buying my first DSLR

As you will have gathered I'm virtually 100 % certain to be buying a K-x next month

The question is which ?

Sooooo what type of piccies do I take - more or less anything that appeals at the time - from scenery to people to bits of stonework on buildings which appeal [ and we have a lot of that sort in Glasgow ]

The last is one reason why I'm changing over - not being tall I find taking a pic of a nice bit of stonework on the top of a Glasgow centre building is rather a challenge with a point and shoot with a maximum of X3 optical zoom .

My requirements were simple - a decent camera that could cope with doing what I perceive that I need.

So we come to the K-x

I'll be getting it in J&R and like other places they have 3 options for it

1) K-x with the 18-55 lens - listed at $649 [ but there is a lower price for that ] - tempting

2) K-x with the 18-55 AND 50-200 listed at $749

3) K-x with the 18-55 AND 55-300 listed at $849

Now it makes sense to me to get another lens at these prices . However which do I go for ? Which is the better one for me - remember I know nothing so can't tell what any of these lenses actually 'do'

Both the extra lens options are stretching my budget I'll admit and I'll have to consider carefully anything else I'm buying , if I add on another lens

I'm looking for help here - my 'pro' friend is telling me to think about this - and he's not pushing me one way or t'other , but has told me to ask around for other folks views. He's using Olympus and Nikon now as he has the gear but has said emphatically that since I have nothing and am starting from scratch that he thinks Pentax is better for me I'll be trying his stuff when I'm in the Big Apple to see what I think of it - which is why the final decision won't be made till then.

Your thoughts and advice will be very very welcome.

I will leave others to comment on the choice of lenses but don't forget about the current Pentax cashback offer, that varies on how much you spend and presumably varies slightly from one country to another.

Well you've discounted choice 1 so it's down to whether or not you want the 50-200mm or the 55-300mm to add to your standard zoom.

Both are excellent, the longer zoom perhaps slightly better performance-wise, but either would be entirely satisfactory.

Maybe you need to handle both and see what you think, but the longer zoom will be very handy if you ever decide to photograph wildlife.

Probably an obvious thing to say but if the size and weight of your gear is a consideration the 50-200 is a very compact unit for it's range. The 50-200 is not much larger than the 18-55.

Not an obvious thing at all - remember I've never used a DSLR - or even an SLR

Actually weight will matter - I've had 2 bad elbow injuries in the past and at times my hand control can be a bit 'off' hence the need as well for some form of stabilisation - which the K-x has

Option 1 is not totally ruled out - it may come to that , bearing in mind that there is a lower price for that at present at J&R BUT it does mean that in future if I get another lens it will be at full price so I do have to consider this .

Now for the total nOOb - I need simple explanations [ you are going to hate me for this ] that explains what each of these 3 lenses is and what it can do for me .

Please remember I'm coming from a fully automatic P & S over which the only control I had was the 3X zoom - and how much of that to use

All cameras have a lens (obvious statement I know, please no mumbling about pinholes people). The major difference with a system camera like an SLR is that you can remove the lens and fit a different one to suit the kind of photography you're doing at the time.

The standard zoom which comes with the K-x is an 18-55mm lens. This is the focal length of the lens, the exact meaning of focal length is not important, the important thing is that longer focal lengths give more magnification.

Your P&S will have had a lens in the region of 5-15mm (3x zoom), which because of its smaller sensor will give a similar range of views to the 18-55. You don't say which P&S you have, but in all probability its lens will be effectively a little longer than the 18-55.

You will hear people talking about "crop factors" and 35mm equivalent. Ignore them. You have never looked through a 35mm SLR, so these will just confuse you.


Now lets say you are out taking photos and you spot a wild animal one hundred meters away. With your point and shoot the best the 3x zoom can do is simply not enough and theres nothing you can do about it except enlarge the image digitally (which will result in a very poor image) or try and get closer (which may spook the animal).

Now assume you're carrying your new DSLR in the same situation. The 18-55mm lens wont get you close enough either, but in your bag you have either the 50-200 or the 55-300. All you have to do is draw forth your telephoto lens and attach it to the camera, et voila. The 50-200 will get you nearly 4x closer than the 18-55, at least 3x better than the maximum zoom on your P&S. The 55-300 is heavier and bigger but even longer, giving you more like 5 times the reach of your P&S.

Because every lens you buy for an SLR is a specialist piece of glass optimised for one task, these lenses excel at their speciallist task. The fixed lens on a P&S must be jack of all trades, master of none.

to sum up

18-55:
similar angle of view to your point and shoot, probably a touch wider. Great for shots of wide rolling vistas, tall buildings, indoor shots and the like.

50-200:
very compact medium telephoto. Gives the same angle of view most of us had on film SLRs while being much more compact and lighter. Quality reports are variable but as long as you get a good one it's very good. I carry mine as part of my "traveling light" twin lens kit.

55-300:
Unless you've got big bucks to spend and a pack mule to carry your gear, this is the Daddy. The 55-300 is unquestionably the best telephoto lens in Pentax mount for under £500. It is bigger and heavier than the 50-200, but still fairly compact and lightweight for a 300mm.

Given your elbow injury, I would try and get to try them out, the 55-300 is the better lens but will take no photos in a cupboard.

I'd stretch to the 55-300 option. Is really is an excellent lens and will give you a much more versatile setup. It is slightly bulkier than the 50-200 but its image quality is noticably better and you get quite a bit more reach. Very useful for photographing stone work on the roof of buildings in Glasgow. At 300mm and it's minimum focus distance it does a pretty good impersonation of a macro lens too.
If your friend is from NY maybe you could sort something out with the US cashback deal as I believe you need a US bank account for it to work.

