Need Advice Pentax K10D vs K100D

02/13/2007 11:00:28 PM · #1

Hello all,

I am a newbie to the SLR arena and am having trouble deciding which camera to buy. I like both the Pentax K10D and K100D, but don't know if it's worth me investing in the K10D. I will be using the camera to shoot the insides of condos (the lighting can be rather low) and the pics will be posted on websites. I currently have a Canon S2IS, but would like to upgrade. With the K100D I feel like why wouldn't I just buy an S3IS that has the same MP's. I like the image stabilization in both cameras. In the future I may want to print some large size pics. Will the images I take be very different from K10D to K100D? Thank You.

02/13/2007 11:25:26 PM · #2

I own an S3IS and a K10D. #1 reason why the S3IS cannot even be considered in the same league as the K100D is that the 6mp sensor in the S3 is small, and therefore noisy, making it unusable over ISO 200. The sensor in the K100D outperforms the ISO 200 quality of the S3 all the way up to 1600. For me, there are only a couple reasons to keep the S3 in my bag: excellent movie mode, 500mm equiv zoom, and of course, as a backup.

A DSLR will make you a better photographer. It will force you to think every time you take a photo, and your photography will benefit immensely from that alone. With the S3, I found that it didn't take me long to progress to the point where I was working with full manual most of the time, and it was slow and painful. It takes a while to get the hang of dSLR, but I love it, and I couldn't go back to my S3 now.

As for the K100D vs K10D debate, well, the 10D is bigger, beefier, weather sealed, faster, just all around more advanced. Don't let the MP fool you: the K100D is probably better in low light due to its smaller, less noisy sensor. The K100D reportedly also has killer dynamic range when shooting RAW; I've read its on par with the Canon 5D.

So, it really is up to you. Go down to a camera store and do a comparison between the two K's, and see which one suits your needs better. Both use SD, so take your own card in and run your own personal test and check it out at home. I naturally think you should be going 10D, but the 100D is a perfectly capable camera that should suit almost anyones needs.

If you have any other questions about the 10D, ask away! I love my camera and could talk about it for hours and hours (just ask my girlfriend). I'm sure the K100D crew will be all over this thread very quickly too!

02/13/2007 11:34:06 PM · #3

I appreciate your input, but I don't think I understand. You said the S3IS has a smaller sensor than the K100D and that makes the K100D better, yet you say the K100D has a smaller sensor than the K10D and that makes the K100D better than the K10D.

02/13/2007 11:42:47 PM · #4

No, the sensor on the K100D and K10D are the same size. Theres a thread on understanding ISO that explains this better, but the 10D crams 4 million more pixels into the same area of a chip, making them more crowded and more noisy.

Now, take that and compare the S3 and K100D. Same MP, but the S3 sensor is much smaller, therefore the pixels are more crowded and more noisy.

By smaller, I mean physical size, not megapixels. Make sense?

And I only said the K100D is better noise, DR, and size (if smaller is better to you - it isn't to me and my big hands) wise. In all other areas, the K10D exceeds its little brother's capabilities

Message edited by author 2007-02-13 23:45:05.

02/13/2007 11:47:03 PM · #5

Understanding ISO thread

02/13/2007 11:55:23 PM · #6

I see. Thank you. I noticed the K10D's ISO goes down to 100, is will this make my low light shots better than the K100?

Sorry, I posted this as you posted your link. Great Link. Thank you.

Message edited by author 2007-02-13 23:57:45.

02/13/2007 11:58:18 PM · #7

From what I understand, yes, the K100D is a better low light performer than the K10D (noise-wise, anyway. I have no idea how the AF works in low light on the K100D).

02/14/2007 12:26:55 AM · #8

Option, if I shoot in RAW, does that have any affect on noise, or is RAW just for color?

02/14/2007 01:18:46 AM · #9

RAW shouldn't affect noise, but it will have an effect on the dynamic range of the shot. The greater the dynamic range, the less you have to worry about clipped highlights or shadows.

