PDA

View Full Version : Can't decide between these DSLRs! Need some help :) Update! **I Ordered**


ilovepete
05-25-2011, 07:51 PM
OK so I am still considering a DSLR. I've been doing a ton of reading the last 2 days (and gotten some help from you guys!). I want a nice one, but I am a beginner. I don't know how to work them but I'm hoping to learn. My main concerns are shutter lag & fps, easy of use, and size/weight of camera. I know these cameras that I am considering can all take great photos so I'm not as worried about that, but of course photo quality is important to me. I have done all the number comparisons using a few websites (some I got here!). All of them are pretty similar in the numbers I'm seeing, though some are obvious above others in areas but I don't see 1 that just sticks out above the rest for me.

I seem to find pros and cons with all of these. I can see them all being good so what I would really like is some opinions on the best value on these. Which ones are the best value for their price tag given my main concerns and beginner level (though I do want to learn and grow)? For example is the jump in price worth the .3 increase in shutter lag and 2 extra fps, etc. (I know there are other differences as well).

These are the ones I am considering right now, feel free to give suggestions, too:

Canon EOS 60D
Canon EOS Rebel T3i (EOS 600D)
Canon EOS T2i (Rebel T2i, Canon 550D)
Nikon D5100
Nikon D7000
Sony Alpha DSLR-A580
Sony Alpha SLT-A55V

Also, if you saw my other thread, I have not completely ruled out the Lumix GF2 or similar like Sony Nex 5 but I'm trying to focus on a "real" DSLR right now and see what would be best for me. :)

photo_chick
05-25-2011, 08:09 PM
Shutter lag is not going to be noticeable with any of them. To me it's not even an issue to consider.

You're really nit picking the specs, which is good, but have you been to the store to play with them? You don't want to spend all this time agonizing over the decision then get the thing and find out it's just plain awkward to hold. The best value for you is going to be the camera that does what you want, fits your hands and is within your budget. And that won't be the same for everyone.

You might also want to give Pentax a look, too. They make great cameras for a great price as well.

Pea-n-Me
05-25-2011, 08:21 PM
Go with the one that feels most comfortable to you - to hold, to use, to carry.

Is there a reason you're not looking at the Olympus PENs?

ukcatfan
05-25-2011, 08:32 PM
You might also want to give Pentax a look, too. They make great cameras for a great price as well.

The models to look at are the K-x and K-r. You should notice that for the money, the Pentax and Sony models give you more in the specs. It is nothing against Canon or Nikon, but they have a business model to give a little less to encourage quicker upgrades.

ilovepete
05-25-2011, 08:39 PM
So with both of you saying go to the one that feels best, does that mean there isn't enough of a difference between these for a beginner to be stressing over it? What about in the future, will I regret choosing a lower priced model as opposed to one with more features that I don't think matter now but may in the future?

We are actually going to be physically looking at them tomorrow in store. I was just trying to get some ideas before doing that of ones to strike out or take a closer look at.

As for the Olympus I ruled it out for some reason but can't really recall what it was now. I think at that time I was only comparing the Lumix GF2 with it and I preferred the GF2 at the time, I think just from comparing the numbers and price, but honestly I can't recall the exact reason right now so I'd be willing to look at that one again. Same with the Pentax mentioned, I guess I just didn't hear as much about that brand so didn't even try to find one in the same range as the ones above, I will look into them as well.

It makes me feel better to know that I won't be able to tell the difference in the shutter lag numbers, etc. But if not, why is the price difference so great between all these? I realize they have different features but sometimes the price differences don't seem to reflect that, at least on paper. Maybe when actually using it, they do, but that's the part I need help with since I am not experienced at all. Also like I'm seeing the Sony AFF has a fps of 9.04 yet the T2i has one of 3.64. They are both roughly the same price, though?

And what about battery life? I never really considered it much until yesterday and now I am thinking that may be a major factor. The last thing I want is for the battery to give out on an all day outting, ya know? I guess there is always the back up. But again like there seems to be such a wide range on these and it doesn't really correlate with price necessarily.

