PDA

View Full Version : Canon Rebel vs. Pentax ist DX



stonehill
01-28-2005, 02:29 PM
I I read the thread with Ant. I was also planning to get the panasonic FZ20 but now considering a dslr. My family thinks I should get the Canon Rebel- I have a film rebel. My brother had the D-20 which I used last weekend. After doing a lot of reading on this site as well as others I am leaning toward the Pentax ist DS. I like the size and I have a few aa chargers as well and batteries from my old Sony P-52. I'm concerned from my reading that the shot to shot delay with the Pentax ,when using a flash could take up to 4.2. Does it actually take that long? Any other pros or cons on the Canon or Pentax would be very helpful.

Rhys
01-28-2005, 02:34 PM
I I read the thread with Ant. I was also planning to get the panasonic FZ20 but now considering a dslr. My family thinks I should get the Canon Rebel- I have a film rebel. My brother had the D-20 which I used last weekend. After doing a lot of reading on this site as well as others I am leaning toward the Pentax ist DS. I like the size and I have a few aa chargers as well and batteries from my old Sony P-52. I'm concerned from my reading that the shot to shot delay with the Pentax ,when using a flash could take up to 4.2. Does it actually take that long? Any other pros or cons on the Canon or Pentax would be very helpful.

Since you already have the film camera, why not get the digital and keep the film camera as a backup. They both share the same lenses so there's less to buy.

stonehill
01-28-2005, 02:41 PM
Thats a good idea, but I don't currently own any other lenses. The appeal to the Pentax was a smaller body and aa batteries (which sounds cool) and the SD/MMC card vs the Canon compact flash.

Rhys
01-28-2005, 04:26 PM
Thats a good idea, but I don't currently own any other lenses. The appeal to the Pentax was a smaller body and aa batteries (which sounds cool) and the SD/MMC card vs the Canon compact flash.

Some Canons take AA batteries if they have the additional battery grip. Personally, I'm not a fan of SD purely because it's an old standard. Mini SD is here now. I also prefer Compact Flash because it's cheaper and available in much larger capacities. For example, the top SD card is 1gb and the top CF card is 4GB. big difference if you want to shoot 6mp raw files (35mb each). You'd get just 28 onto the biggest SD card as opposed to 114 on a 4GB CF card. That's worth considering!

I'd always go for a mainstream company like Nikon or Canon than somebody like Pentax (having experienced first and secondhand the poor reliability of their junk).

Mike Woods
01-29-2005, 05:12 AM
I currently use the rebel and the battery life with the stock battery is amazing. I can probably take around 800 + shots without needing to recharge. In fact the only time I have needed the spare I bought was on vacation. I started with a fully charged battery and left the camera on with preview all day (over 10 hours), shot about 600 pictures, some with an image stabilized lens, and some with the flash. I changed the battery when it went to one bar, but could have fininshed the day with it. ( I was new to this camera at the time and was unsure how long the battery would go.) I don't know if you can get that kind of life out of AA's. If so, buy the camera you like, if not, this should be something to consider. :)

jeisner
01-29-2005, 05:26 AM
Personally, I'm not a fan of SD purely because it's an old standard. Mini SD is here now.

Compact Flash is an even older standard than SD?

P.S. The largest SD I see from sandisk is 2gb.

I also get around 800 shots with 4x2500mAh batteries in my Pentax ist DS. If on holiday you can buy two dispossable lithium CRV3s and get 1200+ photos, I know some people who have bought CRV3 rechargeables, but personally I didn't think it was worth it for me as 2500mAh AAs are cheaper, and I just use two sets of them. If I need batteries in an emergencies I can use 4 alkaline batteries and get maybe 500 photos.

The Pentax feels I lot nicer in MY hands than the 300d did, smaller and less plastic feeling. You also get a lot of featres missing from the 300d, although using a hacked firmware you can reclaim some of them on the 300d, that just doesn't seem like the ideal solution to me.

As has been suggested try each out at a store and see which one feels better to YOU! :) your the one who has to live with it ;)

And with internal flash much quicker recycle rate than 4.2 seconds.

stonehill
01-29-2005, 08:30 AM
Thanks for all the feedback. I was wondering what your thoughts were on waiting to see is Canon is coming out with a updated Rebel soon. I guess that would even be more confusing as to go with the new tech. or buy the 300d at a even lower price.

I was also wondering about lenses. I think I would go for the kit lense to start, but with my kids playing sports now I'm sure I would want a higher zoom soom. (which is why I was considering the pana fz20) Anyway, are the lenses for canan and pentax comparable in price. What would you suggest for shooting indoor basketball and outdoor track and soccer?

Thanks so much for all your help! This is a great site.

Rhys
01-29-2005, 08:53 AM
Thanks for all the feedback. I was wondering what your thoughts were on waiting to see is Canon is coming out with a updated Rebel soon. I guess that would even be more confusing as to go with the new tech. or buy the 300d at a even lower price.

I was also wondering about lenses. I think I would go for the kit lense to start, but with my kids playing sports now I'm sure I would want a higher zoom soom. (which is why I was considering the pana fz20) Anyway, are the lenses for canan and pentax comparable in price. What would you suggest for shooting indoor basketball and outdoor track and soccer?

Thanks so much for all your help! This is a great site.

Yes. I say wait for an updated 300D and then the 300D should be available at the lowest price you'll ever find for a new DSLR. Personally, I feel that Canon's lenses are better designed than Pentaxes and better-built too. Ages ago, my photographer friend and I went to photograph things in the rain. We never took good equipment with us. I remember taking a Zenith with a Zenith lens and he took a Pentax with a Pentax lens - purely because those lenses were so cheap and so awful anyway that their awfulness would not have been significant given the grotty conditions in which we were taking photos. Bascially, Pentax would be ok as a disposable camera. Canon's better for a camera you want to use and keep.

pmnapier
01-29-2005, 09:43 AM
I'd always go for a mainstream company like Nikon or Canon than somebody like Pentax (having experienced first and secondhand the poor reliability of their junk).

Rhys, So what happened with you and Pentax? I can't speak for anything of theirs lately, but when I first got into 35mm in the early '80s I think they were certainly considered mainstream and reputable. I've used film Nikons for the last 15 years so haven't paid much attention.

jeisner
01-29-2005, 05:28 PM
Rhys hates pentax, I personally think the pentax lenses are better than canons within the same price ranges, but each to their own.

Pentax are still reputable to most people ;)

Rhys
01-29-2005, 05:39 PM
Rhys, So what happened with you and Pentax? I can't speak for anything of theirs lately, but when I first got into 35mm in the early '80s I think they were certainly considered mainstream and reputable. I've used film Nikons for the last 15 years so haven't paid much attention.

Unreliable junk.

