Shooting with a 6Mpix Pentax *ist DS – when old gear is really too old

The price of a digital camera on the second hand market is more or less proportional to the number of pixels of its image sensor – interchangeable lens cameras (dSLRs and mirrorless) with anything between 24 and 50 Megapixel (Mpix) sensors are considered current and command big bucks, while models with less than 10 Mpix are deemed virtually worthless.

Case in point – I bought a Pentax *ist DS (a 6 Mpix dSLR from 2004), a bit scruffy but in working order, for less then $35.00.

So, it’s cheap, but is it still usable?

*Pentax *ist DS – Pentax kit lens 18-55* – Vinings Jubilee (Atlanta) – Sept 2025

For comparison – same lens, same ISO settings, same hour of the day – Pentax K-5 – minor adjustments in Lightroom. Click on the image to see it at full resolution – you will see the difference.

Why the Pentax *ist DS back then?

At the turn of the century, the photography market was different from what it was to become a few years later – there were only four companies in the world selling digital SLRs (Canon, Fuji, Kodak and Nikon). And those cameras were very expensive, and primarily bought by news agencies and well heeled pros.

2002 saw a first wave of more affordable digital SLRs reach the market (Canon, Fuji and Nikon all launched models in the $2000 price range). Pentax and Olympus joined the fray in 2003 with the *ist D and the E-1. At the end of 2003 Canon made digital SLRs affordable for amateurs with the Rebel 300D, the first dSLR to sell for less than $1000.00.

Nikon and Pentax followed rapidly with two models priced around $1000, the D70 and the *ist DS. Like millions of amateurs, I was looking for my first digital SLR in those days, and the *ist DS was my pick. Its specs were not that different from the D70 or the Rebel. What made the difference for me was its small size, its large viewfinder, and the good reviews of its kit lens.

Of course, I sold it after a few years to upgrade to a 10 Mpix camera, which itself was sold a few years later to fund the next upgrade, and so on.

*Family Reunion* – *the *ist DS (left) looks serious in black, the K-r (right) was available in fancy colors.*

Why a *ist DS now?

A few months ago, I bought a colorful Pentax K-r (a 12 Mpix camera from 2010) and was surprised by the quality of the RAW files it delivered. You pay a bit more for the colored body of a K-r, but all white and all black models can be found for less than $100.00. In my recollections, the *ist DS was a good little camera, and I was wondering what it would be like to shoot with a 6 MPIX dSLR now. I started checking the usual auction sites, and $34.00 made me the proud new owner of another Pentax camera.

*Pentax *ist DS – Pentax 18-55 Kit Lens – Vinings Jubilee (Atlanta) – adjusted to taste in Lightroom*

First impressions

I had shot a few thousand of pictures with my *ist DS in the early 2000s, so this “new” *ist DS is not really a total unknown for me.

What struck me immediately when I received my $35.00 *ist DS is how similar it looked to the K-r; as if Pentax had kept the same moulds over the 7 years that separate the two cameras. The *ist DS is smaller than Nikon’s mid-range APS-C of the same vintage, but the general organization of the commands is strikingly similar to what current Pentax and Nikon APS-C dSLRs look like – to a large extent the dSLR camera had already found its final form in 2004.

*Pentax *ist DS (left) and Pentax K-5 (right) – the layout of the commands is very similar – the most striking difference is the rear LCD display – a huge progress in the space of a few years*.

Visually, the biggest difference is the rear LCD display – the DS’ is very small (2in diagonal, some smart-watches have larger displays), and its dynamic range very limited.

*Pentax *ist DS – this picture was in the performance envelope of the camera.*

My $34.00 camera is old, and definitely not in tip-top shape (the mode selector is stuck in the Auto-Pict position, the integrated pop-up flash seems to be dead), but it still works well enough to get an opinion about this generation of 6 Mpix cameras.

