Convince me the K100D Super is not worth it?

I'd go with the K100D if super-size prints are not required. Lighter, smaller, meters well with the older lenses, possibly better high ISO (though accurate exposure seems to bring out superb JPEGs in the K10D - see pnet discussions). BUT, vf is pentamirror not pnetaprism - though still much better than anything in its price range and build quality not up to the K10D, but again probably better than the Canon and Nikon offerings.

The K10D is weather sealed, semi-pro, better system (battery grip, vf screens etc).

SR is very good on both cameras.

You pays your money and takes your choice. BTW Nice to see a Pentax being considered seriously.
 
ampguy said:
Note that certain cameras are nuggets, and the replacements just aren't the same, like the old Fuji F30, and F31fd are now hard to get and the replacements are crap.
Click to expand...
The F50 is actually a pretty decent camera in itself. You get lots more pixels in good light, which can be useful, and the same performance as the old one in bad light if you can live with downscaling your pictures to the pixel count of the F30. For that, however, the camera is smaller, has an image stabilizer and has an SD slot; if you've ever tried getting an xD card in Tashkent you'd know how much this is worth. The only real disadvantage is battery life; however a second battery costs $5 or less and you should never take only one battery anyway. Plus, the fact that the F30 series is overhyped means that you can actually get some pretty decent deals on the F50.

Philipp
 
ampguy said:
Can you elaborate more on the K100D Super having better low light perf. than the K10D? This might make me jump right away for it, I'd be very pleased if it was just as good as my old DL's performance.

I shoot JPG only. I like to get the white balance right the first time and shoot green, saving server cpu cycles, and saving the planet for another day. :cool:
Click to expand...

I think this has sort of been said already but anyway, the K100D has larger photosites on its sensor (fewer per unit area) and hence has a better signal to noise ratio than the K10D, as do all the 6MP Pentax DSLRs. It's possible that the AF on the K10D may be better (not sure, no experience) but in terms of noise any of the 6MP models will win.

When it comes to white balance I think Pentax is fairly typical, though they may be more biased to oranges and reds. You'll find that in artificial lighting (especially tungsten), the results are too red and a custom WB is better.

Matthew
 
I love my pentax K10d, but the meter is very finicky, but once I got used to it, I've been getting great shots. I handled a k100, and the smaller view finder, lack of a second control dial and verticle grip knocked it to me.
 
Depressing review tends to be very anti Pentax (or maybe just pro-Canon).
For me the biggest difference is the finder. The difference with a Pentaprism instead of the smaller, duller Pentamirror is easily worth the extra.

As to 1600 versus 3200 ASA. it is just the meter, not performance as it is with film. Set the camera to 1600 ASA and use 1 stop on the exposure compesation and you get exactly the same effect. ;)

Kim
 
ChrisN said:
Enerloops retail at AUD$25 (about US$21.50) for a 4-pack. Another example of the size of the US market reducing cost to the consumer. I wonder what they sell for in Europe?
Click to expand...

The lowest I have seen is about $12 for a 4-pack (AA).
 
Hi Kim

Hi Kim

Perhaps you are correct on the prisms, however I've heard and read from several owners of both lines of the 6MP and 10MP Pentax families and the 10MP on the same sized sensor is just noisier at higher ISO's, which is why I think they just took 3200 out on the K10 from where it was completely usable on the 6MP same sensor size models (I have hundreds of great photos from the *ist DL at 3200).

What I find odd (along with the Nikon D40) is why they didn't put an ISO 100 in there. Even my Digicams have that, and my Lumix has one below 100 - 80.

So your ev comp will get the shot at the same exposure, I doubt the noise levels will be the same, maybe someone who owns (or owned) both a K100 and K10 can chime in?


Kim Coxon said:
Depressing review tends to be very anti Pentax (or maybe just pro-Canon).
For me the biggest difference is the finder. The difference with a Pentaprism instead of the smaller, duller Pentamirror is easily worth the extra.

As to 1600 versus 3200 ASA. it is just the meter, not performance as it is with film. Set the camera to 1600 ASA and use 1 stop on the exposure compesation and you get exactly the same effect. ;)

Kim
Click to expand...
 
I have both the D and the K10. I know which I would prefer to use even at 1600. The best thing would be to take an SD card along to a shop and shoot a couple of images at the same setting on both and make your own mind up. Even try my "fix" and see which you like. There is so much on the net and even published reviews which, whilst not inaccurate, is based on opinion rather than fact and in many cases highly coloured by preference. On deprssing review. Pentax always has a hard time but Canon is always wonderful. Many old Leica lenses with cleaning marks etc produce a "glow" for some whereas the same effect from a CV or Canon lens would be a lack of sharpness. :rolleyes: SR is not a "perfect" solution as it too introduces noise. However, it produces less noise than the equivalent increase in ISO but there is still a noticeable penalty. When you look at jpg output, noise reduction programs also need to be considered. It is relatively easy to increase the degree of noise reduction but this is at the expenses of image quality. (Better to shoot raw and decide on the amount of processing during conversion yourself).

I assume that you are interested in low light performance, ie high ISO, SR etc. In this case, focus is probably the more important issue. If your picture is out of focus, the noise levels etc become somewhat irrelevant. The brightness of the K10 finder over the Pentamirror designs is very significant as is the autofocus ability. If you can't focus properly, then the extra 1 stop with ISO 3200 won't make any difference and you are back to using an RF. Taken alone, the noise of the K100 may be slightly lower at high ISO's with jpg output. The camera is aimed at the average user rather than enthusiast. With the "kit" lens and viewed on a PC monitor or 6x4 print, the difference in quality may not be noticeable. However, put a 31 Ltd on both and enlarge to 10x8 and it is. The noise reduction can be increased in later processing put the quality can not be replaced.

Kim
 
I would like to point out that noise is not horrible at all in the k10d at high ISOs
Example at ISO 1600. Shot with the K10d with SR, 55mm SMC Takumar 1.8 Screwmount and 2x teleconveter.
attachment.php
 
Just got a K100D (not super) for my father in law so that he can use his M42 lenses....
After just a week it is worth it!
 
I have just seen a review of the K10D - likening it to a Nikon D 200 - at a D 80 price - not everyone has a Canon and Nikon fixation !

Seriously , I am considering K 10 D as an affordable DSLR to complement my Leica M 8 ... but I would love a Nikon D 300 ... One dream too far ?

dee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom