ISO settings

[FutureSailor]

One more question -- the K110D seems to be exactly the same as the K100D, except lacking Image Stabilization. Is this a feature that is worth the $100 or so price difference?

Thanks!

 

[ukcatfan]

I have the K100D and love it. If low light shots of static subjects is important, then the IS is worth it. It sounds like you will be encountering that situation, so it probably is worth it. As for the kit lens (DA 18-55mm), it is a pretty decent lens for the price. It can work for low light indoor shots, but there are better options. If you are willing to spend more, then there are better options, but you would be looking at ~$400 for a better one with a similar range. You need at least one lens with that range, so if you are trying to stay under $1K, then get the kit. I second the 50mm f/1.4 for low light. It is also a nice portrait lens IMO. If you want some tele, then the DA 50-200mm is a nice compliment to the kit.

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

I agree with Groucho, if your serious about low light photography then a dSLR is the way to go. Pentax and Nikon are the best at high ISO performance. The K100D you mention and also Nikon's D50. Both happen to be 6.1MP which is MORE than enough to enlarge to big prints. I have the D50 and cropped a pic to about 75% of original size and had that crop enlarged to 11x14 and the clarity is stunning. Some arguements are made that more megapixels are better for making enlargements and cropping. This is true to an extent. The sensor size for example on Nikon's D80 and D50 are the same, but they are fitting more MP's into the same size, 10 vs 6.1. Ratings wise the D80 isn't as good as the D50 at ISO 1600. The D80 is still awesome and much better than any PnS camera, but the extra MP's lead to more noise at the higher ISO's.

Now, to make either the K100D or the D50 even better in low light you need a wide aperture. Groucho mentioned the 50mm f/1.4. Sigma makes a 24mm and 28mm f/1.8. Sigma, Tamron and I think Tokina along with Nikon have f/2.8 zoom lenses that start around 18mm and zoom up to about 50mm. They are more expensive, but do come in handy for the type of pictures your talking about. Tokina makes a super wide 12-24mm that is f/4 thoughout the zoom range.

The kit lenses are good, but keep in mind that their aperture gets smaller the further in you zoom. 18-55mm kit lenses are typically f/3.5-4.5 or 5.6. The f/3.5 isn't to bad at the 18mm range, but f/4.5 at the 50/55mm end is about 3 stops smaller than the prime 50mm f/1.4 (or even a 50mm f/1.8). If I did my math correctly, it would be comparing f/1.4 and 1/125th shutter vs f/4.5 and a 1/15th shutter (someone can correct me if I did it wrong). So basically for the price the kit lenses are good for what they are.

Take a look around for the wide angle zoom that are f/2.8 though the entire range. Again, they'll start around 17-28mm and zoom into about 50-80mm. Prices vary and some of the 3rd party ones might not make a Pentax mount. Groucho or one of the other Pentax users can offer more options in that regard.

As for the Image Stabliization. Since Pentax doesn't (IIRC) make any lenses with IS then you should consider at least having it in the body. It will allow you to hand hold the camera 2-3 stops slower than you normally would. ie: if you get no camera shake using a shutter of 1/30th, but do beyond that, then the IS would help going down to about a 1/10th shutter speed. It also helps on the long end. Handholding a long zoom out to 300mm can also cause camera shake. Image Stabilization helps control and depending on the person, eliminate it.

IS dosen't replace a tripod, but does allow you some flexability when you don't have or aren't able to use one. ie: If your taking a wide angle picture of the inside of a church and light is minimal and even with a 24mm lens set at f/1.8 and your ISO at 1600 you get a shutter speed of 1/15th and your not allowed to carry the tripod, the Image Stabilization will help you keep the camera steady to get a clearer shot than if you didn't have it.

Good luck with your shopping.

 

[FutureSailor]

Thanks (again!). I think I understand about aperture (lower number lets in more light, better for low-light situations). But I don't get the "mm" thing--are lower numbers wider and higher numbers zoom? Or is there some other system?

 

[ukcatfan]

Thanks (again!). I think I understand about aperture (lower number lets in more light, better for low-light situations). But I don't get the "mm" thing--are lower numbers wider and higher numbers zoom? Or is there some other system?

That is the focal length of the lens in relation to a traditional 35mm film camera. For example, I had a Canon S1 IS that was a 10x zoom or 38-380mm focal length (38*10=380). All SLR lenses are marked according to the focal length system. Most people in DSLR terms do not use a zoom factor b/c it could be very misleading. To illustrate this, a 10-100mm and a 28-280mm lens would both be considered a 10x zoom, but would be very different lenses. Also, with DSLRs, most people prefer to have two or more lenses to cover the spectrum of typical focal lengths. One that covers all the range sacrifices the quality of the image.

