Hello , i want to upgrade My pentax K-X to K-30 .does it deserve that.
Also i need to know if it is better to add OIS stabilization in lenses for Pentaxian bodies such in Nicon and Canon, does it be better with regards.
greglovern
Favorite Answer
Hi Laith,
It sounds like you have two questions:
1) Is the K-30 a worthwhile upgrade from the K-x? and:
2) Should you buy stabilized lenses, or just use the in-body stabilization?
To answer #1:
Though the K-x is an excellent camera, the K-30, which is two generations newer, has some important improvements and is certainly a worthwhile upgrade for many users. I think the most important improvements are:
- Even better in low light than the K-x is.
- Weathersealed. With a weathersealed lens, you don't have to worry about having it out in the rain.
- Focus point visible in the viewfinder. This was the main complaint about the K-x, which was fixed in the K-r and continued in the K-30.
Other significant improvements:
- Rear LCD much higher resolution (4x as high as K-x).
- Better viewfinder -- 100% coverage (vs 96%), with higher magnification.
- Faster continuous drive (6 frames per second vs. 4.7).
- Focus peaking to aid manual focus.
On the downside, the K-30 is somewhat bigger and heavier than the K-x, mostly due to the weathersealing and better viewfinder.
To answer #2:
For wide-angle and medium focal lengths, there is not much difference. For telephoto, in-lens stabilization is better, but to see a big difference it would need to be a long telephoto.
One advantage of in-lens stabilization is that the viewfinder is stabilized too. That helps a lot with very long telephoto shooting.
One advantage of in-camera stabilization is that it can correct for rotational motion, as can happen when pressing the shutter button. In-lens stabilization will never be able to compensate for rotation motion.
Note you can't use both types of stabilization at the same time; if the lens has stabilization, you have to choose whether you want to use the lens' stabilization or the body's.
I wouldn't worry too much about the difference except for long telephoto, like maybe around 200mm to 300mm or longer. Note that for most shooting you still need a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the subject motion, which in many cases renders stabilization irrelevant. Also, even the very best stabilization is not quite as good as a tripod; so if you're looking for the best shots, you still want a tripod (and with a tripod you turn stabilization off). Also remember, people took great photos for generations without any stabilization at all. The difference between good and very good stabilization is not really critical for most shooting. For most shooting, the lens' optical quality is far and away more important then whether it is stabilized.
Good luck and have fun!
Greg