canon you could get the 18-270 with image stabilization instead.<br>

Nicholas's point about a P&S has merit. In good light, the $450 Canon G10 produces better images than a Canon Rebel with 18-55 IS lens, and its lens zooms further out. The Rebel wins in low light, although that lens has so much flare that the reverse is true if pointed towards a light source.</p>

 

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>I'm leaning towards the sony or pentax because of the in-camera stabilization ... however the d 40 is like $100 cheaper, and its pretty popular</em> ..."</p>

<p>Hi Petrina,</p>

<p>I'm curious. If price is more important than appropriateness of features and benefits for your photographic preferences, why are you considering something other than your already-paid-for compact cameras, which are by now, in comparison, essentially free (or, no further charge) to you?</p>

<p>And what do you care if a camera is more or less "popular" than another camera unless you're planning to rent your out after you buy it? Is it for you, or is it to rent out?</p>

<p>Tell us more, please. Given your photographic goals - "... <em>film [sic] landscape, vacations , city and day to day. And maybe makeup (make up on people)</em> ..." - how do you see any camera, DSLR, or more than DSLR, or less than a DSLR, helping you, or not?</p>

<p>Regardless, in the comparison, the Pentax has a history of more lens choices, and some Sony models have unique live view via the back LCD while continuing to use the DSLR features. The Nikon and Canon have no in-built camera shake reduction features and so, competitively, limit the number of Nikon or Canon lenses that promise to perform as ANY lens will on the Pentax or Sony. Comparing the cameras to each other will bring up an endless litany of "this one wins because ..." and each one can win for one reason or another. Silly, when the only important thing is YOUR CRITERIA - how does any camera compare to YOUR criteria"?</p>

<p>For instance, if your goal is to get your shots as quickly as possible onto stock photo web sites, the Sony stands alone with in-camera DRO+ Dynamic Range Optimization Plus from Apical Optical, England, so it's in-camera JPGs are hard to beat with hours of post production Photoshop. Shoot, upload, done. If THAT's your goal - highest qualities of least effort JPGs ready for publishing and distribution, then Sony. See:<br>

<a href="http://www.apical-imaging.com/sony">http://www.apical-imaging.com/sony</a></p>

<p>If buying any type lens, new or old, screw-type, manual focus, auto focus, or even medium format, and having it work across the broadest range of lighting, the Pentax wins. </p>

<p>If saving $100 is your goal, why not save $400 and stay with your current gear until you know what matters or not ... or put $400 into screen and printer calibration, or into a new printer ... or take a surprise vacation and take some shots you'd never take otherwise.</p>

<p>$100, $400 matter very little until you know your target. Without a target, nothing hit's it anyway.</p>

<p>Let us know what you do.</p>

<p>.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "The Canon and Nikon kits come with 18-55 lenses that don't zoom very far, and the Canon one isn't very good."</p>

<p>The original Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens is notoriously bad, but the new IS lens is quite good, like the Nikkor 18-55s (VR and non-VR).</p>

<p>>> "Im leaning towards the sony or pentax because of the in-camera stabilization ..."</p>

<p>Cameras that lack in body stabilization can use lenses that have the feature built in. In lens stabilization is said to be more effective, and you can see the effects (a stabilized image) in the view when you're composing for the shots. Bytheway, don't forget that stabilization can only compensates for camera shake, not camera motion.</p>

<p>Before you can to a decision, you should look at what lenses you would like to use. This is a major factor.</p>

[petrina_yyuen]

<p>thanks everyone for making it clear what the pros and cons are of each camera. But especially to <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=169395">Peter Blaise Monahon</a>, yes you did cleverly point out that i did not clearly state what I wanted in a camera.<br>

You asked why not stay with my current P&S, the answer is simple, the fact is its falling apart, the shutter is not opening/closing , its pretty old and the Picture quality is not clear/fuzzy , i suspect from dust or otherwise. Same with my film p&s, which is really old. <br>

