First trip in a decade. Looking at DSLR. What is best?

[TheReef]

User reviews for both lenses can be found here:

18-55 WR:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrev...6-WR-Weather-Resistant-Version-Zoom-Lens.html

18-135 WR:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrev...3.5-5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR.html&page=2#reviewlist

In general the 18-135 is favoured, but this may be biased by the price difference
The 18-135 would be a lot more versatile without needing to change lenses, it's probably not quite long enough for wild animals and birds unless you can get very close, but will have quite a bit more reach than the 18-55 WR.

Another good option for landscapes is the DA 16-45mm f/4.0, a step up from the 18-55 kit lens and arguably Pentax's best value zoom lens (~$250 used).

Please note that there is no DA 55-200 - it's either the DA 50-200 (Non-WR and WR versions) or DA 55-300 (the 55-300 is sharper).

 

[ChrisA]

I don't entirely agree. Modern sensors have come such a long way in recent years - high ISO and dynamic range performance have improved hugely.

I'd argue that a good sensor is just as important, if not more important than having an expensive lens, for landscapes and scenery.
Of course having a decent lens is important, but most kit lenses these days are actually quite good when stopped down, ...

You've been reading camera specs and not shooting enough. I'd bet you $10 that if you posted a photo to Facebook or even maed a 4x6 print you could not tell the difference between a photo shot with an older Nikon D200 or the newest D300. Or even betwed a canon D7 and the older Rebel XTi.

You could it you looked at a 200% blow-up on screen or if you made a 4 foot print. But oyherwise it matters less then the gear collectors think.

But I bet you COULD till in a minute an portrant made with a 85mm f/1.8 lens and the ket 18-55mm lens.

Look at the final results and not the specs in the back of the manual.

Also, it is very easy to upgrade a body. The older body can be nearly "free". For example a $250 used dSLR will sell next year for the same $250, more or less You likely expect to loost about 1/3rd what you paid when you re-sell it.

 

[TheReef]

You've been reading camera specs and not shooting enough. I'd bet you $10 that if you posted a photo to Facebook or even maed a 4x6 print you could not tell the difference between a photo shot with an older Nikon D200 or the newest D300. Or even betwed a canon D7 and the older Rebel XTi.

You could it you looked at a 200% blow-up on screen or if you made a 4 foot print. But oyherwise it matters less then the gear collectors think.

But I bet you COULD till in a minute an portrant made with a 85mm f/1.8 lens and the ket 18-55mm lens.

Look at the final results and not the specs in the back of the manual.

Also, it is very easy to upgrade a body. The older body can be nearly "free". For example a $250 used dSLR will sell next year for the same $250, more or less You likely expect to loost about 1/3rd what you paid when you re-sell it.

Quite the opposite... I don't care for dxomark scores nor "gear collection", practically speaking I have noticed biggest gains in picture quality and shadow detail in shooting landscapes with a modern sensor.

Whatever the resolution, whatever the media.

I think you missed the point I made about portrait shooting.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

User reviews for both lenses can be found here:

18-55 WR:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrev...6-WR-Weather-Resistant-Version-Zoom-Lens.html

18-135 WR:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrev...3.5-5.6-ED-AL-IF-DC-WR.html&page=2#reviewlist

In general the 18-135 is favoured, but this may be biased by the price difference
The 18-135 would be a lot more versatile without needing to change lenses, it's probably not quite long enough for wild animals and birds unless you can get very close, but will have quite a bit more reach than the 18-55 WR.

Another good option for landscapes is the DA 16-45mm f/4.0, a step up from the 18-55 kit lens and arguably Pentax's best value zoom lens (~$250 used).

Please note that there is no DA 55-200 - it's either the DA 50-200 (Non-WR and WR versions) or DA 55-300 (the 55-300 is sharper).

Thanks for the good info. I'm curious, what makes the 16-45mm better than the 18-55mm? Both have the green lens ring, which I assume means it's WR.

Also, the seascapist is a nice app. I really like the inspirational photos; I left the app a good rating.

 

[TheReef]

Thanks for the good info. I'm curious, what makes the 16-45mm better than the 18-55mm? Both have the green lens ring, which I assume means it's WR.

Also, the seascapist is a nice app. I really like the inspirational photos; I left the app a good rating.

No worries. I find the DA 16-45 sharper and produces less chromatic aberrations than the kit lens.
The extra 2mm on the wider end also makes it quite ideal for landscape shooting.
The DA 16-45 isn't weather sealed, the green ring just means "DA" series.

Either would make fine choice, the kit lens still holds it's own when stopped down to f/8 - f/11 (what you'd use for landscape photography).

Also just to clarify - for portraits (as opposed to landscapes), there's no doubt a faster prime lens such as the DA 35mm will produce a nicer "out of focus" background.

And thank you, I'm glad you like it

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

No worries. I find the DA 16-45 sharper and produces less chromatic aberrations than the kit lens.
The extra 2mm on the wider end also makes it quite ideal for landscape shooting.
The DA 16-45 isn't weather sealed, the green ring just means "DA" series.

Either would make fine choice, the kit lens still holds it's own when stopped down to f/8 - f/11 (what you'd use for landscape photography).

Also just to clarify - for portraits (as opposed to landscapes), there's no doubt a faster prime lens such as the DA 35mm will produce a nicer "out of focus" background.

And thank you, I'm glad you like it

Do you find the da 16-45mm to be better for landscape photography than the 18-135mm in the 18-45mm range (ignoring the extra 2mm on the short side)?

How do you know if a camera (k-30) supports a cable flash? Will any lense support ND filters on the end?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Will any lens support ND filters on the end?

