pentax *ist DS vs. canon EOS 300D?

[tadah]

i'm trying to decide between these two... i would just buy the body & a seperate lens, and i'd like to spend under $900 or 1000.

pentax body is $560 @ buydig.com, and canon is $616. i'd buy a lens for good indoor low-light shooting... f1.4 or f2.0.

i'm drawn the pentax because it's smaller, and it uses SD cards (which my old camera used so i wouldn't have to completely switch), and can shoot 3200 iso. how good is it for indoor low-light photography (WITHOUT flash) compared to the canon?

i won't be doing a lot of printing, but if i did, it'd be 8x10 or lower. but i do want good image quality, i'm kinda picky over that

i also read that .jpg quality on the pentax is not so good compared to raw. any truth in this? i shoot jpg primarily.

anyway, any thoughts about the two cameras would be appreciated! i haven't seen a thread contrasting the two specficially yet...

[Rhys]

My wedding photographer used a Pentax istD and produced the most horridly coloured, out-of-focus rubbish I have ever seen. I say avoid Pentax.

[tadah]

i'd like to think that's the result of a poor photographer, not the camera.

i've seen plenty of good photos taken with the camera online.

[tadah]

oh damn... the buydig price for the pentax went up to $700.

[astro]

Originally Posted by tadah

i'd like to think that's the result of a poor photographer, not the camera.

i've seen plenty of good photos taken with the camera online.

I concur.
All the budget dSLR cameras have similar performance. What makes the pictures good are the lenses and the photographer.

Pentax makes some of the best lenses ever made, many even besting leica's offerings.

Their 50mm F/1.4 is second to none according to luminous landscapes.

Their limited lenses are even better.

And you can get their SMC Takumar lenses for next to nothing on ebay. A 50mm F/1.4 SMC Takumar costs around $60 on ebay. Mike Johnston on luminous landscapes says that an engineer at a Japanese camera company told him that if that lens was sold today, it would cost around $1200-1500.

The 50/1.4 will give you the best results in low light settings as it is fast. It also won't cost you an arm and a leg.

Canon's good lenses on the other hand, will cost you an arm and a leg.

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/35mm/ist-ds/ex.html
here are a few sample pics from the manufacturer.

[Rex914]

Depends on what your long term plans are. If this is a one time thing, the Pentax is the better choice, but if you plan on investing more money into lenses and accessories in the future, the Canon is by far the better choice. Pentax does have a large lens lineup, but the lenses look quite plasticky and cheap on their own website (I can't say about optical quality, but build quality isn't looking great), and I've only seen them sold online, never in stores (apart from the few newer digital lenses).

50mm f/1.4 (I'm sure this takes good shots, but it screams Canon f/1.8 to me)



85 f/1.4 (Premium lens?)

[eastbluffs]

Originally Posted by tadah

i'm drawn the pentax because it's smaller, and it uses SD cards (which my old camera used so i wouldn't have to completely switch), and can shoot 3200 iso. how good is it for indoor low-light photography (WITHOUT flash) compared to the canon?

As I understand it, the "ISO equivalace" matches what film speed / apature would be compared with a film camera of that ISO, given identical lenses.

However; higher ISO has more noise, and the amount of noise varies between cameras given the same ISO. For example; the newer round of Canon entry level DSLRs has much lower noise at high ISO.

Also; some cameras do poorly with AE, color balance, Auto Focusing, etc in low light. Here again, the newer Canons have better low-light accuracy and speed (at setting AE AF). Shooting in RAW is a huge help here because you can adjust later.

I suppose you know that the Canon 300 is a prior generation.

I don't know about comparing the Pentax to Canon's obsolete DSLR, but would really like to hear about its successor compared with the Pentax.