You must get a DSLR. Now.

[Greg K.]

There is no excuse anymore: b&h photo (www.bhphotovideo.com) is now offering the Pentax *ist DL for the mind-blowing price of $339.95 (body only). That is, after a $100 Pentax rebate.

 

[Dan Murphy]

It does say 'out of stock'.............

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...085&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I would like an SLR, but certain P&S features keep me there.

Looks like a good price though, good heads up.

 

[Greg K.]

I took my Pentax to WDW earlier this month...here's two examples of what this little baby can do...

At the Board Walk...

And inside the Contemporary...

 

[Laura]

Waiting for a dSLR with a full-frame sensor and in-body IS.

That Pentax is nice, though. I love your pics!

 

[jann1033]

wow, very cheap price

imho though, cheap or not, dslr isn't the way to go for everyone and with some p&s having really good quality it's nice people who don't want to mess around with a dslr can still get a nice end result. my step father loves to take pictures but can't even figure out a basic digi p&s...a dslr would have him so frustrated, not the point of a "hobby"

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Waiting for a dSLR with a full-frame sensor and in-body IS.

That Pentax is nice, though. I love your pics!

in-body IS is not as effective as in-lens IS. The longer the tele-end, the less effective the in-body IS would be. It's physics.

Full-frame sensor. I have two of them, it's overrated unless you really need to take medium-format-like resolution.

back to topic, at that price for a Pentax ist*DL, there is absolutely no reason to go with P&S.

 

[Anewman]

in-body IS is not as effective as in-lens IS. The longer the tele-end, the less effective the in-body IS would be. It's physics.

Does not need to be as effective, if it gives me one stop at 300mm(35mm equiv) I would be happy. That could be the difference between 3200ISO or 1600. But all photo tests I have seen show that it is very effective at 300mm, remember at tele you are talking about holding the camera still for thousandths(or hundredths) of a sec VS tenths of a sec on the wide end.

Obviously Canon will never addopt in body IS.

back to topic, at that price for a Pentax ist*DL, there is absolutely no reason to go with P&S.

Just to name a few, just because they do not apply to us does not mean they do not exist.
1. Price, there are still hundreds of P&S cameras below the price of the DL
2. Size, there are hundreds of P&S cameras smaller than the DL
3. Video, there are some that actually use the Video in their cameras.
4. Live preview, some prefer it.
5. Disposability, for most one DSLR is all they will ever purchase. Not so with P&S.
6. Intimidation factor.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

nope, Canon would never do that for two reasons.

1. economic: they can sell the IS lens with higher profit margin
2. perfomance: at 300mm, my 70-300 can still have 3 stop advantage PLUS I'm using ISO 3200. Considering the subject is relatively still, it's an equivalent of ISO 12,800 with a 1-stop advantage in-body IS.

PS: cameras with in-body IS are more expensive than the ones without. However, the lens prices for camera with in-body IS is not necessarily cheaper than the IS lenses available.

1. Price, there are still hundreds of P&S cameras below the price of the DL
2. Size, there are hundreds of P&S cameras smaller than the DL
3. Video, there are some that actually use the Video in their cameras.
4. Live preview, some prefer it.
5. Disposability, for most one DSLR is all they will ever purchase. Not so with P&S.
6. Intimidation factor.

1. true
2. true, but people needs to be educated that smaller camera = smaller sensor = bad low-light image quality. Just look at the number of questions asked on this forum alone about how bad their P&S camera taking indoor / lowlight pictures.
3. true, but they need to have their head examined. Any family ocassions (or any ocassions) that's worth recording is worth re-watching and be preserved as high-quality as possible. None of the current P&S comes even close to DVD quality, let alone miniDV.
4. this is a misconception, how more 'live' can a preview be than looking through a viewfinder?
5. there is no need for disposability and waste and the eventual impact to the environment when they use a camera they're satisfied to begin with (just look at how many threads complaining about shutter lag and startup lag)
6. there is no intimidation in using dSLR. That's why the manufacturers create the "green zone".

Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Anewman]

PS: cameras with in-body IS are more expensive than the ones without. However, the lens prices for camera with in-body IS is not necessarily cheaper than the IS lenses available.

You can get a Minolta 7d(camera) with a 70-300mm lens for less than the Canon 70-300mm IS lens alone.

You are right, "not necessarily" but there are times.

And with new models featuring IS in body coming out soon...