I had a Pentax Super A. Bought it, pressed the DOF lever and it snapped inside the camera.
Had a replacement from the shop. The battery died within 2 weeks. Bought another. That died. Returned it and the shop refused to replace but sent it off for a repair. Came back with a note saying short circuit removed. Battery lasted only 4 months maximum. Returned it for a warranty repair. Came back no fault found. Each battery lasted only 4 months yet people with MEs were reportedly getting 12 months plus. The Super A was a little more advanced than the ME but not much. In the end I sold it cheap to get rid of the blasted thing. My other camera - a Cosina had a battery that lasted several years.

Now that's my experience of Pentax trash. My friends had Pentaxes and had nothing but problems either - including cameras that died one day out of warranty, which Pentax refused to repair. Now that is sharp practice.

No Pentax trash for me.

jeisner
01-29-2005, 08:40 PM
Well I could say the same about canon maybe 8-9 years ago I bought two canon printers (one for myself the other higher model for my parents) they were both absolute pieces of junk and they both got tossed in the bin, after about 4 months and were replaced with MUCH BETTER quality Epson printers.

Since then I never bought another Canon product as the quality of those printers was just so low, and neither did many frineds and collegues of mine that all had similar experiences with poor quality Canon products at that time. Recently I purchased a Canon IP3000 and its seems things have changed in the Canon camp :) point is things change, time to build a bridge (and get over it) ;)

Rex914
01-29-2005, 11:16 PM
Bought a commercial grade Canon copy machine 15 years ago, and it still runs just fine. It's still better than a lot of copiers nowadays.

We bought a Pentax film camera a few years ago. Granted it was a higher end point and shoot, it's held up very well and hasn't shown any problems.

Today, I had a chance to go to Fry's to see a few of the models I've been considering. I was very impressed by the *ist DS. It really is a compact D-SLR is such a thing could exist. It felt very nice in my hands and felt a lot sturdier than the Digital Rebel. Also took snappy pictures just as it should. Of course, I'm eagerly awaiting the DR's successor. I'm praying that Canon makes a "stripped down" 20D, just as they stripped the 10D to make the DR. If they do that and stick it in a sturdier body, I'm 100% sold, and I'm sure a lot of others would be too.

My point is, don't make blanket statements about a company unless...

1) The company formally says that there is a problem.
2) You have statistically significant numbers.

A lot of people "say" that Sony products suck and break all the time and claim that their friends found the same. Well, that's biased and statistically insignificant. I claim that Dell laptops have build quality problems and cite 2 facts - the parts are great, but are assembled in Taiwan and other places of cheap labor. But I also have more than just a "few friends" to back up my accusations. I go to a school where every student is required to buy a laptop. Most laptops out of the 600 students are Dell laptops. We did a survey on all of these students about laptop problems. Dell came out at the top with a 50% failure rate. I won't say that my claims that Dell laptops suck are absolute, but I do have a lot more clout than somebody who just cites that "friends had problems too."

I don't go around saying "Dell sucks" every time I see somebody trying to buy something from Dell. I expect the same respect from anybody else unless the company is globally reputed as having poor products.

<end rant>

jeisner
01-30-2005, 03:06 AM
Thanks I think I may have said it badly but it was the point I was trying to make, I hated Canon for bad experiences but I got over it and am happy with the Canon IP3000 that I recently purchased. :)

Regarding Dell laptops, well I could argue with that, I guess, as I work in the IT Department of a medium sized Australian retail chain. And I have a Dell Latitude 600 (using it to type this) and throughout the headoffice we have around 50 of these, and to date (aorund a year) not one of them has been faulty, as yet ;) Maybe it is a particular model that is used at your school was bad, a bad batch, not good used in that environment, students (at least when I was at school) are a lot harder on the laptops than we are in the office?

pmnapier
01-30-2005, 01:40 PM
I would think most companies produce their share of lemons once in awhile. I had problems with HP printers a few years ago that developed paper handling problems far to soon than I found acceptable. I won't be buying another HP printer anytime soon - certainly not with Canon and Epson as alternatives. But I won't say HP printers are no good - too many people feel otherwise.

Anyway, my first SLR was a Pentax some 25 years ago and I had no problems with it (although I later got into Nikons). BTW, I played a little with the *ist DS yesterday at a local store and found it to be very solid feeling, very intuitive and a perfect (for me) right hand grip. The size is perfect and matched with something like a Sigma 18 - 125 it's not much larger than some all-in-ones like the FZ20 (which I also like).

Now, about that slight cost difference......

jeisner
01-30-2005, 04:27 PM
Now, about that slight cost difference......

Well in Australia the RRP on the ist dS with 18-125 is $1499 and the RRP on the FZ20 is $1100 (although most sell for $999), not a big difference considering the added versatility of a DSLR....

pmnapier
01-30-2005, 05:57 PM
Well in Australia the RRP on the ist dS with 18-125 is $1499 and the RRP on the FZ20 is $1100 (although most sell for $999), not a big difference considering the added versatility of a DSLR....

I know. Here in the US the *ist Ds would be about twice the FZ20 - depending on where you shop (at least that's what I've found). But you're right about the added versatility of a dSLR. Just a conundrum I guess! (But I love that *ist Ds)

ReF
01-30-2005, 07:27 PM
i bought the D-rebel for only $625 (no tax, no shipping) after the rebate and stuff but i still have about 2 weeks to return it if the new rebel is announced by then. i personally like the canon because of all the lens choices available (including 3rd party). you also would figure that word gets around pretty quickly if a product is really good - i haven't heard much about the pentax. i don't think it's because pentax isn't mainstream enough. panasonic for example wasn't really a big/mainstream camera brand but since their new(ish) line of ultra-zooms are so good, almost everyone who has shopped for a camera recently has heard about them.

i would also agree that canon printers sucked back in the days when standard "bubble jet" printers cost between $250-$600, but printers really can't be compared to cameras. those printers were new technology and were far from perfect (or even reliable). my family went through about 3-4 of those pieces of junk but even with that said, i now own a canon photo printer because i felt that they have improved that much. plus i felt that the quality of print was better than what HP had to offer and ink and paper were half the cost. BTW now HP's now line of printers use ink that costs even more per ml. and quality of print doesn't seem to have improved.

scalia
01-30-2005, 08:23 PM
what's wrong about Pentax?

*ist DS is the smallest dslr curently available, and with Pentax excellent primes it becomes e very compact camera to carry. It compatible with almost all Pentax lenses, and you can find cheap at ebay.

just try searching at pentax forums about pros and cons. Don't believe anyone that not even touch it. Try it for yourself. Any dslr will give you good pic as long as you know how to use it. AA's/proprietary/SD/CF/etc just a matter of preferences and compromises, IMNSHO.

happy hunting

jeisner
01-30-2005, 10:09 PM
Nothing wrong with it, I believe its a very good camera, I wouldn't trade it for a D/rebel, not a chance.

The only people I have heard say anything bad about the ist DS are people who have never even laid their hands on one, I think that says it all...

I don't know why Ref hasn't heard much about it, I sure did, one possibility is Pentax doesn't spend much on Advertising, unlike Canon and Nikon who must spend a fortune, doesn't bother me too much those costs are all factored in the price of the camera in stores.

