I've been trying to pick out my next camera for over 2 years -- not an easy task. Only digital camera I've ever bought/used is my Samsung Digimax V3 3.2 MP. It uses 2 AA's (finicky!!), has some nice features for a P&S:
* Fully auto, but has manual controls if wanted (but I must confess I've never used manual controls with this camera. Maybe I would on my next camera?)
* 10 second self timer (used it quite a few times)
* Wireless remote shutter (I've used it several times)
* 1/2 decent viewfinder and OK LCD (I use the VF 90% of the time, and I'd estimate it only shows less than 70% of the shot you actually get!)
* AF works well most of the time (exceptions aren't at all uncommon, however)
Bad problems with this P&S:
Slow as molasses in January -- minimum 7 seconds between shots.
Needs super hot AAs to take many shots without changing batteries. It's a major reason I use the VF (seldom leave the LCD turned on).
Shutter lag is variable but often awful. It's really hard to get the shot you see if your subject is changing (e.g. kids, animals at the zoo, etc.).
- - - -
Next camera:
I've been advised a few times here to strongly consider a DSLR. Much bigger sensor than P&S, even the high end P&S mega-zooms. Fast to start up, quick shutter, can take the next shot almost immediately after the last shot, burst mode. So, although I strongly considered a few megazoom P&S's, I've been looking at entry level DSLR's recently. What's important to me:
1. Responsive: Starting up fast isn't so important, but I'd like to be able to get my shot off fast and capture a moving subject. I have read a lot about AF speed, and have no experience using a DSLR, none, so it's a little hypothetical from my perspective at the moment. Long time ago I owned a Nikon F 35mm SLR camera, and I guess the lenses were MF. Of course, that camera took a picture instantly when I pressed the shutter release, I just had to crank the film once and I was ready to take the next shot as long as my subject was still in focus.
2. A fast burst mode would be nice, so I don't miss those fleeting shots I see so often that I almost always miss with my P&S!
3. Not too big and heavy. I know that whatever I get is apt to be a lot less convenient than my P&S in terms of portability (my P&S slips in my pants pocket!).
4. I have both volumes of Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, and he says to get external flash, preferably wireless. He says pop up flash's effects (unless ameliorated by some creative diffusion techniques) results in awful portraiture. So, I'd like my next camera to support external flash well.
- - - -
My hands are pretty big. Fingers not big and fat, but my hand span is about 10 inches. I've seen a lot of posts by people saying that this or that DSLR doesn't feel good in their hands because it's too small (e.g. the Sony A230 or A330), but I'm not used to ANY kind of DSLR and am only used to a fairly small P&S, so I'm thinking that I am not as apt to feel that way about a small DSLR, not being used to any, big or small. Granted, I'm inexperienced, so I may be wrong, so I'm not discounting that some of you who are very experienced would have good ideas concerning what would "feel" better in my hands.
My budget: I'm hoping to keep the purchase under $800 or so.
Cameras I'm thinking about right now:
Pentax K-x (this leads the pack right now), Sony A330, Sony A230. Maybe Nikon D5000, although I haven't really looked into it. I read a post by a guy (a review by a consumer) who said that he returned his Canon T2i and bought a Pentax K-x and said the K-x's build feels much better, less plasticy, better quality. People seem to say that the Sony A330 is pretty small for people with big hands, more so than the K-x.
I like the A330's swiveling LCD and it's fast AF using Live View, but other than that its features seem lacking compared to the K-x, to me. The K-x uses 4 AA's, and honestly this is very attractive to me. I may be stupid about this but I always find myself babying my lithium rechargeable batteries, trying to keep them alive. NiMH batteries aren't nearly as prone to deterioration by virtue of how you treat them AFAIK. Charge them, don't worry about the state of charge except for the fact that the more charge on them, the better your device is going to perform with them. Just top them up, and you're ready to go. Freeze them, even, if they aren't low self discharge. So, the K-x's use of AA's is a big plus for me. The K-x's high burst mode of 4.3/second compared to the A330's of about 2.5/second is another reason to like the Pentax.
The high ISO performance of the Sony's is said to be very good but that of the K-x is even better, so that's a plus for the K-x. I will definitely be doing a lot of indoor shooting, and of moving subjects in many cases from distance and close, so good high ISO performance would be very helpful.
I know, it sounds like I've virtually picked the K-x already, but there are a couple of things hanging me up:
1. If you read a lot of reviews of the K-x by customers or at review sites, you get one negative over and over, being the lack of indication in the viewfinder of where the camera has chosen to focus. I suppose there's a MF option, and one guy said that you can choose between 11 point (wide bracketing) and 5 point (narrow bracketing) with the AF system, and this gives you more control in dubious focus situations, but this issue is making me skittish about the K-x. I'm thinking that the next version of this camera, or whatever Pentax puts out to replace it will likely correct this problem, considered an oversight by practically everybody who has commented on the camera. When that camera will come out I don't know. Maybe in 6 months, maybe a year I figure.
