First DSLR, considering k-x

[kimbaleo]

I'm about to purchase my first DSLR and considering the Pentax k-x. Have been using a Canon P&S till now and increasingly dissatisfied by the limitations especially portraits, depth of field, and action shots of kids who never sit still!

The type of photos I'll mainly be taking are of my children (newborn and 3 year old) esp. indoor/ low light; portraits; and some travel photography. I'm not really into wide angle, landscapes or macro much - but it will probably happen :P

I know I have a lot to learn, but wondering how others have found the k-x as a 'beginners' DSLR? How does it perform in low light? What's the video capture like?

Also, questions about the lenses - while I'm learning how to work manually I'll probably rely on AF quite a lot. The twin lens kit seems like a great deal for $849 from DCW, but what are the kit lenses like and are they appropriate for the type of photos I want to take? Would I be better off getting just the Body and a 18-200mm lens?

I've been told that a 50mm prime 1.8 lens is great for portraits, low light, and bokeh so I'd like to get one of those too - but I'm on a budget and looking at old/ used lenses, how do I know which one will suit the k-x?

Many thanks for any suggestions!

[Kym]

G'Day & Welcome to AP!

I'm biased, but, the Pentax K-x is best value for $ entry level DSLR on the market. It is not just a beginners DSLR but has more than enough to produce competition winning images.

• In body shake reduction (that means every lens is stabilised)
• Lots of Pentax and 3rd part lenses
• Pentax lenses from 40 years ago work (in manual mode if they are not 'A' lenses)
• Video
• Live view
• Excellent ISO range and noise performance
• Frame rate is great for entry level (nearly 5fps)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...xkxhandson.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/

In the Pentax line-up the K-x sits in the slot between K2000 (K-m) and the semi-pro K-7. While at first sight the new model is pretty much indistinguishable from the K2000, a closer look reveals that, from a features and specification point of view, the K-x has quite lot in common with the K-7, a significantly more expensive camera. It comes with the K-7's 11-point AF system and PRIME II imaging engine, along with its abilities to correct for chromatic aberration and distortion when using Pentax DA and DFA lenses. Add 720p HD video, ISO 12800 and 4.7 frames per second continuous shooting to the mix and you've got a, for the the K-x's very attractive price point, impressively well-specified camera.

Crucially the image quality does not lag behind the technical specification. The image output at base ISO shows good detail and colors but where the K-x really starts to shine is in low light. Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best of all current DSLRs with an APS-C size sensor; they certainly beat any of its direct competitors. The omission of visible AF points might be a serious drawback for some photographers but if you're not one of them with the Pentax K-x you can bag yourself a very capable entry-level DSLR at a bargain price.

Edit: Pricing: http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...tax+k-x&spos=3

Also: read this: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=24359 and this on lenses http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...d.php?p=356527

[MattC]

I am biased too , and I agree with Kym - the K-x is a top camera.

I would just check to see what the lens kit lenses are - usually a 18-55 - pentax recently introduced the water resistant version for the 18-55 - the previous version is still good too (both are regarded as one of the best kit lenses available).

[kimbaleo]

Thanks for the replies

I'm pretty much sold on the k-x - my other options were Canon 500D or Nikon d5000 and the k-x seems perfect for what I need (and better value!)

Now it's just the lens option I need to work out - the twin kit looks like a good deal, but I don't want to waste money on something I don't need, would rather spend it wisely.

The twin kit lenses are 18-55 and 50-200 - would I be better off getting just the 18-55 to start with? There's also an option for a Sigma 17-70 or 18-200 - would either of those be better than the 18-55?

Any suggestions which lens(es) would be best for the kind of photos I want to take? (kids, portraits, indoor/ low light, some travel shots)

thanks

[Kym]

Depends on your budget.
What do you want to photograph?

Take your time to read and ask questions.

Remember the style of photography that interests you will affect your selection.

• Landscape - tends to need wider lenses (as wide as 10mm-20mm, but up to 30mm is ok)
• People/portraits - 50mm-120mm is a typical range
• Wildlife - 200mm-500mm or longer, esp. for small birds and the like
• Sports - longer lengths as you are often a long way from the subject
• Macro - specialist lens typically 60mm-150mm, usually a prime lens (not zoom)

These are guides.