Back in 2005, DPReview was very happy with the responsiveness of the camera, but concerned with the quality of its JPEGs. Today, the standards are different, but the responsiveness is still OKay-ish – when there is enough light for the autofocus to operate – otherwise it hunts desperately.

As for the image quality, even in RAW, it’s often disappointing.

*Pentax *ist DS – even in Lightroom and starting from RAW, I could not get the sky, the church and flower bed to be exposed correctly at the same time.*

*Pentax *ist DS – another image (taken at around 11am) where the limited dynamic range of the sensor is clearly visible.*

*For comparison – same lens, same ISO settings, same hour of the day – Pentax K-5 – minor adjustments in Lightroom. The difference is striking.*

The camera is twenty years old, may have been treated badly by some of its owners, and may not perform as well as when it was new, but, in any case,

the dynamic range of the sensor is limited (DXO evaluates it at 10 EVs, as opposed to 14 EVs for the sensor of a more recent Pentax K-5 for instance). If the scene is lit evenly, the results are correct, but even Lightroom can’t save RAW images like the picture of this old church or that plant on my deck.
I’ve been used to shooting with cameras and lenses equipped with image stabilization mechanisms, which this *ist DS is deprived of. Images which would have been technically good with a camera from the 2010s are blurry because of camera shake,
the autofocus is a hit or miss – it works fine on static scenes, not so well if the subject is moving or the scene too dark.

*Pentax *ist DS (left) and Pentax K-r (right) – even an entry level model like the K-r has a much better rear LCD display (and a Live View button). And it will perform much better*.

Conclusion

Obviously, this camera works, and in ideal circumstances, will deliver usable images. But even if the images are saved as RAW files, the highlights are often desperately burnt, and the shadows too dark. The autofocus struggles with moving subjects, in particular if they’re not perfectly centered, and because this model is deprived from image stabilization, images will be blurry if the photographer does not pay close attention to the shutter speed. Very clearly, there is a huge image quality and usability gap between this *ist DS and cameras launched six to seven years later.

In the days of $5.00 Starbucks Lattes and $10.00 McDonalds Value Meals, $34.00 is not a huge sum to spend on a digital camera. But if you put the equivalent of six more Value Meals on the table, you’ll get a much more usable Pentax K-r (or any equivalent 12 Mpix dSLR from the early 2010s). Add another five will get you a really nice 16 Mpix dSLR like a Pentax K-5, or an already modern mirrorless camera such as the Panasonic G2 (12 Mpix) or the Sony Nex 3 (14 Mpix).

*Pentax K-r – Centennial Park – Atlanta – the K-r only has a 12 Mpix sensor but behaves like a modern camera.*

I’m not necessarily attracted to the latest and greatest features of the newest cameras (I also shoot film with cameras from the 1980s…), and will be happy to shoot with a digital camera deprived of movie mode or of wifi/bluetooth connectivity, if it still delivers images of good quality, most of the time.

But if the performance of a camera (by modern standards) is so limited that I start missing too many potentially good pictures, the quest for minimalism goes too far to my taste.

*Pentax *ist DS – still powered by conventional AA batteries* – *no need for a charger (and the battery life is surprisingly good)*

It is true that when cameras like the Pentax *ist DS (and its Canon, Konica-Minolta or Nikon 6 Mpix competitors) were launched in 2004, we were impressed by the huge step they represented over the digital point and shoot digicams we’d been using for a few years, and even today, we’re still proud to share the best images we got from those early dSLRs. If I set it up carefully, and use it within the limits of its performance envelope, I’m sure that even my scruffy *ist DS will get me decent pictures.

But today, I see the Pentax *ist DS more as an interesting curiosity, than as a camera I could use day to day. In the six years that separate a Pentax *ist DS from a Pentax K-5 (or a Nikon D70 from a D7000), there has been a huge step forward in reactivity, resolution, dynamic range and low light image quality, a step so large, that if I had to chose, I would spend a bit more on a dSLR or a mirrorless camera of the early 2010s, and forget about the *ist DS.

