PDA

View Full Version : Camera question. Pentax K-r vs Nikon d3100



kvg
01-28-2011, 09:14 PM
I was looking at the Pentax k-r and Nikon d3100 and was looking for opinions. The K-r looks like the better of the two, is this correct?
http://www.digicamreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pentax_kr_dslr.jpg
http://www.techmagnews.com/wp-content/uploads/images/Nikon_D3100_DSLR_is_First_to_Bring_Real_Video_Autofocus_Nikon_D3100_Debuts_With_Low_Pricing_038_Fancy_Specs_1.jpg

Mitsu3000gt
01-29-2011, 02:13 PM
You're not really comparing similar price ranges. The Pentax is a more expensive camera, and is not Pentax's most entry level camera like the D3100 is for Nikon.

If you compare similar price ranges, you should be looking at a Nikon D90 which is a better camera overall than the Pentax Kr.

Really the most important thing you should be looking at though are the systems as a whole. The camera body is only one part of the system, and gets replaced most often. Start looking at lenses, flashes, etc. The Pentax system doesn't even come close to the Nikon system as far as lens selection goes.

If you start to get into the hobby more, get beyond the kit lenses, and begin to expand your system, you will kick yourself later for not sticking with Nikon or Canon. There is a reason they are by far and away the most popular camera systems with both beginners and professionals.

kvg
01-29-2011, 02:30 PM
The K-r is on sale 200 less at the camera store with the basic lens. I also have a wide angle and numerous other lenses from my old 35mm and the Pentax has an adapter. Does that make it worth it?:dunno:

Mitsu3000gt
01-29-2011, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by kvg
The K-r is on sale 200 less at the camera store with the basic lens. I also have a wide angle and numerous other lenses from my old 35mm and the Pentax has an adapter. Does that make it worth it?:dunno:

From what I can see they're basically just giving you the kit lens for $50. Not a bad deal, but it's not worth much more than that anyways. It's not stabilized like the Nikon one is, because Pentax has in-body stabilization. In-body stabilization isn't as good and doesn't stabilize the viewfinder like in-lens stabilization does, but it does work for ALL lenses which is a plus for some people.

If you already have Pentax lenses that certainly sweetens the deal, but doesn't change the fact that the Pentax system is really lacking in some areas. Have a look at the Pentax lens lineup and then have a look at the Nikon lens lineup. See if there is anything you would wish you had if you stayed Pentax. If not, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with picking up a Pentax. It's up to you really. The main differences, and the reasons why I would never buy into Pentax, lie in everything OTHER than the camera body. There is little wrong with the cameras themselves.

kvg
01-29-2011, 04:25 PM
Mitsu3000gt do work in the biz? you seem to know alot? I hear alot of people say nikon is the best way to go. Is the d90 still better than the d3100?

zieg
01-29-2011, 04:34 PM
Comes down to preference IMO. I settled on a k-x because it has some features that I think I would use, like faster ISO speeds and shutter speeds (I think?), and I don't care about the limited lens selection because I can't see myself wanting any of the lenses Nikon makes that Pentax doesn't. Decide what you want to do with the camera, then decide which one meets your needs best.

Mitsu3000gt
01-29-2011, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by kvg
Mitsu3000gt do work in the biz? you seem to know alot? I hear alot of people say nikon is the best way to go. Is the d90 still better than the d3100?

I don't work in the business (although I've been offered a job LOL), but photography is a big hobby of mine and I spend huge amounts of time reading, researching, and talking to people about it.

The D3100 is a newer camera but it is Nikon's most entry level camera and is missing some features that in my opinion are very important (as does every entry level camera...or they wouldn't be entry level). I always recommend that people buy not at the most entry level point, but at the best bang for the buck point or the obvious point of diminishing return. I would definitely take a D90 over a D3100. When the D90 came out it was over $1,000 for the body only. It has a lot more 'advanced' features, such as an in body focus motor, a top mounted LCD, glass pentaprism viewfinder, ability to control off camera flashes wirelessly through it's on-camera flash, lots of external controls, etc. Lots of stuff that you may not appreciate the full value of right away, but you will sure be glad you have it as you start to learn more. It is, however, officially discontinued, so I don't know how much longer it will be readily available. It's an absolute steal right now at $675.

All entry level DSLRs from every manufacturer lack some features that are likely to become a significant annoyance if you really get into the hobby. For me, one of the main things is lack of external control. Any time you need to dig through a menu to change settings, you risk missing a shot. I much prefer to be able to flick a switch without even taking my eye off the viewfinder.