Everything I hear about the 300d/drebel even off Canon users that i know (10d and 20d) is rather uninspiring, I guess it all depends on the people you know! I wouldn't buy a drebel too many features removed by Canon to not compete with their higher priced models, I know you can get hacked firmware, but I would prefer not to go down that road, plus I really dislike the feel in my hands and I love being able to use 20 year old cheap manual lenses with my ist DS.

Rex914
01-30-2005, 10:55 PM
Thanks I think I may have said it badly but it was the point I was trying to make, I hated Canon for bad experiences but I got over it and am happy with the Canon IP3000 that I recently purchased. :)

Regarding Dell laptops, well I could argue with that, I guess, as I work in the IT Department of a medium sized Australian retail chain. And I have a Dell Latitude 600 (using it to type this) and throughout the headoffice we have around 50 of these, and to date (aorund a year) not one of them has been faulty, as yet ;) Maybe it is a particular model that is used at your school was bad, a bad batch, not good used in that environment, students (at least when I was at school) are a lot harder on the laptops than we are in the office?

There's a pattern to failures although it's happened across the board. First of all, it was mostly Inspirons. I haven't seen too many Latitudes around on campus. Makes perfect sense that the smaller/ultraportable laptops and the budget laptops had much higher failure rates than the desktop replacements and XPS's. I'm very glad though that Dell makes up for build quality in great service. They are very willing to replace parts or the whole thing as long as you're under warranty. I even heard instances where the person would get better parts than what they originally had as "compensation" for the losses.

Nice discussion about the printers. HP still makes good printers, but the ink issue is getting to be more of a money making thing. It's an incredibly "lucrative" business for HP and anybody else. Good thing Canon (and others following suit) made that (forgot its name) system where you swap out one color at a time. Canon's high end photo printers (e.g. i9900) are getting rave reviews and really show how a company can turn around and improve its offerings.

Anyways, the Pentax looks fine to me and is a "must buy" if you already have a Pentax collection of lenses. The only huge drawback I see is if you are new to the SLR scene like me and find that Canon and Nikon have much larger collections of lenses to choose from. Even then, the Pentax really does lure you with its compact size, good feel, and friendly menu system. One thing I'm noticing with SLR's is that the lenses end up adding up to the cost of the body (especially for the entry level D-SLR's), even if it's only the essentials. The kit lenses, from what I've read, aren't very good, and you're better off skipping them and buying a couple useful lenses instead.

Rhys
01-31-2005, 05:56 AM
Anyways, the Pentax looks fine to me and is a "must buy" if you already have a Pentax collection of lenses. The only huge drawback I see is if you are new to the SLR scene like me and find that Canon and Nikon have much larger collections of lenses to choose from. Even then, the Pentax really does lure you with its compact size, good feel, and friendly menu system. One thing I'm noticing with SLR's is that the lenses end up adding up to the cost of the body (especially for the entry level D-SLR's), even if it's only the essentials. The kit lenses, from what I've read, aren't very good, and you're better off skipping them and buying a couple useful lenses instead.

This is the problem. I don't feel that DSLRs represent good value for money primarily because to go DSLR I'd have to buy a whole load of new lenses and a body. I never found I did much outside the normal 28 - 200 range anyway. Sure I had 24mm and 300mm lenses but they never got used because they were out of the normal range and carrying all my lenses was simply too much weight to carry. I did even have a 600mm mirror lens once - which I used a few times and then sold. It was simply too big to carry and too limited in application. With a digital all-in-one, it's possible to encompass the range 35 - 350 on a 10x zoom which is more than adequate. The times when one needs wider than 35mm are so few that multiple shots and stitching could just save the day. The times when more than 350mm are needed are even fewer. Imagine trying to carry a 1000mm lens and a couple of ultra wideangle lenses together with a DSLR and you'll see what I mean. You'd rapidly leave them behind and take lightweight lenses that you'd actually use.

The big thing that DSLR users hype is the sensor size. Sure - the sensor is bigger but nothing much else. There's a reduction in fringing but fringing can be eliminated in many other ways.

I absolutely don't see the point of carrying a huge quantity of kit around when a Panasonic FZ10 or a Canon S1 IS will do it all. Heck, they even have built-in image stabilisers - things you just don't get with DSLRs unless you really want to fork out money.

pmnapier
01-31-2005, 12:58 PM
This is the problem. I don't feel that DSLRs represent good value for money primarily because to go DSLR I'd have to buy a whole load of new lenses and a body. I never found I did much outside the normal 28 - 200 range anyway. Sure I had 24mm and 300mm lenses but they never got used because they were out of the normal range and carrying all my lenses was simply too much weight to carry.

**Snip**

I absolutely don't see the point of carrying a huge quantity of kit around when a Panasonic FZ10 or a Canon S1 IS will do it all. Heck, they even have built-in image stabilisers - things you just don't get with DSLRs unless you really want to fork out money.

Rhys has a really good point here. As much as I love the size and feel of the *ist Ds, I also question the value for the money since all I'm basically looking for is the convenience of an all-in-one in an SLR package (*ist Ds plus Sigma 18-125). Before I went digital I used my Nikon SLR with a 35 - 70 mounted as my everyday lens. I also had a 70 - 210 but that stayed home most of the time because I didn't want to carry it around. Also, the much faster 50mm stayed at home too. When on vacation and "touristing" somewhere, or even on day trips, the less I have to carry the better. So carrying a camera and additional lenses got to be a hassle, particularly since I'd also have a camcorder over the shoulder too. An FZ20 handles it all (or most of it anyway) at half the price. Good point Rhys.

jeisner
01-31-2005, 02:21 PM
It all depends on what YOU want, DSLR with appropriate lenses will give you without doubt better quality than an all-in-one, especially comparing FZ20 to my DSLR with prime lenses, but it all depends on you, is it worth extra to YOU.

Plenty of people buy High-Def TVs here in Australia, to many (myself included) it isn't really worth the extra money, but to others it is and they are happy with the extra quality, its up to you!

As for value for money, well at I can keep my lenses when I upgrade the bocy, well at least with Pentax you can ;) I have a 20 year old 50mm f1.7 that still works great with my *ist DS, its manual focus but so what. If you invest in GOOD lenses then when you upgrade the body only, with all-in-one you throw the lot in the bin (or sell for a tiny % of what it cost you) and start again. considering the FZ20 in Australia is almost as expensive as the ist DS body only, I know which one is more economical for me, considering I also want the advantages of an SLR...

pmnapier
01-31-2005, 02:50 PM
It all depends on what YOU want, DSLR with appropriate lenses will give you without doubt better quality than an all-in-one, especially comparing FZ20 to my DSLR with prime lenses, but it all depends on you, is it worth extra to YOU.
You're right.

Rhys
01-31-2005, 03:15 PM
It all depends on what YOU want, DSLR with appropriate lenses will give you without doubt better quality than an all-in-one, especially comparing FZ20 to my DSLR with prime lenses, but it all depends on you, is it worth extra to YOU.

