snubbr.com

40d/k10d?
Dear all,.

I am looking for a dslr for quite a while. I have a dilemma..

I have doubts between the following cameras: 40d/K10d..

I really like the k10d, because it is great value for money. (wheater sealed/unique modes/SR et cetera). But I really like the fact canon has a lot more lenses, and I think it is safe to say better lenses...(L quality)But then again, the 40d is a lot more expensive...a lot more....

Should I go for the 'cheap' (or less expensive) k10d or investe in a better camera/system?..

Comments (21)

I am having the exact dilemma. I am a beginner and I looking for something better than p&s. Hopefully someone will give us an unbiased opinion. I am looking for something fairly simple to use...

Comment #1

Flapmeister wrote:.

I really like the k10d, because it is great value for money. (wheatersealed/unique modes/SR et cetera). But I really like the fact canonhas a lot more lenses, and I think it is safe to say betterlenses...(L quality)But then again, the 40d is a lot more expensive...a lot more....

Should I go for the 'cheap' (or less expensive) k10d or investe in abetter camera/system?.

It is such a personal choice and very difficult for a beginner. I think you are saying that the Pentax looks right for me now, but am I going to find the Pentax camera and lens selection restricting in the future? And I dont know if anyone but you can answer that  and maybe not even you, because youre a beginner..

I think you would be better approaching this from the whole system criteria than a camera body criterion. Look at the lenses that want and their availability in each system, then decide on a camera body. New camera models come and go every 18-24 months, lenses tend to be around a lot longer..

Pentax has some fine lenses, but not the selection of lenses available to Canon and Nikon users. There isnt much in the way of Pentax mount macro lenses for example. But if Pentax has the lenses you want/need, then it doesnt matter whether they were selected from a dozen or fifty different ones..

Brian A...

Comment #2

What are you going to shoot? How knowledgable are you with setting you TV and AV?..

Comment #3

I had a K10, 2 actually when they were first released. Both had AF problems..

What I liked about the K10..

VFlayout of the AF pointssealedthe way the VG attatchesfeel, buildcomfortable to holdInbody IS was niceunique ISO modes/auto ISOprime lenses.

What I didn't like-AF (disregarding the accuracy issues) was really slow in low lightAWB was poorMetering was not so good including flash via P-TTLlack of any fast zoom lenses or primes above 77mm.

I ended up with a 30D and now a 40D.

What I like about the 40D.

Fast AF, seems to be pretty accurate- better than my 30Dmetering is pretty good, flash metering is WAY better than the K106+ FPSLow light AF is very fast, even with an F4 lensin lens IS works better/faster than the K10's inbodyHTPISO 3200 availableless high ISO noise, maybe a 1/2 stopbetter OOC jpegspicture stylesVFAF point layoutbuild, feelLENS SELECTION!3 custom user settings.

What I don't likeno real auto ISOno inbody IS- not really needed, but it was nice to have IS and a 1.8 lensLCD could be higher resAWB indoors is pretty badCanon has skimpy lens warranty- 1 year onlyOnly Canon L lenses come with a hood.

I'm sure there are other things I've missed- but I believe that as an overall package of camera performance, lens selection and performance that the 40D is the best value in the market today..

Followed closely by the 30D which can be had for $300 (or more) less..

Gene..

Comment #4

I guess I am confused. Why are noobs to digital photography talking about buying semi-pro cameras? It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to buy an entry-level dslr (such as the Canon 400D) to use in learning digital photography and then move up after you have mastered the basics. Believe me, there is a steep learning curve when you first start shooting a dslr. In the meantime, you can put the difference in cost into decent glass, a tripod, and other accessories..

Jerryhttp://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

Comment #5

Jchoate wrote:.

I guess I am confused. Why are noobs to digital photography talkingabout buying semi-pro cameras? It seems to me that it makes a lotmore sense to buy an entry-level dslr (such as the Canon 400D) to usein learning digital photography and then move up after you havemastered the basics..

It's easier to learn the basics when you've got a proper set of controls. The only thing besides cost that the semi-pro cameras have are better overall performance..

It's kind of like buying a motorcycle. Sure you could buy a 250, ride it for a year, sell it, lose 75% of the purchase price, or just get the 600 or 1000 to start with. Any of them can get you killed, it's just "easier" with the bigger bike..