To relate it back to a p&s, most of them start at the widest around 36-38mm. So if you wanted a 3x zoom you would want a range of 36-108mm. But most DSLRs are not 1:1 to film focal lengths. The K100D has what is called a 1.5x crop factor. That means that you multiply the film focal length by 1.5 to get what it will actually behave like. The typical kit lens is 18-55mm, so it effectively is a 27-83mm lens and is a zoom of 3x.

I hope this helps.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Looks like most of the questions have been answered already... I'll chime in on a couple.

I think that if you're trying to take low-light photos without a flash, you'll be somewhat disappointed with the kit lens. You really need a "faster" lens, especially at WDW - where indoors, things are usually darker than they look. You may or may not have that problem on your cruise.

Anyway, I'd look for something F2.8 or faster. The 50mm 1.4 is recommended because it's extremely fast and an extremely nice lens, but if you don't want to break the bank, it might be a good idea to go for a wider fast lens. I know there's a Sigma 28mm F2.8 (I have an old manual-focus version), and there are a few others, as well. That should give you more room for taking interior photos like in a church.

Of course, the price goes up as you go wider... there's a Pentax 14mm 2.8 that's about $510 after a $100 rebate... Sigma has a 20mm F1.8 for $409, 24mm F1.8 for $339, and 28mm F1.8 for $269. Sigma has has an 18-50mm F2.8 for $419. On the cheap side, there's a Phoenix 24mm F2.8 for $75, but I suspect that the quality isn't up to the others.

You can also scour eBay and/or local camera shops that have used equipment. One other option is a Zenitar 16mm fisheye, the fisheye effect isn't very pronounced thanks to the crop factor, it's fast (F2.8), and is pretty cheap - somewhere about $140 or so delivered from Russia. It's 100% manual but that isn't much of an issue when shooting a static subject like a building interior.

 

[FutureSailor]

Okay, what I'm understanding is that this is more complicated than I anticipated! I think I just need to get the camera, a lens, and try it out. But which lens, is the question.

Can someone explain to me the difference between:

Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Lens with Hood for Pentax AF Cameras (for $339) and

Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Lens with Hood for Pentax AF Cameras (for $269)?

Thank you!!

 

[handicap18]

Okay, what I'm understanding is that this is more complicated than I anticipated! I think I just need to get the camera, a lens, and try it out. But which lens, is the question.

Can someone explain to me the difference between:

Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Lens with Hood for Pentax AF Cameras (for $339) and

Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Lens with Hood for Pentax AF Cameras (for $269)?

Thank you!!

The 24mm is better lens. It focuses faster and is a bit better optically. Also with a dSLR the 4mm difference is more like a 6mm difference. Because of the 1.5x crop factor (digital sensor being smaller than film and with Nikon and Pentax the difference is 1.5x) the 24mm has a field of view like that of a 36mm film slr camera and the 28mm has a field of view like that of a 42mm films slr. In essance they are more like a standard lens rather than a wide angle.

Personally, I am leaning towards the 28mm for my Nikon. I'm hoping to get one later this year. I have been looking for used copies and will take a 24mm used if I can find one.

I have tried out both lenses in the store and did find the 24mm to have a quicker focus.

Oh also, the macro feature on these are I believe 1:2. They can both focus as close as about 5 or 6 inches to a subject. I didn't actually measure the distance, but I was pretty close to the thing I was focusing on.

 

[DueyDooDah]

I can't help with you lens choice but I thought I'd chime in, as someone else going on a trip soon.

Make sure you get whatever you plan to purchase in plenty of time to practice with it. I have found that dSLRs take a bit more time to master than do P&Ss and film cameras. The options can be overwhelming when starting out. And, if you are used to P&S pictures, you may be disappointed in the outcome of your first few pics with a dSLR. There are many threads on here discussing just this issue. Just know, you will get better, and so will your pictures, but it takes practice.

 

[FutureSailor]

Thanks for the quick replies about the lenses. One more for comparison: Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens for $218.

And having started reading these threads on the photography board just a few weeks ago, I do appreciate that our trip is still several months away. Hopefully by then I will have the hang of the new camera.