1. true
2. true, but people needs to be educated that smaller camera = smaller sensor = bad low-light image quality. Just look at the number of questions asked on this forum alone about how bad their P&S camera taking indoor / lowlight pictures.
3. true, but they need to have their head examined. Any family ocassions (or any ocassions) that's worth recording is worth re-watching and be preserved as high-quality as possible. None of the current P&S comes even close to DVD quality, let alone miniDV.
4. this is a misconception, how more 'live' can a preview be than looking through a viewfinder?
5. there is no need for disposability and waste and the eventual impact to the environment when they use a camera they're satisfied to begin with (just look at how many threads complaining about shutter lag and startup lag)
6. there is no intimidation in using dSLR. That's why the manufacturers create the "green zone".

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Never said those reasons would apply to you(or me), but to some they may all be very VALID reasons.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

hence I wrote "just playing devil's advocate" because I actually agree with you

 

[WillCAD]

Just to name a few, just because they do not apply to us does not mean they do not exist.
1. Price, there are still hundreds of P&S cameras below the price of the DL
2. Size, there are hundreds of P&S cameras smaller than the DL
3. Video, there are some that actually use the Video in their cameras.
4. Live preview, some prefer it.
5. Disposability, for most one DSLR is all they will ever purchase. Not so with P&S.
6. Intimidation factor.

1. True - but if you buy a new P&S every two years, you spend a lot more than you would if you bought an SLR that lasted you for 6 years. Adn for that 6 years you'd have WAY better photos with teh SLR than with any P&S on the market.
2. Also very true, though I think some people have unreasonable expectations when they want a camera to be pocket-size but do the same stuff that a bigger camera can do. More capability = Bigger size, even in today's micro-transistorised shrinky-dink culture. Besides, my hands are too big to even be comfy on the Canon 350D, which is partly why I bought a 300D.
3. Not if they want GOOD video. That's like saying you don't need to own a P&S camera because your cell phone has a camera built-in - BIG difference!
4. Refer to Kelly's response re: head examination.
5. Refer to my response to Point #1.
6. Sadly true - people see something with more than 3 buttons on it and they think you need to be a rocket scientist to operat it, when in reality most DSLRs have fewer buttons, dials, wheels, and other controls than your average family car.

 

[Anewman]

1. True - but if you buy a new P&S every two years, you spend a lot more than you would if you bought an SLR that lasted you for 6 years. Adn for that 6 years you'd have WAY better photos with teh SLR than with any P&S on the market.
2. Also very true, though I think some people have unreasonable expectations when they want a camera to be pocket-size but do the same stuff that a bigger camera can do. More capability = Bigger size, even in today's micro-transistorised shrinky-dink culture. Besides, my hands are too big to even be comfy on the Canon 350D, which is partly why I bought a 300D.
3. Not if they want GOOD video. That's like saying you don't need to own a P&S camera because your cell phone has a camera built-in - BIG difference!
4. Refer to Kelly's response re: head examination.
5. Refer to my response to Point #1.
6. Sadly true - people see something with more than 3 buttons on it and they think you need to be a rocket scientist to operat it, when in reality most DSLRs have fewer buttons, dials, wheels, and other controls than your average family car.

B4 everyone starts agreeing or disagreeing with those reasons, this is not the point.
I Understand exactly what you are saying and have been into DSLRS well b4 the craze.

Point was in reply to Kelly stating that "at that price for a Pentax ist*DL, there is absolutely no reason to go with P&S.", for some(maybe not you) there are still reason(regardless of us agreeing with them) to purchase point and shoot cameras. I just purchased a point and shoot Panasonic a couple weeks ago, reason= I was not going to allow my 16 year old daughter cary around a DSLR in purse at all times(required for yearbook staff).

 

[Kelly Grannell]

yup yup! I even still have my A95 and A345 for discrete picture taking and 300D for my daughter (7yo) equipped with The Kelly lens.

 

[WillCAD]

yup yup! I even still have my A95 and A345 for discrete picture taking and 300D for my daughter (7yo) equipped with The Kelly lens.

Your 7yo DD uses a 300D with a Kelly lens on it? She must have arms like the Governator!

Anewman is right on about one thing - some people want or need a smaller camera, and the 300D sure ain't one.

Hows about posting a few of your DDs images? I've seen some 7-year olds take pretty good pics.

 

[Dan Murphy]

......1. true
2. true, but people needs to be educated that smaller camera = smaller sensor = bad low-light image quality. Just look at the number of questions asked on this forum alone about how bad their P&S camera taking indoor / lowlight pictures.
3. true, but they need to have their head examined. Any family ocassions (or any ocassions) that's worth recording is worth re-watching and be preserved as high-quality as possible. None of the current P&S comes even close to DVD quality, let alone miniDV.
4. this is a misconception, how more 'live' can a preview be than looking through a viewfinder?
5. there is no need for disposability and waste and the eventual impact to the environment when they use a camera they're satisfied to begin with (just look at how many threads complaining about shutter lag and startup lag)
6. there is no intimidation in using dSLR. That's why the manufacturers create the "green zone"......