Personally I use my Tamron 28-75 for walk around & people and the Sigma 50-500 for wildlife, the 10-20 for landscape.

The Sigma 70-300 APO version is not bad for a longer lens (not the non APO 'kit' version).

These with the tammy... (proving you don't need a long lens for birds )
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=39540

These also with the tammy @ 28mm http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=46596

[gcflora]

Crucially the image quality does not lag behind the technical specification. The image output at base ISO shows good detail and colors but where the K-x really starts to shine is in low light. Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best of all current DSLRs with an APS-C size sensor; they certainly beat any of its direct competitors. The omission of visible AF points might be a serious drawback for some photographers but if you're not one of them with the Pentax K-x you can bag yourself a very capable entry-level DSLR at a bargain price.

That's a pretty big drawback if you ask me!

[kimbaleo]

Originally Posted by Kym

Depends on your budget.
What do you want to photograph?

Budget? Twin lens kit is $849, I don't mind spending a bit more (up to $1100 or so?) to get the 'right' setup for me. Would rather spend money on one 'ideal' lens than the twin kit if I don't need it.

What do I want to photograph? primarily kids, people, portraits, walk-around & travel shots, a bit of landscape. Not really any sports/ wildlife/ macro.

[TOM]

What is it that attracts you to an SLR over other camera formats kimbaleo? From your interests listed above, an SLR may not be the best type of camera to suit your needs. SLR's are primaraly a sports camera, although used by photojournalist, and wildlife photographers. They also excel at macro photography.

[gcflora]

Originally Posted by TOM

What is it that attracts you to an SLR over other camera formats kimbaleo? From your interests listed above, an SLR may not be the best type of camera to suit your needs. SLR's are primaraly a sports camera, although used by photojournalist, and wildlife photographers. They also excel at macro photography.

What are you talking about?

[Kym]

Originally Posted by TOM

What is it that attracts you to an SLR over other camera formats kimbaleo? From your interests listed above, an SLR may not be the best type of camera to suit your needs. SLR's are primarily a sports camera, although used by photojournalist, and wildlife photographers. They also excel at macro photography.

Not just SLR, but DSLR in this case - bottom line many more creative options than other digital formats.

Users of DSLR's today... lets see...

• Journalists
• Magazine / fashion
• Product / still life
• Portraits
• Street
• Flora (plants)
• Architecture
• Macro
• Landscape
• Wildlife
• Birding
• Astronomy
• Sports
• Paparazzi
• Underwater (dive)
• Law enforcement / forensics

Edit: A DSLR gives you the maximum flexibility and options for photography - esp. as someone wanting to take the hobby further than a P&S.

[TOM]

sure, an SLR is a versatile camera, kind of like a 'jack of all trades', but the OP has idicated that he does not want to shoot nearly everything you have listed (he didn't mention forensics so that's anyone guess). Better options are available to shoot what the kimbaleo wants to shoot.

better or simply alternative choices exist for at least the following:

journalism - rangefinder
magazine/fashion - medium format slr
still life - medium format slr/monorail medium format or large format
portraits -rangefinder/medium format rangefinder or slr/largeformat anything
landscape - largeformat field camera

[JimD]

Originally Posted by TOM

What is it that attracts you to an SLR over other camera formats kimbaleo? From your interests listed above, an SLR may not be the best type of camera to suit your needs. SLR's are primaraly a sports camera, although used by photojournalist, and wildlife photographers. They also excel at macro photography.

dSLR's are just the most versatile system available.

[Miaow]

Originally Posted by JimD

dSLR's are just the most versatile system available.

Completely agree - DSLR is the best way to go if you are finiding limitations with a P&S

[Kym]

Originally Posted by TOM

sure, an SLR is a versatile camera <snip>
Exactly!
better or simply alternative choices exist for at least the following:

journalism - rangefinder But limited for general photography
magazine/fashion - medium format slr Yes, but this is a DSLR is it not?
still life - medium format slr/monorail medium format or large format ditto
portraits -rangefinder/medium format rangefinder or slr/largeformat anything see above
landscape - largeformat field camera see above re limitations

The point being bangs for $ and maximum options the DSLR is they way to go - which is why millions are sold each year.
Unless the OP was going to specialise and only specialise and a has a huge budget the DSLR is his best option.