If you hear lots of people say Nikon is the way to go, it's because they really have their shit together right now better than anyone else. In most areas they are the one everyone is trying to beat right now. That may change in the future, who knows. I actually hope it does, because the more fierce the competition, the better it is for the consumer.

There is nothing wrong with Pentax, but take a good hard look at the ENTIRE system before you buy into it. It's missing some really key things, but that may not be an issue at all for you if you already know what lenses you need. For example, they have no 70-200/2.8 lens, which is one of the most popular lenses period. It's a main workhorse lens for so many wedding, sports, and other types of photographers. It's on my camera 90% of the time as well. They also do not have an option to go full frame, if you ever decide to go that route in the future.

Here's the Nikon lens list:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page

Here is the Pentax lens list:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/

If you want options & variety, there is no comparison. Again, depending on what type of photography you do, you might be fine with what you already have, but the size and depth of the entire system is why so many people stick to Nikon & Canon. Regardless of what camera body you buy, it'll be replaced within a year or two. Lenses don't work like that, and are updated far less often.

Go4Long
01-29-2011, 07:55 PM
just to expand a little further on the "why" part of Mitsu's last statement about lenses not being replaced as often...

A good lens will ALWAYS be a good lens, new features will come out that make minor improvements here and there, but for the most part, lenses move at a fairly glacial pace in terms of advancement...the 80-200 2.8 AF-S that's been out for around 10 years is still a great lens, realistically every good piece of pro glass that's come out since the advent of auto focus is still a very good lens, and their values are reflected in that, a new body coming out causes a sizeable drop in the resale value of the bodies it replaces, but a lens coming out in replacement of an older model doesn't really cause the same drop to the older models, the 70-200's from both nikon and canon were replaced last year, and both of the original models are still fetching a very decent dollar for example.

Like Mitsu said, invest in the system. Camera bodies are advancing in technology at reasonably fast pace still, and a camera from 5 years ago, while not horrible, is easily outshone by the newer cameras. Even the D3100 (entry level) out performs the D80 (mid range prosumer) easily in my opinion, it just lacks some of the features.

As you invest more in the system you will rapidly start to see what we mean when we say to look at the whole system. Even a pro body like My D3s is worth a VERY small percentage of the value of my photography gear as a whole. I'm invested in the Nikon system, the body itself is irrelevant as it will probably be replaced again in another 2 years (don't tell my wife...lol).

It's why you see extremely few photographers that are invested in more than one system (unless one is medium format), it's just not financially wise to have a nikon and it's related lens lineup and a canon and it's related lens lineup...

dirtsniffer
01-29-2011, 10:47 PM
go4long what would you suggest for an entry level dslr and lens? in the 6-700 dollar range

Go4Long
01-30-2011, 12:44 AM
I bought my wife a D3100 as a wedding present, that and the 18-55 will be inside your budget and get you started with a good foundation...in terms of used the options expand a bit, I've seen used D90's with cheaper lenses go within your price range (although it's rare)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/977066/0?keyword=D90#9263633

that would get you there under your budget, ad on a cheap lens and you're set for a LONG time, the D90 is a great piece of kit.

Keep in mind, I'm a Nikon fan boy to the core, so some people's opinions on a starter camera may vary from my own, and I'm ok with that.

kvg
01-30-2011, 12:15 PM
One of the things I do like about the pentax is that on vacation I can throw in some batteries. what can I do similar with the nikon? Not a make or break thing.

muse017
01-30-2011, 12:52 PM
I use Pentax system and I don't find it far inferior system than of Nikon or Canon ones. I haven't encountered any problems that I can't shoot with my system yet. I know if I move to the pro level, it's different story but that's not the case here. I find it overall Pentax is better/suitable for beginner photogs since its really easy to operate and their starter kit lenses(18-55, 55-300) are great for price. Main reason I chose pentax is that Pentax has a great selection of small and light yet high performance lenses.
I still use Nikon Film cameras and lenses, however I tend to use Pentax more often cause I don't have to carry all this heavy lenses around.

Basically, if you are planning on dropping some serious cash on the system I would recommend to go for Nikon but not the entry level camera. D90 would be my pick. If you are going to use DSLR just occasionally for travel, shooting family etc, K-r is great camera and Pentax offers great selection of lenese for beginner.