Thanks for the explanation re the lenses - it made sense

The P&S is a Kodak C703 [ UK version is a C743 ] and when I look at the lens on it , it says Kodak AF 3X Optical Aspheric lens , and 37mm-111mm equivalent

The Kodak has served me well but in poor light it's not good and you can't always use flash I have some pics with very good detail of stonework and was surprised by them - but then they had to be within 'reach' and too many bits were not - hence the frustration.

Next nOOb question

'wide angle ' - what is meant by this [ briefly of course ] ? My friend had muttered that perhaps my next lens should be a wide angle one .

Oh some negotiation re financial things can always be done Sadly as yet the Pentax doesn't feature on the Calumet list - which is where most of his stuff comes from

what is wide angle, well here we go

camera lenses fall into 3 broad catagories

wide angle
standard or normal
telephoto

a Standard or Normal lens sees the world with a similar perspective to your eye. This is generally considered to be about 35mm on a Pentax SLR.

wide angle is, as the name suggests, anything wider than this. A wide angle lens lets you get more into the frame and can also give some interesting perspective stretching effects to emphasise an object in the foreground by making it appear unusually large.

Telephoto is conversely anything longer than standard. Great for making far off things look closer, and short telephotos are usually prefered for portraits since they allow a comfortable working distance and generally give a flattering image.

Both have their uses, and most photographers find they prefer one or the other, deppending on what type of images you like capturing.

As you will probably have observed, the 18-55 already gives you some wide angle capability, and goes somewhat wider than the lens on your compact (on a the angle of view provided by your compact would be given by a ~25-75mm lens on a DSLR).

If you already have an idea of what you want to photograph from your P&S experiance, then the question you need to ask yourself is simple:

"which end stop do I keep hitting?"

If you always find yourself wanting to zoom in more when there is no more zoom to be had, you need a telephoto. If you always want to zoom out to get more into the frame then perhaps you are more of a wide angle person.

I have a DA16-45 and that gives me all the wide angle I want, but some people on this board would die before they would be separated from their ~10-20mm super-wide angle zooms.

This is quite a good little gimmick, despite the fact its from Canon

link

It will give you an idea of what each focal length can "see" from a given point.

For what it`s worth,regarding Mongoose`s fine piece (which I found very informative) the Tamron 70-300 does me well for medium telephoto and LCE in Bristol has just quoted me around £550 for a 500mm lens,coincidently,the same price I`ve just paid for a K20.

Nic

thanks Alfie

Something which it's just occured to me the OP may not have grasped:

the numbers in lens names, eg 18-55, 55-300, are focal length ranges.

An 18-55mm zoom has the ability to change its focal length from 18mm to 55mm and anywhere in between.

you will also see some lenses with just one number, for example the famous 50mm prime. A prime lens is one which is not able to zoom. Primes have fewer compromises in their design, which means they are generally very very good, although obviously limited to one magnification. With a couple of notable exceptions they also tend to be expensive since they are niche items these days.

A number of my friends who are used to P&S's have asked me questions like "how many x zoom does your SLR lens have?" when what they are trying to get at is how long is it. They are initially very confused by my largest most impressive lens, a 300mm F2.8 monster, since it is a prime and has no zoom at all.

the "Xx zoom" quoted for compacts is a very misleading figure, since all it gives you is the ratio between longest and shortest available focal lengths. Even among compacts of similar specs, the actual focal lengths involved can vary significantly. On an SLR......well I own two lenses which I could legitamately call "3x" if the mood took me, but I doubt anyone would try to argue that the DA 18-55 and F 70-210 give the same results!

After reading your last Mongoose,I`m begining to wonder if the Tv advert that Olympus ran,with Messers Bailey & Cole all those years ago,did anything to encourage the grasp of SLR (at the time) photography...and thus the "Why can`t I get a shot like you see in the magazines" became a common statement.

IMHO,dSLR photography can be alot of fun,if you are prepared to,as a Newbie,experiment,develop your own skills,read and listen.

And without wishing to sound physiophantic(?),a Forum such as this is one way of learning and technoidiot has,for me,started an interesting thread....I`m still learning.

Nic

Nice link Mr IS,thank you,very eye opening.(excuse the reverse-pun)

Right,and here is where I might get shot down in flames...being a Newbie,how would aperture settings relate to the line at the bottom?

Nic

This is likely to get lengthy I fear - sorry.

First let me say a HUGE thanks to you all - I'm really beginning to grasp some of the facts of DSLR life , and these are coming in digestible chunks - I don't learn well from books so this is really wonderful.

@ Greytop weight is a consideration for me - so yes I'm hoping to get the actual weight feel of them .

@ Mongoose - a truly wonderful introduction - basic facts I can understand and that has given me an understanding of what these 3 lenses can do - and I can relate all that to the photos I have taken in the past and the ones I hope to take in future - I'm suspecting that I do indeed need a telephoto lens as well as the 18-55 that comes with it - it may yet become necessary later to get a wider angle lens as well for landscapes , but I don't honestly think that is as important right now .

I was in Belgium in July and taking pics there with my NY Friend - often we were taking the same shot - for learning purposes and I would be surprised at how much he could get that I could not - he would point out afterwards that I had 'blown ' mine and this was making me realise how little I actually knew about what I was doing Yes I did get some nice things and began to have some understanding of how to actually compose the pic .

I had spent 2 years learning how to use the monitor and had got frustrated at times because of really bright sun forcing me back to what was a very small viewfinder - but at least I did have one - so many P&S cameras don't . I'll enjoy the K-x with it's viewfinder , once I'm used to it - I presume that I will be able to adjust it for my own sight as I did with the Fuji S5000 before it's rather sad and quick demise - I only got about 100 pics from it , though Raymond had had many thousands when he used it .

Thank you all once more - for your help and tolerance of this numpty