I will only comment on the pentax..

K10d-.

Soft jpegs. yes they are softer than other cameras. but the detail is there. the k10 is out resolutionizing it's competitors. the purpose, according to pentax was to design a camera for jpegs with the intent that the jpegs would be getting further pping in your pc. they were not concerned that they were soft, they were looking at the quality of the image detail; you the owner will be suppliing the sharpening in your pc..

No scene modes. you will find that after you leave the entry level dslrs, no dslr by any manufacturer has scene modes. I happen to own a pentax *istD which doesn't have scene modes, I do not miss them and wouldn't use them if the camera had them. scene modes are a help for beginners only, anyone with photographic experience will not be using them..

K100d-.

Great pics from the camera in jpeg or raw. can be used in the future as a backup to other pentax dslrs(k10d?). I have printed 20x30inch enlargements from the 6mp *istD. the k100d has the same sensor..

The k100d SUPER has just been announced. it has some of the features from the k10d. have you considered that camera?.

Note: as you go up in mp in dslrs from 6-8-10-12-16 at each step the camera becomes less forgiving of user error and poor technique. what worked at 6mp will not work at 10-12mp simply because the camera has more resolution to see detail BUT it is also seeing any error in technique that much more as well..

I wrote the following posts some time ago, they may be of interest..

No matter which dslr you buy..

Heavily consider the following. there are NEW DSLR owners' writing in all over these forums on this subject.when changeing from a p&s to a dslr, there is a huge difference..

When you take p&s out of the box add a memory card and a fully charged battery you can now shoot and take very good pics..

BUT, you cannot do this with dslr. the camera HAS TO BE SETUP first. you have to adjust the contrast/saturation/sharpness/shooting modes(color style or whatever it is called) to your likes. if you don't it is quite likely you will disappointed with results. your p&s will likely outshoot the dslr..

To setup-you have shoot a test shot make ONE adjustment reshoot check pc screen readjust, until you are satisfied. and you do this with each of the adjustment types. then you have all the custom adjustments in the menu to check and if wanted change..

When done you can put the camera into AUTO or PROGRAM and get reasonably nice shots. I would advise at first staying with jpeg. as you learn about the camera and photography you can then go to the other shooting modes and try RAW if you wish..

Dslrs are made to see the shot through the optical viewfinder not through the lcd. this is true of almost all dslrs including the k10d. there was a thread.

Not to log ago about who would want a dslr with a preview lcd, al,most noone wanted one.dslrs and color..

If you mean heavy saturated colors then no dslr is going to do that. they are not made to give strongly saturated colors. they are made to give ACCURATE COLORS. not heavy saturated colors..

This is not the same thing at all. too many people who come from a p&s are very disappointed in th dslr colors, because they are not bright and saturated. this is because they are and have been using a p&s which has been giving them saturated and incorrect clors for so long that they think it is the right look. nothing could be further from the truth. the p&s colors are wrong, wrong. the camera manufactures know that the public buys high megapixel and heavy saturated colors and is what they make and sell to the public..

But the slr/dslr is a whole different world. for the dslr accuracy of the scene in terms of view and color is a religion rpt religion. you want accurate color that is what you are going to get with dslr. but they will not be the bright saturated colors of a p&s. you can with adjustments in the menus up the color is dslr, but it will not look like the INACCURATE CARTOON COLOR of the p&s..

If you are wishing to buy a dslr for more and brighter color, save you money the p&s is what you want..

Not too long ago a new owner of a dslr was on these forums talking about the poor color of his new dslr. it seems as if he was shooting on an overcast day. many many people replying to him told him that cloudy day shots give the most accurate color, which they do. he couldn't believe and get over that idea. he also owned a p&S previously.you might be interested in this; which I posted a while back..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257.

I hope the above proves helpfull. I have been using a slr/dslr for 37yrs..

Gary..

Idream wrote:.

- IS/shake reduction (i don't have very steady hands, my previousexperience has taught me.

Pentax, Olympus, and Sony have got this onboard. However, none of their sensor shift systems work nearly as well as the lens-based IS from Canon and Nikon. Nikon's choices for VR is somewhat limited (the $800 18-200 VR, pretty much). Canon has a wider selection ($500 17-85IS, $1000 17-55IS, and more in the telephoto range)..

- Anti-dust is a plus, but no dealbreaker.

Except for Olympus, all of the anti-dust features from other companies have proved to be useless..

See this link:http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/.

Even for Olympus' case, it doesn't remove all dust, so you will eventually need to get in there with a swipe and a blower anyhow..

- I should be able to 'grow' with it.

In terms of ability for growth, you want to look at lens selection, as that is how you grow and expand into a wider range of photography. Currently Nikon and Canon offer a more or less complete range that covers everything, although Nikon caters towards the consumer market (and consumer-level prices) more (exception being no IS on a wide-angle).

Pentax has been making some nice lenses lately. They're not anywhere near Canon or Nikon (especially on the telephoto end), but they are getting there..

Outside of the Olympus kit packages, they have some very nice lenses, but all of them are absurdly expensive. I don't really think the Olympus range is affordable or good for growth, at this time anyhow. It may change with some more consumer-level lens releases..

Sony is very new to the market. They're releasing their own lenses, and have a large stockpile of Konica-Minolta lenses. They're not close to Canon or Nikon either, but they're definitely growing, and depending on how well their SLR entrenches in the market place, might approach Canon or Nikon someday..

Also, keep in mind there are third party lenses from Tamron and Sigma. However, most of these are only available for Canon and Nikon, sometimes Pentax and Sony, and rarely for Olympus..

- Knowing myself I won't be a lens collector. Eventually a decentzoom range, macro lens and one or two primes will be more thanenough..

