new camera help/adviceplease

Hi I am the owner of a Pentax K200D body with a 16 - 45 smc and 55- 300 smc. I would like some advice on buying an SLR that is much lighter than the K200D, how about the Kr/ maintaining image quality is important but I do not wish to break the bank. I am happy to sell my current SLR body but I think these are pretty decent bits of glass, but I am no expert, what is the view on this? Out of interest is it possible to purchase a lens these days that would cover 16 to 300, or there abouts while maintaining image quality, I guess if there is it would cost a small fortune. I ask this because I hillwalk and changing lenses are a pain and I always get crap on the sensor and struggle to get it clean. Thanks.

Hello Johna and welcome

Personaly I would stick with the 200D its a superb camera. As for weight I don't think there is much difference in the more consumer cameras. The weather resistance is useful and coupled with the 18 - 135 WR lens it is a good hill combination.

I would also consider how you change lenses - hold the camera downwards, avoid dusty situations etc.

The K200D rarely comes up for sale so I think you can presume it is well thought of.

Dave

Johna,
You may notice a big difference going from a CCD sensor to CMOS.
The K200D is a superb camera, OK not brilliant in low light, but will produce good IQ from the camera(in Raw)no live view or video- a bonus in my view.

Thanks guys it is good to know the 200D is well thought of. I have no issues with image quality, it is just the weight thing. I to am not in least bothered about Live view or video.

Live view is an absolute joy to use for tripod work and old manual lenses - I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it! The Kr will also give less image noise, not just in high ISO shots, but also shots at base ISO where you lighten the shadows. It will also be much faster than the k200d. Very occasionally, the slow burst mode of the k200d used to be very frustrating, for me. Apart from that, it's an excellent machine.

Re a 16-300mm lens, not only would such a beast be very compromised optically, and expensive, you would not want to take it out walking as it would weigh a ton.

There's several lenses that cover 18 to 250 which isn't far off your range. There's one made by Tamron which is also licensed to Pentax / Samsung (plus of course Tamron's own brand version.) For a wide zoom range it isn't at all bad considering. That's discontinued now so you'd have to scour the second hand market for one of those. Sigma also do one.

However Tamron extended the range from 18 to 270mm (no licensed versions of this). I doubt the extra 20mm makes much of a difference though! I believe this is still in production so it should be possible to obtain one of these new.

I have the Pentax 18-250mm myself and am very pleased with it for much the same reasons as you thought it would be useful for. I have noted that when close focussing its focal length seems to drop to nearer 200mm which is odd but not really a show stopper. Picture quality holds up pretty well across its full range considering it is quite a range, in fact much better than found in some of the popular cheaper zooms from the so called market leaders. The Samsung and Tamron versions would perform much the same. I have no experience of the Sigma.

Just bear in mind that with all these lenses the maximum aperture is somewhat limited, but that's what keeps their weight and size down making the lenses convenient to travel or hike with. The lenses you have already would perform better when you're not walking the hills but the all in one solution is certainly convenient and worth adding for when you are and they are comparatively good value.

John

I have a Pentax 18-250mm and am very impressed with it so far. It's a little slow at the long end, but hasn't really proved to be a problem. I've taken some reasonable hand held shots of the moon at 200mm which were much better than I expected. I have a FA 50mm for hand held low light if I need it.

It's a little heavy around the neck for long periods when travelling, but I have a digital holster to rest it occasionally.

It does suffer from zoom creep, but one of the silicon charity bands stops that.

It clearly isn't quite up to the quality of the 50mm prime, but is much closer than I would have thought. It is excellent for the sort of situations that you describe when carrying/changing multiple lenses isn't an option.

Bottom line is that if you can pick one up for around £220 you won't lose anything if you don't get on with it and decide to sell.

The newer Tamron 18-270mm isn't available in a Pentax mount.

Hi Johna,
The lens kit you have, IMO, is one of the image/cost bargins of the camera world, all you need is to pick up a cheap fast 50mm (50m 1.7 come very cheap and are very high quality) and you've got kit for almost any situation.
Weight is an issue I appreciate, I bought the DAL version of the 55-300 specifically to save weight, but it really is the GX10 that really weighs the bag down. You can check the stats with Google search, but in the end the best thing is to handle them yourself.
My local PC World has Pentax kit for sale including the Kr, might worth popping along to the one in Inverness?

K-r, 16-45mm, 55-300mm. Add a 50mm 1.4 or 1.7 and you are basically set for any occasion. Nice light kit as well.

Wondered why I'd never seen one come up for sale! Sorry for duff info.

Some of the recent replies are overlooking the OP's concern about lens changing in tricky conditions such as when hill walking when it isn't really a good idea to swap lenses if in a downpour. So for those conditions it is worth adding an 18-250. One has to remember though that these aren't weather resistant lenses, the nearest for that would be Pentax's newer SMC DA 18-135 WR. Having one doesn't stop you taking the 16-45 and 55-300 on another occasion when conditions are better!

John

For hillwalking, give me a DA15mm and a couple of other primes or a tiny zoom like the SMC-F 35-70mm over a zoom any day! I'll take the lower weight over the very occasional inconvenience of having to find a sheltered spot to change lenses. Generally when it siles down, my priorities switch from taking photos, to seeking refuge!

But yes - the 18-135mm does make sense if you *know* it's going to rain heavily, and fully intend to carry on taking pictures.

What is the advantage of primes over zooms? Is the image quality that much better?

For me the main advantage is they are smaller and lighter. I also like their IQ.

Not unless you're unhappy with the image quality from your zooms. I personally don't have any primes at the moment because I must admit I prefer the range of framing possibilities you get from a zoom. Many people prefer primes though and I think it depends on your shooting style among other things.

I do hope to get a 100mm macro soon however - but macro is a different matter because you can alter the framing of your subject by moving a few centimeters backwards or forwards. With a long telephoto used for distant subjects, for example, it might be a matter of walking a few miles (or possibly having to be able to fly, depending on the terrain)...

Just the other day the 8mm setting on my 8-16mm saved me from having to try to walk on water, which I'm not very good at.