Mitsu3000gt
01-30-2011, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by kvg
One of the things I do like about the pentax is that on vacation I can throw in some batteries. what can I do similar with the nikon? Not a make or break thing.

You should be able to get roughly 2,000+ shots out of the D90 on a battery. I can get 2,500 out of my D300. If you find yourself in situations where you can't spare an hour to charge in between 2000+ shots you'll need another battery I guess. I've never owned more than 1 battery with any camera I've had. Battery life awesome unless you're using the screen & on board flash all day or something.

Being able to drop in AA's is handy, but I think you still need to buy the adapter to do so. I've never even come close to needing a second battery so I have never really given it much thought.

blitz
01-30-2011, 04:04 PM
Another advantage of Pentax is there are lots of really nice cheap manual focus primes. They're all significantly cheaper than the Nikon equivalents and they can use the in body stabilization.

Xtrema
01-30-2011, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


You should be able to get roughly 2,000+ shots out of the D90 on a battery. I can get 2,500 out of my D300. If you find yourself in situations where you can't spare an hour to charge in between 2000+ shots you'll need another battery I guess. I've never owned more than 1 battery with any camera I've had. Battery life awesome unless you're using the screen & on board flash all day or something.

Being able to drop in AA's is handy, but I think you still need to buy the adapter to do so. I've never even come close to needing a second battery so I have never really given it much thought.

I can confirm this. 2000 shots per charge without flash isn't hard.

If u are really worried, u can get a battery grip and double up.

dirtsniffer
01-30-2011, 05:18 PM
so im thinking about the d90 with the 18-55mm vr lens. there a couple used set ups on here though i was hoping to get your opinions on. if you guys dont want to discuss it openly i would still appreciate your advice via pm

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/312752/fs-canon-t1i-with-18-55mm-and-55-250mm-lens/

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/322395/fs-canon-rebel-xti-grip-lens/

from my understanding the x1i replaced the xti?
will i find polarizers and filters useful?

sincerely,
a newb

muse017
01-30-2011, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Xtrema


I can confirm this. 2000 shots per charge without flash isn't hard.

If u are really worried, u can get a battery grip and double up.

Seriously with just one battery? I've used D90 before and It took about 1/4 of bettery after 200 shots. I thought my S5pro(D200) was pretty good and I could barely get 1000 shots out of a battery. I've seen people got up to 1500 shots(No reviews, LCD turned off most off time, No VR etc.) but 2500 is darn pretty amazing.

Mitsu3000gt
01-30-2011, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by muse017


Seriously with just one battery? I've used D90 before and It took about 1/4 of bettery after 200 shots. I thought my S5pro(D200) was pretty good and I could barely get 1000 shots out of a battery. I've seen people got up to 1500 shots(No reviews, LCD turned off most off time, No VR etc.) but 2500 is darn pretty amazing.

I easily get 2000+ on my D300 all the time with normal VR use and minimal LCD use. The D300 and D90 use the same battery. If you're constantly using the on-board flash at full power, using constant VR, and spending a ton of time reviewing shots and sifting through the menus, it will be less for sure. The flash is the biggest power killer.

Another big power killer is the camera's meter. You may not know that you can set it to turn itself off after 5 seconds or less. If you've got your meter set to stay on for 30 sec or indefinitely, it will have a significant effect on your battery life. It automatically turns on as soon as you touch the shutter button.

When I was in Europe at a zoo, I had taken about 800 pics and my camera still showed about 80% power left (one bar missing from the indicator). In the 16 days I was there I charged my camera only once, and had well over 4000 pictures from the trip.

It probably also depends on how you treat your battery. Every lithium ion battery I've ever owned has lasted longer when not abused, even though it's not supposed to matter. If you're always charging it from half or 3/4 to full, it probably isn't ideal.

I bet with no VR and if I just held down the shutter at 6fps I could easily get 3,000+ shots. I'd never try that though haha.

Really though when you're easily getting even over 1,000 shots per charge, it's not likely that a casual user is going to need a second battery. Battery life isn't an issue for any of the recent Nikon DSLRs. Canon is starting to get better too.

I should add that if it's REALLY cold where you're shooting, battery life is going to be worse as well.