I personally am very lazy and don't shoot RAW very often. When I do shoot RAW, its RAW+jpeg, and I honestly havent noticed a difference between the RAW file and the jpeg yet...

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/14/2007 01:46:10 AM · #10

Originally posted by elbandido:

Option, if I shoot in RAW, does that have any affect on noise, or is RAW just for color?

YES, RAW images will contain noise, while a JPEG will have the noise reduced. However, RAW also contains more details, since it has not gone through the noise-reduction process.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/14/2007 01:16:12 PM · #11

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by elbandido:
Option, if I shoot in RAW, does that have any affect on noise, or is RAW just for color?

YES, RAW images will contain noise, while a JPEG will have the noise reduced. However, RAW also contains more details, since it has not gone through the noise-reduction process.

Right. Forgot about that...

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

02/15/2007 01:53:18 AM · #12

Either K100D or K10D will be great for you.

It certainly sounds like you are a beginner, so if you wanted, you could get started with an excellent kit of the:

K100D
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Pentax 50mm f/1.4
Sigma 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 APO Macro

your call if you want to go for the Tamron over the kit lens or not, but I guarantee that you will be glad you did.

That kit would probably take care of just about any need you had for a long time. There's walkaround shooting, portraits, closeup/macro and all of those lenses are fairly inexpensive for what you are getting. Pentax's 50mm lens is REALLY nice and is cheaper than either Canon or Nikon's version (although lacking USM... probably somewhat immaterial)

You probably wouldn't see much difference between 6MP and 10MP for 99% of what you do for a few years if you are a normal person, but you might appreciate having a few more bucks in your budget for some nice glass.

If you wanted to go wider, Pentax has a 10-17mm fisheye zoom that is apparently pretty decent too. Works with free de-fish tools available on the net.

02/15/2007 03:05:15 AM · #13

I don't think the tamron 17-50 is available for Pentax, is it? The sigma 18-50 2.8 or 17-70 2.8-4.5 are both decent alternatives.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/15/2007 03:42:08 AM · #14

When I am shooting inside shots of condos, for example, and I am shooting a pic of the kitchen and the low hanging island lights are part of the pic, how can I prevent the halos/brightness that show up on my pics (turning off the lights is not an option). Would I use a filter?

Message edited by author 2007-02-15 03:43:59.

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/15/2007 03:52:32 AM · #15

Originally posted by elbandido:

use a lens hood!

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

02/15/2007 05:21:49 AM · #16

Right, now I remember why.

It's the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8. It's equivalent to a 24-75mm f/2.8.

Check out the price of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. It doesn't have IS and is only likely a few notches better than the Pentax 16-50.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/15/2007 08:04:28 AM · #17

The DA* 16-50 2.8 doesnt come out til april.

And if it is anything like the FA* lenses (* being Pentax's "L"), its a few notches below nothing...

*edit* "a few notches below nothing" sounds kinda bad, doesnt it? haha... I think you all know what I mean :-P

Message edited by author 2007-02-15 20:30:34.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

02/15/2007 08:22:10 PM · #18

Heh. Yeah I am going to hazard a guess that the lens will be very, very good. The simple fact that it's virtually the same as the Tokina which I have been waiting for since FEBRUARY LAST YEAR, might indicate that they are looking to get the lens quality locked down in light of similar glass by Tamron and Sigma which has entered below their intended price point.

In that event, the lens would theoretically still be worth waiting for. I just hope that we aren't let down.

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is in a slightly less extreme range optically, so, particularly near the wide end at 24mm (remembering that it was intended for full frame shooting), it will likely outperform any of the 'near equivalents for APS-C' that have come out recently. The degree of this superior performance isn't likely to be very significant for anyone shooting a Pentax digital though - for any number of reasons.

Indeed, Pentax glass is flipping nice. If I were to get a second body, I'd probably go for a Pentax with the 50mm f/1.4, cost that's just plain yummy.