My read of the OP is an enthusiast stepping up a level into a more serious take on photography as a hobby - and on that basis your post is just confusing.
Maybe after a few years and wanting to go pro he may consider other options.

The fact is something like the K-x and either twin lens kit or the 18-200 or a Tamron 28-75 is an excellent start.

[Kym]

Originally Posted by kimbaleo

Budget? Twin lens kit is $849, I don't mind spending a bit more (up to $1100 or so?) to get the 'right' setup for me. Would rather spend money on one 'ideal' lens than the twin kit if I don't need it.

What do I want to photograph? primarily kids, people, portraits, walk-around & travel shots, a bit of landscape. Not really any sports/ wildlife/ macro.

Either the twin lens, 18-200 or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 would be my choice.
Kit lenses are fine for what you are planning. The 18-200 covers your range very well.
The Tamron with a better depth of field will help with the people/portraits, but may not have the zoom range you want.

After writing that I'm leaning to the 18-200 for your immediate needs.

[TOM]

agreed that the small format slr is a versatile system, i was just curious as to whether the op had though other options through. it doesn't sound to me like he wants all that versatility, and may be able to make better images with a better suited camera. and not neccessarliy a more expensive system. but i'm sure the pentax would do just fine.

[gcflora]

Yeah, well. But since you cannot get film developed these days a large format camera or many of those other options are useless. So unless you buy digital backs for them (BIG $$) you're up the creek.

[kimbaleo]

Tom - I want a DSLR because I've been using a Canon PowerShot S3iS for a few years and am increasingly frustrated by its limitations: especially with portraiture, (lack of) depth of field, and photographing fast moving kids in low light. I've played with my brother's DSLR and loved the results. I also want to take my 'hobby' to the next level and eventually start learning about other photography styles, so I think a DSLR is for me

Kym - thanks for the suggestions on lenses, & I'll definitely do some more reading (and asking questions!) before I buy. Your seagull photos are amazing by the way!

[TOM]

Yeah, well. But since you cannot get film developed these days a large format camera or many of those other options are useless. So unless you buy digital backs for them (BIG $$) you're up the creek.

what the ****?

Tom - I want a DSLR because I've been using a Canon PowerShot S3iS for a few years and am increasingly frustrated by its limitations: especially with portraiture, (lack of) depth of field, and photographing fast moving kids in low light. I've played with my brother's DSLR and loved the results. I also want to take my 'hobby' to the next level and eventually start learning about other photography styles, so I think a DSLR is for me

cool, so long as you've made an informed decision. sounds like you're comfortable with an slr...all the best.

[Kym]

Originally Posted by gcflora

Yeah, well. But since you cannot get film developed these days a large format camera or many of those other options are useless. So unless you buy digital backs for them (BIG $$) you're up the creek.

Originally Posted by TOM

what the ****?

Well you can; but its not like its that easy any more. Eg. E6 is only done at Atkins AFAIK (Adelaide).
Film is becoming niche now, and in the next few years will be some few specialist pro's and a very limited number of hobbyists.
Consumer is now 100% digital. Lets face it Kodak have stopped producing Kodachrome.
The only serious commercial driver to producing film stock is the movie industry.
The basics of supply and demand is killing the economics of film.
Its sad in one way - but progress in another.

[TOM]

yes so true, but in some ways we're progressing, and going backwards in someways. a bit like cd vs mp3. mp3 is more convenient, but what's that got to do with listening to good music? film is certainly a niche medium now, and i don't mind that much....with my business, it sets me apart from others. my clients really like that, but i do offer digital when i want to. but digital's popularity is because of marketing....nothing more. if companies like kodak, nikon or canon could make more money from film (ie. camera turn over) than they could from digital, film would still be the dominant medium. it has little to do with convenience or anything else that digital supposedly offers. Kodachrome's demise has little to do with digital, as many people stopped shooting it decades ago. many people have shed a tear at the demise, but print film and chrome film has improved so much, that kodachrome was really niche product.

[ricktas]

I think this thread has gotten way off-topic from the original posters question about a DSLR.