Another camera query

menamestom

I've dabbled in photography for quite a few years but lapsed to a general smartphone snapper the last few years.
I want to get back into it a bit so mulling over whether to get a new camera or not.

I started with a fully manual Centon K100 to learn the basics then after several years moved on to a Pentax kx DSLR

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx

I've had this camera since about 2010 and have had okay results, but never been that blown away by the images.  Reading a bit more the 18-55 kit lens is not supposed to be great and better results can be had by getting a better lens.
Also, it eats batteries but apparently this can be overcome with enloop high power AA's.
  There was also an instance when some photos disappeared, which could have been related to the SD card.
But with all the above I lost a bit of faith in the camera and interest in using it.

So now I've rekindled my interest I'm wondering whether to stick with the camera I have, work on a few of the issues, maybe a better lens (it came with 2,18 - 55mm and 50-200mm, but I have read Pentax of all the manufacturers don't supply the best kit lenses), or just move on with a more modern camera, which comes with a better lens out of  the box.  Also, no doubt, technology has improved since I got this camera.

I wont have a massive budget, but thinking perhaps one of the lower end mirrorless might be a good idea.  I like the look of the Canon M100, but not sure if I'd miss the viewfinder coming from an SLR.  Also, would it cost a fortune to replace the 500-200 lens I have currently, which is great for distance shots of subjects with shallow depth of field.

So just after general thoughts and musings, I know there are quite a few knowledgeable people on the subject round here.
If I was to get a new camera, it would certainly be sub £500.

strumjoughlamps

one of my fave set ups I ever had was a Pentax K5ii w/ the awsome DA* 50-135 f2.8 ED SDM attached, such a great set up.

I do love and choose Canon FF nowadays and wouldn't have a problem using aps-c but IMHO and experience with Canon mirrorless, they are well behind the times.

Grumpyrocker

Get a used Fujifilm X-T20 from MPB.com. £374
Then add an XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 for £164
or a less expensive (but still optically very good) XC 16-50 for £65

Lodious

I have moved to Canon mirrorless, but if I'd have my time again I'd go for fuji. Good deals on xt-2's at the moment, but might be a bit over budget.

stickyfiddle

Grumpyrocker said:

Get a used Fujifilm X-T20 from MPB.com. £374
Then add an XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 for £164
or a less expensive (but still optically very good) XC 16-50 for £65

This would be my recommendation if you're after a new bit of kit. Atcually I'd prefer the X-T1 or X-T2 for ergonomics and the bigger EVF and tilting screen, but all of them are properly brilliant cameras. I'm now on an XT3 and don't have even a shred of inclination to look at other systems. 

Though I would also ask if you're doing any processing? And whether you're shooting RAW or jpeg? That makes a huge difference between regular potentially flat-looking shots and professional vibrant (or intentionally muted!) images. 

strumjoughlamps

Grumpyrocker said:

Get a used Fujifilm X-T20 from MPB.com. £374
Then add an XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 for £164
or a less expensive (but still optically very good) XC 16-50 for £65

Fuji Refurb store is the better choice.

best to try a have a play with a few first though.. you might prefer Sony, or a 43rds system, or you might not like any and want to stick with a DSLR

ThePrettyDamned

I'd get a used fuji too, especially if you like the ergonomics of older cameras.

I have found, however, I rarely use the viewfinder and mostly opt for the rear screen. Xt2 is good, xe2 is good, xt1 is good, xt20... 

They're all good. If you want you could look at a Sony a7 for superior image quality at the cost of poorer af (doesn't matter for normal stuff just sports and tracking) and battery life, and poorer ergonomics and jpeg. Fuji jpegs are easily tweaked in camera and look great. 

goldtop

Definitely "yes" on the need for viewfinder on the Canon mirrorless. I have a Canon M3 and it does niggle me (EVF available as an option, but very expensive).

ThePrettyDamned

Definitely play with some though! 

menamestom

stickyfiddle said:

Grumpyrocker said:

Get a used Fujifilm X-T20 from MPB.com. £374
Then add an XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 for £164
or a less expensive (but still optically very good) XC 16-50 for £65

This would be my recommendation if you're after a new bit of kit. Atcually I'd prefer the X-T1 or X-T2 for ergonomics and the bigger EVF and tilting screen, but all of them are properly brilliant cameras. I'm now on an XT3 and don't have even a shred of inclination to look at other systems. 

Though I would also ask if you're doing any processing? And whether you're shooting RAW or jpeg? That makes a huge difference between regular potentially flat-looking shots and professional vibrant (or intentionally muted!) images. 