More about Pentax cameras in CamerAgX

Pictures from my first *ist DS, shot between 2005 and 2007

*Pinup, French Bulldog – shot in Jan. 2005 with my first Pentax *ist DS.*

*Maui, Hawaii – at the top of the Haleakala – Pentax *ist DS*

*Charleston, SC – April 2005 – Pentax *ist DS*

*Fort Myers, Florida – Pentax *ist DS – Xmas 2005.*

*A cenote near Cancun, Mexico – Pentax *ist DS – July 2007*

Selling your mirrorless kit and going back to a digital SLR?

I’ve bought a few old Pentax cameras recently, film and digital, and out of curiosity I’ve started following what’s happening in the world of Pentax aficionados.

There was a passionate discussion recently on Pentaxforums.com, started by a photographer who was disappointed by his recent mirrorless camera system, and was considering selling everything to go back to a Pentax dSLR (he was balancing between a K-1 Mark II and a K-3 Mark III).

I am not going to pronounce him right or wrong – what he likes to shoot with or how he spends his money is his business, not mine. But not that many photographers are still interested in new dSLRs.

The fact is that digital single lens reflex cameras (dSLRs) form a rapidly receding niche, and that in the battle for the dollars of photographers (enthusiast amateurs, influencers, vloggers and pros alike), mirrorless cameras have won. A few data points to illustrate it.

*Panasonic G2 and Nikon D700 – mirrorless cameras can be made small*

When were the last dSLRs launched?

Olympus stopped selling dSLRs in 2013, and Sony officially discontinued their SLR and dSLR “A” Mount in 2021 (their last dSLR was launched in 2016). Canon’s most recent dSLR is the Rebel 8 from 2020, Nikon’s latest is the d780 from 2020, and Pentax’s is the K-3 Mark III, introduced in 2021. A variant of the K-3 with a monochrome image sensor was introduced in 2023, so that would make the K-3 III Monochrome the most recent of them all.

Canon and Nikon have not shared any plan to launch a new dSLR in the future (it’s likely they won’t), but since the launch of the Rebel 8 and d780, they have launched 14 and 11 mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, respectively.

*A very compact APS-C setup – Egypt – Abu Simbel – Fujifilm X-T1 – Fujifilm 15-45mm lens.*

Who is still manufacturing dSLRs?

It’s difficult to know for sure what is still being manufactured – what we see on the shelves of the retailers may be New Old Stock or the output of small, infrequent production batches. Some models (like the Nikon D6 or the Pentax K-3 Mark III) have been withdrawn from some markets already, and other models – while not officially discontinued – may not be manufactured “at the moment”.

I checked the Web site of B&H, and here’s what’s still available new in the United States (with the official warranty of the manufacturer).

Canon still have six dSlRs on their US catalog, ranging from the Rebel to the 1Dx (three APS-C cameras, three full frame)

Nikon are proposing four models: the APS-C d7500, and three full frame models: the d780, d850, and D6,

As for Pentax, they are still proposing three cameras with an APS-C sensor, the KF, the K-3 Mark III and the K-3 Mark III Monochrome, and a full frame camera, the K-1 Mark II.

*Shooting with a old APS-C dSLR last week – Atlanta – Bobby Jones Golf Course. Pentax K-5 Mk II – Pentax lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL WR*

Why did mirrorless win in the first place?

The Nikon D90 from 2008 was the first SLR capable of recording videos. But the architecture of a single lens reflex camera (with a flipping reflex mirror and an autofocus module located under the mirror) forced Nikon to design a camera that operated differently when shooting stills and videos.

For stills, the D90 worked like any other dSLR ( with a through the lens optical viewfinder and phase detection AF). When shooting videos, the reflex mirror was up, and the viewfinder could not be used. The operator had to compose the scene on the rear LCD of the camera. The phase detection autofocus system was also inoperant. A second system, based on contrast detection, had to be implemented, and could only be used before the videographer started filming.

