Pentax's K100D is just Super

Pentax has an update for their entry-level K100D DSLR which is so great, they've dubbed it the K100D Thuper Duper (clap clap). Ok ok, it's just the K100D Super but it's hard to contain our girlish enthusiasm in the face of marketing genius. Their latest features Pentax's shake reduction system like the K100D only now with a new dust removal system and full compatibility with Pentax's higher-end SDM lenses. Other than that and SDHC compatibility (still no CF support), we're still looking at the same 6.1 megapixel cam (APS-C size CCD) with 2.5-inch LCD, and ISO 3200 max sensitivity -- not a bad thing for first timer DSLRers based on previous reviews. The body alone will set you back $520 come August 2007.

[chadow @ Jun 27th 2007 6:18PM]

There sure are alot of pretty decent DSLR Cameras these days. I hope that means the price on the Canon 5D will come down a little soon.

[John @ Jun 27th 2007 6:22PM]

Decent. Except for the part where it's a Pentax.
/Nikon snob

[Big @ Jun 27th 2007 6:25PM]

Why would anybody wanna go back to Compact Flash cards?

Nowadays you can get a 4GB SDHC card for a mere $50.

I went shopping for a camera the other day at Circuit City and found out that they are selling Two PNY 1GB SD cards for $20 ($10 a piece) and 2GB SD cards for less than $30.

SD cards are dirt cheap now. Makes no sense to me to have CF support unless your buying a Microdrive.

[craig @ Jun 27th 2007 6:54PM]

Some people want and need the highest capacity cards. Those people aren't considering a Pentax 6MP camera, however.

[Joe Smith @ Jun 27th 2007 6:25PM]

Nikon sucks.
/Canon snob

[Puddleglum @ Jun 27th 2007 6:52PM]

Cameras suck
/comment snob

[Zadillo @ Jun 27th 2007 7:03PM]

Anyone have any recommendations for a good starter D-SLR (for a beginner looking to learn more about photography, etc.)? I was especially looking at the Nikon D40 (not D40x)

[Anthop @ Jun 27th 2007 7:28PM]

This one.
/Pentax snob.

[Mike @ Jun 28th 2007 6:03AM]

I would recommend the Pentax K100D. You can get it for less than $500 with a lens these days, and I think it's a better camera than the D40. The D40 limits you to lenses with built-in AF motors (AF-S in Nikon speak, HSM in Sigma speak). That means you cannot use any Nikon or third party lens except for the aforementioned AF-S and HSM lenses. The Pentax, OTOH, lets you use any K-mount lens ever made. The killer differentiator, IMO, is the built-in shake reduction. It turns any lens into an image-stabilized lens, so no need to buy expensive IS/VR/OS lenses, though arguably in body is not as good as in lens stabilization (but so what, this camera is $400 for the body).

I also prefer the Pentax interface, it's straightforward, and despite the fact that it's not a two-dial camera (e.g. a dial on top/front and back like it's big brother, the K10D, the Nikon D80, Canon 30D, etc.), the essential controls are within easy reach and not buried in a menu. The D40 seems to be aimed at the more fire-and-forget crowd, though both cameras have both fire-and-forget modes and settings, and manual settings.

Finally, I like Pentax's selection of Limited (name, not availability) primes (fixed focal length lenses).

[StrangeBum @ Jun 27th 2007 7:36PM]

I wouldn't consider either the D40 or the D40x personally for a starter DSLR. I think if you plan on going the Nikon route, check around for a D50 or a D70, both of which are going to end up being much more worth the extra trouble in finding one in the long run.

I love Nikon, but I'm also quite partial the Sony Alpha for whatever reason, maybe because I always like the old Konica Minolta bodies over most others.

[tekdroid @ Jun 27th 2007 7:49PM]

in-body image stabilisation will expand your picture-taking keepers significantly.

Nikon and Canon don't offer it. They want you to buy their expensive stabilised lenses instead.

Therefore, I would recommend the new Olympus E510 (my first choice, partly due to the best anti-dust system on earth and above average lenses) or Pentax's current in-body stabilised cameras. Sony's Alpha also has in-body stabilisation worth a look.

[jollyllama @ Jun 27th 2007 7:54PM]

Yeah, I'd also find a D50 before considering a D40. Not having access to older lenses will get real expensive real fast. Want an 80-200 2.8? The AF-S version is $1400, compared to $850 for the AF-D. I've seen very little that makes me think the D40 has anything at all over the D50, anyway.

[Zadillo @ Jun 27th 2007 8:02PM]

I haven't seen the D50 for sale anywhere though; would I need to find a used one then?

Regarding the Olympus EVOLT E-510, how about the E-410? Looks like it's a couple hundred cheaper.

I guess I'd be interested in the Alpha too; seems like it is very affordable.

[tekdroid @ Jun 27th 2007 10:39PM]

The Olympus E-410 is a fine camera, nice and small with great lenses, too. Keep in mind it doesn't come with image stabilisation. Olympus cams come with Live View, too. Just like a compact..

Think of hand-held shots in low light without blurs.
Think of less chance of blurs when zooming in.
Those are the areas image stabilisation will really help. Personally I wouldn't get a cam without it.

If the budget is tight tho, The Olympus E-410 is a fine choice. I would get it before any D50 or D40 (I own a D50) right now. The older lenses you would likely never use, so the D50 etc is unneeded (it also maxes out with 2GB cards...pfff). If you really want the D40, I would get it over a D50 anyday. It has a far better screen and usability for someone new to digital SLRs (over the older D50). I would kill for a better screen on my D50, for instance. 9 times outta 10 I think I have a good shot but you can never tell on that small thing. Also no RGB histogram on the D50.

Bottom line: my first choice would be an Olympus.

[bones @ Jun 28th 2007 8:09PM]

@zadillo: I was in the same spot as you a few months ago and ended up buying a d40. It takes amazing pics and is a great camera for someone starting out since it doesnt overwhelm with a ton of features that the beginner probably won't know how to use properly for at least a good year anyways. When you're ready to upgrade after mastering everything the d40 has to offer, newer models will be out and it'll be much cheaper to upgrade. The kit lens is more than adequate for a beginner and the 55-200 VR is only about $227 from amazon. The d40 is a great starting point..plus its smaller and lighter than a d50/70 etc. and uses a higher quality sensor than either one of those.

[Mike @ Jun 27th 2007 7:44PM]

Wow, "Thuper Duper" They're going to piss off a lot of people with lisps.

[David @ Jun 27th 2007 10:04PM]

The "Super" moniker isn't just some strange label thought up by present marketing. Pentax has a history of using the term, including with the classic K1000.

[Yem @ Jun 28th 2007 1:38AM]

Yep - I have an early 80s Pentax "ME Super" for black & white.
And as above, that 20+ year old camera can share lenses with my Pentax d-SLR.

Zadillo: get this one.

[Andrew @ Jun 28th 2007 10:03AM]

Pentax has the best cheap glass. Every SLR lens they ever made works on this camera. I use lenses made in the 60's and 70's on my ist*DL all the time.

[jollyllama @ Jun 28th 2007 1:14PM]

Man, I really want to shoot Pentax, but their glass is nothing compared to Nikon and Canon's selection. Expensive, too.

[Russ @ Jun 28th 2007 6:59PM]

@Zadillo
Get this Pentax. In-body stabilisation (so every lens you buy will be stabilised), it can use every lens ever made for a Pentax (the screw mount ones use an adapter) unlike its competitors. 6mp is all you ever need, more and you introduce more noise and less sensitivity, costs is cheap too. (Check out all the great old lenses for sale - they all fit!)