Then I think well why don't I just get the "best" one on my list (for me I guess I'm meaning that would be the D7000 - but I know "best" can vary greatly from one person to the other). But do I need that much camera? Would I just confuse myself and not be able to use it correctly (being a beginner) and are there enough advantages in it to make it work the extra money, etc. I'm all questions right now! LOL

Thanks so much, I really appreciate the input! :)

ChiSoxKeith
05-25-2011, 08:40 PM
I agree with photo chic. It matters more how the camera feels in your hands. Which camera you are most comfortable carrying. Which camera's interface you "get"

ilovepete
05-25-2011, 08:41 PM
The models to look at are the K-x and K-r. You should notice that for the money, the Pentax and Sony models give you more in the specs. It is nothing against Canon or Nikon, but they have a business model to give a little less to encourage quicker upgrades.

Thank you. I am definitely noticing that in Sony at least, the money seems to go farther. I just never seem to see anyone with Sony so I guess I am just a little reluctant. But I've read a lot of info that they are really good so I am definitely considering them. In fact one of the top leaders for me right now is the A55 (the battery life is holding me back though! maybe the 580 would be the answer to that, I don't know). There is just a little voice in the back of my head that just keeps saying Nikon or Canon LOL I guess its just based on what I've seen/heard up until right now when I'm actually researching myself.

ChiSoxKeith
05-25-2011, 08:45 PM
Most of those cameras are going to have rechargeable batteries. You will want a second one.

I have one of the original canon DSLRs and I can fire off several hundred >300 on one battery charge. I know once I went to an air show and got north of 500 shots (no flash).

What kind of shooting do you want to do? My canon shoots about 3fps and while I can shoot sports (HS football and baseball) I cam definitely see the benefit of getting one with higher burst rates.

ilovepete
05-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Most of those cameras are going to have rechargeable batteries. You will want a second one.

I have one of the original canon DSLRs and I can fire off several hundred >300 on one battery charge. I know once I went to an air show and got north of 500 shots (no flash).

What kind of shooting do you want to do? My canon shoots about 3fps and while I can shoot sports (HS football and baseball) I cam definitely see the benefit of getting one with higher burst rates.

Running children is a big one. :) I was saying yesterday, mostly "soccer mom use" :rotfl2: but in the future I may want to do more (still just personal use, though). We also go to Disney several times a year with very long days there and I definitely want to be able to use it there. I do a lot of documenting for our homeschool (of course I can use a P&S for that but I would love to have the pictures be really nice. Some food shots (I'm not a foodie but share recipes and such with friends and family and just think it would be fun). We like to watch the shuttle launches as well so I would do that (but that is coming to an end, I know...). Vacations, too. But mostly REALLY active kids and pets who I am always missing shots of because they won't stand still. Or they cut their eyes after like 2 seconds of starring at the camera before I can get the shot of them actually looking at it. That is about it, for now. :)

And thank you about the battery info. If the back up is sort of a given that I'd need one anyway, then that isn't as much of a concern.

DISfan0829
05-25-2011, 09:06 PM
What is your price range?

Are you interested in a camera that can also do good video? If you are you should look more closely at SONY and Panasonic. They do the best jobs at stills/video because most of their models do not have mirrors.

ilovepete
05-25-2011, 09:12 PM
What is your price range?

Are you interested in a camera that can also do good video? If you are you should look more closely at SONY and Panasonic. They do the best jobs at stills/video because most of their models do not have mirrors.

To be honest I don't really have a budget. I'm open. But I want there to be good value in what I am getting, which is another reason Sony is really appealing to me (seems you get more for the price, but that may just be my perception). I guess if I had to give a number I'd prefer it to be under $1,200 with a decent lens included in that number, but I'd want one heck of a camera for that. I am frugal at heart. :) I don't mind paying for quality but I want something really good in return.

I am interested in video. I don't do much with it other than short clips to document the kids, but I do want it to be video capable for sure. I'd like to be able to zoom while shooting video and to be able to shoot video in low light but other than that I'm not too picky on the video. I guess HD would be nice.