Heh. Everyone says that when they dive into SLRs..

-The option to shoot RAW/JPG would be very nice, since that wouldgive me the choice afterwards, but I will use both RAW (stock) andJPG (holiday snaps)..

I'm not sure which ones do this, you may want to look at the reviews here on dpreview..

The shortlist:.

Right, let me present today's contenders to you:.

Olympus e510Pentax K10dPentax K100d.

(so the Sony A100, Canon 400d, Nikon d40/80 didn't make the cut forvarious reasons, could be lack of IS (nikon), too small (Canon) or tobulky/uncomfortable to hold (Sony))..

Hm, I could see lack of IS being an issue for Nikon, if you're not looking to drop $800 on a lens. I assume you've tried the 400D - if you found that too small, you may want to check the 20/30D, which performs better than any of the cameras you have here except the K10D. I don't know if weight is an issue, since you said the Sony A100 was already to big/uncomfortable..

1.) Olympus e510: based on the few (very positive) pro reviews,enthusiastic userreviews and pictures and by far the best feature setI shotlisted this camera. I handled it in the shop, feels good, theplusses and minusses I listed below:.

+ The best dust-bust system on the market.

This is true. However, it's only about 50% effective (i.e. it removes 50% of dust). This means you will still have to go in with a blower or swab to clean the rest off, so it's not really that useful..

+ Lightweight yet sturdy+ excellent small and light zuiko lenses.

Lenses are definitely smaller and lighter.

+ apparantly good performance with noise at higher ISO.

It is better than the older 4/3 Olympus cameras. However, it doesn't come close to any of the APS-C offerings from Pentax or Nikon or Canon or Sony..

- only 3-point auto focus.

Not a huge drawback, if you don't shoot action. Simply point the center, then recompose..

- apparantly it's Dynamic Range is less than with it's competitors. Iwonder if that will have drawbacks for the kind of photography iintend to use it for..

You mentioned sunrises, and yes Dynamic range is a huge factor in that (ultra-bright sun combined with ultra-dark shadows). On the whole, I haven't found the Olympus cameras to be too bad with regards to DR..

- The smaller sensor means that the depth of field is greater thanfor cameras with a larger sensor. That is a plus when doing macro andlandscape, but with portrait or anything that requires shallow depthof field, it is a minus. I am leaning on a minus because of it..

This is definitely a minus. If you want more depth of field, you can always make the aperture smaller (i.e. change APS-C f5.6 to f8, and you get the same depth of field as 4/3 f8). However, you can't make the aperture larger than the specifications, and large-aperture lenses on the Olympus system cost a ton..

- No top LCD panel.

I find this isn't a huge deal - I have a 20D with the top LCD, and more often preferred my old RebelXT which had it on the back, or even the newer Rebel XTis that have it on the LCD itself...

2.) Pentax K10d: a camera that received raving reviews, but more thanonce complaints about 'soft jpgs'. Some say it should only be usedfor shooting RAW, others say that it's Bright setting (i think it was)is enough to give the same 'Canon' out of camera sharpness..

The K10D jpegs have been very soft, and it isn't due to the amount of sharpening, it's the jpeg processing itself. I haven't kept up with firmware updates, so it's possibly Pentax may have fixed this..

+ weather and dust proof seals.

I think weather and dust is overrated. I have a non-sealed 20D, and I have actually shot out in light rain and out on a windy beach, with zero problems. However, your mileage may vary..

+ Dust Reduction (but alledgedly not as good as the Olympus).

See the link above. The dust system is essentially useless..

- No 'scenes modes'- Perhaps a step up from the entry level dSLRs and not the rightcamera to start with as a dSLR novice?.

Don't worry about this. Even if you don't think you can handle it now, once you pick up a SLR you'll get familiar with the actual manual controls in no-time. There is also always an automatic P mode that does everything..

- soft JPGs at 100% (how much of an issue this is, is ofcourse debatable- Of the 3 it seems this one will require the most testing andplaying with settings to come to good out of camera pics.

I think this is true, and you will need to go to RAW to get the most out of the pictures..

3.) Pentax K100d: although 'only' 6MP, it got good reviews. The 6MP -10MP is not much of an issue in 99 out of 100 times. As said, I don'texpect at all larger than A3..

6MP is good enough for almost everything..

+ AA / CR-V3 Lithium batteries instead of rechargeable Lithium-Ion.

You don't want to use AA. They provide next to no battery life compared to lithium ions..

- No simultaneous RAW+JPEG option.

You can always throw all of your RAW into the automatic RAW processor when you upload to your computer..

- No dust bust system (and I don't have time to wait for the k100dsuper version).

As I've noted above, anti-dust is a useless feature, except for Olympus, and even then isn't completely effective..

For myself, the K10D would be the clear recommendation. Its image quality is far superior to the other cameras. However, you really need RAW to unlock all of that, which is very unfortunate for a lot of users who would prefer to deal in JPG. If you don't want to dabble in RAW, it might not be the best camera..

I have always thought of the K100D as the bar-none best budget option on the market. Image quality is great, and it is the cheapest camera on the market. The image quality at high-ISO is superior to the Olympus. The Pentax system also has a much larger variety of lenses, and has much more affordable ones..

The Olympus is good, and perhaps a more feature-packed and advanced camera than the K100D. However, as a beginner who wants to grow into photography, I think the limited lens options really hamper the potential of the Olympus system..

So, I guess my recommendation would be the K100D, for best flexibility (better than Olympus) and out-of-box use (better than K10D), and definitely for best price...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Nikon's choices for VR is somewhat limited(the $800 18-200 VR, pretty much)..

Huh?.

I count 9 VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses in the current Nikkor lineup, and I may have missed one or two..