Plenty of people buy High-Def TVs here in Australia, to many (myself included) it isn't really worth the extra money, but to others it is and they are happy with the extra quality, its up to you!

As for value for money, well at I can keep my lenses when I upgrade the bocy, well at least with Pentax you can ;) I have a 20 year old 50mm f1.7 that still works great with my *ist DS, its manual focus but so what. If you invest in GOOD lenses then when you upgrade the body only, with all-in-one you throw the lot in the bin (or sell for a tiny % of what it cost you) and start again. considering the FZ20 in Australia is almost as expensive as the ist DS body only, I know which one is more economical for me, considering I also want the advantages of an SLR...

But the whole point of an all-in-one is that for the price of a body or the price of a lens, you get the lens and the body.

jeisner
01-31-2005, 03:51 PM
But my primes can live on when I replace the body, all-in-one you can't do that, yes I guess your right it costs about the same as the body only DSLR. But the lens does not offer the versatility that my range of more specialised lenses do.

My point was more it depends on what YOU want out of a camera, there is a place for both, I dont mind carrying my Lowepro NOVA 4 bag around, its a personal choice they both have their advantages and disadvantages, all I am trying to say is it is simplistic to say DSLR better than allinone or vice-versa, it depends on the individual.

RE: "I don't feel that DSLRs represent good value for money" it depends on YOU good value is VERY subjective!

Rhys
01-31-2005, 04:26 PM
But my primes can live on when I replace the body, all-in-one you can't do that, yes I guess your right it costs about the same as the body only DSLR. But the lens does not offer the versatility that my range of more specialised lenses do.

RE: "I don't feel that DSLRs represent good value for money" it depends on YOU good value is VERY subjective!

I see exactly what you're saying. I would point out though that I have a stack of Nikon AIS lenses, none of which are supported on the D70 or the D100 or the Fuji S series. They are, I gather, supported on the D1 and D2 though - including exposure metering (lacking on the D70/D100). So essentially, my Nikon lenses won't work with Nikon cameras unless I personally fork out several thousand pounds. Thus, an all-in-one is a lot more attractive. Plus, I note that my existing lenses cover the range 28 - 300 which is almost exactly the range covered by the S1 IS but in a single, lightweight body.

ReF
01-31-2005, 07:50 PM
Nothing wrong with it, I believe its a very good camera, I wouldn't trade it for a D/rebel, not a chance.

The only people I have heard say anything bad about the ist DS are people who have never even laid their hands on one, I think that says it all...

I don't know why Ref hasn't heard much about it, I sure did, one possibility is Pentax doesn't spend much on Advertising, unlike Canon and Nikon who must spend a fortune, doesn't bother me too much those costs are all factored in the price of the camera in stores.

Everything I hear about the 300d/drebel even off Canon users that i know (10d and 20d) is rather uninspiring, I guess it all depends on the people you know! I wouldn't buy a drebel too many features removed by Canon to not compete with their higher priced models, I know you can get hacked firmware, but I would prefer not to go down that road, plus I really dislike the feel in my hands and I love being able to use 20 year old cheap manual lenses with my ist DS.


where do i start...

did i say pentax ist was no good? NO
are there any reliable reviews yet? not that i can find
does pentax have a good rep so far? not really, now why is that?
do you really hear many people raving about the ist? not really, maybe not yet, but so far, not really.
is it fair to compare the rebel (which is meant to be a low cost alternative) to the 20d or 10d which is twice the cost? NO.
does the rebel take pics that are virtually identical to the 10d? yes.
are people who are used to cameras like the 10D and 20D (or other pro-grade film bodies) going to say the rebel is "uninspiring" to use? OF COURSE! they paid twice the cash for these cams for a reason.
are there a lot of lens choices for the pentax? not compared to other companies.
does the ability to use old, cheap, manual lenses really affect peoples' buying decisions? no.

geez, i was just putting in my two cents but someone here is really trying to make me look bad with: "I guess it all depends on the people you know!" and by telling me how much he hates the cameras i bought. alright, alright. i get it, you like your pentax, but i never said it sucked. i think the questions and answers above speak for themselves.

Rex914
01-31-2005, 07:56 PM
Oh my, this is gonna get messy...

On one hand, we have the D-SLR vs. all-in-one debate and then Pentax discussion. As much as you guys are trying to reason things out as kindly as possible, I think it's best if we drop the discussion and let it sit as it is. It's going nowhere right now.

scalia
01-31-2005, 07:59 PM
This is the problem. I don't feel that DSLRs represent good value for money primarily because to go DSLR I'd have to buy a whole load of new lenses and a body. I never found I did much outside the normal 28 - 200 range anyway. Sure I had 24mm and 300mm lenses but they never got used because they were out of the normal range and carrying all my lenses was simply too much weight to carry. I did even have a 600mm mirror lens once - which I used a few times and then sold. It was simply too big to carry and too limited in application. With a digital all-in-one, it's possible to encompass the range 35 - 350 on a 10x zoom which is more than adequate. The times when one needs wider than 35mm are so few that multiple shots and stitching could just save the day. The times when more than 350mm are needed are even fewer. Imagine trying to carry a 1000mm lens and a couple of ultra wideangle lenses together with a DSLR and you'll see what I mean. You'd rapidly leave them behind and take lightweight lenses that you'd actually use.


well, if that's the case, then how about this:
E-300 kit, with 14-45mm lens (eq 28-90mm) for $850
+ Sigma 55-200mm (eq 110-400mm) for $140
with this you'll cover 28-400mm with only 2 very decent lenses and pretty compact too.

maybe sigma gonna make the pentax mount too.

cheers.

jeisner
01-31-2005, 08:31 PM
I see exactly what you're saying. I would point out though that I have a stack of Nikon AIS lenses, none of which are supported on the D70 or the D100 or the Fuji S series. They are, I gather, supported on the D1 and D2 though - including exposure metering (lacking on the D70/D100). So essentially, my Nikon lenses won't work with Nikon cameras unless I personally fork out several thousand pounds. Thus, an all-in-one is a lot more attractive. Plus, I note that my existing lenses cover the range 28 - 300 which is almost exactly the range covered by the S1 IS but in a single, lightweight body.

Thats one of the reasons I like Pentax, none of the other majors (nikon, canon, KM, Olympus) can claim the level of compatability across their range stretching back 20+ years like Pentax can.

jeisner
01-31-2005, 08:37 PM
well, if that's the case, then how about this
E-300 kit, with 14-45mm lens (eq 28-90mm) for $850
+ Sigma 55-200mm (eq 110-400mm) for $140
with this you'll cover 28-400mm with only 2 very decent lenses and pretty compact too.

maybe sigma gonna make the pentax mount too.

cheers.

Of the 55-200mm? - Sigma released the Pentax mount before the olympus mount version...

