I was inspired to create this review by hype around 6MP matrix from Sony and various rumors that have been spreading around it in recent years. In addition, I wanted some optics from Pentax. That is why, in fact, the choice of purchase fell on the k100D.
About the camera
Pentax k100D is a product of 2006 – the heyday of digital SLR technologies. The camera was aimed at the amateur segment, as evidenced by its compact size, meager menu and functionality of the device. Pentax was forced to fight for a piece of the market with such dinosaurs as Canon and Nikon. Technological backwardness in such areas as: the autofocus system in general and the absence of quiet motors (autofocus), in particular, as well as the lack of high-quality lenses with variable focus, forced the company to look for its own marketing methods and advantages, such as: matrix image stabilizer, durable housings based on metal frames and protection of cameras from climatic factors even for entry-level and advanced cameras. Pentax k100D has a stabilizer and a metal frame, as well as a good viewfinder based on a pentamirror, but does not provide protection from dust and moisture. It is clear that SLR cameras did not shoot any video at all in those years.
Brief characteristics of Pentax k100D:
CCD matrix
Number of effective pixels 6.1 million
Maximum resolution 3008 x 2008
Screen diagonal size 2.5 inches
Screen resolution 210000 pixels
ISO sensitivity: auto, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200
Exposure compensation +/- 2 EV, in 1/3 step increments
Shutter speed range 1/4000 – 30 sec
Media type SD
Supports JPEG, RAW, DPOF, DCF formats, EXIF 2.2
Continuous shooting 2.8 fps
USB 2.0 interface
Power supply 4 AA elements
Width 129.5 mm
Height 92.5 mm
Depth 70 mm
Weight 560 g
As we can see, the camera is equipped with 4 AA batteries. This is one of the problems of the Pentax k100D - choosing a reliable power source, because not all batteries of this type are suitable for normal operation of the camera. I use the famous Sanyo / Panasonic Eneloop and have no troubles.
The camera is roughly the same size as a modern full-frame mirrorless camera. It is small, although not at all light.
I didn't really test the autofocus - I have nothing to test it on. But I can say something about the focus confirmation system, implemented in the form of indicators in the viewfinder (rangefinder arrows and a confirmation circle) and an audible signal. It's not very good (by modern standards): not very reliable in normal lighting and does not work in low light. In fact, I used 3 lenses: an A-series zoom, an A-series fifty-fifty and a K-series telephoto and I can say that relying only on the camera's confirmation system, the percentage of defects is considerable and you have to take a couple of takes per frame.
Matrix stabilization is difficult to evaluate. Much depends on concentration and steady hands. Sometimes good shots come out at 80mm and 1/4s. In good conditions.
Separately, Pentax cameras are well-tuned for manual optics - threaded and bayonet. The menu has an item for selecting the focal length (for the stabilizer and other automation), and exposure metering is done automatically by pressing one button. Nothing like this was even on advanced cameras from other manufacturers.
Overall, the camera is outdated in every way. The display is good for assessing sharpness, but image scrolling is too slow. The shutter is loud. The menu is simple but convenient.
About myths
The camera matrix was created at the dawn of digital photography and by definition cannot compete with modern monsters. Neither in resolution, nor in dynamic range, nor in sensitivity, nor in color depth. There are theories of “fat pixel” and “correct color” of CCD matrices, in which there is only a grain of sense and truth. In my opinion, CCD matrices beautifully draw bright, pure colors, as if emphasizing them. However, they cope relatively poorly with the plasticity of portraits and are frankly weak in landscapes (low resolution, pretentious, strange color). This applies, to a lesser extent, to 10 MP CCD matrices from Sony.
Despite the claims of high sensitivity, the working ISO of the matrix will be 400 units. At 800, in underexposed shadows, the noise already looks nasty. At low matrix resolution, it is not lost and is clearly visible.
Summary
The old one is a good entry-level SLR with its pros and cons. It will do as a second camera for walks in the forest, especially for those who like colorful scenes and leaves - flowers.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Author, is it possible to attach a couple dozen Raw files to the review?
Why so much?
Is it a pity?
What does it have to do with pity? What kind of ravs? What interests you about ravs?
Clearly not 2 dozens of identical raws! Different lighting conditions, skintone, forest, sky, water, maybe something else.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XBsfxw5FwX0Q3HemIp92QiiIQ1MEiDKS?usp=sharing
It passes, it just gets moderated
Thank you!
Doesn't publish links. Let me send you an email.
Good day! What lens did you use to take the attached photos, not the kit lens?
The first three photos are the old Pentax-A 35-80mm f4-5.6 kit zoom. The fourth and last is the Pentax-A 50mm f2. The rest are Pentax K 135mm f2.5
Have you noticed a decline in the quality of your photos over the years? I have a K-30, it is 12 years old and in recent years I have begun to notice that the quality has somehow declined, especially when shooting with a kit lens. Plus, it has started focusing very poorly when shooting in low light - either it refuses to work at all, or it focuses incorrectly. I understand if it were sometimes, but here, perhaps, in 75% of cases this happens.
Can't any electronics get tired after 12 years?
I didn't use it very actively, and expected something close to fantasy in terms of stability from such a big brand. I have an old computer - its peer and despite the fact that I used it to the fullest, it continues to work smoothly. Of course, it won't handle new powerful programs very well, but that's another story.
It's hard to say. I had a hundred 15 years ago, now I bought another one. You can only judge by the remaining photos. But I haven't taken enough photos yet to compare adequately. Purely subjectively, I haven't noticed anything like that.
Yeah, thanks, I'll adapt. In bright sunlight there are usually no problems, I just would like it to be better not only in bright weather.
High-aperture optics help, the working ISO there is 800 – no more.
Thank you!