18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR.

Of course, I'd prefer to have stabilization for all of my lenses (which is one reason why I'm shooting with a KM Maxxum 5D). Gotta love using bright primes that are stabilized in low light.  .

JimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

Jim Cockfield wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Nikon's choices for VR is somewhat limited(the $800 18-200 VR, pretty much)..

Huh?.

I count 9 VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses in the current Nikkorlineup, and I may have missed one or two..

18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR.

Of course, I'd prefer to have stabilization for all of my lenses(which is one reason why I'm shooting with a KM Maxxum 5D). Gottalove using bright primes that are stabilized in low light.  .

Sorry, should have been a little more clear. There isn't much choice if you want lenses in the wide-normal range. The 18-200, which isn't as good as the 17-55, and isn't as cheap as the 17-85...

I think the main reason is probably that Nikon doesn't feel that stabilization is as warranted on the wide end (because camera shake is magnified as focal lengths get longer)..

Of course, I'm speculating as to why they don't make more that start out wider. It could be as simple as return on investment to make them. Given the number of cameras coming out with in body stabilization, it wouldn't surprise me to see more lenses announced with stabilization, though..

They do have a 24-120mm lens with VR. I'd personally find that to be a more useful focal range anyway if I were shooting with a Nikon DSLR (and I don't, even though I do have one NIkon film body left). It's also not a DX lens (which means that if Nikon introduced a model with a larger sensor later, the lens should work without vignetting)..

My most frequently used lens on my KM Maxxum 5D is a Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. I rarely need anything wider than that for what I shoot (despite the narrower angle of view on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor), even though I've got a couple of zooms that go wider than 24mm..

But, all of this is to no benefit to the OP anyway (he's already ruled out Nikon as a camera choice for other reasons)..

JimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

Idream wrote:.

Hello all,.

I am looking for my first dSLR, have narrowed down the shortlist to 3cameras, checked them out in the shop but still would reallyappreciate your suggestions to make the final decission. I want tobuy it before my holiday, so that leaves me about 3 weeks to decide..

Purpose of camera:.

Creative photography, 'photostock', family and holiday pictures. As agraphic designer I love to dive into photography, so I am not affraidof a learning process, however my wife will also use it from time totime . So a dSLR that is able to make at least decent pics withoutrequiring a huge amount of knowledge would be a plus.Output will be used for printing (bigger sizes (like A4) to frame,smaller ones 10x15), but also for 'cut outs' in Photoshop to use indesign work and for stockphotos............................

Requirements:.

- IS/shake reduction (i don't have very steady hands, my previousexperience has taught me.

Very worthwhile in some circumstances.

- Anti-dust is a plus, but no dealbreaker.

Olympus works the best, I have never had to clean the sensor of dust in years or ownership, Im not alone in that, many Oly users report the same.

- I don't expect to make many sports photos with it, so a largebuffer is not a necessity- I should be able to 'grow' with it- I will travel a lot with it, so heavy, bulky is definitely a con,but a decent built quality is still a must..

Oly is both compact and well built, just 2 lenses make a great travel kit, 11-22mm and 50-200mm covers 22mm to 400mm EFL.

- Knowing myself I won't be a lens collector. Eventually a decentzoom range, macro lens and one or two primes will be more thanenough. For now I will stick with two kitlenses or one 'bigger range18-250mm lens' to start with, depending on which dSLR I choose for inthe end..

For Oly would suggest either 11-22mm ($670) and 50-200mm ($830).

Or better yet, wait until the release of 12-60mm (we think $900) and newer version of 50-200 with faster AF, price unknown. This provides lenses for 22/24mm to 400mm coverage in just 2 lenses. Lenses by Oly are not exactly cheap but the problem can be there are no B grade quality options for cheap solutions. But at least with IS in body, you can save OIS in lens at around $300 a lens.

- Sunrise and twilight gives the most beautiful light most of thetimes, so I would like my camera to be good at these not so optimallighting conditions-The option to shoot RAW/JPG would be very nice, since that wouldgive me the choice afterwards, but I will use both RAW (stock) andJPG (holiday snaps)................................

The shortlist:.

Right, let me present today's contenders to you:.

Olympus e510Pentax K10dPentax K100d.

(so the Sony A100, Canon 400d, Nikon d40/80 didn't make the cut forvarious reasons, could be lack of IS (nikon), too small (Canon) or tobulky/uncomfortable to hold (Sony))..

1.) Olympus e510: based on the few (very positive) pro reviews,enthusiastic userreviews and pictures and by far the best feature setI shotlisted this camera. I handled it in the shop, feels good, theplusses and minusses I listed below:.

+ The best dust-bust system on the market+ Lightweight yet sturdy+ excellent small and light zuiko lenses+ apparantly good performance with noise at higher ISO.

Yes the latest 510 has comparable noise performance, improved AF, improved finder, and is quite feature packed. Enough to keep you interested in learning developing for some years to come..

- only 3-point auto focus- apparantly it's Dynamic Range is less than with it's competitors. Iwonder if that will have drawbacks for the kind of photography iintend to use it for..

We know this is true of 410, not so sure about 510, shooting RAW pretty well dismisses it as an issue entirely, it's not a huge problem in the first place.

- The smaller sensor means that the depth of field is greater thanfor cameras with a larger sensor. That is a plus when doing macro andlandscape, but with portrait or anything that requires shallow depthof field, it is a minus. I am leaning on a minus because of it..

DoF is 1/3 stop greater than than Canon APS C, .4 stop greater than 1.52x crop APS C like Nikon etc.

- No top LCD panel- smaller viewfinder.