ReF
01-31-2005, 08:39 PM
This is the problem. I don't feel that DSLRs represent good value for money primarily because to go DSLR I'd have to buy a whole load of new lenses and a body. I never found I did much outside the normal 28 - 200 range anyway. Sure I had 24mm and 300mm lenses but they never got used because they were out of the normal range and carrying all my lenses was simply too much weight to carry. I did even have a 600mm mirror lens once - which I used a few times and then sold. It was simply too big to carry and too limited in application. With a digital all-in-one, it's possible to encompass the range 35 - 350 on a 10x zoom which is more than adequate. The times when one needs wider than 35mm are so few that multiple shots and stitching could just save the day. The times when more than 350mm are needed are even fewer. Imagine trying to carry a 1000mm lens and a couple of ultra wideangle lenses together with a DSLR and you'll see what I mean. You'd rapidly leave them behind and take lightweight lenses that you'd actually use.

The big thing that DSLR users hype is the sensor size. Sure - the sensor is bigger but nothing much else. There's a reduction in fringing but fringing can be eliminated in many other ways.

I absolutely don't see the point of carrying a huge quantity of kit around when a Panasonic FZ10 or a Canon S1 IS will do it all. Heck, they even have built-in image stabilisers - things you just don't get with DSLRs unless you really want to fork out money.


Rhys, i completely see your point. lenses cost as much as or more than most all-in-ones and there's no guarantee that they won't be obsolete in the next 7 years or less! when i started to use my first d-slr i realized just how good of a deal all-in-ones really are. still, i was frustrated by many of their limitations. first and foremost is the noise levels on all-in-ones (i even noticed it on my 4mp a80 at ISO 50, and so does my girlfriend who isn't a "pixel inspector!"). the fact that higher resolution = more noise really pushed me into a d-slr. another problem is that your choices are limited to a combination of lens-and-camera. for example, i like the body and resolution of the G6 (i like details and prints that are large enough to hang) but didn't like the lens range, i liked the lens range and IS of the Z20 but didn't like the noise and resolution, and i liked the Oly 8080's wide angle but it lacked decent telephoto and was really over priced. well that's three different cameras i would have to buy and carry around if i wanted all the features and they probably aren't coming out with one cam that had it all any time soon. so i spent the money on a d-slr and bought the lenses to cover my needs, plus i get better noise-free pictures and sharper lenses to boot! the lenses should also last me for the next 2 camera bodies i get. still, getting back to the other point, an all-in-one gives you a lot for the money, at a fraction of the cost for a clunky d-slr set-up that not everyone needs. i really feel like it's worth it for me though; the way i peronally see it, you are fortunate enough to have a camera with you when something spectacular is happening in front (or above) you. you want to take as good a shot as you can while you have the chance. it's also frustrating when someone asks you do to a large print such as 19x13in and you have to interpolate. sure it works, but there won't be as much detail as there should be in large print. actually, if you think about it, 19x13 isn't even that big on a wall.

ReF
01-31-2005, 08:50 PM
Oh my, this is gonna get messy...

On one hand, we have the D-SLR vs. all-in-one debate and then Pentax discussion. As much as you guys are trying to reason things out as kindly as possible, I think it's best if we drop the discussion and let it sit as it is. It's going nowhere right now.

I agree, I'm done. hey Rex, you live in the SF area right? is there any time of the year when the weather is particularly clear? is it smoggy at all in the summer? been meaning to go and takes some pictures there, especially at Marin headlands. during the summer in the LA area you wouldn't even know there are mountains next to you if you didn't see it on a map.

jeisner
01-31-2005, 08:56 PM
are there any reliable reviews yet? not that i can find

No review is reliable IMHO, I prefer to make up my own mind. Besides they will appear in time, the ist DS is not as old as the 300d.


does pentax have a good rep so far? not really, now why is that?

According to who????


do you really hear many people raving about the ist? not really, maybe not yet, but so far, not really.

Head over to the pentax forum on dpreview!


is it fair to compare the rebel (which is meant to be a low cost alternative) to the 20d or 10d which is twice the cost? NO.

When I mentioned lack of features, I was comparing it to the ist dS and the D70 which are all the same price here in Australia, well the Pentax is slightly cheaper.


does the rebel take pics that are virtually identical to the 10d? yes.

I never said the rebel didn't have good picture quality I said that I couldn't live with the crippled feature set and would prefer not to use the hacked firmware, to get basic functions like mirror-lockup.


are there a lot of lens choices for the pentax? not compared to other companies.

There is plenty of high quality lens choice!


does the ability to use old, cheap, manual lenses really affect peoples' buying decisions? no.

Go over to the Pentax forums on dpreview and ask that question, and look at the prices of OLD pentax lenses consistantly rising on ebay since the ist came out, the answer is a definate YES.


geez, i was just putting in my two cents but someone here is really trying to make me look bad with: "I guess it all depends on the people you know!" and by telling me how much he hates the cameras i bought. alright, alright. i get it, you like your pentax, but i never said it sucked. i think the questions and answers above speak for themselves.

I didn't mean the "I guess it all depends on the people you know!" as an insult just that in different circles people have different opinions! simple as that! (I have heard a lot of good stuff about the Pentax and little regarding the Canon from people I know, some of them Canon users (10d/20d) I pointed that out as to highlight the're not anti Canon.)

I may have misread your intentions I read your line "you also would figure that word gets around pretty quickly if a product is really good - i haven't heard much about the pentax." as your way of saying that the Pentax is crap without having to back up your statements with facts, I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention...

Rex914
01-31-2005, 09:03 PM
I agree, I'm done. hey Rex, you live in the SF area right? is there any time of the year when the weather is particularly clear? is it smoggy at all in the summer? been meaning to go and takes some pictures there, especially at Marin headlands. during the summer in the LA area you wouldn't even know there are mountains next to you if you didn't see it on a map.

This area is notorious (in a good way) for having some of the nicest weather anywhere in the world, or at least in the US. Apart from the weird storm system that hit us a few weeks ago, we've seen very little bad weather. In fact, that was really the first bit of rain I've seen around here in a year or two. :P

Rhys
02-01-2005, 07:38 AM
Rhys, i completely see your point. lenses cost as much as or more than most all-in-ones and there's no guarantee that they won't be obsolete in the next 7 years or less! when i started to use my first d-slr i realized just how good of a deal all-in-ones really are. still, i was frustrated by many of their limitations. first and foremost is the noise levels on all-in-ones (i even noticed it on my 4mp a80 at ISO 50, and so does my girlfriend who isn't a "pixel inspector!"). the fact that higher resolution = more noise really pushed me into a d-slr. another problem is that your choices are limited to a combination of lens-and-camera. for example, i like the body and resolution of the G6 (i like details and prints that are large enough to hang) but didn't like the lens range, i liked the lens range and IS of the Z20 but didn't like the noise and resolution, and i liked the Oly 8080's wide angle but it lacked decent telephoto and was really over priced. well that's three different cameras i would have to buy and carry around if i wanted all the features and they probably aren't coming out with one cam that had it all any time soon. so i spent the money on a d-slr and bought the lenses to cover my needs, plus i get better noise-free pictures and sharper lenses to boot! the lenses should also last me for the next 2 camera bodies i get. still, getting back to the other point, an all-in-one gives you a lot for the money, at a fraction of the cost for a clunky d-slr set-up that not everyone needs. i really feel like it's worth it for me though; the way i peronally see it, you are fortunate enough to have a camera with you when something spectacular is happening in front (or above) you. you want to take as good a shot as you can while you have the chance. it's also frustrating when someone asks you do to a large print such as 19x13in and you have to interpolate. sure it works, but there won't be as much detail as there should be in large print. actually, if you think about it, 19x13 isn't even that big on a wall.


