Bree recently decided that I’m good enough to take nice photos of the kids but our camera isn’t up to scratch. About a week ago, I started researching DSLR cameras. It’s a fascinating world where all the things you thought you knew about cameras is wrong. Film SLRs were quite close to their “conventional” counterparts yet DSLRs and digicams have been moving in almost opposite directions. There are many advances that make digicams awesome until you start trying to do serious work with them. If it wasn’t for the high (at the time) cost of DSLRs, I don’t think there’d be a high end digicam market. Unfortunately, cheap DSLRs are a recent phenomenon so the digicams moved up creating the “prosumer” market, leading to the current strange overlap. For around $1000 AUD, I can get a low-end DSLR or a fairly high-end digicam. The digicam probably has more megapixels, more zoom, tons more features, it almost seems silly to get a DSLR. The hidden secret though is that the DSLR gives you much better photos, better battery life, much more versatility (through replaceable lenses and flashes) and much more control.
So after days researching the web and some hands-on testing with various models, I got a DSLR. It’s a Pentax K100D, purchased with 18-55mm and 70-300mm “stock” (ie. slow but cheap) lenses for $1,099 AUD from Ted’s at Westfield Garden City.
I did consider some alternatives.
Canon is the leader in the DSLR world. Their EOS range doesn’t go as “low-end” as their competitors and is more expensive for it. However, they have a very nice system to go with it. I was very much tempted by the 400D or the older 350D but ultimately, this would have meant spending more money on tech that I don’t really need since I’m a “prosumer”, not a professional and my budget is tight.
Nikon is number 2. They have more of a presence in the low end and seem to have more models around my price range, possibly due to recent model introductions. I tried the D40 in a shop and while it’s the smallest and lightest DSLR around, it felt like junk, aimed at people that had used high-end digicams and wanted to get their feet wet on a cheap DSLR. It’s stock lens was as slow as a digicam’s and unlike all the other Nikons, it supports very few lenses due to its crippled mount. It’s predecessor, the D50 was definitely better but harder to find. The older D70s was nicer still, though it had the hard sell of being more expensive, older tech (great for a second-hand purchase but annoying at full retail price). The Nikon cameras were the only ones I looked at that had a light for auto-focus. The other models all used the flash bulb, which can be annoying since that generally means you have to take extra steps to avoid actually using the flash for the photo. The Nikons also had the fastest flash sync times. I kind of get the feeling that, at least in the low end, Nikon gives you more of the serious tech with less frills than what Canon gives you.
Olympus has the E-500 which was also tempting (and quite cheap). It uses a new system called four-thirds that was designed from the ground up for DSLRs (unlike traditional lenses which are designed to focus light onto a “big” sensor). To be fair though, other manufacturers are making lenses that focus to a smaller area (digital only). The other potential problem for the four-thirds system is that “full-frame” sensors might start to come down in price (and appear in more cameras, making the digital-only lenses useless. The Olympus lenses didn’t have direct zoom control either, the knob moved but this made a motor move the lens rather than mechanically moving it. In reality this might not be a big deal but I wanted a DSLR for the control it gives and this felt wrong to me. This was the only camera I looked at with crippled USB. Who in their right mind wants to transfer big images over a USB 1.1 cable? I mean, the SD card I got plugs directly into USB ports so I’ll probably never use my USB cable but still, how much would it have cost to put in a USB 2.0 port (the REAL 2.0, not that “full speed” marketing crap)? In it’s favour, the E-500 matches up to the Canon models a little better than the other cheap DSLRs, with 8MP and anti-dust tech but for me, this camera had a bad vibe and I abandoned this camera as a possibility.
So this leads me back to the Pentax K100D. Not only is it the cheapest camera on the market, it’s got a killer feature. With anti-shake built into the camera, the $200 x-300mm lens can capture images that the more expensive Canon 400D can only get with a $1000 lens! Well, that’s the theory. A work colleague has a 300D with a stabilised x-300mm lens so I might have to organise some kind of shoot out to confirm this.