You can get magnifier viewfinder accessories to enlarge the view, it is fortunately brighter than ever before now..

The LifePreview I would not rank with either plus or minus. Iseriously doubt I would even use it. The image quality leaves much tobe desired, for moving objects it is fairly useless, the screencannot be tilted... I can imagine it has some use in a studio with afrozen object when composing the scene, but not enough to make that aselling point in my book..

Yes it's slow frame rate to use of around 7fps, and it produces system lag, so perhaps for intended uses on stationary subjects. But you do get accurate focussing info, and see the actual WB that will be captured..

But perhaps I am wrong and I would love to hear that then......................

I know all of them are excellent dSLRs capable of delivering high IQ.The Olympus e510 and Pentax K10d are more feature packed, but theK100d has a beautiful simplicity which probably makes it for novicesa bit easier to start with..

Yes I think this is true, and the differences come down to inherent feature set each camera hasRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

DoF is 1/3 stop greater than than Canon APS C, .4 stop greater than1.52x crop APS C like Nikon etc.

Not that it's a big deal, but shouldn't that be a 1 stop difference for a model like a Nikon? I didn't check the Canon yet..

I just plugged in some numbers in two different Depth of Field calculators, and both of them are telling me that it's very close to full stop difference between the Oly dSLR models and my KM Maxxum 5D (which uses a Sony APS-C size sensor)..

For example, if I use a 100mm lens with my Maxxum 5D with a subject that's 20 feet away using f/2.8, my total DOF would be 1.33 Feet (.64 feet in front, .69 feet behind), and my field of view would be 13 degrees..

To get close to the same 13 degree view an Olympus, I'd need to use a 75mm focal length, and with a subject 20 feet away at f/2.8, my total DOF would be 1.82 Feet (.87 feet in front, .95 feet behind)..

In order to decrease my DOF to get close to the same thing I got with the Maxxum 5D, I'd need to use f/2 with the Oly (which would get me down to 1.29 feet total (.62 in front, .66 behind). The calculator I'm using is only capable of 1/3 stop increments, and f/2.2 doesn't quite cut it (that results in a greater 1.45 feet total DOF)..

The closest for equivalent DOF is 1 stop (I'd need to use a stop wider aperture to get DOF as close as possible to my Maxxum 5D)..

I plugged the numbers into two different DOF calculators using a few different focus distances (keeping the same focus distance for both models, using a focal length that gives me the same field of view), and there appears to be about a 1 stop difference..

Try this calculator (it even gives you field of view for the selected camera, and much more):.

Http://stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/.

Or, use this popular online calculator instead..

Http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.

There are slight differences in the calculations (probably due to slightly different default COC for the camera model selected). But, in both cases, the closest you can get them is by using a 1 stop wider aperture on the Oly (even 2/3 stops doesn't quite cut it 1 stop is the closest) for the same focus distance, using a focal length that you the equivalent field of view (for example, 75mm on the Oly, 100mm on a model using a Sony APS-C size sensor).

If you go the other route (increase your focus distance on the Oly so that your subject occupies the same percentage of the frame (keeping the same focal length lens on both models being compared), the same thing appears to apply..

You'd need to use a 1 stop wider aperture with models like the Olympus E-410/E510 in order to get close to the same DOF as a model like a Nikon DSLR using a Sony APS-C size sensor..

I can't figure out where you're getting those figures from if you want your subject to occupy the same percentage of the frame..

JimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

The same way that a 1.4x (1/sqrt(2) to be more exact) is 1 stop, and another 1.4x on top of that is 2x, or 2 stops. The 1.5x APS-C to the 2x Olympus 4/3 is somewhere between 1 and 2/3 stop...

Owning none of these 3 cameras doesn't stop me from offering my 0.02....

Based on reviews and specs, the K10D is probably the best and most photographic tool, but at the same time the one with the highest learning curve. Especially when you are a novice and your wife want to use it as well, you have to ask yourself if this camera isn't slightly out of your league. Water/Dust seals are cool, but unless you travel extensively in dusty/rainy surroundings, it is doubtful you will ever require it..

The K100D is probably the best bargain of the three and it will give you room budgetwise for some nice lenses. I agree with the others that the 6MP is not an issue when printing at A3 or smaller. A fairly big con is the poor white balance performance of this camera, but despite it's simplicity, I doubt you will be finished studying it in the coming 4/5 years..

The Olympus is a bit of anybody's guess, since there are hardly any serious reviews available at the time. I guess you can position it in between the K10D and K100D, but closer to the K10D though. The huge advantage of the Olly is that with this body and the two kitlenses you have a great start, plenty of features but at the same time a much less steep learning curve because of the several scene modes and perhaps also the LiveView. Another plus is the lightweight of it's body and lenses, not to be lightly disregarded since you state you will be traveling with it a lot. And with the only working 'dust removal system' at the market, there is no need anymore for a compromise lens with a bigger range, though I don't think that thirdparty manufacturers even produce lenses for the Fourth Third system..

Given the fact that this is your first DSLR, I would disregard the K10 and opt for either the K100 or the E510, all depends on if you think that the more expensive Olympus body's anti-dust system and more features combined with the superior and lighter kitlenses are worth the extra cash compaired to the 'slghtly better built' Pentax with more choice in cheaper and midrange lenses at the moment...

- only 3-point auto focus.

Not a huge drawback, if you don't shoot action. Simply point the center, then recompose..

- apparantly it's Dynamic Range is less than with it's competitors. I wonder if that will have drawbacks for the kind of photography I intend to use it for..

You mentioned sunrises, and yes Dynamic range is a huge factor in that (ultra-bright sun combined with ultra-dark shadows). On the whole, I haven't found the Olympus cameras to be too bad with regards to DR..

