Pentax K100D vs Canon XTi

[Spineshank]

I currently own a Pentax K100D with the kit lens and the 55mm-200mm Pentax lens. Would a XTi be an upgrade worthwhile over the K100D? Or should I buy a better lens? Is the image stabilization worth it that the K100D has? I dont own a tripod and im going to Ireland in June so a tripod is technically out of the equation for what i want to use it for.

 

[magomago]

You mean the 50-200mm? That is, IMO, not a "great" lens. Its okay, but it really under preforms and its very obvious when compared to the 50/1.4 or my 135/3.5 Even not considering a prime, I feel it doesn't capture as much detail as other lenses. The only time I really use it is when I do need a reach of 300mm cropped since nothing else is that long for me. By the way, I also use a K100D

If anything get the 50/1.4 for 88 at Frys (a steal imo) and you have a beautiful soft look at 1.4, or an amazing crisp, clear, and sharp image at f/4 Again these are my interpretations =)

I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

 

[Spineshank]

The lens doesnt impress me that much either but it was cheap. I would love to get that lens but i live in PA and we have no Frys. I checked their website and they dont have it on there.

What zoom lens would you recommend?

 

[AndrewR]

If you're considering switching systems, you might also consider Sony, which is about to release a successor to the A100 (called the A200). There are VERY, VERY few details out right now -- 3" LCD, I think 12MP, certainly has SSS (IS/VR/OIS/AS in-body), most likely CMOS sensor; however, Sony made a very good showing with the higher end A700 so you might want to see what happens with the A200. In the very least, the release of another competitor may cause a drop in price of Canon's model.

A large electronics show starts tomorrow -- this week could have some announcements on the DSLR front. A200 information is expected because there was a "leak" on a Sony France site.

[edit]

Announcement made -- 2.7" LCD, 10MP, SSS, CCD sensor, improved AF and mirror relative to A100, other stuff. Check numerous sites for details.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: Gnrslash4life
I currently own a Pentax K100D with the kit lens and the 55mm-200mm Pentax lens. Would a XTi be an upgrade worthwhile over the K100D? Or should I buy a better lens? Is the image stabilization worth it that the K100D has? I dont own a tripod and im going to Ireland in June so a tripod is technically out of the equation for what i want to use it for.

i had an xti before i got the k10d, in body SR is a pretty important feature for me, i get much more usable pics with the SR , xti is a good camera, but ergonomics are lacking (its much better with the grip) and the viewfinder is pretty poor (specially compared to k10d's penta prism), if you are interested in using good telephoto zooms canon is a better option , I personally use wide angle lenses z(specially primes) more, so pentax fit the bill,

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Gnrslash4life
I currently own a Pentax K100D with the kit lens and the 55mm-200mm Pentax lens. Would a XTi be an upgrade worthwhile over the K100D? Or should I buy a better lens? Is the image stabilization worth it that the K100D has? I dont own a tripod and im going to Ireland in June so a tripod is technically out of the equation for what i want to use it for.

i had an xti before i got the k10d, in body SR is a pretty important feature for me, i get much more usable pics with the SR , xti is a good camera, but ergonomics are lacking (its much better with the grip) and the viewfinder is pretty poor (specially compared to k10d's penta prism), if you are interested in using good telephoto zooms canon is a better option , I personally use wide angle lenses z(specially primes) more, so pentax fit the bill,

Good point on the viewfinder. The A100's (mine) isn't that great, and I really can't manual focus worth a darn right now, which is frustrating. I've always heard that Pentax has great viewfinders, and from seeing it firsthand, I know the XTi's isn't very good at all.

If you don't do manual focusing at all, it doesn't matter a great deal, but MF is a nice option to have when the AF isn't cutting it.

 

[randomlinh]

Even if you don't MF, I nearly switched to a K10D because I loved the viewfinder. My main reason for sticking w/ canon was ISO performance and the vast used market. Granted, I think I've settled on a set of lenses that are easily found across all systems.. heh. That and I got a damn good deal on a 20D.

Basically, no point in switching systems for you, at least, I don't think so. You have a bit of time... grab a better lens or two.

 

[pdo]

sell your 18-55mm kit lens and get a 16-45mm F/4 which is a better lens and you're more likely to use the wideangle lens then a telezoom lens on a trip. It's not worth switching to Canon system unless you're willing to give up an arm and a leg for some L.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

Exactly. A lot of people seem to trash inbody IS as superior. Most user reviews I've see (ie: not corporation sponsored....I'm thinking of a test on an Olympus system) show nothing conclusive about what approach is better.