DISfan0829
05-25-2011, 09:19 PM
I have had Nikons, 4 different Canon DSLR's and also have some Kodak point and shoots. I recently purchased my first Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ100. It is their top end point and shoot.

If I were buying a new camera today I would get the Panasonic Lumix GH2. It is a mirror-less camera with interchangeable lenses with Leica optics. It is probably the best video/stills combo camera out there today.

Canon and Nikon still have mirrors and that detracts from their video capabilities.

Check out dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/) They have very good reviews of various cameras.

Pea-n-Me
05-25-2011, 09:20 PM
There is just a little voice in the back of my head that just keeps saying Nikon or Canon LOL I guess its just based on what I've seen/heard up until right now when I'm actually researching myself.
And if that's going to bother you, then it is something you should take into consideration, because you will hear it a lot.

So with both of you saying go to the one that feels best, does that mean there isn't enough of a difference between these for a beginner to be stressing over it?
Well, I'm an Olympus dSLR user so that ought to tell you something. And BTW, a PEN is on my Wish List. With an adaptor, I'll be able to use all of my Olympus lenses on the PEN and they will all auto focus. I can stick the PEN in my purse for the times I don't want to carry my large gear bag. Both my E30 and the EPL2 have the same 4/3 sensor. They fit my needs just fine and I am happy with the quality of my images. I don't get too hung up on specs.

What about in the future, will I regret choosing a lower priced model as opposed to one with more features that I don't think matter now but may in the future?
Only you can decide what your habits will be. But if you go too advanced too soon, you're not likely to enjoy using the camera OR be satisfied with your images. Camera bodies come and go, but lenses are forever is the general thought. Pick something that feels good to use and that you enjoy using, to start. You can always upgrade later. Digital technology is moving along pretty quickly anyway. They're now talking about a hybrid type camera which will be a cross between a dSLR and a mirrorless. So who knows what we'll be buying a few years from now.

I'd suggest asking yourself what your real goal is (again, as I know you have been doing that!). Do you want to learn to use a dSLR? Or do you just want to get good images the easiest way possible? If it's the former, then pick out a dSLR from the ones you listed - they'll all be good. If it's the latter, then try the mirrorless. You can always add a dSLR if you really get into it. The Sony might make sense for that. Whatever you decide to buy, learning some basic principles of photography (exposure) and the ins and outs of the camera will help you get the images you want. You just have to put your time in either way (and it sounds like you're willing to do that!).

Disneylove1228
05-25-2011, 09:50 PM
I got the canon t1i.... i know that it isn't on your list, but the updated version is... I LOVE my camera!!! :) it is amazing and does everything i want it to do! Take GREAT pics! Investing in some new glass soon! Can't wait :)

ukcatfan
05-25-2011, 10:10 PM
Thank you. I am definitely noticing that in Sony at least, the money seems to go farther. I just never seem to see anyone with Sony so I guess I am just a little reluctant. But I've read a lot of info that they are really good so I am definitely considering them. In fact one of the top leaders for me right now is the A55 (the battery life is holding me back though! maybe the 580 would be the answer to that, I don't know). There is just a little voice in the back of my head that just keeps saying Nikon or Canon LOL I guess its just based on what I've seen/heard up until right now when I'm actually researching myself.

There are plenty of people with both Pentax and Sony. There are just more people with Nikon and Canon. They both hit the marketing machine really hard in the early days of digital and have built a lot of volume due to it. Sony is well, Sony. They are a huge company. Their DSLRs are actually the new versions of Minolta, a SLR camera company with much history and many used lenses in the market. Sony bought them and actually improved upon them. Sony would actually like to try to give C&N a run for their money and they very well could do it.

Pentax has been in the photography business for nearly a century and were much more popular in the film days. They do not try to compete in the volume sales area. They are happy to make their cameras the way they want, pretty much sell all of their stock, and make a healthy profit.