Sure. I can see the argument for larger print sizes. My own feeling is that since most people have printers that print to a maximum of 8.5 x 11 or A4, that larger sizes are largely redundant. Besides, how many 8.5 x 11 prints can you hang on a wall anyway? By my calculation 19 x 13 is 2850 pixels by 1950 pixels which equals 5.6 megapixels. Interestingly, there's a Nikon all-in-one with an 8x zoom. I'm not sure of the model number but I believe that has 5 megapixels. The 8x zoom will reach from 35 to 280., which if you think about it, is pretty much the range most photographers use anyway. After about 300mm lenses in general tend to get very bulky and extremely expensive.

I'll agree that the all-in-ones do have limitations. That's partly why I ended up with several all-in-ones. I standardised on 3 megapixels also on the basis that 8.5 x 11 was a pretty decent size and that on the rare occasions I'd want more that I could always resort to film.

If, however, I was selling my images professionally then that would put a completely different aspect on things.

jeisner
02-01-2005, 02:02 PM
The 8x zoom will reach from 35 to 280., which if you think about it, is pretty much the range most photographers use anyway. After about 300mm lenses in general tend to get very bulky and extremely expensive.

Agreed regarding > 300, it would be nice though if more all-in-ones offered a little wider than 35 (maybe 28), with my previous all-in-ones (DX6490 and FZ20) I found myself buying a wide angle attachment, which was bulky, not particularily cheap, and didn't give fantastic results either, but not too bad.

ReF
02-01-2005, 03:35 PM
No review is reliable IMHO, I prefer to make up my own mind. Besides they will appear in time, the ist DS is not as old as the 300d.



According to who????



Head over to the pentax forum on dpreview!



When I mentioned lack of features, I was comparing it to the ist dS and the D70 which are all the same price here in Australia, well the Pentax is slightly cheaper.



I never said the rebel didn't have good picture quality I said that I couldn't live with the crippled feature set and would prefer not to use the hacked firmware, to get basic functions like mirror-lockup.



There is plenty of high quality lens choice!



Go over to the Pentax forums on dpreview and ask that question, and look at the prices of OLD pentax lenses consistantly rising on ebay since the ist came out, the answer is a definate YES.



I didn't mean the "I guess it all depends on the people you know!" as an insult just that in different circles people have different opinions! simple as that! (I have heard a lot of good stuff about the Pentax and little regarding the Canon from people I know, some of them Canon users (10d/20d) I pointed that out as to highlight the're not anti Canon.)

I may have misread your intentions I read your line "you also would figure that word gets around pretty quickly if a product is really good - i haven't heard much about the pentax." as your way of saying that the Pentax is crap without having to back up your statements with facts, I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention...

i said i was done and i mean it. we could easily go back and forth with valid arguments but that would really be a waste of time AND we'd probably make ourselves look bad at the same time. i see some of your points and i hope you see some of mine. now lets all hug and kiss and make up :p

Rhys
02-01-2005, 03:37 PM
Agreed regarding > 300, it would be nice though if more all-in-ones offered a little wider than 35 (maybe 28), with my previous all-in-ones (DX6490 and FZ20) I found myself buying a wide angle attachment, which was bulky, not particularily cheap, and didn't give fantastic results either, but not too bad.

The problem with lenses such as you describe is exemplified by the FZ-10 - it has a massive chunk of glass just to get that range from 28 - 400 in.

I'd like 24mm but don't want to carry more glass than the FZ-10. If the glass isn't big, you get more distortion at each end.

I say either go DSLR for ultra-wide or stick with all-in-one and stitch.

jeisner
02-01-2005, 05:30 PM
The problem with lenses such as you describe is exemplified by the FZ-10 - it has a massive chunk of glass just to get that range from 28 - 400 in.

It is actually 35 - 420mm, thats the problem I wouldn't have bought a wide angle lens attachment for my fz20 if it was 28... Actually what would be nice (for me) as I have a DSLR already I would like a compact (fz3 size, 3mp is fine) just as a small carry cam when I can't take DSLR for some reason, that is 28-300, I never really kept any of the photos from the FZ20 that I shot above 300mm anyway, maybe they will release a wider version at some point, I believe some of their competition has!

wy2lam
02-12-2005, 07:35 AM
where do i start...
did i say pentax ist was no good? NO
are there any reliable reviews yet? not that i can find

Now there are: Look at megapixel.net for an ist DS review. Read megazines. Popular Photography. Amatuer Photographer.



does pentax have a good rep so far? not really, now why is that?

Pentax does not have a good rep in North America only. The rest of the world still regard Pentax as among the big 5: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus.

And why is that? The amount of Advertising money spent. Open any North America photography magazine and get bombarded with Canon and Nikon ads. Fact remains that, even if you make products similarly good, if you don't get the word out, people will buy what they see on ads. It gives those companies more ad $ to spend. It spirals downwards from there...

Canon has $$ to spend, since it has diversified into a conglomerate long time ago. Nikon too with its eyeglasses business and medical equipments. Pentax has profitable side business too, in fact (medical opticals, security), and although they're financially small, they make reputable products in those areas as well.

It also has the reputation of making some of the optically best primes around, rivelling or exceeding Canon L lenses. It also is an innovator in a lot of crucial photographic technologies. Google it, and read some links here.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml



do you really hear many people raving about the ist? not really, maybe not yet, but so far, not really.

Lower Advertisement => Lower Market Share => Less people raving about it.
However, if you take a look at the percentage of people happy with their Pentax DS vs those happy with their 300D's, Pentax does at least as good.



is it fair to compare the rebel (which is meant to be a low cost alternative) to the 20d or 10d which is twice the cost? NO.
does the rebel take pics that are virtually identical to the 10d? yes.
are people who are used to cameras like the 10D and 20D (or other pro-grade film bodies) going to say the rebel is "uninspiring" to use? OF COURSE! they paid twice the cash for these cams for a reason.

Completely agree here. Note that, the ist DS is also priced similarly as the DRebel, takes pics with the same high quality as a 10D.



does the ability to use old, cheap, manual lenses really affect peoples' buying decisions? no.

Only for you, I guess. The lenses can be old, can be cheap, can be manual, but some of them are of very high optical qualities, and very usable on the Pentax due to its bigger, brighter pentaprism viewfinder. I manual focused on a DRebel and a DS, the difference is unbelievable.