=============.

Considering the TO will use it for 'creative photography' the 3-point autofocus and the limited DR are quite the negative when reviewing the Olympus 510...

He isn't interested in a Nikon, Canon, or Sony. Drop it?.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Rriley wrote:.

DoF is 1/3 stop greater than than Canon APS C, .4 stop greater than1.52x crop APS C like Nikon etc.

DOF is not measured in "stops"...or gallons. .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

I'd buy the K10D.You should buy the K100D. That way we won't have the same camera.Everybody else will buy the E510 and they will start a club and worship it. .

Seriously, all 3 cameras are fine. Pick one. Take pix..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Just thought I would comment as I'm a new DSLR owner (3days)..

I'm not a pro at photography, but I've done my share with SLR Film cameras..

After reading lots of reviews and comments (Thanks DPreview!) and going to the local camera shops to get the "feel" of the cameras that I had chosen based off the reviews/comments. I chose a Nikon D80 with the 18-135(non-VR) lens kit..

The Canon 30D, Nikon D40x, and others didn't feel right in the hand, either too small or too awkward..

Now, as per your requirements -.

Wife will want to use it -.

I took the camera out of the box, followed the Quick start guide (Put strap on, Lens on, charge battery, insert battery, insert Mem card, Switch everything to auto, take pictures) I was giddy with excitement as with all new purchases and just had to snap off a few pics. (One that impressed me was one of my friends sitting across the dimly lit room. When zoomed in, you could see the fuzz on his partially balding head). There was no thinking involved, it is a point and shoot camera. (Wife will find it easy to use without even reading. I handed the camera to several of my friends and told them the basics - Point, twist the zoom ring to frame the pic, push shutter release 1/2 way, wait for camera to flash the viewfinder red and beep, then push shutter release all the way down.

One took about 4 pics and is now looking at buying a D40x).

It took some really great pictures. Or so I thought. After the initial 20-30 pics I decided I better at least look at the manual. Got to the section about switching picture quality, then decided to switch to RAW+Fine JPEG. (Since I have Photoshop CS for post processing, I would be using RAW images, and would be putting some on the web, so I wanted JPEG also) I looked at the camera and noticed that the out of the box default quality was only set to JPEG NORMAL. I was astounded.

(Not so optimal lighting handled with aplumb). Taking pics in RAW and JPEG Fine, blow me away with the quality..

Room to grow -.

This was one of the reasons I chose Nikon. They're famous for backward compatibility. So if I find some 1970's manual lens, it will fit on the camera and work, if I find I want the newest AF tele with VR, it will fit. As I read through the manual and find out all the options this camera has, I will expand MY capabilities, not the camera's. It's very advanced, me...not so much, but I'll learn..

Lens collector -.

Like yourself, I figgured I'd only get a few lenses (as I could afford/need them) and the 18-135 kit lens fits my "starting out" requirements perfectly. Wide angle is good, and the reach at 135 is good. I can see myself wanting to get other lenses for this camera..

After only 3 days of use, and maybe 200 snapshots, my rating for this camera as a first DSLR, 10 out of 10. My satisfaction, enjoyment, want for learning to get all this camera has to offer, 11 out of 10..

As others have pointed out, Nikon does have VR lenses (Shake reduction like you're looking for) So you may want to add the D80 back into your choices..

But you can't have mine! ..

His listed reason for not including Nikon -.

"Nikon d40/80 didn't make the cut ... lack of IS (nikon).".

While it's true Nikon doesn't have In Camera IS/VR, their lenses do. If shake reduction is the only reason Nikon was passed by, it should be pointed out that this is not the case. He would just have to get the lens he wants to start with, one with VR..

Not every beginner knows, or is told that VR (Vibration Reduction), IS (Image Stabilization), VC(Vibration Compensation) are just different manufacturer's names for basically the same thing...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The same way that a 1.4x (1/sqrt(2) to be more exact) is 1 stop, andanother 1.4x on top of that is 2x, or 2 stops. The 1.5x APS-C to the2x Olympus 4/3 is somewhere between 1 and 2/3 stop..

And thanks to Jim Cockfield, for pointing out my mistakethe DoF difference then should beCanon 1.62x .6 stopNikon 1.52x (and others) .8 stop.

Thanks againRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Chuxter wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

DoF is 1/3 stop greater than than Canon APS C, .4 stop greater than1.52x crop APS C like Nikon etc.

DOF is not measured in "stops"...or gallons. .

The differences in DoF most certainly are measured in stops here 'quite often'.

I guess you will just have to pardon me for following a convention used specifically or not to this fora.

Have fun chasing all such posts with your notions on DoF differences.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Thanks Gary, very insightful!.

GaryDeM wrote:.

I will only comment on the pentax..

K10d-soft jpegs. yes they are softer than other cameras. but the detail isthere. the k10 is out resolutionizing it's competitors. the purpose,according to pentax was to design a camera for jpegs with the intentthat the jpegs would be getting further pping in your pc. they werenot concerned that they were soft, they were looking at the qualityof the image detail; you the owner will be suppliing the sharpeningin your pc.no scene modes.

I happen to own apentax *istD which doesn't have scene modes, I do not miss them andwouldn't use them if the camera had them. scene modes are a help forbeginners only, anyone with photographic experience will not be usingthem..

K100d-great pics from the camera in jpeg or raw. can be used in the futureas a backup to other pentax dslrs(k10d?). I have printed 20x30inchenlargements from the 6mp *istD. the k100d has the same sensor..

The k100d SUPER has just been announced. it has some of the featuresfrom the k10d. have you considered that camera?.

