Nikon D3100 or Pentax K-x for macros and nature photos?

[leheath]

I am "upgrading" to a DSLR to do more serious photography with potentially the goal of selling photos in things like greeting cards. I really enjoy macro photography and I don't shoot a lot of low light/indoor situations. I mostly shoot landscapes and animals or birds, so speed may be important for freezing motion and zoom is obviously important since the animals/birds are rarely close! This will be my first DSLR and I am on a limited budget and want something reasonably light weight for traveling.

After extensive research on multiple sites, I have narrowed it down to the Nikon D3100 with 18-55 & 55-200 kit lenses ($845 including bag and 8GB SDHC card) or the Pentax K-x with same lenses ($750 without bag or card...could get 55-300 zoom instead of 55-200 for $850, but that is really pushing the budget). So which should I get?

Specific questions/considerations:
1. I don't care about video which is a major feature of the Nikon.
2. I have 3 older Pentax lenses: a SMC PENTAX-M 1:1.7 50mm lens, an Accura Diamatic Auto wide angle 28mm 1:2.8 lens, and a Tokina SD 70-210mm 1:4-5.6 telephoto lens but I am not sure how useful these are so whether that significantly favors the Pentax?
3. No local stores have the Pentax so I can't tell how it feels in my hands. I like the Nikon a lot, but did not like the Canon T1si, for example, so feel obviously matters. I also considered the Nikon D5000, but it just felt too heavy/bulky for me.
4. I am specifically interested in macro photography - does that affect my choice significantly? What would be the best way to get decent macro photos from either camera - diopter filter? Dedicated lens (which one and how much $$)?

Thanks in advance,
Lorraine

[OsmosisStudios]

So you want a camera that does:

Macro
Birds/wildlife
Limited budget
Light weight

You could go either way, but you'll find that Nikon has a larger selection of lenses for you. Your current Pentax lenses likely wont be a HUGE influence, though others may persuade you otherwise.

You'll find that the kit lenses aren't likely what you're looking for. For macro, especially if you're going to be concentrating on it, you'll want a dedicated macro lens (which will exhaust your budget almost by itself). For birds, especially little ones, and other wildlife, you're looking at 300mm+ at the very least, and preferably fast aperture. That means big bucks too.

Both the KX and D3100 will be good for you, and will likely fulfill most of your other requirements. I think the D3100 would give you better image quality.

-----

Here's what I'd do
Sell the Pentax lenses. Someone will find a use for them.
Get the D3100 body, Nikon's 85mm f/3.5 VR macro lens. This will push you above and beyond your current budget, I'll admit. (the D3100 is about $600 (with an 18-55 kit lens, B&H; the 85mm macro is just below $500, B&H). The extra revenue from the sold lenses will help offset that.
When you've saved up, get a 55-300 VR or 70-300 VR, depending on which weight you can live with.

You'll have your bases fairly well covered.

[leheath]

Thank you for the helpful response. Unfortunately, I can't sell the Pentax lenses - they would be a gift from someone if I had a compatible camera, otherwise they will keep them.

I think I could initially live with less zoom (eg. kit 55-200mm lens) because I am used to/happy enough with the capabilities of the Pentax lens I mentioned (70-210mm) which is actually less than the 55-200mm due to the 1.5x DSLR multiplier on the D3100.

I kinda figured I was going to need a dedicated macro lens. Do the diopter rings work decently as an interim measure while saving money for a macro lens?

Macro lenses are actually where I am most confused - they seem to come in a wide variety of fixed focal lengths, so I am struggling to determine which one I might want and why! Why do you suggest the 85mm?

What, if any, would be the disadvantages of something like:
35mm f/2.8 AT-X M35 Pro DX Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon Digital ($279) or
Sigma Normal 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF ($299)?
Both of these are probably just about affordable on top of the D3100 package if they were worth the money (good reviews on B&H).