The obvious next step was to replace the flipping mirror and the optical viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder fed directly by the image sensor of the camera, and to improve the contrast detection autofocus to make it as reactive as a phase detection system, and available during the video shoot. Panasonic was the first to do it with the Lumix G2 in 2010. Almost everybody else would soon follow.

The obvious advantage of a mirrorless ILC is that it can shoot indifferently photos and videos – the camera works exactly the same way. It’s a big plus for all the pros and content creators who have to deliver a full set of images (stills and videos) when they film weddings or corporate events.

Mirrorless cameras, being deprived of the mirror box and of the optical viewfinder of a SLR can be made smaller, lighter, and probably cheaper because they are simpler mechanically.

The absence of a mirror box also reduces the lens flange distance, and lenses can be made shorter. Because there is no need for aperture pre-selection and full aperture transmission mechanisms, lens mount adapters are extremely simple to design and manufacture. Practically, almost any lens designed for an SLR or a dSLR can be physically mounted on a mirrorless camera.

*Leica Summicron C (*40mm f/2) mounted on Sony NEX 3 with Metabones adapter. Mirrorless cameras are more flexible.

Early mirrorless were handicapped by relatively poor electronic viewfinders (lacking definition, reactivity and dynamic range) and a limited battery life. Over time, mirrorless ILCs have made a lot of progress in those two areas – recent prosumer and pro ILCs have really impressive electronic viewfinders.

Electronic viewfinders show the image exactly as the image sensor is “seeing” it. If the viewfinder is good enough, it’s even possible to evaluate in real time the exposure of a scene – and play with the exposure compensation dial to adjust it: what you see is really what you’re going to get.

*Pentax K-5 Mk II – very few APS-C mirrorless cameras have a top plate LCD and that many dedicated keys.*

Advantages of recent dSLRs

The most recent dSLRs were launched between 2020 and 2021, and their capabilities are at best in line with what was the state of the art four to five years ago.

Those dSLRs offer bluetooth and Wifi, and are as easy to connect to a mobile device as modern ILCs.

They keep the traditional advantages of dSLRs: an optical viewfinder, and longer battery life, but as a consequence remain larger and heavier than ILCs.

The native support of lenses designed for the brand’s SLRs and DSLRs over the past decades looks like an advantage, but older lenses may only be partially compatible, and they may lack the resolution required to take advantage of recent image sensors.

As for newer lenses – they’re increasingly difficult to find now that the industry leaders have redirected their R&D and manufacturing efforts towards ILCs.

*Bringing a Nikon D700 to a race – because the only tele lens I had was an old Tamron in F Mount. US Formula One Grand Prix – Austin TX*

Switching back to a dSLR?

I wrote earlier I would not be judgmental, but I’m still struggling to understand why somebody would take a significant financial hit to move from a very recent, top of the line mirrorless camera system to a dSLR released eight years ago.

Even though I like shooting with dSLRs and older film cameras (they can be more pleasant to use than some mirrorless ILCs) I believe that using a recent mirrorless camera will increase my odds of capturing a technically good image (the artistic value is a totally different story).

Mirrorless cameras are more flexible and will be within their performance envelope in more situations. If the shooting opportunity is unique and I need to deliver – if only for my pride as an amateur photographer – I’ll bring my mirrorless kit with me.

*The Nikon D700 remains a fantastic camera. If only it was not so heavy and so big.*

As a lover of old gear – even digital – I’d like to offer a suggestion: very nice “prosumer” 16 or 20 Megapixel APS-C reflex cameras from the early 2010s can be found for $150; a “classic” like the Nikon d700 from 2008 (12 Megapixel, full frame) is more expensive, but not by that much if you pick a camera that has been used by professional photographers and has shot hundreds of thousands of pictures.

So, if you feel the dSLR hitch from time to time, my recommendation would be to keep your mirrorless system, and simply augment it with an old dSLR for the days when the call of nostalgia is too strong to resist.

More in CamerAgx about mirrorless and reflex digital cameras