One interesting thing about the Pentax K-r is that it has an adapter available so that you can use AA batteries or the included battery. The K-x just takes AAs. That is the model I have, but I would suggest going up to the K-r since it still fits very well into your budget.

ilovepete
05-25-2011, 10:14 PM
There are plenty of people with both Pentax and Sony. There are just more people with Nikon and Canon. They both hit the marketing machine really hard in the early days of digital and have built a lot of volume due to it. Sony is well, Sony. They are a huge company. Their DSLRs are actually the new versions of Minolta, a SLR camera company with much history and many used lenses in the market. Sony bought them and actually improved upon them. Sony would actually like to try to give C&N a run for their money and they very well could do it.

Pentax has been in the photography business for nearly a century and were much more popular in the film days. They do not try to compete in the volume sales area. They are happy to make their cameras the way they want, pretty much sell all of their stock, and make a healthy profit.

One interesting thing about the Pentax K-r is that it has an adapter available so that you can use AA batteries or the included battery. The K-x just takes AAs. That is the model I have, but I would suggest going up to the K-r since it still fits very well into your budget.
Makes sense, thank you! I already added them to the comparison I have going! :)

photo_chick
05-25-2011, 10:32 PM
On upgrading in the future... here's my take. You can't outgrow a DSLR. As long as you have full control over shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focal length and focus there is nothing to outgrow. Sure, you can want more bells and whistles and technology will advance, but that should not stop you from getting the shot. There are ways to work around many situations and make the equipment work for you.

On the burst rate... I shot football with a Rebel XT that does 2.8 frames per second. It was totally workable for me. Yes, I had to work within the confines of the camera, but I never felt like I missed a shot because of it. And it was always more than enough to catch my kids when they were just playing.

ChiSoxKeith
05-25-2011, 11:10 PM
On the burst rate... I shot football with a Rebel XT that does 2.8 frames per second. It was totally workable for me. Yes, I had to work within the confines of the camera, but I never felt like I missed a shot because of it. And it was always more than enough to catch my kids when they were just playing.

I totally agree that you can get some awesome shots with slower burst rates. But I've been lucky enough to get field access and I wind up standing next to the newspaper guys. I fire off two or three shots and they fire off like a gattling gun.

http://www.manualsinc.com/images/HSFootball.jpg

A buddy of mine just got the Panasonic GH2. I have not had a chance to shoot it myself, but the sample images and video he has sent me are superb.

Any of the cameras you have listed will be able to take great images. Figure out what matters to you most, and which one you like best once you get a chance to play with them. I would probably spend more for the glass than the body.

I've just got the kit lens with mine and a non IS 70-300 zoom. (the above image was taken with a rented 400mm f/2.8).

Bstanley
05-26-2011, 08:36 AM
I would probably spend more for the glass than the body.

Abso-posi-lutely accurate.

In fact I would probably leave out the probably :rotfl2:.

IMHO There is a strong argument to be made that buying the less capable/less expensive body and using the money on the glass is the best way to go at the start. While you don't need 'world class glass' to deliver great pictures if you buy a couple of extra lenses - especially a telephoto lens - you might easily end up spending more than the price of the body.

The good news is - if you buy good (or even break the bank and buy great) glass you never need to buy it again. As has been pointed out in the Sony/Minolta discussion, a great 15 year old lens from any of the top manufacturers is still a great lens when attached to their latest digital bodies.

photo_chick
05-26-2011, 08:38 AM
I totally agree that you can get some awesome shots with slower burst rates. But I've been lucky enough to get field access and I wind up standing next to the newspaper guys. I fire off two or three shots and they fire off like a gattling gun.



Oh yeah. When you get a 1D with 10 frames per second it moves fast. And even my 50D with it's 6 frames per second is fast in comparison to my old Rebel. I'll admit it's nice to have but I do find that in the end I really don't end up with a higher number of keepers because of it though.

The good news is - if you buy good (or even break the bank and buy great) glass you never need to buy it again. As has been pointed out in the Sony/Minolta discussion, a great 15 year old lens from any of the top manufacturers is still a great lens when attached to their latest digital bodies.


Totally agree. I have some lenses from the 80's, when Canon first came out with the EOS mount, and they can still hang up there with comparable current offerings from Canon.

zackiedawg
05-26-2011, 10:26 AM
Just to add to the Sony side of the discussion - not because I'm a brand fanboy or because it's better than any others, but because you've mentioned several times that it is standing out to you...