I will try and shape up and get with the program.

 

[YEKCIM]

I'm sure to get nailed by several of you, but I'll stick my neck out and put in my $0.02 anyway.

I have been wanting a dSLR in the worst way for quite some time now, and was going to buy one earlier this year, when some unforseen expenses "downgraded" my purchase to the Fuji S5200. I had a blast with the Fuji on a recent trip to WDW and am very pleased with the bulk of the shots I got, some of which are posted to a couple of threads on disboards.

I have still been toying with dSLR, and considering the Pentax DL. In the midst of all the ruminating and soul searching, it dawned on me that I probably am better off with a "do it all" ultrazoom, superzoom. bridge, or whatever you want to call it. It's always ready to go, no lens changing, etc...ready to shoot when I am. The S5200 filled that bill quite well, especially at the long end of the zoom (380mm equivalent) although I would like to have had a little wider view on the "wide" end than 38mm (equivalent). It's not perfect, and I do not mean to characterize it as such, and it is not on a par with even an entry level dSLR in many respects, but it *does* meet my current needs.

I realize, too, that a dSLR would afford me larger sensor, lower high-ISO noise, ability to accessorize (lenses, flash, etc.), but at a price. I may eventually fall for the allure of the dSLR sirens, but for now, I'll just stick with my 5200 and keep my eyes peeled for an upscale replacement, at some point.

~YEKCIM

 

[handicap18]

How about this,,, if you think your going to spend $400-500 on a new P&S you really should consider the Pentax dSLR. Those P&S that are that high priced really aren't going to be much smaller than an slr with the "Kelly Lens". Megapixels might be more, but that is nixed because of the actual sensor size. Zoom will be bigger on the P&S, but when you taking pictures of your family and kids, most wont be at 300mm. Since your sensor is already bigger, you'll still get a picture if you crop. And 70-300mm lenses can be had for relatively cheep money if you want one down the road.

I will definately agree that SLR's are not for everyone. Hence more P&S models are available than dSLR models. This will always be the case. If you were considering purchasing a new digital camera and only wanted to spend $200 or so, then P&S is for you and you wouldn't be looking at the S3 IS or the equilivent. Therefor the dSLR arguement is really null and void.

As for all the buttons and dials, well there are more dials and buttons on a digital P&S than there ever were on a film P&S. Most of those dials are the exact same on a dSLR plus maybe a few more that even a lot of dSLR users don't use.

 

[YEKCIM]

Thanks for the insight, Kyle. As said, I am happy with the results from my $225 P&S. In fact, I was surprised at how good they turned out. I've thought some about the DL+"Kelly Lens" option, but don't want to be limited to 180mm (equivalent, if I've done the math right) on the tele end. Right now, I'm at 380mm at full tele, and I use the cam at that focal length quite a bit. I know there is an 18-200 out there, but I understand that the IQ ain't all that great. I'm intrigued by several features of the upcoming Fuji S6500fd, but some "official" samples I've seen posted on the Fuji site look really soft to me, and have given me pause. I'm in good shape at present with the 5200, and not in as big a hurry to replace it as I was.

We've got a family vacation to the Blue Ridge Parkway in VA and NC planned for October, and I'll be fine with the 5200, assuming I get it back from the shop (balky power switch) by then.

Main reason for posting was to offer a slightly differing viewpoint for others who may be contemplating a camera purchase, and need to clarify their camera needs.

~YEKCIM

 

[Anewman]

I'm at 380mm at full tele, and I use the cam at that focal length quite a bit. I know there is an 18-200 out there, but I understand that the IQ ain't all that great.

Main reason for posting was to offer a slightly differing viewpoint for others who may be contemplating a camera purchase, and need to clarify their camera needs.

~YEKCIM

Well the IQ of the 18-200 may be considered "not great", but that is compared to other SLR glass. When compared to point and shoot glass it would blow most out of the water. Same with the tamron 28-300mm(equiv to 480mm) lenses that are looked down upon, that is only compared to SLR glass.

Your viewpoint is very valid and I am sure your viewpoint greatly outnumbers the DSLR OR DIE crowds point of veiw, but most of those tend not to hang out in "photography" forums.

 

[JR6ooo4]

That's why we got the "rebel Jr" which is realy called the S2 (or 3). I bought the DW a small pocket size, think it was a canon 650, and the lag was biiiiig. So we compromised with a mid size model. Just the camera alone will fit in a pcoket. Well a winter coat pocket, ehheheheee. But it is silver, ewwwww? The pentax is coool black!

MIkeeee