First night with my K110D!

[YEKCIM]

I have two film SLRs, and I have plenty of stuff to go with them...one is a Minolta and other is my Dad's old Nikon.

Deb,

If you have some existing Minolta and Nikon lenses, it might be worthwhile for you to see if they are new enough to be compatible with Sony and Nikon dSLR cameras. If your Minolta's are Maxxum's, the lenses should work on Sony's Alpha A100 dSLR.

~YEKCIM

 

[Dcanoli]

Deb,

If you have some existing Minolta and Nikon lenses, it might be worthwhile for you to see if they are new enough to be compatible with Sony and Nikon dSLR cameras. If your Minolta's are Maxxum's, the lenses should work on Sony's Alpha A100 dSLR.

~YEKCIM

...of you!

I thought about this last night, but my camera are REALLY old...the Nikon was my Dad's, and I've been reading posts that say the lenses won't work w/the newer camera because their not "motorized." (Is that right?)

...and my Dad and Mom both worked for JCPenney's, so the film SLR I have is a Minolta X-370 w/a prime 50mm--I don't see the word Maxxum on it on the letters MD....the tele I have for it is an 80-200mm f1:4 (JCP brand).

So, I don't think either one of those lenses would be compatible w/the new Sony's -- correct?

 

[YEKCIM]

...of you!

I thought about this last night, but my camera are REALLY old...the Nikon was my Dad's, and I've been reading posts that say the lenses won't work w/the newer camera because their not "motorized." (Is that right?)

...and my Dad and Mom both worked for JCPenney's, so the film SLR I have is a Minolta X-370 w/a prime 50mm--I don't see the word Maxxum on it on the letters MD....the tele I have for it is an 80-200mm f1:4 (JCP brand).

So, I don't think either one of those lenses would be compatible w/the new Sony's -- correct?

I don't think the Minolta lenses would work on the Sony. The Nikon lenses *might* FIT a Nikon dSLR, but in all likelihood, they would be manual focus, manual exposure, etc, etc. In other words, not enough compatible features to make it worthwhile.

As I'm sure you know, a dSLR (or film SLR, for that matter) is a whole different ballgame than a PnS, whether digital or film. I would give a lot of thought to the system you will be buying into, if you go dSLR. For example, look beyond just the kit lens to what kinds of different lenses are available. For example, I'm *far* happier with my 18-135 Nikkor than I would have been anybody's 18-55 or 18-70. The additional range (above 55 or 70) saves me a lot of lens changes, and the lens is tack sharp; as good as the 50mm, maybe but, of course, not as fast, max aperture wise. Consider external flashes, and other accessories, too. Once you buy a body and a couple lenses, it's really hard to switch brands, so be sure you are comfortable with what else is available for your camera (considering third party stuff, too).

~YEKCIM

 

[Dcanoli]

For example, I'm *far* happier with my 18-135 Nikkor than I would have been anybody's 18-55 or 18-70. The additional range (above 55 or 70) saves me a lot of lens changes, and the lens is tack sharp; as good as the 50mm, maybe but, of course, not as fast, max aperture wise. Consider external flashes, and other accessories, too. Once you buy a body and a couple lenses, it's really hard to switch brands, so be sure you are comfortable with what else is available for your camera (considering third party stuff, too).

~YEKCIM

I guess that was another one of my questions to ask you guys....

Is it worth it to buy the kit w/a 18-55mm when you are going to be buying the 50-200mm too? Seems like there would be some overlapping going on there.

Would it be better to buy the PRIME 50mm w/the tele lens? Or, I guess what you're saying is you like your 18-135 (higher mm) instead of a 18-55mm...right?

Because one thing I will need is a lens that can capture all those inside resort lobby areas, inside ride ques, birthday parties, family holidays, night-time shots, etc. A good lens for indoor or low-light situations....wouldn't that be the PRIME 50mm?

 

[YEKCIM]

I guess that was another one of my questions to ask you guys....

Is it worth it to buy the kit w/a 18-55mm when you are going to be buying the 50-200mm too? Seems like there would be some overlapping going on there.

Would it be better to buy the PRIME 50mm w/the tele lens? Or, I guess what you're saying is you like your 18-135 (higher mm) instead of a 18-55mm...right?

Because one thing I will need is a lens that can capture all those inside resort lobby areas, inside ride ques, birthday parties, family holidays, night-time shots, etc. A good lens for indoor or low-light situations....wouldn't that be the PRIME 50mm?