The value is pretty high as they are pricing fairly aggressively - the disadvantage of being the smaller players at #3 and #4 is having to lower the price a bit even for an equal product, because the Canon and Nikon ones will sell at higher prices regardless of content or value. Sort of like how Toyota never had to discount as much as the other manufacturers - it didn't mean they were better, just that they sold more and didn't need to be as price-competitive.

The battery issue would be completely solved if you decided on the A580 over the A55 - while the A55 has an average battery life and would likely prompt you to buy a backup, the A580 will last for eons. It's CIPA rated at well over 1,000 shots - but in real life, it will be very common to shoot 3,000-4,000 shots if shooting heavily or using burst, or to be able to shoot on 3 consecutive weekends at 300-500 per weekend on a single charge. Sony is also kind enough to add the battery meter feature to all their DSLRs and SLTs - like higher end models do on other brands - so you get an accurate, legit percentage remaining readout, rather than just a simple 4-LED bar.

As UKcat said, there are plenty of people shooting Sony and Pentax, but they're just outnumbered by those with Nikon and Canon. Back to the car analogy: Most of what you see on the road is probably Toyota, and maybe Chevrolet. Depending on where in the country you are, maybe it's Chevrolet and Ford. Or maybe Toyota and Ford. No matter which way you slice it, it's clear there are two or three brands that handily outsell the others. Yet all those others still exist, even thrive - they have fans, repeat buyers, successful business models, have been selling for over a hundred years, etc. You may not see as many on the road, but it doesn't make them in any way inferior or even unprofitable or unsuccessful. They simply know they're not #1 or #2, and cater to a smaller market - some manufacturers are highly successful catering to a small niche market (Porsche, Ferrari). Cameras are the same...you don't have to be one of the two top sellers to make an excellent product, or even to be a success.

I've shot with Canon, Pentax, Sony, and Fuji...Lately, Sony's DSLRs have matched me very well. I personally believe you won't get a bad camera between any of the major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic) in that market. Go with the feel, the features, the budget, and your heart - no matter which way you end up going, you'll have a great camera!

ilovepete
05-26-2011, 02:51 PM
Thank you everyone, you all are so helpful. :) I didn't get to go look at them today because my dental work ran longer than expected (and cost more!!). So hopefully I can see them on Saturday.

LPZ_Stitch!
05-26-2011, 03:09 PM
IBut I've been lucky enough to get field access and I wind up standing next to the newspaper guys. I fire off two or three shots and they fire off like a gattling gun.

But, the real question is this: are they really getting *better* pictures than you, or just filling up the CF cards faster.

"Spray and Pray" isn't necessarily going to mean you get better pictures than someone who's into the game and anticipating the action and clicking the shutter at the "right" time....

Also, just seconding almost everyone here ... specs are nice, but specs don't take pictures. The camera has to work for you; ergonomics, menus, settings, etc. If you're always fumbling with controls because they aren't good for you, or the camera just doesn't "feel right" in your hand, you'll be missing shots regardless of how good your camera looks on paper.

The IQ differences between all of these modern DSLRs is so slight I doubt 1 in a 100 camera reviewers could tell which camera produced which picture....

ilovepete
05-26-2011, 10:05 PM
Well I really can't believe this, but after looking over everything, I'm strongly leaning towards either the Pentax K-r or the Sony A560 (neither of which was in my original list!!). They just seem to give the most value for the money. I also realized that I really need to focus a huge chunk of my money on lenses. Being clueless, I was depending on the lens that came with the camera (I think I've gathered that is called the kit lens?) to the be one I used but I am seeing that is not the case. Therefore, to be able to get nice lenses and a camera body that does what I think I'd want... it is down to these 2. Of course I may change my mind 100 times, and will hopefully be going to see them in person on Saturday, but for now, any opinions on this?