Same with cameras- it's "easier" with the more advanced powerful camera. ).

Believe me, there is a steep learning curvewhen you first start shooting a dslr..

Not really. They all have a "p" mode or a greenbox mode and most still have "scene" modes to get you going..

If the OP had the money, he shoud just jump into a MkIII or D3, afterall they're the most advanced and capable cameras available..

In the meantime, you can putthe difference in cost into decent glass, a tripod, and otheraccessories..

If money is an issue, then maybe go for a cheaper body and get at least one quality lens..

Can't remember the last time I used a tripod..

Gene..

Comment #6

I repeat: Why buy a porche when you don't know how to drive yet? If you want to know what an entry-level dslr (in this case, the 350D) is capable of doing when used by a good photographer, check the following: http://www.pbase.citylights/favorites ..

Jerryhttp://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

Comment #7

I have never understood why anything is called "entry level" because it is poorly constructed or has very limited functionality. Whether it is cameras or fishing equipment, the fact that you are just learning to use it is no reason to get equipment that doesn't work as well as the good stuff..

In fact, it is often easier to learn to use good equipment than it is to learn to use equipment that is limited in it's effectiveness by it's features and construction..

There are two kinds of learning curves involved. One curve is the education needed to decide what equipment you need to do what you want to do. That takes research..

The second curve is learning to use the equipment. It is no harder to learn digital photography with a D1 of some sort than it is with a XTi. In some ways, it is harder with the cheaper, less sophisticated body..

Entry level is a bad concept..

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #8

I don't teach how to take pix, but I do teach people how to drive competitively. See comments below....

Jchoate wrote:.

I repeat: Why buy a porche when you don't know how to drive yet?.

Because you can't learn to drive with a Chevy Cavalier, but you can learn to drive with a Miata..

Even worse than the Cavalier is a Porsche (capatalized and with an "s" in the middle) Turbo. The owner often buys the car, then immediately buys wider wheels and sticky "R" tires...he has the dealer install the "racing" suspension...and the "aero" package. Then he comes out and tries to learn how to drive it. The truth is that this driver doesn't have a chance!.

I'm not positive that this automotive analogy works with photography (I don't have 1st hand knowledge), but I suspect it does. I think that somebody moving from a Kodak pocket cam to a Nikon D3 with a dozen lenses, flash accessories, tripods, etc...you know, everything the store had...will never learn how to be a good photographer. You have to WORK to learn how to drive a car and capture good images with a camera..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #9

Chuxter wrote:.

Because you can't learn to drive with a Chevy Cavalier,.

Hmm, I suspect that many people learn to drive in Chevy Cavaliers.

Brian A...

Comment #10

Jchoate wrote:.

I guess I am confused. Why are noobs to digital photography talkingabout buying semi-pro cameras? It seems to me that it makes a lotmore sense to buy an entry-level dslr (such as the Canon 400D) to usein learning digital photography and then move up after you havemastered the basics..

It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to buy the camera you want the first time rather than buy an "entry-level" camera, then replace it six months later when you've outgrown it..

Believe me, there is a steep learning curvewhen you first start shooting a dslr..

Not so steep as you might think...

Comment #11

Flapmeister wrote:.

Dear all,.

I am looking for a dslr for quite a while. I have a dilemma..

I have doubts between the following cameras: 40d/K10d..

I really like the k10d, because it is great value for money. (wheatersealed/unique modes/SR et cetera). But I really like the fact canonhas a lot more lenses, and I think it is safe to say betterlenses...(L quality).

Not really better lenses. The Pentax primes in particular are highly regarded. The Canon kit lenses are also usually much worse than Pentax. But it's true that if you have the money you have a much larger selection for the Canon. That said old manual lenses built 30 years ago still works on the Pentax..

But then again, the 40d is a lot more expensive...a lot more....

Bodies will loose their value much faster than lens. It's better to invest in good lenses than an expensive body..

Should I go for the 'cheap' (or less expensive) k10d or investe in abetter camera/system?.

This question is too vague to be answered correctly. Depending on what your style of photography one or another system may better suit you. I'm afraid there are no fast answers to your question and you will have to do your homework..