I take quite a few photographs on a day to day basis, I take alot of photographs from a car or bus. To me shutter speed is no issue, but it is the fact that i need to be able to take pictures quickly before my subject passes. This means a dslr would suit me better as there is relatively no lag/waiting time between pictures. <br>

I plan to take pictures in mostly RAW rather than jpeg. <br>

weight is also an issue, the pentax i know weighs the most. I will be carrying it with me everyday, so its best if it was not too heavy. However i have not carried the K200d , so i will need to go and try it out in person. <br>

I also do the usual family photos. However i also do quite a few landscapes, so good wide lenses would be good, however i DONT need them super wide (again im just an amateur ) <br>

Having a decent amount of affordable lenses would be a super plus (decent meaning at least 1 or two of each type of lens) <br>

Stabilization is VERY important , I often cant/dont use tripods. <br>

I also do alot of self-portrait type photography. However this is mostly to showcase makeup. Special good quality here is not totally required (they will mostly be put on the internet) <br>

I wont really need live-view.<br>

hope this helps clear up what my criteria is. <br>

lenses i would use , wide lens, prime 50 mm , and perhaps something with a slight zoom. but most likely i will just use the kit lens for awhile before purchasing other lenses.<br>

thanks</p>

[dave_smythe]

<p>You can buy a used nikon d70 with 18-70 zoom lens for 350$ on ebay.<br>

The d40 is a low grade camera.Why would you buy it When you can get better for less or near the same price?It has lens compatibility issues.<br>

You should always go for the best lens you can afford.If somebody says the pentax 17 70 lens is great i would go for that just based on the lens alone.If you are going to be doing a lot of wide angle stuff in digital you will be paying through the nose for decent wide lenses.A new 24mm nikkor lens for my old film camera cost me 225$.To get the equivalent in digital i would have to buy a 16mm lens that would cost me 600$ or more i guess.</p>

 

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>stabilization can only compensates for camera shake, not camera motion</em> ..."</p>

<p>Huh? Can you kindly explain, and perhaps supply a reference? I know in-lens stabilization has been blamed for not catching up when a photographer felt that they were moving too quickly and they took the shot before the stabilization figured out what was happening (PhotoTechniques magazine, January/February 2009, page 38, by Mark Dubovoy regarding Canon: "... <em>Lens stabilization ... ruined this exposure by reacting to camera motion just as the shutter was triggered</em> ..."), but in-camera stabilization has never had such a "problem" reported in my experience. Can you get specific on your reference? Thanks.</p>

<p>Otherwise, you're voting against Canon and Nikon and other in-lens stabilization, and for Sony, Pentax, some Olympus and others, and even used Konica Minolta DSLRs, with antishake in-built as part of the sensor assembly - GREAT!</p>

<p>.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Any of these bodies can meet your goals. You really should spend some time holding and operating one to see if it is comfortable for you. See what you think of the viewfinder, the lens you'll be using, the location of the controls you'll use most often. Does it feel sturdy?</p>

<p>The K200D is the heaviest, and is probably also the biggest of this group. This is mostly due to the inclusion of weather sealing, in-body SR, and AA batteries. Many people find some of the bodies you mention somewhat uncomfortable in their hands as their grips are so small. I personally think the K200D and Nikon D80/D90 to be about the ideal compromise in size--not too small, not too big. K200D also doesn't skimp on any features like some of these other entry-level bodies--it includes bracketing, spot metering, etc.</p>

<p>While the Pentax DA 17-70 f/4 is probably a pretty good lens--it should be noted that this isn't the kit lens. This is a mid-range lens that is priced considerably higher than a kit lens but somewhere south of the f/2.8 pro zooms that usually have somewhat shorter zoom ranges. The kit lens is an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, similar to most of the competion (I think Sony may have an 18-70 kit). I will argue that it probably has the most attractive build quality among the kit lenses, including a bayonet petal-style hood, non-rotating front element, and a usable manual focusing ring including distance markings. Optically I it holds its own as well. I could go on all day about the merits of different Pentax lenses but that's best left to the Pentax forum...</p>