Here is pentax's current roadmap for digital lenses.

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Its actually a little old as the 18-350 can be obtained (or just search for the Tokina 18-250 AFAIK they are the same lens)

I think Pentax's main weakness is that it doesn't have much in terms of a deep telephoto. <100mm is fleshed out very well with the prime lenses leading in absolute quality.

So it is really about 50-200 or the 18-250 , and I honestly haven't played with the 18-250 at all to say how it is. Of course the future shows some very interesting lenses...but who knows when those will come out

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

Exactly. A lot of people seem to trash inbody IS as superior. Most user reviews I've see (ie: not corporation sponsored....I'm thinking of a test on an Olympus system) show nothing conclusive about what approach is better.

Here is pentax's current roadmap for digital lenses.

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Its actually a little old as the 18-350 can be obtained (or just search for the Tokina 18-250 AFAIK they are the same lens)

I think Pentax's main weakness is that it doesn't have much in terms of a deep telephoto. <100mm is fleshed out very well with the prime lenses leading in absolute quality.

So it is really about 50-200 or the 18-250 , and I honestly haven't played with the 18-250 at all to say how it is. Of course the future shows some very interesting lenses...but who knows when those will come out

the pentax 50-135 2.8 is supposed to be pretty good, the upcoming 60-250 f/4 should also be interesting, but yeh they don't have a whole lot in terms of fast telephoto zooms
the da 18-250 is supposed similar to the tamron 18-250, user reviews i have seen of that lens suggest its pretty good (with compromises of course), personally i am looking at slowly building my lens lineup to get most (if not all) of the limited primes

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

Exactly. A lot of people seem to trash inbody IS as superior. Most user reviews I've see (ie: not corporation sponsored....I'm thinking of a test on an Olympus system) show nothing conclusive about what approach is better.

Here is pentax's current roadmap for digital lenses.

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Its actually a little old as the 18-350 can be obtained (or just search for the Tokina 18-250 AFAIK they are the same lens)

I think Pentax's main weakness is that it doesn't have much in terms of a deep telephoto. <100mm is fleshed out very well with the prime lenses leading in absolute quality.

So it is really about 50-200 or the 18-250 , and I honestly haven't played with the 18-250 at all to say how it is. Of course the future shows some very interesting lenses...but who knows when those will come out

I tried out dSLRs from Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon for quite some time before deciding on the Canon XTi. One of the main reasons I wanted a dSLR was a true telephoto lens (which I shot with exclusively while I was deciding on a general use lens). IMHO, I did not like the layout of the Sony or Pentax. I happened to like the Canon layout the best and went with it. I rarely have problems that IS could correct, and it has actually gotten in the way with some of my shots.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

I have never used in body IS. But I do know my future planned Canon full frame camera will work with the Canon IS lenses I have. It may be a while before you see in body IS in a full frame camera. This may not affect everyone... but one of the reasons why I don't think in body IS is the end all.

Personally I have found IS to be fairly useless unless I get above 70mm focal length anyway. Canon can implement in cheaply in thier lenses should they choose (the $180 18-55 IS for instance)... but I think they like the profits too much at this point. But as the competition grows with camera that have in body IS... Canon may change thier tune.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

Exactly. A lot of people seem to trash inbody IS as superior. Most user reviews I've see (ie: not corporation sponsored....I'm thinking of a test on an Olympus system) show nothing conclusive about what approach is better.

Here is pentax's current roadmap for digital lenses.

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Its actually a little old as the 18-350 can be obtained (or just search for the Tokina 18-250 AFAIK they are the same lens)

I think Pentax's main weakness is that it doesn't have much in terms of a deep telephoto. <100mm is fleshed out very well with the prime lenses leading in absolute quality.

So it is really about 50-200 or the 18-250 , and I honestly haven't played with the 18-250 at all to say how it is. Of course the future shows some very interesting lenses...but who knows when those will come out

the pentax 50-135 2.8 is supposed to be pretty good, the upcoming 60-250 f/4 should also be interesting, but yeh they don't have a whole lot in terms of fast telephoto zooms
the da 18-250 is supposed similar to the tamron 18-250, user reviews i have seen of that lens suggest its pretty good (with compromises of course), personally i am looking at slowly building my lens lineup to get most (if not all) of the limited primes

The 50-135 is a beautiful lens , but it is a DA* meaning that awesome quality carries that ~800-1K price tag =) Although I suppose that is cheaper compared to some of the L glass I always figured he wanted a cheaper lens.