[leheath]

One more questions. I just discovered that the Pentax K-r is also available with 18-55mm & 55-300mm for $804. This camera seems to rectify the K-x's deficiencies and have additional benefits (auto focus points visible, larger high-res LCD, faster burst, bracketing, etc.) and it has the advantage of allowing me to reverse mount my 50mm f/1.7 for macro shots.

Any thoughts on this camera?

[OsmosisStudios]

First off: 35m and 50mm macro lenses are all but useless for anything BUT studio or copy work. 85mm is still very short. There's a reason most people choose the 105+mm lenses. While you CAN get away with shorter, especially on DX, it's not likely to be very good.

Second: both Nikon and pentax have a x1.5 crop factor. So a 55-200 is actually a (tiny bit) shorter lens than a 70-210.

Third: Diopter rings work, for the most part, but not that well. If your focus is macro, then get a proper macro lens to begin with. YOu'll thank yourself in the long run.

Fourth: I've not tried the K-r, as it's still relatively new. It isnt the only option for reverse-mounting a 50mm lens though: You can use any lens that has an aperture ring as a reversed macro setup.

You really should try to find a shop where you can try both. While I do prefer the Nikon, that's mainly because i find the Pentax interface somewhat cumbersome. You may find otherwise.

[inkista]

Both choices are good, and the Pentax adds weathersealing to the mix, which in the Pacific Northwest is not a trivial concern.

However. There are two limitations here that you may want to consider. They may make no difference to your decision, but as a Canon pusher, I'm feeling the need.

The Nikon D3100 is an entry-level body. It lacks an in-body focus motor. So, it will only autofocus with the lenses that have a focus motor in them (designated as AF-S. the ones designated as AF will not autofocus). Typically, this isn't a huge problem. Both the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses (as well as the 70-300) are AF-S lenses. And with non-AF-S lenses, you can always manually focus if you have the time.

But if you want to shoot birds, it's more typical to use a 400mm or longer lens and you're probably going to want autofocus, because birds can move quickly. Birds are small. It's tough to fill the frame with one, and the advice you'll pick up on the boards (and what I've learned from practical experience) is that 400mm is the minimum you need. A 400mm lens is typically a four-figure purchase, so you may be thinking you won't be getting one. But if you do, Nikon's current offering, the $1600 80-400/4.5-5.6 is an AF lens. The 200-400/4 is AF-S, but it's priced around $6500.

And Pentax doesn't offer anything longer than 300mm in their current lens lineup. Now, you can use a Sigma lens, like the 120-400 or the 50-500 instead. But their quality isn't as good as the 400mm and 500mm lenses offered by Nikon and Canon.

Canon offers an $1100 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM prime (no stabilization), and the $1600 EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (stabilized), both of which will autofocus on any Canon dSLR body. I use the 400/5.6 prime all the time for shooting birds in flight and wildlife.





I can tell you absolutely, had I been shooting with the 55-250 IS or the 70-300 IS USM, I would not have gotten those shots. The white-tailed kite shot was quite close for them (youngster--not yet adult-shy), and that shot was still cropped, btw. That cottontail was maybe only 15-20 feet away from me. If you are serious about wildlife and bird photography, in my experience, you're going to want more than 300mm.

While feel-in-your-hands is often touted as the best way to choose a camera, for me, personally, the glass you can stick on the front of a camera counts at least as much, if not more (as you've found out from having legacy k-mount lenses).

BTW, if the K-mount lenses you have are manual focus, not autofocus, you won't lose a lot of function by slapping them onto a Canon with an adapter ring. If they're autofocus lenses, though, going with a Pentax is probably still going to be a better choice. You cannot adapt them to Nikon.

[leheath]

Hmm...now I further confused about lenses. I thought DSLR lens specifications did not "include" the crop factor, so the 55-200 would be equivalent to a 82-350mm from a 35mmm camera?

Unfortunately, as with many places in the US, it is nearly impossible to find stores that carry Pentax DSLR cameras so holding one just isn't going to happen.

