DSLR for travel/hiking

[genecsf]

Yet another "help me pick a DSLR" post. Here's my story:

I've gone from point&shoot, to ultrazoom (canon 2s is), to taking a film SLR class, to now looking for a digital SLR. I've got an exciting trip planned for later in the year to Africa, where I'll be hiking through the desert, looking for animals in game reserves, etc, and am planning ahead for that. Besides that specific trip, I need an all-around travel camera. That means something on the smaller/lighter end, with a decent wide-range zoom lens (those new 18-250mm lenses?) so I don't have to carry a lot of glass around.

Here's what I'm looking for:

Budget

I'm looking for something around $1000ish, including lens(es).

Size

As portable as possible.

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you?

I think 6 Mpx is plenty. This isn't a big criteria for me.

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)

I'd like a good telezoom for photographing wildlife.

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)

Image quality is very important. I'd say 9.

Do you care for manual controls?

Yes.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?

Travel photography

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?

No.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos?

Yes.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos?

No.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate?

Are there particular models you already have in mind?

I've been looking mostly at the Pentax K100D, especially because I already have a bunch of SD cards, and I like the IS feature. Also, the Sony DSLR-A100, and the old Nikon D50. I've been looking mostly at the lower-end DSLR cameras, but will I regret that in a year and want to trade up?

[Clyde]

Yet another "help me pick a DSLR" post. Here's my story:

I've got an exciting trip planned for later in the year to Africa, where I'll be hiking through the desert, looking for animals in game reserves, etc, and am planning ahead for that. Besides that specific trip, I need an all-around travel camera. That means something on the smaller/lighter end, with a decent wide-range zoom lens (those new 18-250mm lenses?) so I don't have to carry a lot of glass around.


I've been looking mostly at the Pentax K100D, especially because I already have a bunch of SD cards, and I like the IS feature. Also, the Sony DSLR-A100, and the old Nikon D50. I've been looking mostly at the lower-end DSLR cameras, but will I regret that in a year and want to trade up?

Sounds like you have your needs pretty well described. One camera came to mind as I was reading your post, and happily it was the one you mentioned. The K100 is a good, small camera with IS. With the 18-250 lens it should be a very competent camera for the trip. When you get back, you can start down the upgrade path, starting with some good prime (pentax makes some tempting pancake lenses) and then a good wide aperture short zoom lenses.

Personally I would stay away from the sony, if only because it is a first generation product. You haven't considered the canon XTi, which lacks IS, but is very good from an image quality and high ISO point of view, and you rightly didn't consider the nikon D40, which really isn't aimed at folk like you who might want to upgrade eventually.

It is rare that there is a camera that seems so ideally suited to a persons precise needs, though, and the pentax is probably the one for you.

Enjoy,

Clyde

[SpecialK]

Hi Genecsf:

The Nikon D50 or Pentax K100D are fine budget bodies with fair "kit" lenses in the $550 ballpark. The K100D does have a small buffer that limits the number of shots in a burst if you were planning on shooting in a machine-gun manner such as for sports action. Otherwise, it's fine. It does have the IS feature which is lacking in the Nikon (or Canon) body, so any lens will benefit from it without the normally higher cost of the Nikkor "VR" (or Canon "IS") stabilized lens.

So you have $450 left for a lens.

There are a mutitude of choices, but this would be mine:

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro for about $209. It has a variable maximum aperture of f4 on the 70mm end to f5.6 on the tele end. Not exactly a great low light performer, it is fine in daylight and has good (though not outstanding) performance. It is a budget lens, remember. A little bulky but not especially heavy.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-Telephoto-Samsung-Cameras/dp/B000ANGXW6/ref=sr_1_93/102-0056599-9306501?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1175216300&sr=1-93

I always recommend NOT getting the kit lens (18-55mm) that comes with the camera as they are only fair performers (any brand). However in your case I make the exception. It is light and compact, and covers the moderate wide to moderate telephoto, for not much additional cost over just the body. And I would not be too upset if it fell in some rhino poo.

But, just to show both sides... a more desirable telephoto lens with a larger and constant minimum aperture (cha-ching - price just went way up) would be something like the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for about $750. Though not quite as telephoto as the 70-300, you gain an extra stop at the wider end and 2 stops at the long end - pretty significant for late afternoon, early morning, etc. You will get a cramp carrying for long it as it is a 3 pounder, and a tripod would be very beneficial. The trade off is you would be like Ansel Adams in Africa - not very mobile.

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=1546074614abe40/shopdata/0010_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0040_Tele+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0270_Sigma%2BZo om%2BTelephoto%2B70-200mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B2%3D252E8%2BEX%2BDG%2BAPO% 2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BPentax%2BAF%2B%3D28SG70 200F28DPX%3D29

Although I give Sigma examples and actually own one of the two I mentioned, there are definitely other options. The Tamron 18-250 could work, but it is even a bit slower at the tele end than the Sigma. And as a general rule, the "ultra zooms" (8x, 10x, etc) generally do not perform as well a lesser-ranged (say 3x or 4x) zooms. There are exceptions however. And, at $500, you would be pushing the budget, but you could get the body only as this lens duplicates the kit range.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B000IBI3YQ/ref=sr_1_20/102-0056599-9306501?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1175217214&sr=1-20

Hope that helps a bit.

[genecsf]

Thanks SpecialK and Clyde! That helps.

[coldrain]

I would do it differently.
Here is how:

Pentax K100D with 18-55 kit lens. Not a great lens, but will hold you over till you have budget to buy something better.
Why the K100D? IS might help at longer focal lengths.
At bhphotovideo with 50$ mail in rebate $499.

Now here is where I would choose different:
At the same store:
Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO DG for Pentax mount: $589.
This lens will give you more reach, and more quality, than the 70-300 option. And a lot more reach than the 70-200 option.
You will not really need the f2.8 from the 70-200, and you WILL need the extra reach. All in all a great bargain, this lens, with quite good image quality even to 400mm.

It will put you about $100 over your stated budget, it is heavier than the 70-300, but it may be worth it.
A local shop may have the lens, go try it out on whatever body they have. See how the weight is, and how it feels. If it is too heavy, then it is back to the 70-300 from Sigma, or maybe a peek at the 80-400 from Tokina.

[coldrain]

I would do it differently.
Here is how:

Pentax K100D with 18-55 kit lens. Not a great lens, but will hold you over till you have budget to buy something better.
Why the K100D? IS might help at longer focal lengths.
At bhphotovideo with 50$ mail in rebate $499.

Now here is where I would choose different:
At the same store:
Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO DG for Pentax mount: $589.
This lens will give you more reach, and more quality, than the 70-300 option. And a lot more reach than the 70-200 option.
You will not really need the f2.8 from the 70-200, and you WILL need the extra reach. All in all a great bargain, this lens, with quite good image quality even to 400mm.

It will put you about $100 over your stated budget, it is heavier than the 70-300, but it may be worth it.
A local shop may have the lens, go try it out on whatever body they have. See how the weight is, and how it feels. If it is too heavy, then it is back to the 70-300 from Sigma, or maybe a peek at the 80-400 from Tokina.