 

[Thumper_ehhhhh]

Im another one that says K100d. I cant speak alot like the others but it is a excelent camera in low light. The image stabilation helps in low light too. It also help that in the sub menu you can set the lighting you are in to help you take better pictures. I just got the camera with the 2 lens kit. 18-55mm and 50 to 200mm. I will get more lenses down the road but for this vacation these will do. Yes get a camera if not this one, just get it soon to practice before your trip.

 

[Groucho]

Thanks for the quick replies about the lenses. One more for comparison: Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens for $218.

And having started reading these threads on the photography board just a few weeks ago, I do appreciate that our trip is still several months away. Hopefully by then I will have the hang of the new camera.

The Pentax 50mm has been called the best 50mm lens there is, period. When it's not being called that, it's usually in a tie with another - a Leica, if I remember right. It's a great lens and has been in short supply for many months - best thing if it's not in stock somewhere, just place the order and let it go on backorder, and wait for them to get more in.

I don't know much specifically about the current Sigma lenses, but for image quality, it's extremely tough to beat the Pentax 50mm 1.4.

I do hope to pick up a wider fast lens next, probably a Sigma 28mm or 24mm F1.8... but I haven't researched them yet. Once I get that, I will probably rarely use my kit 18-55mm zoom lens, except in relatively bright scenes or tripod shots.

 

[wkrider]

Looks like most of the questions have been answered already... I'll chime in on a couple.

Anyway, I'd look for something F2.8 or faster. The 50mm 1.4 is recommended because it's extremely fast and an extremely nice lens, but if you don't want to break the bank, it might be a good idea to go for a wider fast lens. I know there's a Sigma 28mm F2.8 (I have an old manual-focus version), and there are a few others, as well. That should give you more room for taking interior photos like in a church..

Groucho....

I was cruising this thread and decided to try my SMC PENTAX-A 1:2 50mm lens for the first time. It seemed to let in a lot more light while indoors. Is this the same one your were posting about?

 

[FutureSailor]

Thanks again for the replies. I am getting really close to clicking the "submit order" link--I just need to get the lens thing decided.

Would it make sense to get the 50 mm f 1.4 and the 50-200 mm f 4-5.6? (Pentax has some rebates now for the 50-200 mm when purchased with the body and flash.) My immediate need is a lens that will do well indoors with low light and no flash (museums and churches). In the long run, I'll be using the camera for the usual family photo opportunities--birthdays, Christmas, the kids' band concerts, the dog chasing birds in the backyard . . . Would these two lenses be sufficient for these purposes?

 

[Thumper_ehhhhh]

Thanks again for the replies. I am getting really close to clicking the "submit order" link--I just need to get the lens thing decided.

Would it make sense to get the 50 mm f 1.4 and the 50-200 mm f 4-5.6? (Pentax has some rebates now for the 50-200 mm when purchased with the body and flash.) My immediate need is a lens that will do well indoors with low light and no flash (museums and churches). In the long run, I'll be using the camera for the usual family photo opportunities--birthdays, Christmas, the kids' band concerts, the dog chasing birds in the backyard . . . Would these two lenses be sufficient for these purposes?

As I said I have the 2 standard lenses that come with the camera they do good in low light. I'm sure there are alot better lenses out there but if you can get a good deal on the 2 lens kit with the camera go for it then you can upgrade as you want or can afford to. Here is a link to the camera I package I got keep in mind this is in CAD not USD things up here are more expensive lol
MAybe some of the guys can chime in about the lenses with the package with more details.http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/PageDisplay?dest=frames.jsp&currency=CAD&storeId=10001 but you can have a look and see for yourself.

 

[Groucho]

I don't think there are any two-lens packages in the US, but the rebate gives you a nice chunk back when you buy the camera and the 50-200mm at the same time, that's definitely worthwhile.

For low-light interior photos, though, you'll want something faster. The 50mm is beautiful but you might want something wider for interior photos - one of the Sigmas might be a better choice depending on what you're after.

I was cruising this thread and decided to try my SMC PENTAX-A 1:2 50mm lens for the first time. It seemed to let in a lot more light while indoors. Is this the same one your were posting about?

Pentax has had several updates to the lens, and there are a couple websites that talk about the history. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if it's the same design but I assume it is. I know there's a F1.7 one...

But anyway, that one you're talking about should go to F2.0, which should be much faster than the kit lens, which is 3.5 at the absolute widest, then 4.0, then 5.6 at full zoom - so at 50mm, I think you're talking about F5.6 versus F2.0 as the lowest available - that's a huge difference.