Note: as you go up in mp in dslrs from 6-8-10-12-16 at each step thecamera becomes less forgiving of user error and poor technique. whatworked at 6mp will not work at 10-12mp simply because the camera hasmore resolution to see detail BUT it is also seeing any error intechnique that much more as well..

I wrote the following posts some time ago, they may be of interest..

No matter which dslr you buy..

Heavily consider the following. there are NEW DSLR owners' writing inall over these forums on this subject.when changeing from a p&s to a dslr, there is a huge difference..

When you take p&s out of the box add a memory card and a fullycharged battery you can now shoot and take very good pics.BUT, you cannot do this with dslr. the camera HAS TO BE SETUP first.you have to adjust the contrast/saturation/sharpness/shootingmodes(color style or whatever it is called) to your likes. if youdon't it is quite likely you will disappointed with results. your p&swill likely outshoot the dslr.to setup-you have shoot a test shot make ONE adjustment reshoot checkpc screen readjust, until you are satisfied. and you do this witheach of the adjustment types. then you have all the customadjustments in the menu to check and if wanted change.when done you can put the camera into AUTO or PROGRAM and getreasonably nice shots.

Asyou learn about the camera and photography you can then go to theother shooting modes and try RAW if you wish.dslrs are made to see the shot through the optical viewfinder notthrough the lcd. this is true of almost all dslrs including the k10d.there was a threadnot to log ago about who would want a dslr with a preview lcd,al,most noone wanted one.dslrs and color..

If you mean heavy saturated colors then no dslr is going to do that.they are not made to give strongly saturated colors. they are made togive ACCURATE COLORS. not heavy saturated colors.this is not the same thing at all. too many people who come from ap&s are very disappointed in th dslr colors, because they are notbright and saturated. this is because they are and have been using ap&s which has been giving them saturated and incorrect clors for solong that they think it is the right look. nothing could be furtherfrom the truth.

The cameramanufactures know that the public buys high megapixel and heavysaturated colors and is what they make and sell to the public.but the slr/dslr is a whole different world. for the dslr accuracy ofthe scene in terms of view and color is a religion rpt religion. youwant accurate color that is what you are going to get with dslr. butthey will not be the bright saturated colors of a p&s. you can withadjustments in the menus up the color is dslr, but it will not looklike the INACCURATE CARTOON COLOR of the p&s.if you are wishing to buy a dslr for more and brighter color, saveyou money the p&s is what you want.not too long ago a new owner of a dslr was on these forums talkingabout the poor color of his new dslr.

Many many people replying to him told him thatcloudy day shots give the most accurate color, which they do. hecouldn't believe and get over that idea. he also owned a p&Spreviously.you might be interested in this; which I posted a while back..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257.

I hope the above proves helpfull. I have been using a slr/dslr for37yrs..

Gary..

Thanks Nathan for your very elaborate replies!.

I do know that both Nikon and Canon have lenses with VR, but in all honesty I am not willing to fork out that amount of cash for a lens. That is why Nikon and Canon are not on my shortlist..

I do know IS/VR/SR are not the holy grail, however I do know that it will come in very handy for me at the moment..

Budgetwise I have limited myself to 1100,-. The K10 and kitlenses just fit that budget, the higher end Canons and Nikons do not..

I would appreciate it if you could ellaborate a bit more on the AF part. What is the advantage of 9 or 11 AF points opposite to 3?..

I do know about the in lens VR/IS/SR, but I appreciate your suggestion nevertheless! Those lenses are too expensive for my budget and liking..

RoyalWitCheese wrote:.

His listed reason for not including Nikon -.

"Nikon d40/80 didn't make the cut ... lack of IS (nikon).".

While it's true Nikon doesn't have In Camera IS/VR, their lenses do.If shake reduction is the only reason Nikon was passed by, it shouldbe pointed out that this is not the case. He would just have to getthe lens he wants to start with, one with VR..

Not every beginner knows, or is told that VR (Vibration Reduction),IS (Image Stabilization), VC(Vibration Compensation) are justdifferent manufacturer's names for basically the same thing...

It is likely easier for you kind folks to suggest me something if I let you in on my budget (which is about 1100,-)..

Here in Holland the prices are more or less:.

Pentax K100D Body + Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO 765.00.

Pentax K100D Dual Kit 18-55mm + P-DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED 738.00.

Pentax K10D Dual Kit 18-55mm + P-DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED 1,055.00.

(though Pentax is pretty poorly available here, dunno why).

Olympus E-510 Kit 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 + 40-150mm f3.5-4.5 924.00..

Rriley wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

DoF is 1/3 stop greater than than Canon APS C, .4 stop greater than1.52x crop APS C like Nikon etc.

DOF is not measured in "stops"...or gallons. .

The differences in DoF most certainly are measured in stops here'quite often'i guess you will just have to pardon me for following a conventionused specifically or not to this fora.

DEPTH of Field is typically measured in meters or inches. Anybody that does otherwise is wrong. There are several good DOF calculators available:.

Http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.htmlhttp://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htmhttp://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/.

They all agree with me..

I understand the convention of saying that camera A has the same DOF as camera B at plus-or-minus N stops. But to then extrapolate that and say that camera B has plus-or-minus N stops over camera A is stepping over the line. That is just as wrong as attributing these DOF differences to sensor size or price..

I can see it now..."Camera B has $437 of extra DOF, compared with Camera A." Gag!.

And it matters not how many people do it incorrectly. I never said (or thought) there was only one idiot. .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Is that due to taxes and VAT?.

The 510 price in euros is about what it is in Dollars in the US..

MaddogOlympus E-500, Olympus E-510..

I noticed you said this earlier:.