Jpeg usually but switching to RAW is something i’d like the ability to do.  It’s not something I know too much about, but something I know I should.  Is it that the encoding back to jpeg is much better in dedicated software?
I certainly would like to dabble in some post production, so probably worth having the option.

I'll have a look at the Fuji films then.  Do you think an X-T20 would be a step up from the Pentax DSLR I have?

This looks an okay deal, out of budget but I can wait, it's not urgent.

https://www.jessops.com/p/fujifilm/fujifilm-x-t20-mirrorless-camera-in-silver-with-xc15-45mm-lens-and-xc50-230mm-f-4-5-6-7-ois-ii-lens-151490?gclid=Cj0KCQjwwIPrBRCJARIsAFlVT8-S8M4UFZb24ImszNob2Ye2d5WWD2jXh-mNPSZZsgMFdV18HTCLZf8aAvGfEALw_wcB

Grumpyrocker

I actually use RAW less now with my Fuji gear than I did with Canon or Sony gear I had in the past. Always shoot Raw + Jpg, but much of the time use the latter. Fuji in camera film simulations are fantastic. 

Have owned an X-E2, X-T1, X-T20 and now have an X-T30. I do love the bigger EVF on the XTn line but the compact size of the XTn0 line swing it for me. XT30 and 27mm fits in a jacket pocket. 

stickyfiddle

RAW basically gives you everything the sensor sees, then edit using that much larger amount of data, *then* export to jpeg, so just gives you full control of exactly how the photo looks once complete. Whether it looks better than the in-camera jpeg depends on what software you use, and how well you use it, but it gives much better results once you're good at editing.

I usually shoot RAW, but completely agree the Fuji jpgs are really fantastic, especially once you get into the film simulations - I find Classic Chrome quite addictive. 

I process mostly on an iPad, usually with Lightroom, which is a subscription, but Affinity Photo is also very good and much cheaper, and even the native iOS editing is pretty good. 

Jimbro66

The Kx was a decent camera for its time but if you only have the kit lenses it's probably time to move on. I worked my way through Pentax K5, K5ii and K3 DSLRs with the excellent 20-40, 50-135 and 150-450 lenses. I still have them but now mostly use a Fujifilm X-E3 which gives excellent results. It has far superior AF to the earlier Pentax DSLRs and, if it matters to you, far better video. As mentioned above Fujifilm jpegs are excellent so it is not always necessary to process raw files.

One point to bear in mind though is that the Pentax better quality lenses, like the 50-135, are considerably lower priced than equivalents from the other major manufacturers. A consideration if you wanted to expand your Pentax lens collection.

menamestom

Jimbro66 said:

The Kx was a decent camera for its time but if you only have the kit lenses it's probably time to move on. I worked my way through Pentax K5, K5ii and K3 DSLRs with the excellent 20-40, 50-135 and 150-450 lenses. I still have them but now mostly use a Fujifilm X-E3 which gives excellent results. It has far superior AF to the earlier Pentax DSLRs and, if it matters to you, far better video. As mentioned above Fujifilm jpegs are excellent so it is not always necessary to process raw files.

One point to bear in mind though is that the Pentax better quality lenses, like the 50-135, are considerably lower priced than equivalents from the other major manufacturers. A consideration if you wanted to expand your Pentax lens collection.

I think it is time to move on.  I’ve not much invested in Pentax and the lenses I have are probably average at best.

However, looking at the lenses I would like, it is quite daunting in the Fujifilm world.  Possibly 1 kit lens (xc15-45 or xf 18-55), a good higher power zoom lens up to 200mm, a nice fast prime lens etc. That’s a small fortune!  

I think if I’m going down that route I need to get myself a body that will last for a very long time, so thinking about saving the extra for the x-t30, then build up lenses gradually, starting with an all rounder kit lens.  You can get the x-t30 with xc 15-45 for £799, so may be the beat start point, based on the reviews anything lower in the range (x-t20 aside) probably has compromises that would bug me over time.
 

stickyfiddle

If you can, I'd compare the XT2 with the XT30 in person. The EVF on the T1/2/3 is quite a lot nicer than the XT10/20/30 series, and if you're not shooting video or sports the overall quality is very similar, and the XT2 is certainly a no-compromise body.

I'd also aim for XF lenses if you can. There's nothing wrong with the XC, but the XF are genuinely all fantastic. If you're not on a super-tight budget it's generally better to invest in decent glass and a cheaper body, then replace the body later if/when the desire arises. 

If you're in that price ballpark an XT2 with XF18-55 would be my preference - 760-ish for a good used pair on MBP. 