How about this: compared to the DRebel, the Pentax DS is better built, uses AA batteries with similar battery life, uses faster and sturdier SD cards, Mirror Lockup, Flash Exposure Compensation, shorter startup time, pentaprism viewfinder, a higher continuous shooting rate, interchangeable focusing screens, and 18 Custom fuctions.

Can they really affect people's buying decision? Yes.
Can they really affect people's buying decision if you suck at advertising? No.

Hope it answers your questions.



geez, i was just putting in my two cents but someone here is really trying to make me look bad with: "I guess it all depends on the people you know!" and by telling me how much he hates the cameras i bought. alright, alright. i get it, you like your pentax, but i never said it sucked. i think the questions and answers above speak for themselves.

You make yourself look bad. Read your own posts and compare the politeness with the rest of the forum.

I rest my case.

D70FAN
02-12-2005, 08:39 AM
Y'know folks, it would be nice if you were all speaking from experience with all of the cameras you criticize.

Picking up a dSLR in the camera store and shooting 10 frames does not tell the story. While it is true that several cameras on the market may be overpriced (i.e. the KM 7D), that does not make them bad per-se. Just overpriced. Pentax made this boo-boo on their original *ist D

The *ist DS is a nice camera, I spent a couple of days shooting with one and it looks like Pentax learned from their original mistake with the *ist D. I really like what they have done with the *ist DS, and dropping it into the $999 (from $1499) market worked as well.

Bottom line is:

If you are fortunate enough to own a dSLR, and a couple of decent lenses, then who cares who made it? I'm hoping we can stop criticizing cameras and start helping people (including me) be better photographers.

Jredtugboat
02-12-2005, 09:51 AM
Bottom line is:

If you are fortunate enough to own a dSLR, and a couple of decent lenses, then who cares who made it? I'm hoping we can stop criticizing cameras and start helping people (including me) be better photographers.

Ugh, me too! This was a little too much like my Usenet days for me...don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we all come from different experiences and backgrounds, but we should be a little more patient with each other (and each others' cameras!). Not that I'm some sort of paragon of virtue in this regard, but that's my US$0.02.

In the end, it's your eye and art that counts. The camera is just a vehicle for it, and they're all just boxes with holes cut into them in the end. (I have a friend who does photo assistant work. When he hears me wax excitedly about the bells and whistles of the D70 or EOS 20D, he says, "You know, Julian, both of those cameras take pictures, too.")

So there you go.

Rhys
02-12-2005, 10:44 AM
Ugh, me too! This was a little too much like my Usenet days for me...don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we all come from different experiences and backgrounds, but we should be a little more patient with each other (and each others' cameras!). Not that I'm some sort of paragon of virtue in this regard, but that's my US$0.02.

In the end, it's your eye and art that counts. The camera is just a vehicle for it, and they're all just boxes with holes cut into them in the end. (I have a friend who does photo assistant work. When he hears me wax excitedly about the bells and whistles of the D70 or EOS 20D, he says, "You know, Julian, both of those cameras take pictures, too.")

So there you go.

That reminds me very much of an article I once read in Amateur Photographer about some guy who had just opened an exhibition of his work. He was complaining that some equipment geek had looked at his work and been far more interested in critiscicing his equipment than in admiring or critiscising the work.

I have an absolutely beautiful portrait that I took of one of my former girlfriends. It's one of the best portraits I've ever done. So why's it so special? It was taken on a 110 camera with a plastic lens and the camera cost less than the film I put in it. The image is crisp, well exposed and the grain doesn't notice much. People all admire that photo and then tell me it's rubbish when they find out it's been done with a 1.99 camera from a pound shop. Is it perhaps that people confuse skill with equipment cost/kudos?

I find that people are very quick to pooh-pooh the 3 megapixel cameras because they're "only" 3 megapixels. How many people regularly make prints of greater than A4 and greater than A3? While I admit I have not printed to greater than A4, I would very much like to see an A3 print from a 3 megapixel camera. As I'd have to stand back to take it all in, I suspect that the reduction in visible image quality might not be that noticable. I feel that most of the megapixel lust felt by many here is probably down to manufacturers and advertisers trying to persuade people to hop onto the continual upgrade bandwaggon. Of course, many will be sucker enough to do that. For me, I say that 3 megapixels is all I need. More megapixels just doesn't appeal to me enough to make me want to part with more cash than i've spent already. Thus, any replacement equipment will be just that - a replacement if something breaks.

ReF
02-13-2005, 12:25 AM
Now there are: Look at megapixel.net for an ist DS review. Read megazines. Popular Photography. Amatuer Photographer.


Pentax does not have a good rep in North America only. The rest of the world still regard Pentax as among the big 5: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus.

And why is that? The amount of Advertising money spent. Open any North America photography magazine and get bombarded with Canon and Nikon ads. Fact remains that, even if you make products similarly good, if you don't get the word out, people will buy what they see on ads. It gives those companies more ad $ to spend. It spirals downwards from there...

Canon has $$ to spend, since it has diversified into a conglomerate long time ago. Nikon too with its eyeglasses business and medical equipments. Pentax has profitable side business too, in fact (medical opticals, security), and although they're financially small, they make reputable products in those areas as well.

It also has the reputation of making some of the optically best primes around, rivelling or exceeding Canon L lenses. It also is an innovator in a lot of crucial photographic technologies. Google it, and read some links here.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml


Lower Advertisement => Lower Market Share => Less people raving about it.
However, if you take a look at the percentage of people happy with their Pentax DS vs those happy with their 300D's, Pentax does at least as good.


Completely agree here. Note that, the ist DS is also priced similarly as the DRebel, takes pics with the same high quality as a 10D.


Only for you, I guess. The lenses can be old, can be cheap, can be manual, but some of them are of very high optical qualities, and very usable on the Pentax due to its bigger, brighter pentaprism viewfinder. I manual focused on a DRebel and a DS, the difference is unbelievable.

How about this: compared to the DRebel, the Pentax DS is better built, uses AA batteries with similar battery life, uses faster and sturdier SD cards, Mirror Lockup, Flash Exposure Compensation, shorter startup time, pentaprism viewfinder, a higher continuous shooting rate, interchangeable focusing screens, and 18 Custom fuctions.

Can they really affect people's buying decision? Yes.
Can they really affect people's buying decision if you suck at advertising? No.

Hope it answers your questions.



You make yourself look bad. Read your own posts and compare the politeness with the rest of the forum.

I rest my case.

Ugh, give it a rest already. i think jeisner and i have both hung up our towels about this so i'm not sure what you are getting at with additional blah blah blah. if you like pentax, good for you. if you don't like the rebel, well okay. if you don't like me or what i have to say, well that's okay too, but please give it a rest with all the arguing. it's all a matter of opinion and preference. someone had a question, and i gave my opinion, that's all. i had no intentions of starting an argument or offending anyone so i quickly ended it when i saw that it was turning into an argument that was going nowhere.