 

[Thumper_ehhhhh]

Thanks Groucho
I am going to have to check out lenses some time. I was looking at a wide angle but almost messed my pants when I saw the price tag. Oh I will get one but that I will have to save for.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'd recommend the Canon line of cameras and lenses. They are the market leader by far and for good reasons.

If you want to get really good gear, go with the 1Ds Mark II (or 5D if you want to save some size, weight, and money). I would recommend the new 16-35 f/2.8 for wide shots, the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom for mid range photography, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS zoom for longer focal lengths. You might substitute the 24-105 f/4 IS if you'd prefer IS over aperture. For the type of shooting you describe (things that don't move), it would be a better choice. I'd also through in a 50mm for lower light situations as they are small and relatively cheap. You can get a f/1.8, f/1.4, or f/1.2 depending on your taste for cost, size, and speed. That's all top-flight gear.

If you want to go with Canon but keep the cost down, look at the Rebel XTi and glass that is more appropriate for your price range.

I'll make my usual recommendation that you stay with either Canon or Nikon if you intend to get very serious about photography. Pentax, Sony, and Olympus make respectable DSLRs, but neither has anything like the range of modern accessories or professional gear that Canon and Nikon have. In fact, at the wildlife photography seminar I was at today, the speakers (a husband and wife team) split between Nikon and Canon gear because between the two brands, they cover virtually the entire set of serious wildlife photographers. If you don't plan on going pro or becoming a serious (perhaps obsessive) hobbyist, these issues shouldn't concern you.

 

[Groucho]

Quite frankly, they are the market leader for the same reason that GM sells a lot of cars. People buy what they're used to and often don't bother doing much (or any) research. Canon is a big name, therefore they sell a lot of things, good or bad. If the exact same cameras were sold by an unknown company, would they still be the market leaders? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that they're selling junk by any means, but I do think that a lot of their appeal is simply the name on the front rather than the actual hardware underneath.

And again, I think the "get into pro" is a red herring. Professional photographers use all sorts of cameras. Many "real" pros probably wouldn't be caught dead using anything less than a medium or large-format camera for their work. (Ironically, it appears that Pentax will have a medium-format digital camera long before Nikon or Canon.) Meanwhile, plenty of pros use a whole range of cameras, definitely including Pentax (here's one that uses a K10D) and no doubt including Minolta and Olympus. Don't forget that today's cheapest DSLRs are producing quality that rivals ANY 35mm film camera - the same ones that most pros were using for decades. People were producing terrific photos with full-manual equipment, why should it suddenly require the highest-end equipment in order to be taken seriously?

Furthermore, having the IS in the body means that your investment in lenses will be far less than with the C/N crowd, and the value of the equipment is staying fairly solid at the moment (I think that every piece of equipment I've bought, I could re-sell on eBay for the same or more than I paid for it - including the camera itself)... so it's not like you're out much in terms of finances if you do decide that you require a $3,500 camera in the future.

I am going to have to check out lenses some time. I was looking at a wide angle but almost messed my pants when I saw the price tag. Oh I will get one but that I will have to save for.

If you're shooting interiors, why not go for a used manual-focus lens? Right now, there's a manual-focus Pentax 28mm F2.8 lens on eBay with 16 hours left that's only bid up to $22. Looking at completed items, looks like manual-focus 28mm F2.8s usually go for $50-90. Just flip the camera's switch to MF instead of AF and focus by hand. The camera will light a dot and beep when focus is achieved. Ideally, look for one that has an "A" aperture setting, otherwise you'll have to manually "stop down" the camera to meter - not a huge deal, but it's much nicer to not have to do that.

Anyway, a used one should still offer very nice image quality (possibly even better, depending on the lens) for a big savings in the pocketbook. There's a good chance that you could resell it for what you paid for it, too, if you upgrade in the future. The value of Pentax lenses has been steadily going up as their DSLRs continue to grow in popularity.

 

[jaspersmommy]

I am a scrapbooker and have had a hard time finding stickers, etc. for a few characters. I am also a perfectionist so woukld like the same "embellishment" for each character photo. I don't want a 2" sticker for Mickey and a square
4" paper photo of Goofy. Also, there's absolutely nothing for Captain Hook. So...I came up with this great idea. I would like a photo of each that has no people in it. Then I can use PhotoShop to "cut" it from the background and add a name. So, I thought this board would be the perfect place to post this. I think there may be someone out there that either has photos like this or if you're going to WDW, you might be so kind as to snap an extra photo for me. If you're interested in having a copy of these when I'm done, please let me know too. Please either email me at mjjrangel at yahoo dot com or PM me. Thanks for any help you can give.
Melanie