And I agree on the primes...I mos def want to slowly build up using those as opposed to Zoom lenses...Its hard for me to use my zooms again after playing with primes

and Jawo - totally awesome. I think that is perhaps the biggest question - how does it feel in your hand and how comfortable are you with it. I'm glad thhat is why you went for Canon.

 

[ElFenix]

i'd like to see dpreview do a stability-test shoot out. they seem like the only site actually testing effectiveness. the A700 gives a 1.5 to 2 stop advantage with in-body IS, but that is at a rather short 75 mm. that's a far cry from the 3.5 stops sony claimed in the A100 press release (supposed to be the same system). how is it at 200? (and why does sony have to append a 'Super' in front of everything?).

panasonic also has in body IS, and in dpreview's test it appears to deliver about 2.5 stops in mode 2. but look closely. the hand held and mode 1 tests (mode 1 seems good for about 1.5 stops) were conducted at 100 mm. mode 2 was conducted at 76 mm. that's half a stop right there.


anywho, to the point of the thread, keep the K100D and get a tripod.

 

[Spineshank]

Yea, ive decided to keep it. Looking to see if someone can hook me up with the lens deal that Frys has going on since i have no Frys but doesnt seem feasible.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: magomago
I really don't see how going to an XTi would be an upgrade in any sense. I would think at most it is a sidestep, and a dubious one at that, unless you already have quite a bit of Canon glass that you can take advantage of to justify it...because you do lose in body IS/VR/SR which I think is important

IMO, I don't think that in body IS is worth it. At the telephoto ranges the sensor can not move as much as in an in lens IS/VR system.

Have you ever used an in-body stabilization system for any length of time?

Exactly. A lot of people seem to trash inbody IS as superior. Most user reviews I've see (ie: not corporation sponsored....I'm thinking of a test on an Olympus system) show nothing conclusive about what approach is better.

Here is pentax's current roadmap for digital lenses.

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Its actually a little old as the 18-350 can be obtained (or just search for the Tokina 18-250 AFAIK they are the same lens)

I think Pentax's main weakness is that it doesn't have much in terms of a deep telephoto. <100mm is fleshed out very well with the prime lenses leading in absolute quality.

So it is really about 50-200 or the 18-250 , and I honestly haven't played with the 18-250 at all to say how it is. Of course the future shows some very interesting lenses...but who knows when those will come out

I tried out dSLRs from Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon for quite some time before deciding on the Canon XTi. One of the main reasons I wanted a dSLR was a true telephoto lens (which I shot with exclusively while I was deciding on a general use lens). IMHO, I did not like the layout of the Sony or Pentax. I happened to like the Canon layout the best and went with it. I rarely have problems that IS could correct, and it has actually gotten in the way with some of my shots.

That's how anyone should shop for a camera. If it feels good, and you understand it, then that's the camera for you. For the most part, any of the DSLRs will allow you to take great images assuming the Mk 1 eyeball and the shutter finger find them. I loved the Maxxum 7D's layout, and I've not found a camera to match that ease of use (A100 doesn't by far). The A700 is very nearly as good, and I plan to upgrade. I don't want to switch because I have a couple thousand invested in glass and flash.

rudder: It may be a while before you see in body IS in a full frame camera.

Don't be so sure. People think Sony is going to announce the A900 at PMA, and it's rumored to be full frame because of all the FF Zeiss lenses that are coming out for the Alpha mount in addition to the other FF lenses that Sony produces. It could also be 1.1x form factor to accommodate the sensor shift, but time will tell.

Competition is awesome!

 

[magomago]

Whoa FF with Inbody IS? That would awesome - although I was under the impression that there were physical limitations to getting In body IS/VR/SR (atleast, at this time) on a FF sensor....perhaps technology has changed that much

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: magomago
Whoa FF with Inbody IS? That would awesome - although I was under the impression that there were physical limitations to getting In body IS/VR/SR (atleast, at this time) on a FF sensor....perhaps technology has changed that much

why would there be physical limitations? it'd vignette a little more with the added deflection, but what else is an issue?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: magomago
Whoa FF with Inbody IS? That would awesome - although I was under the impression that there were physical limitations to getting In body IS/VR/SR (atleast, at this time) on a FF sensor....perhaps technology has changed that much

Sony -- like.no.other