advertisement


Entry-Level digital SLR

David HM said:
If so, the K200D has come down so much in price, that it's nearly the same cost as a K-m and may be a bargain. So if I went for a Pentax -which should I go for. Does the K-m improve in areas on the K200D?
Click to expand...

If size and weight aren't of principal importance to you then I'd suggest the K200D over the K-m. I've owned the K200D and currently have a K-m. Aside from size I prefer the K200D. I ended up with a K-m because size is the primary factor for me and at the end of the day I can get the same photo out of the K-m as the K200D. It's just that the K200D is nicer to use to get said photo.
 
andc,

Well the reduced size and weight would be certainly be nice, but what does the K200D have that the K-m doesn't? Are the issues mentioned above that serious?

Cheers
David
 
Just tried the K200D - it's certainly feels a chunky build - looking like the one I'll go for.

Can anyone comment on the Canon lens, and the likely comparitive cost of lenses in the future?
 
vuk said:
alex.

keep in mind that, of the big 4, nikon make the worst lenses. i'm not sure what pentax are making at the entry level these days, but it would probably be a sensible option.

vuk.
Click to expand...

On what premis is this made? Nikon have some of the cleanest lenses available, this is why the majority of professionals use Nikon apart from the preference for the body.

Nikon is an excellent brand and the recommendation made about the D40 is an excellent choice. The digital purpose design lens to go with this camera is sufficient for the requirement. best wishes
 
flatpopely said:
Nikon D40. Great body and as funds allow will grow with better lenses.
Click to expand...

Agree with this having used one, a camera that we also found excellent to use without the need to change lenses was the Fuji S7000, we have a couple that we still use, these have moved on since then to the S9000 and probably beyond. They are lightweight 12MP and fit into small bags, quick to set up and use. They are AA battery powered, we use 2400's and they last months without recharge.

They are a fixed zoom lens camera which allows simple zoom telephoto or wide angle at the push of a button.

But the Nikon D40 is a good recommendation. Also take note of the advised dpreview website. This site previews all such cameras and has a database of past reviews and recommendations.

Would not worry too much about the older analogue lenses not being used on digital, they were not designed too anyway and lead to some minor aberration in the image (Schnieder lens website). best wishes.
 
David HM said:
Secondly on the Canon - this was probably my preferred option in terms of handling. Again, I hear very conflicting reports on the quality of the kit lens. Is it OK to live with as given this is right at the top of the budget, I won't have any money to spend on accessories for a while.
Cheers
David
Click to expand...

As it happens, I have a s/h 350D with an earlier 'film' lens (38-76 or thereabouts) which is not anywhere near as bad as claimed. As with audio, the journalists and often the punters will over-exaggerate the differences between bits of kit. We all know deep down that some of the greatest photos in history were taken with kit we wouldn't spit on. Very few major manufacturers IMHO would deliberately put seriously crap kit into the marketplace.

Secondly. I am always making the mistake of saying 'There's no way I'll be able to upgrade'. Since I scraped up the £150 for the camera and a couple of basic Canon lenses, I have also purchased the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II prime, which every Canon owner should have, for about £70. A recent 'significant birthday' has brought me enough cash for a Sigma 70-300. I'm only a lens or two short of 'enough', yet a couple of months ago I was struggling to even contemplate buying a DSLR.

Go with your heart and the rest will follow.

Mull
 
Thanks for all the help - I ended up going into Comet again and playing round a bit more with the Sony, Canon and Pentax- I've come to the conclusion that you can't really go badly wrong with any of the options, but came away with the K200D.

David
 
Hi Pinkfishcake

Vuk has a preference for Leica glass, and uses a small Pentax DSLR. I agree that some Nikon glass is well below par - for example the current 24-120 zoom combines both Barrel and Pincushion distortion.

Where Nikon wins is at the Professional price end of the market, where the 14-24 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 lenses are (IMO) the best you can get for the range covered.

Luckily if you're fussy about glass, you can get high quality Zeiss lenses for Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Canon. However there isn't that much to choose between a £850 Zeiss and a £200 Nikon 35mm lens on a DX body if all you do is post 800mm wide on the internet.

David HM,

That is probably a good choice, based on what you have posted here. Enjoy, and please post some results on the PAW thread,

cheers
Cliff
 
andc said:
finally, back on topic: Alex, if your alternative is a P&S/bridge camera then I think *any* SLR is going to be nice enough that you're going to want to pinch it off her. Worth considering size as I think the Alpha 200 is a fair bit bigger than a D40.
Click to expand...


I don't know if this is still relevant....I use a Nikon 5700 (p+s)...

Yes I know this model is now totally out of date but it gives shows p+s's can give nice pics (and I've always liked the colours it produces.)

-ves points....

Its way over complicated for what it is.
Low light shooting is a (complete) joke.

+ve points

Generally nice pics...nice colouring.
Tough, its survived two drops.



(I'd still like a pop at a dslr though!)
 
Hi Cliffpatte,

Luckily most of the work is on medium format digital with Carl Zeiss and Schnieder lenses regardless where it ends up. Fuji S7000 for holiday snaps.

thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top