Manu.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://flickr.com/photos/10506176@N07/..

Comment #12

"Porsche (capatalized and with an "s" in the middle) Turbo....".

I can spell, but I can't type..

It is not like the entry-level dslrs are not capable of good photography (recall the link I posted earlier to photos by Citylights). And, the entry-level cameras will do almost everything the pro models will do, albeit not as well. I simply suggest that, inasmuch as photographers tend to upgrade their camera bodies every few years but retain their lenses, it makes sense to learn with an inexpensive body and then move up. Just my opinion..

Jerryhttp://jchoate.zenfolio.com/..

Comment #13

I don't think you can go wrong with the K10D and it's kit lens...

Comment #14

Hugowolf wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Because you can't learn to drive with a Chevy Cavalier,.

Hmm, I suspect that many people learn to drive in Chevy Cavaliers.

Perhaps YOU don't know how to drive, if you think a kid in a Chevy II can "learn" to drive and then get in that Porsche Turbo and make a lap at speed. Your typical HS driving class is barely enough to pass the exam...it teaches nothing about car control or what to do when you get in "trouble"..

There are stories all the time about some rich kid with a Porsche Carrera GT killing himself and his unlucky passenger at a driving event in California. He "thought" he knew how to drive, but he didn't..

My guess is that the same thing happens with cameras, because people are the same, even if their toys are different..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #15

Jchoate wrote:.

"Porsche (capatalized and with an "s" in the middle) Turbo....".

I can spell, but I can't type..

It is not like the entry-level dslrs are not capable of goodphotography (recall the link I posted earlier to photos byCitylights). And, the entry-level cameras will do almost everythingthe pro models will do, albeit not as well. I simply suggest that,inasmuch as photographers tend to upgrade their camera bodies everyfew years but retain their lenses, it makes sense to learn with aninexpensive body and then move up. Just my opinion..

Hey, I'm one who agrees with you. I think it makes a LOT of sense..

But that horsehocky about, "I'm not ignernt, i'm just uncordinated" don't play dixie. You prolly don't pronounce the "e" on the end either ("porsh")! It's a girls name, for dolly's sake..."Portia", by heck... .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #16

While with price being equal, I would certainly give the nod to the 40D, however, it's not. As you stated, the 40D is considerable higher. About $600 higher. It really depends on how much TOTAL you plan to spend. If I had my choice between a K10D and good lens / lenses, or a 40D with kit lens, I would say K10D...

Comment #17

Or Nikon D80. Quality body. Excellent kit lenses. Moderate price. Virtually unlimited options...

Comment #18

Just from what you typed you want canon lens..

Rules out non canon cameras..

350/400D or 40D leaves you with..

How serious are you about photography?.

If your serious the 40D would be the best choice (I don't believe in wasting money trading in six months down the line). THe 40D would be more future proof. Build up on Lens as you go. Xmas is coming. May be with enough hints you might get a good lens from Santa lol..

Above all though it's you and not the equipment..

All the best. Hope you make the right choice..

Ianb..

Comment #19

Ian1234 wrote:.

Just from what you typed you want canon lens..

Some Canon lenses, but not their 18-55. The 40D with 17-85IS is $1800. I think I saw it for $1500 somewhere. But, the D80 with Nikon's sharp 18-55 and 55-200VR are $1200 total...

Comment #20

I went from a $100 Fuji p & s, to a Panny Lumix FZ-8 to a K10D in a 4.5 month span. I wanted room to grow a bit when I committed to a DSLR so I bought the K10D. There is of course a learning curve but given the great value for it's class the K10D offers, I'll be fine with the K10D for quite a while..

Canon and Nikon lens selection is large but the really good lenses are very expensive. Although Pentax has fewer lenses this is only a problem if your shooting needs require professional level lenses and you are prepared to pay the price for them. Tamron and Sigma complement the Pentax lens selection nicely. Pentax lenses are less expensive than comparable Canon and Nikons because Pentax image stabilization is in the camera. Canon and Nikon put it into the lenses thus greatly increasing their cost. Lens stabilzation is slightly more effective but not so significant as too justify the great extra lens cost..

Jayhttp://picasaweb.google.com/jaykalasnik..

Comment #21

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.