" Knowing myself I won't be a lens collector. Eventually a decent zoom range, macro lens and one or two primes will be more than enough. For now I will stick with two kitlenses or one 'bigger range 18-250mm lens' to start with, depending on which dSLR I choose for in the end.".

Yet, your budget choices don't mention the 18-250mm (although I see you have one kit with the 18-200mm in it)..

How about a Pentax K10 with the Tamron 18-250mm?.

That would give you a bit more range for your vacation photos and you could buy a couple of nicer lenses without that ambitious of a focal range from wide to long later, if you felt you needed them for the types of photos you take. The newer Tamron seems to get better user reviews compared to the 18-200mm..

My concern with that kind of kit is that the "digital only" lens designed for an APS-C sensor could not be used if Pentax came out with a model using a larger sensor later and you wanted to upgrade your body..

My guess is that they might (given the what appears to be a larger prism housing in the higher end DSLR model that Sony plans to introduce later, unless Pentax is changing sensor suppliers from Sony to elsewhere (and even then, a larger sensored model could be introduced later by Pentax using a different sensor supplier)..

Of course, you may not care about upgrading if they do come out with a model using a larger sensor later, and prefer the smaller and lighter "designed for digital" lenses for a given focal range, too. There are pros and cons to any solution. lol.

JimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

Ncoilheat wrote:.

The Nikon 55-200 with VR is only $249.99..

What about wide angle and 50mm f1.4 (or 1.8) VR lenses?.

Edvinas..

If you decide to choose Pentax, my advice is to get K10D. It is so much better camera than K100D. Probabaly it won't take better pictures however control over camera, flexibilityand configurability, convenience to use is phenomenal and makes taking pictures much easier than with K100D..

So, if you decided to try Pentax and K10D doesn't break your budget go for it..

Edvinas..

You are VERY welcome. please ask any other questions that you wish, I will try my best to answer them..

Good luck. gary..

Almost forgot, in view of the other replies you have gotten. again, you might want to research the pentac k100d super. it was announced in the very recent past and seems to have many of the features of the k10d but in the k100d body. the question being how close is it getting to the k10d and will the k100d super be close enough to satisfy you? not to mention where is it being priced...

Ericinho wrote:.

The Olympus is a bit of anybody's guess, since there are hardly anyserious reviews available at the time. I guess you can position it inbetween the K10D and K100D, but closer to the K10D though. The hugeadvantage of the Olly is that with this body and the two kitlensesyou have a great start, plenty of features but at the same time amuch less steep learning curve because of the several scene modes andperhaps also the LiveView. Another plus is the lightweight of itsbody and lenses, not to be lightly disregarded since you state youwill be traveling with it a lot. And with the only working 'dustremoval system' at the market, there is no need anymore for acompromise lens with a bigger range, though I don't think thatthirdparty manufacturers even produce lenses for the Fourth Thirdsystem..

Leica and Sigma both make lens' for 4/3. The lineup for 4/3 system is taking shape quit nicely actually, both from Oly and other lens makers...

Chuxter wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

DoF is 1/3 stop greater than than Canon APS C, .4 stop greater than1.52x crop APS C like Nikon etc.

DOF is not measured in "stops"...or gallons. .

The differences in DoF most certainly are measured in stops here'quite often'i guess you will just have to pardon me for following a conventionused specifically or not to this fora.

DEPTH of Field is typically measured in meters or inches. Anybodythat does otherwise is wrong. There are several good DOF calculatorsavailable:.

Http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.htmlhttp://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htmhttp://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/.

They all agree with me..

I understand the convention of saying that camera A has the same DOFas camera B at plus-or-minus N stops. But to then extrapolate thatand say that camera B has plus-or-minus N stops over camera A isstepping over the line. That is just as wrong as attributing theseDOF differences to sensor size or price..

I can see it now..."Camera B has $437 of extra DOF, compared withCamera A." Gag!.

And it matters not how many people do it incorrectly. I never said(or thought) there was only one idiot. .

It is a commonly used convention here, it is both understandable, calculable, measurable and repeatableas to those you presume have it wrong and the preCopernicansbeing obnoxious supercilious tossers doesnt make the world suddenly different.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Yes, I have heard about it. Unfortunately, I want/need to buy the camera within now and 2,5 week... so the K100d will arrive too late for me (and usually in Holland new introductions arrive later than for example in the USA)..

GaryDeM wrote:.

Almost forgot, in view of the other replies you have gotten. again,you might want to research the pentac k100d super. it was announcedin the very recent past and seems to have many of the features of thek10d but in the k100d body. the question being how close is itgetting to the k10d and will the k100d super be close enough tosatisfy you? not to mention where is it being priced...

Idream wrote:.

Thanks Nathan for your very elaborate replies!I do know that both Nikon and Canon have lenses with VR, but in allhonesty I am not willing to fork out that amount of cash for a lens.That is why Nikon and Canon are not on my shortlist..

I do know IS/VR/SR are not the holy grail, however I do know that itwill come in very handy for me at the moment..

Budgetwise I have limited myself to 1100,-. The K10 and kitlensesjust fit that budget, the higher end Canons and Nikons do not..

I would appreciate it if you could ellaborate a bit more on the AFpart. What is the advantage of 9 or 11 AF points opposite to 3?.

There are two main uses for more autofocus points, easier composition and wider tracking range:.

For example, say you are taking a picture, but you really want the camera to focus on a subject that is in the top part of the frame. With the 9 or 11 AF point cameras you would just set it to the top focus point, and it would aim there. It's slightly more convenient, but even if you only had ONE autofocus point (the center), you can just point the center up top towards your target, half-press the shutter to lock the focus, then recompose the image the way you want it. So you could get by with one AF point really, and I wouldn't consider that a dealbreaker for a camera..