Jez6345789

I have not used this camera but glanced the spec and DP review, its not a bad camera for the era and should on the face of it be capable of taking good pictures. 10 years on Auto modes and stuff have got a lot better on the exposure front but in the end its easy to bracket photographs and in reality a good picture is a good picture whether it's taken on an iPhone or a super-duper full Frame Canon, Nikon add make and model. 

In the end perhaps hold on for a few months and hone your composition skills.

Ultimately its the picture, not the camera. 

robgilmo

Im new to all this, but surely your choice would be dictated by what you want to photograph? I bought a Canon 200D a while back, it came with a wonky lens so back it went. I found the auto focus wasn't great for taking photos of my kids moving around, I opted for the 800D which has a better auto focus and its great. With a Currys one day sale and Canon cash back it cost the same as the 200D.

RaymondLin

robgilmo said:

Im new to all this, but surely your choice would be dictated by what you want to photograph? I bought a Canon 200D a while back, it came with a wonky lens so back it went. I found the auto focus wasn't great for taking photos of my kids moving around, I opted for the 800D which has a better auto focus and its great. With a Currys one day sale and Canon cash back it cost the same as the 200D.

The problem is a lot of people when they start off they have no idea what they want to shoot.  I see threads that goes something like

"I like to photograph my kids in the house"

Okay, that's a fast prime, like a 24, 35, 50mm…or may be a 24-70 zoom (17-50 on crop)

"I also like to shoot some birds"

Okay….that may be something like a 70-300mm.

"I also like to do some landscapes too"

Okay, Both of the above can do it too.

"But I also want to shoot my some portraits in the future"

Right, that is 85, 135 and a 50 (to be honest, anything from 24 to 200mm would work if you know the kind of portraits you want).

And before you know it, they want lenses ranging from UWA to super telephoto, as opposed to get 1 lens and concentrate on 1 style at first.  It's like you want a Ferrari but that can carry a family of 4, and also perhaps your neighbour's kids to football practice in the weekend.

I shoot 99% of the day in a wedding with 2 prime lenses.  35mm and 85mm.  You really don't need anything else a lot of the time.  I've seen plenty of blogs where some photographer even shoot with just 1 prime lens, some by choice, some by accidents, some by constraints.   The thinking is then instead of "what lens do I need to get this photo" shifted to "what photo can I get with this lens.

The latter will result in a better photo the majority of the time because you are now thinking before you take the photo.

stickyfiddle

robgilmo said:

Im new to all this, but surely your choice would be dictated by what you want to photograph? I bought a Canon 200D a while back, it came with a wonky lens so back it went. I found the auto focus wasn't great for taking photos of my kids moving around, I opted for the 800D which has a better auto focus and its great. With a Currys one day sale and Canon cash back it cost the same as the 200D.

To an extent yes, but only typically at the lower end of things. Once you get north of £500 pretty much any body can shoot pretty much anything with reasonable success (though obviously you get certain models that focus on specific tasks). If you're not shooting sports (or equivalent fast-moving subject) you don't really need any specific features beyond general quality and most importantly usability.

I started with an Olympus PEN, moved to a Canon 750D for a bit, then switched to Fuji and now anything else feels completely alien. And there are plenty of others who feel the same way about Nikon/Canon/Sony/Lumix/Olympus/Pentax. The key thing is having a camera that you understand well and can physically use quickly and easily is the key to getting good images (apart from the artistic/creative element, obviously).

dbphoto

RaymondLin said:

I've seen plenty of blogs where some photographer even shoot with just 1 prime lens, some by choice, some by accidents, some by constraints.   The thinking is then instead of "what lens do I need to get this photo" shifted to "what photo can I get with this lens.

The latter will result in a better photo the majority of the time because you are now thinking before you take the photo.

This.

During my 20 odd years as a full time pro, and over 1000 weddings and countless portraits etc, I used to have a large bag of gear but ultimately it was always a couple of prime lenses that were used the majority of the time.

Your feet are the best zoom you could have.

Regardless of whether it was my days using a Blad and film, Nikon DSLR or my last couple of years in the business using Fuji mirrorless, a 35mm and 85mm equivalent was all I ever actually really needed.

If for some reason I felt the urge to take some photos again on a small budget I would pick up a used Fuji XE-2 or XE-2s with a couple of lenses.

(I hung up my cameras and started a business 5 years ago that makes handmade fine art and  photographic albums for pro photographers, so I see a large and varied amount of work from all over the UK.  It is actually quite obvious which photographers are getting the shot using their eye and brain rather than their lens - and yes, I know, that sounds like pretentious bollocks, but it really is true)

RaymondLin

I have a lot of lenses, because I like to cover my ass in case i am in the corner, but when i don't need that safety net, I love my 35 or 50mm.  Going to Dublin later this week, going to take just the 35mm it think and nothing else.