Mitsu3000gt
01-30-2011, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by dirtsniffer
so im thinking about the d90 with the 18-55mm vr lens. there a couple used set ups on here though i was hoping to get your opinions on. if you guys dont want to discuss it openly i would still appreciate your advice via pm

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/312752/fs-canon-t1i-with-18-55mm-and-55-250mm-lens/

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/322395/fs-canon-rebel-xti-grip-lens/

from my understanding the x1i replaced the xti?
will i find polarizers and filters useful?

sincerely,
a newb

The D90 is a better camera than those. Hell, the one guy is even selling to move to Nikon LOL. The XTi is getting pretty long in the tooth, and the T1i has Canon's noisiest sensor of all their recent cameras. AF on the rebels leaves much to be desired as well. They are more cheaply built too. They also were cheaper to buy when new than the D90 was, so it's not really a direct comparison.

UV filters are 100% useless on digital cameras. Not only do lenses have UV coatings, but the sensors do as well. They were made for film cameras, and can sometimes cast an unpleasant hue on digital images. People buying UV filters on digital cameras are typically using them for lens protection, to keep the original glass mint. What they should be using is a NC filter, which is simply just a protective glass filter.

Polarizers are very useful. They remove glare on glass/water/cars, etc. and also gives you those nice deep blue skies. It also cuts about 2 stops of light so you can use it to slow your shutter speed if you want to. The problem with the one in that ad, though, is that it looks like the polarizer is for the 18-55mm kit lens. That lens' front element rotates when it auto focuses, which would be incredibly annoying to use a polarizer with because you turn the polarizer to choose your desired amount of polarization. With a polarizer on that lens, anytime you tried to focus on something, your set amount of polarization would change. Most of the cheap kit lenses have rotating front elements.

gogreen
01-31-2011, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
There is nothing wrong with Pentax, but take a good hard look at the ENTIRE system before you buy into it. It's missing some really key things, but that may not be an issue at all for you if you already know what lenses you need. For example, they have no 70-200/2.8 lens, which is one of the most popular lenses period. It's a main workhorse lens for so many wedding, sports, and other types of photographers. It's on my camera 90% of the time as well. They also do not have an option to go full frame, if you ever decide to go that route in the future.

That's sound advice. It's easy to get caught up in the numbers but what's really important is tailoring your gear to your present AND future needs.

I will say this though. Although Pentax doesn't have a 70-200/2.8, their 50-135 f2.8 has excellent image quality and sharpness and works very well as a portrait lens. They also have some very nice fast primes in that focal length.

I shoot on a semi-pro basis (portrait, wedding, automotive) with a Pentax K-7 and DA* 16-55 and 50-135 lenses and have been extremely happy with them. I don't find myself wanting for a different focal length. Your needs may vary, of course.

As for the in-body stabilization, I feel it performs very well. I haven't compared it to Nikon's VR system but I've been able to take handheld shots at 1/15 and even 1/8 s with my K-7 without camera shake, so it's more than adequate, and helps keep the cost of the higher-end lenses down. That was one of the main selling features for me, along with the ergonomics of the K-7.

The Pentax system may not be as full-featured as the higher-end Nikon and Canon offerings, but it's certainly no slouch. :)

dirtsniffer
01-31-2011, 07:39 PM
http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Nikon-D90-SLR-Camera-12-3-MP-w-18-55mm-kit-BRAND-NEW-IN-BOX-W0QQAdIdZ257505309
should i buy this? do i need proof of purchase to get the nikon warranty? im skeptical of kijiji but 850 bucks for a camera is really a stretch

Mitsu3000gt
01-31-2011, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by dirtsniffer
http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Nikon-D90-SLR-Camera-12-3-MP-w-18-55mm-kit-BRAND-NEW-IN-BOX-W0QQAdIdZ257505309
should i buy this? do i need proof of purchase to get the nikon warranty? im skeptical of kijiji but 850 bucks for a camera is really a stretch

Its a tough call, you're saving about $150 but warranty only applies to the original owner. If the warranty card is not filled out that's a bonus, but if he doesn't have the original receipt it may cause you grief if there's a warranty claim...it may not. The chances of something going wrong with that camera are incredibly low, however. I suspect if you had the blank warranty card and said you lost the receipt, Nikon would still help you.

If it's brand new in box with a blank warranty card, I'd probably take it for $650 or $700 if the 18-55 VR kit lens is indeed the lens you want to start with. Test it our before you buy it, too.

Go4Long
01-31-2011, 08:16 PM
I'd buy it for that...

dirtsniffer
02-04-2011, 10:22 PM
So guys, the kijiji thing didn't work out but I'm pretty set on the D90. I went down to the camera store today and buddy suggests the t2i instead of the D90. I've read some comparisons and the general edge goes to the d90 except for video which doesn't really matter that much to me. You guys think d90 right? And the camera store is the place to shop? Should I just stick with the kit lense? Or should I go with the 18-75mm lens for an extra 150 bucks? Thanks for your help again.