Unlike the single Li-Ion cell that most DSLRs have, the K100D takes 4xAA batteries or 2xCR-V3 lithium cells. My current digicam takes 2xAA batteries or a CR-V3 cell but I reckon that 2 Energizer e2 cells give a better bang for the buck than the Duracel CR-V3 cells I can buy. Of course, my preferred route will be rechargeables. I’ve got 4x2100mah batteries (purchased for my digicam) but I’ll probably end up with another set because charging all four cells takes 15 hours on my charger and that’s a long time to be without a camera. Of course, that’ll depend on just how good battery life is. It’s one area where the reviews seemed a bit vague. They all mentioned how convenient AA batteries can be but if the capacity of the camera is greatly reduced as a result… that could be dissapointing. My digicam is on litium cells now because they last better when you use the flash but the whole point of a DSLR was to avoid the flash. I took some test shots indoors and the better lens plus the anti-shake seemed to me to indicate that I’ll be able to avoid the flash for many cases where my digicam required it.
One thing that could prove useful is that the K100D is compatible with ALL Pentax lenses. From the look of it, most need an adaptor and obviously some functions don’t work but Pentax was a big name in Film SLRs (due to the legendary K1000) so it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s plenty of bargains to be had on good lenses for older models. Then again, this compatibility might be useful for owners of Pentax lenses and totally useless to me. I’m not actually that interested in amassing a collection of lenses, all I’m really interested in is a 50mm prime (something faster than the kit lens but still cheap). It looks like an older 50mm with a converter will be less than a new 50mm lens but the trick is ensuring I end up with a combo that will work.
This camera is also heavier than the other leading contenders. Compared to the puny D40 it’s a monster but it’s not that big a jump from the 400D. Some sites listed it as a whopping 85g (25%) heavier but others said that was the “loaded” weight. On a subjective test, it felt heavier to me, even though the one in the store had no batteries and the D400 did. For me, it’s not a problem but for people with smaller arms, it could tip the balance.
The continuous shooting mode on the K100D isn’t as good as some of the other models (due to a smaller RAM buffer) but it’s a feature I’ve never even had before so I’m not that sure I’ll miss it. I’ve read that 6MP gives you A3 size prints. Only Canon’s cameras had more than this but again, I’m not sure I’ll actually need this. We normally print 4×6 or 5×7 (centimetres, not inches) from my 3MP digicam.
There were other cameras I looked at but for the most part they were too expensive or didn’t interest me. Had I had a bigger budget, the 400D would have been the front-runner but would have faced competition from the feature-compatible Nikon D80 and Pentax K10D or the previous-generation Canon 350D or Nikon D70s.
Update 4 December 2006
Since making that observation about how Canon’s lens costs $1000, it’s come to my attention that a cash-back promotion from Canon and some competitive prices on stabilised lenses means you could end up with that ni
ce lens for around $500, if you are purchasing a 400D at the same time. Well, that’s nice but my budget definitely didn’t allow for a $2000 purchase and I’ve already found a use for anti-shake on my regular lens (low-light shots with a slow lens, no flash and no tripod).
Update 5 December 2006
I’m not sure if it comes out but I suppose I should disclose my bias towards Pentax. My dad (still) has an old Pentax (turns out it’s a ME) and it was the first “real” camera I ever used. It’s annoying knowing exactly why none of your photos come out but being unable to tweak your camera to take care of that. My digicam is also a Pentax. However, I don’t consider this something that unfairly swayed my decision. In the end, the K100D is cheaper than it’s rivals without being junk.
I also wanted to mention how important it is to have working product demos. The first time I went in the guy couldn’t find batteries for the K100D so I looked at the 400D and the D40. If it hadn’t been a little more than I’d wanted to spend, that would have cost Pentax a sale. When I went back, a different person showed me the K100D and got the sale. I don’t know (I don’t work in retail) but I’m pretty sure the person that makes the sale gets a commission. The first guy showed me several cameras and then lost a sale simply because he couldn’t find batteries (standard AA batteries too!). All I needed was a 2 minute look to make sure it wasn’t annoying (like the D40 was) and came close to what the 400D could do. I’m annoyed too because I got the camera just after a 3-day trip to Tangalooma Wild Dolphin Resort, where I had to make do with my digicam.