If you go with the Pentax, I would think that the 18-55 & the 50-200 would be a great combination. Yes, you would have a tiny bit of overlap, but that is not a bad thing. Look at my equipment list in my signature below. I have a lot of overlap, and it was intentional. Different lenses fit different shooting situations, and more overlap means (for me, anyway) less lens changes, and more photography. For example, while the 18-135 will be my main WDW lens, I also have the 70-300VR, which will probably be my "walkaround" lens at AK. However, since it starts at 70mm, it can cover some of the ground that the 18-135 covers and, since I tend to shoot at longer focal lengths, that will probably work out fine.

I guess the ideal starting combo would be a "kit" lens, covering wide to short telephoto (18-55 or 18-70), a tele zoom (50-200, 70-210, 70-300, etc), and a fast prime (50mm, f/1.8, usually). Nikon also has a killer lens, the 18-200VR, that covers most everything in one swell foop, and throws IS in for good measure. However, it also has a killer price: $750 list, but goes for around $1K...IF you can find one. The $300 18-135 is my "poor man's 18-200VR" compromise. And, yes, I *much* prefer the 18-135 to an 18-55 or 18-70 due to the added versatility, plus it is such a sharp lens.

BTW, from all I've read, Sigma makes a pretty good 70-300 APO lens that goes for a little less than $200. I own a Sigma (the 10-20 superwide zoom) and, while the optical quality is fine, I'm not thrilled with Sigma's service department, based on a recent experience.

Also, for indoor events such as birthday parties, you can (and maybe should) use flash. In addition to a pretty decent onboard flash, I also have a Nikon SB-800 accessory flash that puts out a lot of light, and is great for such things. Flash will stop action, too, whereas you may not be able to stop action with even a moderately fast shutter speed (say, 1/60 sec). And, you can usually use a smaller aperture with flash, and don't have to worry about color balance, since the flash is balanced for daylight. And, lastly, you would not be limited to the one focal length (50mm) by having enough light (from the flash) to use a zoom. To illustrate, my D50 has *horrible* tungsten performance in auto WB, and only somewhat better with the tungsten preset. Either way, it requires correction in PP; a flash shot would not have that problem.

Where the 50 is going to really shine is in situations like one of the WDW stage shows, like FOTLK, where you either can't use flash, or the action is so far away that flash would not reach anyway.

Hope that's not too much info overload. I went thru this evaluation process for over a year before I settled on the D50 and the lenses I ended up with.

~YEKCIM

 

[Dcanoli]

Is it worth it to buy the kit w/a 18-55mm when you are going to be buying the 50-200mm too? Seems like there would be some overlapping going on there.

Would it be better to buy the PRIME 50mm w/the tele lens? Or, I guess what you're saying is you like your 18-135 (higher mm) instead of a 18-55mm...right?

I think I'm answering all my own questions as I read the low-light thread one more time....

Prime 50mm--good for outdoor shots, but not so good on taking family pictures, etc. as it won't be nearly wide enough--not so good for low-light situations (that spells don't buy to me)

50-200mm--Better than 75-300 for quality and sheer weight of carrying around!

Low light needs a smaller f-stop and a higher ISO, is that correct? BUT...there's not much difference between the f1.4 and f1.8.....

Gosh, I may be confusing myself!

 

[Dcanoli]

Thanks Yekcim! You must have been posting at the same time as I was!

I wrote down your equipment list last night and have perused over it once or twice. I didn't know what the SB-800 was, so thanks for that insight.

In the meantime, I was also looking over the different websites out there for the type of lens you bought for your camera (18-135) for the Pentax. I don't think there's anything out there like that.

You are right--that is an awesome lens because it covers so much ground, so to speak.

I think you are right--I'd have to settle for the K100D w/kit and tele (200) lens, if I go the Pentax way.

I just don't want to make a mistake this time around...I want this camera to last for a VERY LONG TIME and to work in all situations--outside shots (which usually come out beatifully no matter what camera you use) AND inside/dark shots....

I am hoping the two lenses that would come w/the Pentax would cover that.

My only other decision to make (if I go the Pentax route) is this--50-200 mm vs. 75-300mm. Even w/the current Pentax rebate, you can get the body, kit, and 300mm for a tad less than the 200mm.....

....decisions, decisions, decisions.....(Less quality w/the 300mm and would you ever really zoom in that 100mm more? Couldn't you just pull it in more, if needed, w/editing software?)

 

[YEKCIM]

Prime 50mm--good for outdoor shots, but not so good on taking family pictures, etc. as it won't be nearly wide enough--not so good for low-light situations (that spells don't buy to me)

Not so sure I follow you on this one. You lose the flexibility of a zoom lens (multiple focal lengths) but gain on lens speed (ability to gather light) and usually sharpness. That said, a fast prime *is* good for low light situations. Let me add, too, that although I have the 50mm, I have not used it much, and bought it specifically for low light situations where a zoom was just not an option, due to small maximum aperture, *and* because it was relatively inexpensive ($115).