"You make yourself look bad. Read your own posts and compare the politeness with the rest of the forum."
it's kind of weird when a rude person complains about how rude someone else is, don't you think? :rolleyes:
i think i sound rude sometimes because i'm just trying to get to the point without wasting a lot of time thinking of how i should sugar-coat something. hey, i'm not writing an article here. besides, i think i've given some halfway decent advice to a few people and i'd rather spend my time doing that than trying to come up with new ways of how to make something sound nice. BTW, i know someone is gonna say "well maybe your vocabulary is just too limited" so i'm gonna say that i've been at the top 10% in my writing classes from high school through college and tested to within the top 10% in the state of CA in the same subjects so i'm quite capable of sugar-coating something if i find it neccessary. i've even got this dumb award in a box somewhere for making some lame cr@p sound great in words.

now let's all quit making childish post (yes, i'll admit that participating in an argument was quite childish) and get back to doing something more worthwhile like taking pictures. ;)

jeisner
02-13-2005, 04:47 AM
Anyway, I checked out the luminous Lanscape articles. I liked this one http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml unfortunately I can't afford these little wonders at this point :-(

gary_hendricks
02-13-2005, 07:00 AM
I I read the thread with Ant. I was also planning to get the panasonic FZ20 but now considering a dslr. My family thinks I should get the Canon Rebel- I have a film rebel. My brother had the D-20 which I used last weekend. After doing a lot of reading on this site as well as others I am leaning toward the Pentax ist DS. I like the size and I have a few aa chargers as well and batteries from my old Sony P-52. I'm concerned from my reading that the shot to shot delay with the Pentax ,when using a flash could take up to 4.2. Does it actually take that long? Any other pros or cons on the Canon or Pentax would be very helpful.

If you have a film rebel, then you probably should get the Digital Rebel too since they share similar lenses

D70FAN
02-13-2005, 07:16 AM
Anyway, I checked out the luminous Lanscape articles. I liked this one http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml unfortunately I can't afford these little wonders at this point :-(

But...If you read the bottom line, the difference between the Pentax/Leica primo lenses and the Canon/Nikon lenses on digital cameras is very slight.

So don't pine over that which you probably don't need. ;)

jeisner
02-13-2005, 01:05 PM
So don't pine over that which you probably don't need. ;)

We all need something to pine over ;-) lol

D70FAN
02-13-2005, 02:59 PM
We all need something to pine over ;-) lol

Thanks for not saying we all need something to pine fir. ;)

gary_hendricks
02-17-2005, 06:35 AM
I I read the thread with Ant. I was also planning to get the panasonic FZ20 but now considering a dslr. My family thinks I should get the Canon Rebel- I have a film rebel. My brother had the D-20 which I used last weekend. After doing a lot of reading on this site as well as others I am leaning toward the Pentax ist DS. I like the size and I have a few aa chargers as well and batteries from my old Sony P-52. I'm concerned from my reading that the shot to shot delay with the Pentax ,when using a flash could take up to 4.2. Does it actually take that long? Any other pros or cons on the Canon or Pentax would be very helpful.

I suggest you get the digital and keep the film version as a backup.

D70FAN
02-17-2005, 08:53 AM
I suggest you get the digital and keep the film version as a backup.

With the introduction of the DReb XT (ala 350D) it's a moot point.

HardShot
03-07-2005, 06:48 PM
This is the exact information I needed. Thanks for posting the thread. I searched for reviews of these two, the Pentax doesn't get many reviews. More sample pictures the better :) Looks like more people like the Rebel but the Pentax offers more lense options. And I just bought some lenses for my SLR. Oh, found this review (http://www.mobiletechreview.com/camera/Pentax_ist_DS_SLR.htm) today. There are some sample pix if anyone wants to seem them. Has anyone printed photos taken by these two and how is the quality of the prints?

speaklightly
03-13-2005, 05:56 PM
Hey, when you consider that the Pentax 1stDS price is falling like a rock, take a page from Rhys's book and just wait a bit. It may get as low or lower than the Olympus E-Volt 300. At that price it would be a GREAT Buy.

The Pentax 1stDS is not a dSLR to be discounted. Yes, it is not as good as the Canon EOS 20D at high ISO settings, but it is indeed a very capable dSLR camera.

Sarah Joyce

eagle17
03-15-2005, 07:36 AM
Both of the pentax and the canon camera's now sell for under $700 delivered. that being said they both have great lenses the pentax has a few extra features, I do not know how fast the pentax AF is or how well it meters both of these I am sure are FAR better than P&S cameras. Point and shoot digital cameras have no where near the same af speed or metering quality as Point and shoot Film cameras do. I would attribute this to need to save battery life and the VERY small sensor size. I have found that shooting with a point and shoot to be nearly useless in many lighting conditions and will never go back to it.

that being said there is a steep cost going to DSLR and if you do not know how to compose and shoot in the more difficult lighting conditions than you will not be able to use the functions that the dslr gives you to overcome these conditions.

speaklightly
03-15-2005, 08:01 AM
Eagle17-

Your evaluation of dSLR's, in general, versus point and shoot digital cameras is quite accurate. However, please keep in mind that we also learn by doing. The experience/learning process cannot be discounted.

I recall when I moved from point and shoot to a dSLR. Yes, I had to learn a lot and I had to get comfortable with the better dSLR features. In that process I both learned a lot and become a better photographer.

I value the fact that I personally moved ahead a notch or so. It even made me more capable of getting more out of point and shoot digital cameras than before. Bottomline, I became a better photographer.

Sarah Joyce

Rhys
03-16-2005, 06:02 AM
I suggest you get the digital and keep the film version as a backup.

I was musing over the worth of film cameras. I'm not so sure now that film cameras are really worth having - even as backups due to the fact that 90% of them seem to be of the electronic variety. Sure, cameras like the Nikon FM, FM2, Leica M series etc are worth keeping. Electronic stuff like the EOS, F4, F5 etc aren't. I base that on the reason why somebody would want a film backup camera which would be because there was no available battery power or power available from other sources. IE film + a manual, mechanical camera would enable you still to take photos when nothing electronic would. The big bonus of mechanical cameras is that they'll still work - even after an EMP.

But aside from those situation, film is largely redundant. I'd say that film is now a specialist medium. I'd also say that Olympus has probably got it right with its E1 and E300.

D70FAN
03-16-2005, 10:01 AM
The big bonus of mechanical cameras is that they'll still work - even after an EMP.

But aside from those situation, film is largely redundant. I'd say that film is now a specialist medium. I'd also say that Olympus has probably got it right with its E1 and E300.

Depending on the source of an EMP with the strength to wipe out camera electronics, (like a nuke) wheather the camera works or not, might be a moot point. The film (and the photographer) might not be very servicable either. ;)

eagle17
03-16-2005, 07:43 PM
Sarah, Thanks for the reply . I did not mean to imply that someone could not learn to shoot with a dslr just that it is unrealistic to believe that having a dslr will provide a better shot by default.

also on the subject of emp, a pulse large enough to wipe out electronics would in fact also provide enough gamma and X ray's to destroy any unprocessed film or film paper also.

unless you keep your equipment in a lead lined room 2 storises under limestone.