2. There's an issue with blurry pictures with the K-x at certain low shutter speeds (e.g. 1/100 second) that's a matter of much discussion on the forums. Sometimes attributed to mirror slap, workarounds have been suggested, but there appears to be no answer yet. I don't know how bad a problem this is, but it seems to be less of an annoyance to people than the lack of illuminated AF points shown in the VF issue.
- - - -
I don't anticipate getting another DSLR any time soon, if ever. So, I don't want to be wanting to dump whatever I get for another in two years or something. Yes, of course, I may want to, but it's not my thinking now. I'd prefer to get something I won't regret and won't want to leave behind soon. I may not want to get a lot of lenses. My current idea with the K-x is to get the two lens kit, the 18-55mm DAL standard and the 55-300 DAL, which I heard is a lot better than the 55-200mm DAL in the cheaper 2 lens kit. The rebate on the 18-55 / 55-300 two lens kit K-x has expired (the kit with rebate was about $650), so it's now $850 at Amazon, but it's available from Camerakings dot com for $699. It says it's new, but I'm concerned that it could be grey goods, what do you think?
[Edit: Before posting this I checked Amazon again and see the 2 lens kit I'm looking at selling for $699.99, free shipped by "Portable Guy"! :awe: Seems that would be a safer option than Camera Kings, I'm thinking. Please bear with me, I've only bought one piece of camera equipment online, my P&S]
Some have said bypass the 18-55mm DAL Pentax lens entirely and get a good alternative lens instead, say a Tamron, something like an 18-70mm. I figure this won't play well with my budget, particularly if I also want the Pentax DAL 55-300 zoom.
I have a minidv 480p camcorder. The 720p HD of the K-x, I could use. Hear it's hard on NiMH AA's, maybe I'd take short videos, maybe save the supplied lithium batteries for videos. I have a tripod already, not high end but decent. My printers are B&W, and I haven't been printing anything. That could change, of course.
Should I wait for the next generation Pentax?
I don't know about the external flash options on the cameras I've been looking at, so any comments about that would be helpful.
Am I looking at the wrong camera?
Comments, suggestions?
* Fully auto, but has manual controls if wanted (but I must confess I've never used manual controls with this camera. Maybe I would on my next camera?)
* 10 second self timer (used it quite a few times)
* Wireless remote shutter (I've used it several times)
* 1/2 decent viewfinder and OK LCD (I use the VF 90% of the time, and I'd estimate it only shows less than 70% of the shot you actually get!)
* AF works well most of the time (exceptions aren't at all uncommon, however)
Bad problems with this P&S:
Slow as molasses in January -- minimum 7 seconds between shots.
Needs super hot AAs to take many shots without changing batteries. It's a major reason I use the VF (seldom leave the LCD turned on).
Shutter lag is variable but often awful. It's really hard to get the shot you see if your subject is changing (e.g. kids, animals at the zoo, etc.).
- - - -
Next camera:
I've been advised a few times here to strongly consider a DSLR. Much bigger sensor than P&S, even the high end P&S mega-zooms. Fast to start up, quick shutter, can take the next shot almost immediately after the last shot, burst mode. So, although I strongly considered a few megazoom P&S's, I've been looking at entry level DSLR's recently. What's important to me:
1. Responsive: Starting up fast isn't so important, but I'd like to be able to get my shot off fast and capture a moving subject. I have read a lot about AF speed, and have no experience using a DSLR, none, so it's a little hypothetical from my perspective at the moment. Long time ago I owned a Nikon F 35mm SLR camera, and I guess the lenses were MF. Of course, that camera took a picture instantly when I pressed the shutter release, I just had to crank the film once and I was ready to take the next shot as long as my subject was still in focus.
2. A fast burst mode would be nice, so I don't miss those fleeting shots I see so often that I almost always miss with my P&S!
3. Not too big and heavy. I know that whatever I get is apt to be a lot less convenient than my P&S in terms of portability (my P&S slips in my pants pocket!).
4. I have both volumes of Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, and he says to get external flash, preferably wireless. He says pop up flash's effects (unless ameliorated by some creative diffusion techniques) results in awful portraiture. So, I'd like my next camera to support external flash well.