I may have mentioned this before, but you can get a refurbed D50 for $440 online and the 18-135 goes for about $280 from the same place. Not trying to talk you into one, but just for comparison purposes. And, no, I don't think anyone besides Nikon has anything like the 18-135. BTW, by way of comparison, the 18-135 is equivalent in field of view to a 28-200mm 35mm film lens, which covers a lot of ground, photographically.

There are lots of other criteria, of course, but for me, the availability of the 18-135 was a real help in deciding on Nikon. Of course, Mrs. YEKCIM's "input" had a lot to do with that decision, too...

~YEKCIM

 

[Forevryoung]

While I've only played around with the camera for two days now (about 120 shots- 50 or so keepers) I can tell you that I absolutely LOVE having the camera. (I'll post pictures later)

Here were my reasons for choosing the Pentax over any other camera-
1) came highly recommended
2) wasn't 100% ready to spend a ton of money on a camera/lenses/whole shebang (I'm a graduate student with no steady income)
3) Loved the features
4) loved the way it felt in my hand- It wasn't super heavy and my hands didn't grip it funny like they do with my dad's Rebel XT (I find holding his camera is awkward)
5) My parents have an old film Pentax and their old lenses (3 of them including a nice telephoto) are compatible... bought the kit lens and I'll be set till the next present giving opportunity presents itself not only that but I can buy great used lenses

Unfortunately for me, money was a huge factor in the timing of getting the camera- had I wanted a more expensive camera or required costly additional equipment/lenses, I would have had to wait over a year to get a camera... Now I have something awesome to use to wet my taste buds and in a few years I can upgrade if I choose

 

[handicap18]

Here is another thought to throw out there regarding lenses....

Sigma is set to come out with a new 18-200mm lens. This one will have OS (optical stabilization, their version of VR). It is priced to sell, somewhere right around $500 or so. One downside is that it is still f/6.3 at the 200mm end. Good really for outdoors, but with the added OS it will help with non moving subjects. You could start with something like that and a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8 depending on which system you go with. Down the road add Sigma's 70-300mm APO lens and your covered with 2 lenses from 18-300 and also have the fast prime for low light situations.

There are certainly a lot of options out there. Do your research and above all else get yourself to a camera store and get the camera's in your hand. See what feels comfortable. Kind of tough with the D50, but it is similar in side to the K100D.

I'm in YEKCIM camp with a very similar setup. I have been a Nikon guy for close to 20 years. I'm not really thrilled with their current entry level dSLR and right now I have to agree with Groucho in that the best value dSLR currently is the K100D, though overall I like what Nikon has to offer with lenses and flashguns. Not that Pentax doesn't have a big lineup of lenses, just my personal preference. I also notice a lot more used lenses for Nikon and Canon on the used lens sites (mostly 3rd party stuff). I got a used Tamron for my D50 at a great price and it is a stellar lens. Pentax does have a vast history of lenses that will work with their current dSLR's as does Nikon.

We could go on and on and on about lenses. My current list of wants has a few dozen. Most of which will be decided once the kids get a little bigger and start getting into more serious activities. I think of lenses as tools for what you want to get done photographically. What might be good for you might not be good for someone else.

Happy shopping...

 

[Jeanne B]

I guess that was another one of my questions to ask you guys....

Is it worth it to buy the kit w/a 18-55mm when you are going to be buying the 50-200mm too? Seems like there would be some overlapping going on there.

Would it be better to buy the PRIME 50mm w/the tele lens? Or, I guess what you're saying is you like your 18-135 (higher mm) instead of a 18-55mm...right?

Because one thing I will need is a lens that can capture all those inside resort lobby areas, inside ride ques, birthday parties, family holidays, night-time shots, etc. A good lens for indoor or low-light situations....wouldn't that be the PRIME 50mm?

Another K100 owner here and I have the 18-55, 50-200 and the 50mm 1.4. I've been debating since our vacation in December whether or not to replace my 18-55 with the Sigma 18-125 so I have more of a walkaround lens (I've also been eyeing the Tamron 28-75). At the time I purchased my K100 it was only $17 more to add the 18-55 kit lens so it was a no-brainer to get the kit lens but I'm not sure if I'm 100% satisfied with my current combination. My point is, you might want to start with two lenses (one being the 50mm) and after you spend some time with those you may be able to more easily figure out what lens combination would work best for you, it *might* save you some money in the long run.

 

[Dcanoli]

Not so sure I follow you on this one. You lose the flexibility of a zoom lens (multiple focal lengths) but gain on lens speed (ability to gather light) and usually sharpness. That said, a fast prime *is* good for low light situations. Let me add, too, that although I have the 50mm, I have not used it much, and bought it specifically for low light situations where a zoom was just not an option, due to small maximum aperture, *and* because it was relatively inexpensive ($115).