Mitsu3000gt
02-04-2011, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by dirtsniffer
So guys, the kijiji thing didn't work out but I'm pretty set on the D90. I went down to the camera store today and buddy suggests the t2i instead of the D90. I've read some comparisons and the general edge goes to the d90 except for video which doesn't really matter that much to me. You guys think d90 right? And the camera store is the place to shop? Should I just stick with the kit lense? Or should I go with the 18-75mm lens for an extra 150 bucks? Thanks for your help again.

I'd definitely take the D90 over a T2i unless the only thing you care about is video. The T2i feels like a toy as well (IMO).

The 18-105 VR kit lens is ideal for the D90. Nikon does not make an 18-75 lens and the 18-70 lens you may be thinking about doesn't have VR so I would not recommend it. The 18-55 VR kit lens is surprisingly good for the price, and is a decent place to start because it costs next to nothing. The other option is to pick up a 50mm F1.8 lens for $130. Super fast lens (f1.8) and extremely sharp. It has no VR and no zoom though. Pretty much everyone I know has one in their bag just because it's a great lens for so cheap.

So, it depends on how much you want to spend really. If you just want something cheap to learn with, pick up the 18-55VR. If you want a lens thats built a little better and has a longer range, pick up the 18-105 VR. If you want the highest possible image quality and are willing to sacrifice zoom and VR, try out the 50/1.8. Generally you get what you pay for with lenses.

The Camera Store is a great place to buy. You can also try Vistek as they are usually willing to beat TCS prices by a little bit. Avoid Seneal at all costs.

dirtsniffer
02-05-2011, 08:41 PM
woot, just picked up a d90 with the 18-105 lens. wooot, ill post some picks for you guys soon. thanks again!

Mitsu3000gt
02-06-2011, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by dirtsniffer
woot, just picked up a d90 with the 18-105 lens. wooot, ill post some picks for you guys soon. thanks again!

Congrats, that's the best beginner setup on the market right now IMO. Unbeatable camera in the price range, and a very usable range on the lens for general photography. You won't outgrow the camera for a long time either.

Go4Long
02-06-2011, 10:02 AM
Good choice. Remember that cameras like this are a learning process, don't expect every picture you take to turn out how you imagined right from the start. Instead try to learn why it didn't and progress.

Feel free to post shots and ask for advice, most of us don't bite.

kvg
02-06-2011, 11:14 AM
The d90 is what I'm leaning toward too:thumbsup:

kvg
02-06-2011, 11:57 AM
I keep worrying that Nikon will bring out a better and cheaper model. Am I out to lunch?

Go4Long
02-06-2011, 12:55 PM
if you're worried about something cheaper or better coming out, you'll probably end up never buying a camera...there's always going to be something new over the horizon...

kvg
02-06-2011, 01:00 PM
Is the d90 still on with the newer cameras?

Mitsu3000gt
02-06-2011, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by kvg
Is the d90 still on with the newer cameras?

The D90 is still VERY competetive.

Nikon has a press conference booked for February 9th, so if your worried you can wait until then. Feb/March is when we expect to hear about any D5000 replacement.

Basically now that they have the D7000, I would be surprised if Nikon released a direct replacement for the D90. It would have to be better than the D90, but cheap enough that most people wouldn't just spend the tiny bit extra on a D7000. I think that would be almost impossible to reasonably do.

The D5000 (officially discontinued) replacement will probably have a better sensor and video mode than the D90 but the rest of the body will likely still be more "professional" on the D90. If they do much more than that they will cannibalize D7000 sales.

Also remember the D90 is only $675 - nothing new that comes out that will compete with the D90 will be that cheap. When the D90 first came out it was $1,200.

Go4Long
02-06-2011, 08:02 PM
I guess I didn't make my point very well...lol...I wasn't saying that there was something better, or even that there would be something better soon...just saying that over time things will continue to get cheaper, and new stuff will come out...the investment in a D90 now is a GREAT one because it's cheap, if in 6 months it gets a little cheaper that doesn't make it any less of a good investment now...

I bought my camera knowing full well that eventually something better will come out. And I think anyone that buys a camera without that knowledge is going to be disappointed.

kvg
02-07-2011, 12:15 AM
^don't worry I understood what you meant. I was just thinking the immediate future.:thumbsup: