Pentax or Sony DSLR?

[LouiseTopp]

Hello excellent shot of a snake. What camera did you take that on? I think I will go into my local camera shop and try out both models and see how they feel

[Inkanyezi]

Hello excellent shot of a snake. What camera did you take that on? I think I will go into my local camera shop and try out both models and see how they feel

I used a Panasonic Lumix G1. I don't think that model is current still, it is the first generation. There are newer cameras, more sutable for particularly this kind of work. The one I have now is Olympus OM-D, which has an articulated touch screen that can be used both for focusing and shooting without touching the buttons. It is lightning fast and has good properties regarding dynamic range and possibility to use in low light. Also Panasonic has similar, but I chose the Olympus because I use many old lenses that cannot be stabilised with the Panasonic.

Panasonic's screen articulates in more ways and can be turned so you can see it from almost any direction, while the Olympus screen only can be tilted vertically. In some positions, that makes it a bit awkward, but other features are superior. I particularly like that I can use the touch screen to set focus exactly and shoot at the same time. It has the convenience of roll film SLR cameras added to the modern features of the digital. I can shoot from waist level, I can put the camera on the ground and have full control over the image, something that is not so easy with SLR cameras, and autofocusing is just as fast, even when I use it with "live view", which is the standard mode on this type of camera.

So my first mirror-free was the first generation, and my present camera is the third generation of mirror-free systems. There are new cameras in the pipe from various manufacturers, and if you don't share my fad for old lenses, any of those systems might have their attraction. With original lenses, all of them are stabilised, and the Sony cameras are also good workhorses. The one you mentioned is a kind of hybrid between the DSLR and mirror-free, as it has the phase detection AF, which works even when shooting video.

I think you should weigh the properties of various systems toward your own preferences and choose carefully, to get what would work best for your photography. The diverse opinions about advantages and disadvantages with different types does have a real background, and I truly believe that the DSLR camera for many of today's photographers might be a better answer to their preferences. I just wanted to show that it is not just that simple that one type or model is superior to the other, because it's actually what's behind the camera that matters for the choice. If the choice is made informed, there are no regrets, and there is nothing that impedes using both kinds of camera if you prefer one for certain things and the other for other things. They all have their quirks and also advantages.

When I got the Panasonic Lumix G1, I took it because it was the first one out, and I found it to have a user interface that was reasonable. I already had a Canon EOS 10D, which in most respects regarding image quality is at par, and even has a little edge over the G1 in some respects. I haven't used it since. There were a few things that I disliked with the Canon, and they all related to the viewfinder and the user interface. I found the viewfinder too small and dark, and with no way of reliably focusing manually. I also felt lost, not having a diaphragm ring, but being forced to use digital dials for setting aperture and shutter times. That however is the same with nearly all digital cameras. The feature that p-ed me off most was the raindance for setting your own white balance. I understand that it is better if you use flash, and that it is unnecessary if shooting RAW, but for shooting jpeg to have the picture ready "in the camera", it is really too many buttons to press to do a simple and necessary thing that must always be done.

But I would have used it if I not had the money to get a camera that suits me better. And that's the working word here, it suits me. That does not mean that it is generally superior. I like the viewfinder better, I think it is superior, but I respect that there are other opinions and that other people prefer the older style reflex finder. I don't shoot sports, but I do shoot wildlife, and in some respects things may happen even less predictably and just as fast. It has worked, and that image of a snake catching the fish it just lost shows it. It is taken with a rather long lens, 200 mm, which corresponds to a 400 mm on full frame, and the IS has kept it reasonably sharp even though the shutter time is 1/80 second, which is a very slow time with such a long lens. The Olympus would have produced a clearer image with less noise and more detail, but the essentials are there, and speed was not the problem.

In fact, the problem that arises when trying to get this kind of shot is that the camera goes asleep, if it is not contantly kept awake. I wait for an hour at the side of the creek, where the snake rests calmly waiting for a fish to take the jump, then in virtually no time, when a fish goes up or down the little waterfall, lightning fast, it lashes its head forward and takes the fish. There is no time in that moment to wake up the camera or to focus. It must be ready, after such a long wait when nothing happens. The articulated screen is a great help there, as I don't have to keep my eye to the viewfinder to frame, but I can hold the camera conveniently on my lap or on a bean bag on the ground or on the tripod and control framing on the articulated screen.

Most of the time nothing particular happens, the snake just lies there, sometimes it might be accompanied by another, but it does nothing, through hours.



Then suddenly, a quick flash, too fast to capture, and there is a fish in its mouth.



And the other image a few posts back, is when it almost lost one. Many times the fish might win, but that time it didn't. It came loose, but the snake reacted and took it again, and that's the moment I caught. I didn't have my eye to the viewfinder, but I used the articulated screen and a small focusing point set at the right distance. There were several more blurred pictures, as movement was too fast for the speed of 1/80. But finally I got one where the snake is actually catching the fish. I'll be back there next year ant try to do it with my new camera that is faster and has better low light properties.

[barjohn]

Hi Louise,
I am very new to all of this, I started last Christmas, with a Pentax k-r. I can only tell you that my own experience is that the k-r is comfortable for me and I find the controls very intuative, as most people have stated this is probably very important in choosing a camera that suits you. Everyone's likes and dislikes are different so don't just get it based on someone else's opinion, go to a shop and tell them your situation, I know that Jessops is a chain store but the staff generally aren't on commision and are all photography enthusiasts not just your average shop assistant, I found them very informative. You will have other shops where the staff are just as well informed, just make sure you tell them you have a fixed budget. I've recently been informed of this site; http://www.dpreview.com/ where they review equipment and there is a gallery of photos taken with various cameras by people who own the equipment, not just professional reviewers. The only problem I have had with the k-r is when it comes to purchasing add ons, there are far more lenses etc available for Canon/Nikon but you can get a reasonable range of things from amazon if you have limited finances and you're not looking for top end equipment to make a living from your photographs.
This is all just one persons opinion but I hope that it helps. Good luck with your fight against depression.
Barry