- - - -
My hands are pretty big. Fingers not big and fat, but my hand span is about 10 inches. I've seen a lot of posts by people saying that this or that DSLR doesn't feel good in their hands because it's too small (e.g. the Sony A230 or A330), but I'm not used to ANY kind of DSLR and am only used to a fairly small P&S, so I'm thinking that I am not as apt to feel that way about a small DSLR, not being used to any, big or small. Granted, I'm inexperienced, so I may be wrong, so I'm not discounting that some of you who are very experienced would have good ideas concerning what would "feel" better in my hands.
My budget: I'm hoping to keep the purchase under $800 or so.
Cameras I'm thinking about right now:
Pentax K-x (this leads the pack right now), Sony A330, Sony A230. Maybe Nikon D5000, although I haven't really looked into it. I read a post by a guy (a review by a consumer) who said that he returned his Canon T2i and bought a Pentax K-x and said the K-x's build feels much better, less plasticy, better quality. People seem to say that the Sony A330 is pretty small for people with big hands, more so than the K-x.
I like the A330's swiveling LCD and it's fast AF using Live View, but other than that its features seem lacking compared to the K-x, to me. The K-x uses 4 AA's, and honestly this is very attractive to me. I may be stupid about this but I always find myself babying my lithium rechargeable batteries, trying to keep them alive. NiMH batteries aren't nearly as prone to deterioration by virtue of how you treat them AFAIK. Charge them, don't worry about the state of charge except for the fact that the more charge on them, the better your device is going to perform with them. Just top them up, and you're ready to go. Freeze them, even, if they aren't low self discharge. So, the K-x's use of AA's is a big plus for me. The K-x's high burst mode of 4.3/second compared to the A330's of about 2.5/second is another reason to like the Pentax.
The high ISO performance of the Sony's is said to be very good but that of the K-x is even better, so that's a plus for the K-x. I will definitely be doing a lot of indoor shooting, and of moving subjects in many cases from distance and close, so good high ISO performance would be very helpful.
I know, it sounds like I've virtually picked the K-x already, but there are a couple of things hanging me up:
1. If you read a lot of reviews of the K-x by customers or at review sites, you get one negative over and over, being the lack of indication in the viewfinder of where the camera has chosen to focus. I suppose there's a MF option, and one guy said that you can choose between 11 point (wide bracketing) and 5 point (narrow bracketing) with the AF system, and this gives you more control in dubious focus situations, but this issue is making me skittish about the K-x. I'm thinking that the next version of this camera, or whatever Pentax puts out to replace it will likely correct this problem, considered an oversight by practically everybody who has commented on the camera. When that camera will come out I don't know. Maybe in 6 months, maybe a year I figure.
2. There's an issue with blurry pictures with the K-x at certain low shutter speeds (e.g. 1/100 second) that's a matter of much discussion on the forums. Sometimes attributed to mirror slap, workarounds have been suggested, but there appears to be no answer yet. I don't know how bad a problem this is, but it seems to be less of an annoyance to people than the lack of illuminated AF points shown in the VF issue.
- - - -
I don't anticipate getting another DSLR any time soon, if ever. So, I don't want to be wanting to dump whatever I get for another in two years or something. Yes, of course, I may want to, but it's not my thinking now. I'd prefer to get something I won't regret and won't want to leave behind soon. I may not want to get a lot of lenses. My current idea with the K-x is to get the two lens kit, the 18-55mm DAL standard and the 55-300 DAL, which I heard is a lot better than the 55-200mm DAL in the cheaper 2 lens kit. The rebate on the 18-55 / 55-300 two lens kit K-x has expired (the kit with rebate was about $650), so it's now $850 at Amazon, but it's available from Camerakings dot com for $699. It says it's new, but I'm concerned that it could be grey goods, what do you think?
[Edit: Before posting this I checked Amazon again and see the 2 lens kit I'm looking at selling for $699.99, free shipped by "Portable Guy"! :awe: Seems that would be a safer option than Camera Kings, I'm thinking. Please bear with me, I've only bought one piece of camera equipment online, my P&S]
Some have said bypass the 18-55mm DAL Pentax lens entirely and get a good alternative lens instead, say a Tamron, something like an 18-70mm. I figure this won't play well with my budget, particularly if I also want the Pentax DAL 55-300 zoom.
I have a minidv 480p camcorder. The 720p HD of the K-x, I could use. Hear it's hard on NiMH AA's, maybe I'd take short videos, maybe save the supplied lithium batteries for videos. I have a tripod already, not high end but decent. My printers are B&W, and I haven't been printing anything. That could change, of course.
Should I wait for the next generation Pentax?
I don't know about the external flash options on the cameras I've been looking at, so any comments about that would be helpful.
Am I looking at the wrong camera?
Comments, suggestions?
Last edited: