Pentax k100d.......lenses?

[npmommie]

I am thinking of getting this so i can shoot indoor sports.......or if anyone has other suggestions i would appreciate it
http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_50-200mm_F4-5.6_ED_WR

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm not very familiar with the Pentax lineup, but it seems to me you'll want a faster lens for indoor sports. But I guess it depends on the lighting. Which sports are you planning to photograph?

 

[npmommie]

Gymnastics. sometimes the venue is bright and sometimes not so much. sometimes i am close to the action sometimes not.
and no flash allowed.
I am just going thru the lenses on amazon, I had no idea how spendy some are

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Here is a review of the K100D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/

While it wasn't a bad camera in its time, it is 6-7 year old technology. It has a small buffer that only allows for 4 jpegs, therefore it is not a camera that is real good for sports that require burst shooting. I'm not too sure of its ISO/Noise ratio. I know with my K10D which came out shortly after the 100 with a different sensor, I don't like going over ISO 800. The K10D is not a camera that likes indoor sports. Many times gyms look like they have good light, but it really isn't.

As far as lenses to shoot indoor sports, you will probably need a f2.8 lens. Those lenses are not cheap, therefore I would recommend you look at the third party offerings like Tamron or Sigma.

 

[photo_chick]

Gymnastics. sometimes the venue is bright and sometimes not so much. sometimes i am close to the action sometimes not.
and no flash allowed.
I am just going thru the lenses on amazon, I had no idea how spendy some are

My brother in law shoots a lot of gymnastics competitions. He shoots Canon and uses the 70-200 f/2.8.

I think with the lens you listed you might get by OK at the wide end where it's f/4, but you'll likely have to underexpose and push the exposure up in editing (which generally looks like muddy poop) when you zoom because f/5.6 at 200mm is really slow on any camera.

 

[npmommie]

Here is a review of the K100D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/

While it wasn't a bad camera in its time, it is 6-7 year old technology. It has a small buffer that only allows for 4 jpegs, therefore it is not a camera that is real good for sports that require burst shooting. I'm not too sure of its ISO/Noise ratio. I know with my K10D which came out shortly after the 100 with a different sensor, I don't like going over ISO 800. The K10D is not a camera that likes indoor sports. Many times gyms look like they have good light, but it really isn't.

As far as lenses to shoot indoor sports, you will probably need a f2.8 lens. Those lenses are not cheap, therefore I would recommend you look at the third party offerings like Tamron or Sigma.

ahhh so there lies my dilemma!
When I bought this camera, my dd was not the competitive gymnast she is today. I bought it to do portraits here at home of the kids, in the back yard, etc.
now she is intensely into this sport with competitions every weekend, and I get some decent shots, but the majority of what I get is not good. and I am talking about with my point and shoot. I have never tried the Pentax because of the lens.

so now I have to decide if I want to invest $$$$ for a lense for this camera, or just get a whole new camera.
but I don't know if I want another bulky dslr.
don't know if I would use it enough. but I do want something to take good pics of sports.
aaahhh what to do!

thanks photo chick. so you know which canon he uses?

 

[havoc315]

In a challenging situation like shooting indoor sports, you are getting different benefits from upgrading camera body and upgrading lens.

In terms of camera body -- A newer camera may give you better burst shooting. For example, I took Tae Kwon Do pics of my kids breaking boards, at 10 frames per second. So it was only about a 5 second event -- I just held down the shutter button, and picked the best 1-2 pictures out of 50.
Also a newer camera may have higher ISO range. Thus, you can use a high ISO to allow you to shoot at a faster speed, even with a lesser lens. But even higher ISO will only help you so much, and still degrades the quality of the image.

Next is focus speed -- This is a combination of camera body and lens. Obviously, for sports, the faster the focus, the better.

And that's where a high quality zoom lens comes in. A 70-200mm with a constant 2.8 aperture -- Lets it more light. Letting you use a faster shutter speed, at a lower ISO, then you would be able to do with a higher aperture lens.
Unfortunately, fixed aperture zoom lenses are EXPENSIVE. A high quality 70-200mm 2.8 can easily run $1500-$2500. Tamron makes one that is about $750. I have no experience with the lens, but I have read reviews online, suggesting that is has a slow focus making it less than ideal for sports. (The reviews suggest that's the compromise you are making for the much cheaper lens).

Now I have had luck shooting Tae Kwon Do with my ultra cheap zoom lens (70-210mm, 4.5-5.6). But that's from fairly close to the action, in fair indoor light. Certainly, to get the sharpest possible pictures, and to truly capture mid-air type action, a higher quality lens would be far preferable. But you *might* be able to get by with a real basic "kit" type of zoom lens.

dSLRs are truly no longer critical to get high quality results in every type of photography. I actually prefer my high grade Point & shoot for some types of shooting.
But dSLRs are still king for sports shooting.

There are some mirrorless systems that are basically dSLRs in a smaller package. Like the NEX system from Sony, which could be worth a look.

Within my limited knowledge (I certainly don't know every camera in the world), in a mirrorless-compact mold, there is the Panasonic FZ200. Constant aperture 2.8 lens, up to 200mm zoom. Shoots 12 frames per second. It *might* be able to handle sports well, though I really don't know.

 

[npmommie]

In a challenging situation like shooting indoor sports, you are getting different benefits from upgrading camera body and upgrading lens.

In terms of camera body -- A newer camera may give you better burst shooting. For example, I took Tae Kwon Do pics of my kids breaking boards, at 10 frames per second. So it was only about a 5 second event -- I just held down the shutter button, and picked the best 1-2 pictures out of 50.
Also a newer camera may have higher ISO range. Thus, you can use a high ISO to allow you to shoot at a faster speed, even with a lesser lens. But even higher ISO will only help you so much, and still degrades the quality of the image.

Next is focus speed -- This is a combination of camera body and lens. Obviously, for sports, the faster the focus, the better.

And that's where a high quality zoom lens comes in. A 70-200mm with a constant 2.8 aperture -- Lets it more light. Letting you use a faster shutter speed, at a lower ISO, then you would be able to do with a higher aperture lens.
Unfortunately, fixed aperture zoom lenses are EXPENSIVE. A high quality 70-200mm 2.8 can easily run $1500-$2500. Tamron makes one that is about $750. I have no experience with the lens, but I have read reviews online, suggesting that is has a slow focus making it less than ideal for sports. (The reviews suggest that's the compromise you are making for the much cheaper lens).

Now I have had luck shooting Tae Kwon Do with my ultra cheap zoom lens (70-210mm, 4.5-5.6). But that's from fairly close to the action, in fair indoor light. Certainly, to get the sharpest possible pictures, and to truly capture mid-air type action, a higher quality lens would be far preferable. But you *might* be able to get by with a real basic "kit" type of zoom lens.

dSLRs are truly no longer critical to get high quality results in every type of photography. I actually prefer my high grade Point & shoot for some types of shooting.
But dSLRs are still king for sports shooting.

There are some mirrorless systems that are basically dSLRs in a smaller package. Like the NEX system from Sony, which could be worth a look.

Within my limited knowledge (I certainly don't know every camera in the world), in a mirrorless-compact mold, there is the Panasonic FZ200. Constant aperture 2.8 lens, up to 200mm zoom. Shoots 12 frames per second. It *might* be able to handle sports well, though I really don't know.

thank you for this! I am looking at the sony and the panasonic now. I do like the lumix and that is what my point and shoot is, and it takes good pics in ideal conditions. I have even managed to get some good low light shots with it, so I am thinking maybe the fz200 is worth a look. I might go see it in person tonight. get a feel for it.
thanks again.