When you say I can reverse mount any 50mm lens, doesn't it have to be the correct size for the camera body (eg. Only pentax or equivalent lenses can be reverse mounted in Pentax bodies?)?

I assume the reason people prefer100mm+ macro lenses is to increase the distance when shooting 1:1. I notice the lenses I mention need to be ~1" away for 1:1?
Thanks

[inkista]

Originally Posted by leheath

Hmm...now I further confused about lenses. I thought DSLR lens specifications did not "include" the crop factor, so the 55-200 would be equivalent to a 82-350mm from a 35mmm camera?

It's only equivalent in terms of the field of view. You still get longer with longer lenses. My 400mm on my XT and 50D, gives a field of view of a 640mm lens on a full-frame (x1.6). But a 200mm lens is still a 200mm lens and still only gives you so much magnification. The added "reach" you get is more similar to the "zooming" you get when you crop an image. Most folks who shoot birds/wildlife stick with a crop body for the "reach" advantage.

Unfortunately, as with many places in the US, it is nearly impossible to find stores that carry Pentax DSLR cameras so holding one just isn't going to happen.

Actually, I managed to get my hands on a K-x at Fry's. It's tiny. Even smaller than my Canon XT/350D was (hell, it was even smaller than the Oly E that was next to it). If you find a dRebel to have a cramped grip, a K-x may not be for you. I loved the feel of it, but I have tiny girl hands. I loved my dRebel, too, and hate the weight/bulk of my 50D and 5D2. The following blog posting has a picture of someone, supremely secure in his masculinity, who got a pink one for street shooting. That can give you an idea of the K-x/K-r size.

When you say I can reverse mount any 50mm lens, doesn't it have to be the correct size for the camera body (eg. Only pentax or equivalent lenses can be reverse mounted in Pentax bodies?)?

No. Reverse-mounting simply means matching the filter thread on the lens to the lens mount or the front of another lens. Nearly every mount system has this kind of ability. You can even DIY this up pretty cheaply: just get a body cap, cut the center out of it, and glue a step-up ring to it that matches the filter thread of your lens. Or, use a male-to-male macro coupling ring to attach the lens face-to-face with another lens. And extension tubes come in all mounts.

I assume the reason people prefer100mm+ macro lenses is to increase the distance when shooting 1:1. I notice the lenses I mention need to be ~1" away for 1:1?
Thanks

Yup. Macro lenses also give you the freedom to frame as you want before focusing. A lot of the poor-man's techniques like magnifying filters, reverse mounting, and extension tubes, will only achieve focus at specific distances, so framing it strictly limited. A 100mm lens has the best working distance for things that can move and would be scared by you looming over them, like bugs. A 60mm macro is better for tabletop "object" macros or flowers since your working distance will be smaller.

[leheath]

Thank you everyone for your very informative replies. Inkista, your photos are beautiful and I did enjoy the photo of the pink Pentax - that is a brave man! It was not the size/grip of the Canon I didn't like so much as the layout and feel of bottoms, dials, levers, etc. I have a much better understanding of the crop bodies now and have a better idea of what I will need for macro shots. I am pretty sure the Pentax lenses I have are all manual focus, not autofocus. Any lens costing >$1000 is going to have to wait quite awhile - I just don't have that kind of disposable cash available for a single lens, so I don't think I will let the lack of Pentax zooms >300mm worry me too much.

I think I am definitely leaning towards the Pentax K-r as I have some useable lenses already and it seems a good balance between price and features....

If I just got the basic kit lens (18-55mm) and planned to use my existing 70-210mm lens (probably manual focus only), would this be decent? Or would the other kit lens (55-300mm, with autofocus) but really a significant improvement?

[inkista]

This is just me, but kit telephoto zooms are great at one thing: being low-cost. Optically, they aren't necessarily all that great. I'd say, price out how much you'll save getting it kitted and then weigh that out against the possibility of not being that happy with it and wishing you'd saved up for something nicer or longer.