From what I can tell, the Pentax is cheaper, smaller but doesn't do video as well, has a lower battery life (though it does allow for 4 AAs) and smaller LCD (though larger view finder). Oh and it comes in red :rotfl:. The Sony more expensive, bigger, has more MP, longer battery life, movable LCD, and lower noise at night.

zackiedawg
05-26-2011, 11:41 PM
Basically, you've got a grasp of the two cameras - both fine choices and fine cameras, both with a few compromises and a few advantages each. There's nothing wrong with going for a slightly less expensive body and investing more in lenses - the lenses after all do make the biggest overall impact on your photography, and your versatility. In many ways the two cameras you are looking at are similar - with good low light performance, fast burst/continuous shooting speeds, in-body stabilization, In camera HDR modes, decent battery life, and a good mix of features. The Pentax has more custom menus and colors, the Sony a better live view and video. Both are very fine cameras for still photography, which is probably the most important thing to most of us.

ukcatfan
05-27-2011, 07:53 AM
Being clueless, I was depending on the lens that came with the camera (I think I've gathered that is called the kit lens?) to the be one I used but I am seeing that is not the case.
V
From what I can tell, the Pentax is cheaper, smaller but doesn't do video as well, has a lower battery life (though it does allow for 4 AAs) and smaller LCD (though larger view finder). Oh and it comes in red :rotfl:. The Sony more expensive, bigger, has more MP, longer battery life, movable LCD, and lower noise at night.

I am not sure what you heard about kit lenses, but it was probably that they are cheaply made with common complaints of a rotating front element, feeling flimsy, etc. That is often what people say of the Canon and Nikon ones, but the Pentax one is very different and very usable. I am still using it after over four years. Give it a closer look.

I am not that familiar with the A560, but the differences between it and the K-r are very minor. I doubt you would notice any differences in real world use.

ilovepete
05-27-2011, 08:47 AM
I am not sure what you heard about kit lenses, but it was probably that they are cheaply made with common complaints of a rotating front element, feeling flimsy, etc. That is often what people say of the Canon and Nikon ones, but the Pentax one is very different and very usable. I am still using it after over four years. Give it a closer look.

I am not that familiar with the A560, but the differences between it and the K-r are very minor. I doubt you would notice any differences in real world use.

Yes this is what I have heard! So, say if I was looking at this, would this be all I would need then, and last for a while? http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-r-18-55mm-55-300mm-Black/dp/B00427Z7OG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306500259&sr=8-1

Also at this point I think my main concern with it is the battery life. Nothing worse than having the battery go dead! But at that price, I could afford to have a back up, too.

ilovepete
05-27-2011, 09:21 AM
Oh or there is this one. Wow this is soooo hard! LOL http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-3-0-Inch-18-55mm-50-200mm-Black/dp/B00427Z7NM/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1306502398&sr=1-4

ChiSoxKeith
05-27-2011, 09:28 AM
Depends if you need the extra reach from 200 to 300.

The 300 will be nice for if / when your kids eventually start playing sports.

ukcatfan
05-27-2011, 09:58 AM
For the Pentax kit telephoto lenses, the 55-300mm is generally considered better lens than the 50-200mm. I have the 200mm one myself and am pretty happy with it. If you go Pentax, check out the 35mm f/2.4 for lower light shooting. I picked it up recently and am thrilled with the image quality. It is not as large of an aperture as some other prime lenses, but the very usable high ISO levels of newer cameras helps that. It is also very sharp even wide open, which some other primes cannot say.

photo_chick
05-27-2011, 10:18 AM
Well I really can't believe this, but after looking over everything, I'm strongly leaning towards either the Pentax K-r or the Sony A560 (neither of which was in my original list!!). They just seem to give the most value for the money. I also realized that I really need to focus a huge chunk of my money on lenses. Being clueless, I was depending on the lens that came with the camera (I think I've gathered that is called the kit lens?) to the be one I used but I am seeing that is not the case. Therefore, to be able to get nice lenses and a camera body that does what I think I'd want... it is down to these 2. Of course I may change my mind 100 times, and will hopefully be going to see them in person on Saturday, but for now, any opinions on this?

From what I can tell, the Pentax is cheaper, smaller but doesn't do video as well, has a lower battery life (though it does allow for 4 AAs) and smaller LCD (though larger view finder). Oh and it comes in red :rotfl:. The Sony more expensive, bigger, has more MP, longer battery life, movable LCD, and lower noise at night.