I may have mentioned this before, but you can get a refurbed D50 for $440 online and the 18-135 goes for about $280 from the same place. Not trying to talk you into one, but just for comparison purposes. And, no, I don't think anyone besides Nikon has anything like the 18-135. BTW, by way of comparison, the 18-135 is equivalent in field of view to a 28-200mm 35mm film lens, which covers a lot of ground, photographically.

There are lots of other criteria, of course, but for me, the availability of the 18-135 was a real help in deciding on Nikon. Of course, Mrs. YEKCIM's "input" had a lot to do with that decision, too...

~YEKCIM

Good one!

I got the part about the prime lens NOT being good for low-light situations from the low-light thread a few days ago....the person that posted said it was good for daylight situations and NOT good for family situations/group shots because you really couldn't widen your shot, and you'd have to back up to get everyone/thing in the picture.

I teach with two girls that have the Nikons (50 and 70), and I got to play around w/the 70 today. I think any SLR is going to feel a little awkard in my hands at first just because I'm so used to a PAS.

I'll head over to Wolf or somewhere to check them all out....

The Nikon is still a bit more pricer at $720 versus $600 for the Pentax....dpreview rates them equal w/the Pentax a shade better, but I guess everyone has their own opinions, and that's what makes it such a hard decision!

I don't think I can afford all three lenses right now, although that seems to be the general consensus around here for the PERFECT starter combo.

I just need one of the starter lenses to be good for indoor conditions and easily adaptable (i.e., walkaround).

Then, after that...I'm sure I'll start getting addicted to more lenses, more filters, etc. etc. etc.

 

[ukcatfan]

I don't think I can afford all three lenses right now, although that seems to be the general consensus around here for the PERFECT starter combo.

Do not count out used lenses. Every brand will have some available. Check Ebay, KEH, B&H, Adorama, and Craigslist(sp?)

I have two used lenses from KEH that I am happy with. My 50mm f/2 is manual focus, but auto aperture. It would not be very good for action shots, but is just fine for still subjects.

Kevin

 

[Dcanoli]

Do not count out used lenses. Every brand will have some available. Check Ebay, KEH, B&H, Adorama, and Craigslist(sp?)

I have two used lenses from KEH that I am happy with. My 50mm f/2 is manual focus, but auto aperture. It would not be very good for action shots, but is just fine for still subjects.

Kevin

I had checked out Ebay for Nikon and Sony last night when these threads were going strong, but it never dawned on me to go back and check for Pentax.

DUH!

 

[ukcatfan]

I had checked out Ebay for Nikon and Sony last night when these threads were going strong, but it never dawned on me to go back and check for Pentax.

DUH!

For Sony, you might need to also search Minolta. If you have not yet, check out KEH.com. They are very reputable and will make it right if you are not satisfied.

Kevin

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

I have a K100d and I love it! I can't say enough good about the camera. Originally, I was looking at Canon and Nikon; Pentax wasn't even on my radar. However, I read so many good reviews for the Pentax, that I went with it.

I don't think it's necessary to buy a bunch of lenses at first (although, I have bought four since Jan). After you use the kit lens, you may find that you prefer a wider lens or a zoom. You can buy the lens that most suits you photography style and go from there (I hardly use my 70-300 because even though I love the zoom, it's not wide enough for me).

The kit lens is great and I used mainly that and the 50mm 1.4 at WDW last month. The 50mm is awesome for Spectro, but I still used the kits lens the most. I am hoping to get a 18-200 lens soon, just so I don't have to worry about changing lenses all the time.

Good luck in you decision.

 

[Groucho]

Well... the 50mm is stellar for pretty much everything you could ask of it, provided that you're looking for about that range. You're not likely to find any zoom lens (at least, any below $1k, and even then you're highly unlikely to actually better it) that is going to be able to compare in terms of image quality.

That being said, the other lenses are certainly not bad at all... but the 50mm just gives you a little bit more.

However, you will have a hard time with family photos because you need to be fairly far away with it if you want a full-body shot.

I haven't heard much one way or the other about the $130 Pentax 75-300mm lens, but I wouldn't expect much from it - otherwise we'd probably hear it being discussed more.

YEKCIM, I didn't think that you had meant your comment that way, but I think it could have been read that way.

Handicap18, I agree with your post, especially about Nikon's entry level not being particularly impressive at this point. Now, if Nikon comes out with a D40-priced entry-level DSLR that doesn't have features removed instead of added, that'll certainly make the entry-level decision a bit more interesting. And if they made one with in-body IS... well, then I'd have a real tough time recommending one over the other.

 

[Dcanoli]

Great tips! NOW...If I could just find a combo-priced K100D w/the 50mm and the teles!

Deb