Make my mind up time.

Hi All.
In the next couple of weeks I will be in a postion to buy DSLR, I've had ME Super for a few months now, which I've really enjoyed useing , with 50mm 1.7, 40-80mm & Sigma 80-200, I also use a C----- G7, it's got to be a Pentax, but which one, I've only really been getting into photogaphy for about a year and the marco bug has bitten me, any advise would be great, I've read loads of posts on the site, and am now more confused.
Dave

Get a K100D now, and a K10D (or its successor) when you outgrow the former.

G

Thank you George, would get it with the kit lens & Sigma 70mm macro or if I can pick up a Pentax 100 mm macro at a good price.
Dave

The manual focus Pentax 100mm macros are very good, and not stratospherically priced. Ebay is the place to find them.

You don't need AF with macro.

G

Thanks again George, just one thing, go for f2.8 or f4, have seen more f4 floating about or would it be worth going for the f2.8.
Dave

When you take a photograph from very close up, the depth of field tends to be very small. Generally, therefore, you will want to use an aperture like f16, so having f2.8 is not a huge advantage. Obviously it does give you a brighter viewfinder image.

If you can afford f2.8, by all means go for it, but f4 is not a bad choice.

G

George you are a mind of info, many thanks for your help.
cheers Dave

I don't understand this advice. If he'd had a P&S for the last x years, fair enough. But if he's had an ME Super and he's used to that, he's basically had Manual and Aperture Priority, and has presumably learned to use them.

So what use to him are all the scene modes that the K100D has?

I moved to digital straight from the ME Super (ironically from the Super A before that) without anything in between and I'm very pleased that I went for the 10, not the 100.

Budget constraints are a good reason for saving a bit on the body and getting some glass instead, but I don't at all buy this argument that says you should have to outgrow the K100D before getting the K10D.

I did not mention the modes. I suggested the K100D for several reasons:

1 It's simpler. There's a lot to learn with digital.
2 It's cheaper - more money left for lenses
3 The poster is clearly not so confident that he feels he can leap straight in at the top level.
4 It works better with older K and M lenses.
5 It's a very fine camera for the money.
6 He's probably not as clever as you. (With apologies to the OP)

G

But do scene modes teach you any of it, or just fool you into thinking you're learning it? Don't know the 100 well enough to know what else is simpler than the 10.
Absolutely agree, a good argument, as I said.
True. But as I said, if he's been using Manual and Aperture Priority well enough to enjoy the results with film, I don't see that lack of confidence as an issue.
Good point. I'd forgotten that.
Not at all arguing with that, but not quite the point unless budget constraints are a bit part of the issue. The 10 is a very fine camera for the money too, I'd contend.
He has the good sense to turn up here and start asking questions before lashing out a huge wedge of cash. Unlike my decision process which was not terribly intelligent, really. It was basically, "ooh, Pentax have gone to 10 MP", swiftly followed by "Ooh, shake reduction", and, very ironically indeed, "Ooh, it works with K and M lenses". Finishing up with the DP Review "Highly recommended (just)", which I thought probably made it pretty good since it wasn't Nikon or Canon. It also didn't occur to me that I'd end up spending more on lenses than on the body as soon as I did ...

So I'm not at all convinced about point 6

But George did not mention the scene modes When I had my *istDL I did not use the scene modes but that camera was so designed to make using standard program, manual, AV and TV quite simple, despite only one dial (not two)...When I was looking at the K100D, all it seemed to offer over my *ist D was shake reduction, so the DL was replaced by the K10D as it seemed to offer so much more...will the OP need all the features of the K10D in the first instance?

If someone is moving over to digital to film I would suggest the K100D Super (SDM lenses supported) as it's a pretty good camera. The K10D is something different and to aspire to

Well, apart from the discussion on scene modes and the choice of a K10D over another Pentax camera, I can recommend the latest Tamron 90 mm macro lens.

I recently bought it and my considerations for buying this lens instead of Sigma, Pentax or something else were:

90 mm gives (generally) enough distance from your subject
90 mm equals 135 mm in a camera with 1,5 crop factor. So it doubles as a great portrait lens
The Tamron receives very good critiques
The lens is priced very competitive
The lens has a focus limiter (I believe the Sigma has not, but I'm not sure)
The Tamron can be easily switched to Manual Focus
F2,8 is gives a brighter view and allows you to use a shallow DOF. Granted, you'll mostly want to use around F16 or higher.

An example of a picture taken with the lens, you can find here: http://tinyurl.com/33lbbl But I'm sure it would have worked out OK with any other good lens.

Good luck with your choice.

I've come to the digital Pentax's from an MEF that I have used for the past 20 years or more - there are three points which make me prefer the K100D.

I find it very convenient to use with older lenses, (using optical depth of field and the thumb wheel to dial in the speed) and there are no metering problems that I have noticed.

It's physically smaller, more like my MEF

It uses freely available (and comparatively cheap) batteries.

If you don't like the scene modes they are nicely identified in green so you can avoid them - my car has a cigarette lighter but I don't have to use it!

I have to say also cost was a factor. But, for my purposes, I still think the K100 was the better choice of the two - even more so now the Super is out.

I know he didn't. So please explain. What is it about it that's simpler than the K10D other than the scene modes? Ok, the 100 doesn't have a couple of the exposure modes that the 10 has (sensitivity priority and 'shutter and aperture priority', whatever that is), but if you don't use them - I haven't yet - then they aren't going to be intimidating.

But apart from that I'm really struggling to understand how the 100 is comparatively simple.

I'm sorry, I still don't buy this. No one has explained how, other than the scene modes, the 10 is somehow "aspirational", whereas the 100 is "simple". George has made some good points, ie, used actual facts, but I must be being very stupid, cos I still don't see it.

I understand the fact that it's cheaper so lets you spend more on lenses. This is a compelling point if budget is very limiting.

It also has ISO 3200 (but not 100), so if you need low light usage then it has a slight advantage. Its batteries are more available, and it doesn't have the stop-down metering issues that the 10 has.

BUT - if these advantages are in the corner of the envelope where it would make a difference to the OP, I would argue that simplicity is not what he needs - hand-held, low light photography with M series lenses, in parts of the world where there's not mains power to charge up the Li-ion battery is not what I'd call simple.

To counter these marginal advantages, however, the 100 (and the Super) also has a pentamirror viewfinder rather than a pentaprism, which is not as bright, AIUI, and apparently its shake reduction isn't so good.

I'm now very glad that I didn't join this forum until I already had the K10D. I suspect I might have had a lot of advice telling me to get the K100D. Knowing what I know now, this would have been wrong for me. Maybe it's wrong for the OP too.

Edit: didn't know about the physical size difference either till redbirdpete mentioned it. That's a good reason too, if you want small.