People dog on the kit lenses and I think a lot of times people get a camera and they're learning how to use it and they end up blaming thier poor shots on the lens and not the user.

My personal experience.... I've got the Canon 18-55 that came with my Rebel XT and I still use that lens when I need the 18-28 range it has. Yes, it's light and cheap but it's not any worse than any other entry level lens out there and it's quite capable of producing clear, sharp images. I can say the same about my old 28-80 kit lens too. So I wouldn't discount using the kit with any camera, but you are right, you will probably want more lenses in addition to the kit. My advice is usually to get the camera with the kit lens and not buy more until you know what you want and understand why you need it. You avoid dropping cash on lenses you end up hating that way.

I wouldn't stress over the smaller LCD. None of them are large enough to tell you if your images is really in focus. A larger viewfinder is a better asset in my opinion.

ukcatfan
05-27-2011, 12:26 PM
I missed that earlier on the LCD. I am pretty sure they are the same size. My K-x has a smaller one.

KAT4DISNEY
05-27-2011, 12:47 PM
Also at this point I think my main concern with it is the battery life. Nothing worse than having the battery go dead! But at that price, I could afford to have a back up, too.

How intensive of shooting are you intending on doing? I have yet to have a problem with battery life in any of the Sony camera's I've used and have done some fairly extended shooting at rodeo's and horse shows as well as used it all day at Disney. I've bought a backup battery every time but have yet to actually use it to change out during a day. I have not used video much however which will drain more. And having the GPS function on the A55 turned on drains the battery faster but I haven't yet needed to change one using it around Disney for a day of mostly still pictures. Charge it up and night and you're ready go to again!

One other difference between the Pentax K-r and the Sony A560 (did you also look at the A33 which will have autofocus in the video?) is the articulating screen. I find that my use of it grows more and more especially with the excellent live view of the Sony camera's. I used to think it was a fun feature but now I'd be hard pressed to buy a camera without it.

That all said - either camera is an excellent choice! :thumbsup2

ilovepete
05-27-2011, 05:06 PM
Well I just ordered the K-r. Hope I love it. :) I think I'm going to order a 18-200mm lense as well because I really just want sort of an "all in one" for right now.
Thanks everyone for your help.

Skatermom23
05-27-2011, 05:14 PM
Just jumping in now! I am also looking at cameras and I had finally decided on the Nikon D5100 last night. I haven't ordered it yet...now I have to go research the Pentax. That one never came up on my searches. Let us know how you like it.

ilovepete
05-27-2011, 05:23 PM
Just jumping in now! I am also looking at cameras and I had finally decided on the Nikon D5100 last night. I haven't ordered it yet...now I have to go research the Pentax. That one never came up on my searches. Let us know how you like it.

I found it was pretty comparable and was $539 shipped with the 18-55mm lens. I also got the red one (I know, I know, but I love this vibrant color! :rotfl:).

ukcatfan
05-27-2011, 09:34 PM
Congratulations on making your decision! Nice choice on color. Mine is red as well!

Skatermom23
05-28-2011, 11:56 AM
What a tough decision...I see that Costco has the K-r with two lens and a case for $699. Not to mention, I am a big costco fan due to their warrenties. Back to the drawing board!

ChiSoxKeith
05-28-2011, 12:45 PM
My local camera shop say nikon is going to be offering rebates on their gear in June (more details on tuesday).

ukcatfan
05-28-2011, 01:52 PM
What a tough decision...I see that Costco has the K-r with two lens and a case for $699. Not to mention, I am a big costco fan due to their warrenties. Back to the drawing board!

If Costco still has that return with no questions asked deal, that would be a perfect way to find out if you like it.

Skatermom23
05-29-2011, 08:20 PM
The new Nikon discounts are posted today! Costco has a great deal on the D7000 and the D3100, but I settled on the d5100 on Amazon. I got the lens kit 18-55 with the additional lens 55-300 for $1021! I am happy with that and I can't wait to get it.