Photo Equipment? Behind the Times??

[mouselovenfamily]

I have a Pentax *isdD camera. I use a 18-55 and 75-200 lens most of the time. I have manual or auto focus and several settings to adjust to. My sister just bought a new Fuji camera that is much smaller and auto everything. Both are digital and after our recent vacation, alot of her photos are really nice.
So is it time for me to get a new one that's newer? I really like my camera but I'm not sure if I'm behind the times???

Suggestions?

 

[Anewman]

I have a Pentax *isdD camera. I use a 18-55 and 75-200 lens most of the time. I have manual or auto focus and several settings to adjust to. My sister just bought a new Fuji camera that is much smaller and auto everything. Both are digital and after our recent vacation, alot of her photos are really nice.
So is it time for me to get a new one that's newer? I really like my camera but I'm not sure if I'm behind the times???

Suggestions?

IMO your Pentax is capable of better photos than the auto everything Fuji you speak of, but maybe your sister is just a VERY GOOD photographer.

In general upgrading cameras will not make for better photos.

I would maybe invest in better(or more specialized) lenses, like some fast lenses that would really help in lower light conditions. Also some good books in order to learn to use the FULL capabilities of your camera.

 

[mouselovenfamily]

It's a nice camera, for sure and I have taken a class. I just wasn't sure if were "newer" cameras out there.
Low light...how did you kow that is my problem???? Faster lens? Can someone explain what I should get. I struggle most with my night shots
Thanks for the help!!

 

[Groucho]

If the D is like my DL (which I think it is), the default ISO range is 200-400. Crank that baby up if you want better low-light ability! You can choose 800 (still quite good), 1600 (somewhat noisy but not too bad), and 3200 (pretty noisy but usable.) Each one of those will gather twice as much light as the one before it. Just hit the Fn button on the back and you can choose ISO mode.

Regardless, your camera is certainly able to take terrific photos - the sensor is basically the same as in the currently-available K100D and K100D Super (which gets very high ratings for a 6mp DSLR sensor) although the jpg algorithms have evolved since yours. If you want to get advanced, you can shoot raw and you'll be right there with the current one (though the new one has image stabilization and better autofocus, I think.)

You said that the Fuji shots are nice - but you didn't say anything about your shots besides what camera and lenses you use. Are you having some specific problems? Generally, with a DSLR - if you're getting unsatisfactory shots, it's a problem with the person holding the camera, not the camera itself. Buying a new one will likely not make a big difference, better to hang on to the money and spend some time learning how to make the camera do what you want.

 

[mouselovenfamily]

I do get really nice shots. Alot are great. I was shocked how well hers did, even though she's just a point and shoot gal. I do love my camera and I do crank it up to 3200 and set it to night imaging. At my sons night footbal games I have problems with the action shots and lighting, even at 3200. I've played with action mode vs 3200 vs night setting but still not GREAT shots, really good, but not great. And my Tink flying from the castle was a blur on night 3200. My regular shots are great thuogh.
I've never shot raw....
Thanks for your help!!

 

[handicap18]

If you find yourself taking a lot of sports pictures at night then you might want to consider spending money on a faster lens. You say you have a 75-200mm lens. I'm guessing that it has a variable aperture. This means that as you zoom in closer your aperture gets smaller. You might get f/4 at 75mm, but when zoomed all the way up to 200mm, that aperture drops to f/5.6.

There are zoom lenses with a fixed aperture. They are a lot more expensive, but they are worth the money once you get there.

Pentax makes a 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma & Tamron each make a 70-200mm f/2.8 in a Pentax mount. This give you the f/2.8 aperture all the way through. So if your current zoom lens at 200mm is f/5.6, the f/2.8 on the lenses I mention are a full 2 stops wider (aka: Faster). This can mean the difference between a 1/60th shutter speed and 1/250th. Or being able to drop your ISO from 3200 to 800 to get a cleaner image.

 

[ukcatfan]

I do get really nice shots. Alot are great. I was shocked how well hers did, even though she's just a point and shoot gal. I do love my camera and I do crank it up to 3200 and set it to night imaging. At my sons night footbal games I have problems with the action shots and lighting, even at 3200. I've played with action mode vs 3200 vs night setting but still not GREAT shots, really good, but not great. And my Tink flying from the castle was a blur on night 3200. My regular shots are great thuogh.
I've never shot raw....
Thanks for your help!!

If I were you, I would investigate RAW. The JPGs that the cameras put out are not going to look as good as ones that a RAW program puts out even without making adjustments. The JPG engine was strangely not so great in the *ist series. It was not until the K110D and K100D that they got it right. Even stranger is that the K10D is not so great on default settings. One big improvement if you start really processing them is that you can do your noise removal before sharpening (or at a minimum both during the conversion). That leads to better results. When you do noise removal on an already sharpened image, you are partly just removing your sharpness and then likely going back and re-sharpening them. It can sometimes cause an unrealistic look.

Another thing when shooting RAW is the ability to up the exposure after the fact. Set the camera to under expose by say one stop and then you up it by that same amount in the conversion. It might get noisy if you were already shooting at 3200, but at least you are able to make the shutter faster and prevent blurring which makes the shot unusable anyway. I have never tested it, but I suspect you would at least get as good of results doing this at 1600 and upping to 3200 in the conversion as you would by just shooting in 3200. ISO 3200 is not a native mode of the sensor in your camera, so the camera is likely doing the same thing in camera.

Kevin

 

[mouselovenfamily]

Thanks for all thie info and tips! So if I do the RAW should I still look at the faster lense. I use my camera enough the money would be worth it. I will try RAW and see what happens.

Thanks!!!

 

[ukcatfan]

Thanks for all thie info and tips! So if I do the RAW should I still look at the faster lense. I use my camera enough the money would be worth it. I will try RAW and see what happens.

Thanks!!!

RAW helps when you need to get a little more exposure out of a shot, but only goes so far. A fast lens is a big advantage when shooting low light. You can also look at used lenses. I started with a used 50mm f/2 MF lens and it was very capable. I recently upgraded to the 50mm f/1.4 and am very happy with it as well. The main reason I say you could benefit from using RAW is because your model is not as good at making JPGs as a RAW program.

Kevin