I'm pretty sure you can get filters for most types of lenses. Just buy from a proper camera shop who will be able to advise the correct size and type etc.

 

[jerrah]

Yeah, that was the lens I was looking at. What don't you like about it?

Autofocus is slow though lens is quite sharp. I've actually taken to manual focus lenses and I'm using a 1960's Canon FL 50mm 1.4 on an adapter and I take much better photos on that then the new autofocus. The Sony has focus peaking which greatly aides manual focus and I find I can be quicker than dSLR autofocus a lot of the time. Have a google for legacy SLR lenses if manual focus takes your interest.

And the 5R is $500 for the body, or $600 for the body and kit lens...around the same price as an entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR here.

I think the main benefit of the 5R over the 5N was the phase detect on the sensor (in addition to contrast detect) which only works with certain autofocus lenses. If you're considering a dSLR with which you're using the viewfinder the Nex 5 without a viewfinder. Why not consider the Nex6?

 

[TheReef]

Do you find the da 16-45mm to be better for landscape photography than the 18-135mm in the 18-45mm range (ignoring the extra 2mm on the short side)?

How do you know if a camera (k-30) supports a cable flash? Will any lense support ND filters on the end?

I don't have a DA 18-135mm WR but the DA 16-45 would perform better* in the overlap range.

*If you're making 6x4 prints or sharing images on the web, you're unlikely to notice much if any difference between the lenses, with the aperture stopped down and set on a tripod they will all produce great images.

I'm unsure what you mean by cable flash, if you mean cable release switch, then yes, you can attach one.
ND filters will fit on just about any lens with a thread, you just need to buy the right sized ND filter for your lens.

 

[Iphone4sinwhite]

I don't have a DA 18-135mm WR but the DA 16-45 would perform better* in the overlap range.

*If you're making 6x4 prints or sharing images on the web, you're unlikely to notice much if any difference between the lenses, with the aperture stopped down and set on a tripod they will all produce great images.

I'm unsure what you mean by cable flash, if you mean cable release switch, then yes, you can attach one.
ND filters will fit on just about any lens with a thread, you just need to buy the right sized ND filter for your lens.

Being new to this I'm trying to gain as much knowledge as possible. Is there a certain characteristic or feature of the DA 16-45mm that makes it better performing than the DA 18-135mm in the included range? The 18-135mm has a largest aperture of f/3.5 while the 16-45mm is f/4.0. I thought lower is typically suggestive of a better lens at a particular range. Maybe there are other lens attributes to be away of?

 

[twitch31]

I own the DA18-135, it's a terrific travel lens. I own a RX100 too and love it as well. For most people the RX100 is a much better travel camera

In reviewing my pictures in Lightroom, with pictures from both cameras mixed together, I'd usually mistake the RX100 pictures for the Pentax DSLR ones because the RX100 ones are just so good, far better than a P&S deserves to be. I don't think I'll travel with the Pentax DSLR ever again as it's a brick and detracts from the trip to be honest.

 

[ChrisA]

Thank you for all the replies, this feedback is terrific. I plan on using the camera frequently after vacation as in the next few years we will be having children.

Are refurbished cameras a bad idea? I was considering this nikon D3100 (it seems very similar to the D3200):

http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/pd/productID.213428000

I figured this is a good camera body choice and then I could buy a second lens. What is a good lens size in addition to the 18-55mm that comes with it? I imagine I'll be taking more scenery/family shots and very few micro shots.

Buy a second lens so you can get all the shots that are impossible with the first lens. There is no other reason.

Most beginners think the second lens has to be some big telephoto lens. This is almost always wrong. You can almost ALWAYS do better by being closer.

A better second lens might be a fast prime an f/1.8 lens either 50mm or 35mm long. This will allow you to shoot inlow light with no flash and also allso a very shallow depth of field to isolat a subject. The 35mm works well for indoor shots. The 50mm would allow onlyhead and shoulder type indoor shots. But is ideal if yo are gong to have a baby or small child around.

 

[shinji]

Autofocus is slow though lens is quite sharp. I've actually taken to manual focus lenses and I'm using a 1960's Canon FL 50mm 1.4 on an adapter and I take much better photos on that then the new autofocus. The Sony has focus peaking which greatly aides manual focus and I find I can be quicker than dSLR autofocus a lot of the time. Have a google for legacy SLR lenses if manual focus takes your interest.

I think the main benefit of the 5R over the 5N was the phase detect on the sensor (in addition to contrast detect) which only works with certain autofocus lenses. If you're considering a dSLR with which you're using the viewfinder the Nex 5 without a viewfinder. Why not consider the Nex6?

The NEX-5 line saves ~$150 that I could put towards lenses. I don't mind not having a real viewfinder. The only real benefit for me of a dSLR is the large selection of lenses...I've already picked out the Nikon lens I want to start with if I buy a used body or something and have a wishlist for down the road...

 

[insider-man]

Numerous people have said it but:

1) The important thing with DSLRs is the Lens.

2) Pixel count isn't important!

The sensor size on any DSLR is way bigger than phone and significantly bigger than point and shoots.

I've had a Canon 20D and 1D Mk ii for numerous years and if you believe the pixel race that is going on then these are very sad little 8.2 million pixel sensor camera.

Combined with a good lens they will take better photographs than ANY point and shoot with 10+ million pixels.

The old adage of it not what you've got it's what you do with it that matters. The number of pixel is only important if you intend on printing BIG however remember 8.2 million pixel images at a native size work out as 13" x 19" (APS-C sensor size) or 18" x 24" (35mm sensor size) @ Industry required 240DPI.

So really do you think you need more?