The other use is for AF tracking. This is when you're shooting a moving subject (like sports players). Say you're taking a burst of pictures, with the player in the center. Now all of a sudden your player moves over to the right side of the frame. Usually, you would be out of luck, since your camera keeps looking at that center AF point, and oops, there's no player there anymore. Having additional AF points allows one of those other AF points to "pick up" the subject after it moves away from your initial AF point.



It's very useful for sports or other action photography when you're during a burst of shots. Otherwise, having multiple AF points doesn't help a whole lot for other areas of photography...

Or the extremely agile and speedy kids ofcourse.together with a not too slow lens..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Idream wrote:.

Thanks Nathan for your very elaborate replies!I do know that both Nikon and Canon have lenses with VR, but in allhonesty I am not willing to fork out that amount of cash for a lens.That is why Nikon and Canon are not on my shortlist..

I do know IS/VR/SR are not the holy grail, however I do know that itwill come in very handy for me at the moment..

Budgetwise I have limited myself to 1100,-. The K10 and kitlensesjust fit that budget, the higher end Canons and Nikons do not..

I would appreciate it if you could ellaborate a bit more on the AFpart. What is the advantage of 9 or 11 AF points opposite to 3?.

There are two main uses for more autofocus points, easier compositionand wider tracking range:.

For example, say you are taking a picture, but you really want thecamera to focus on a subject that is in the top part of the frame.With the 9 or 11 AF point cameras you would just set it to the topfocus point, and it would aim there. It's slightly more convenient,but even if you only had ONE autofocus point (the center), you canjust point the center up top towards your target, half-press theshutter to lock the focus, then recompose the image the way you wantit. So you could get by with one AF point really, and I wouldn'tconsider that a dealbreaker for a camera..

The other use is for AF tracking. This is when you're shooting amoving subject (like sports players). Say you're taking a burst ofpictures, with the player in the center. Now all of a sudden yourplayer moves over to the right side of the frame. Usually, you wouldbe out of luck, since your camera keeps looking at that center AFpoint, and oops, there's no player there anymore. Having additionalAF points allows one of those other AF points to "pick up" thesubject after it moves away from your initial AF point.



It's very useful for sports or other action photography when you'reduring a burst of shots. Otherwise, having multiple AF pointsdoesn't help a whole lot for other areas of photography...

Ericinho wrote:.

Or the extremely agile and speedy kids ofcourse.together with a not too slow lens..

That's actually not quite true. AF tracking is primarily used for tracking something over a length of time, and taking multiple shots. You do this with sports a lot (a runner as he sprints down the field, and you snapping away all throughout the run). However, for just a single autofocus and take the shot, AF tracking doesn't really come into play, unless you're tracking the subject for a few seconds first before taking the shot...

That's what I love about this site, something new to learn every day .

By the way, also the much praised Nikon d40x has 'only' 3 focus points....

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Ericinho wrote:.

Or the extremely agile and speedy kids ofcourse.together with a not too slow lens..

That's actually not quite true. AF tracking is primarily used fortracking something over a length of time, and taking multiple shots.You do this with sports a lot (a runner as he sprints down the field,and you snapping away all throughout the run). However, for just asingle autofocus and take the shot, AF tracking doesn't really comeinto play, unless you're tracking the subject for a few seconds firstbefore taking the shot...

I would take a look at the NIKON D80 + 18-200 VR lens, and a good lightwieght tripd..

You will get outstanding photos with this setup, I think most photographers would love this kit.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

B4 you buy, Panasonic have a all new range of 4/3 DSLR's coming out in the next month or so..

They do make wonderful product too.

To many choices!!!.

Cheers.

M'Everyday above earth is a gooooooooood day'Mike Mad-Dog Adams..

You mentioned that the Olympus dust filter system doesn't work completely. You should really visit the Olympus SLR forum. I have had an E-500 for 1.5 years and not a speck of dust on the sensor. Even people with E-1's that are over three years old have very rarely seen any dust problems...

Rriley wrote:.

It is a commonly used convention here, it is both understandable,calculable, measurable and repeatable.

And wrong. What is it about wrong that escapes you? .

As to those you presume have it wrong and the preCopernicansbeing obnoxious supercilious tossers doesnt make the world suddenlydifferent.

That, my friend, would be too much to hope for!.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

It seems that some people simply do not read the thread before replying..

The TO states he doesn't want lens based VR for budget reasons (cause ofcourse you need to buy all your lenses with VR). Apart from that, here in Europe the below mentioned combination exceeds the TO's budget with about 400,-.

Michael Edward Rudge wrote:.

I would take a look at the NIKON D80 + 18-200 VR lens, and a goodlightwieght tripd.You will get outstanding photos with this setup, I think mostphotographers would love this kit.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

Chuxter wrote:.

Rriley wrote:.

It is a commonly used convention here, it is both understandable,calculable, measurable and repeatable.

And wrong. What is it about wrong that escapes you? .

Its not me who invented it's use hereits not me you need to convince, who couldnt care for lessits the entire forum that has indulged in it.

As to those you presume have it wrong and the preCopernicansbeing obnoxious supercilious tossers doesnt make the world suddenlydifferent.

That, my friend, would be too much to hope for!.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/.

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Brym wrote:.

You mentioned that the Olympus dust filter system doesn't workcompletely. You should really visit the Olympus SLR forum. I havehad an E-500 for 1.5 years and not a speck of dust on the sensor.Even people with E-1's that are over three years old have very rarelyseen any dust problems..

This is roughly my experience tooRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Well, the D80 I never really considered, the D40(x) is a strong contender because of it ease of use and out of the box image quality. But it was the lack of IS/VR which made me decide to remove it from the list. Especially with lenses with a decent zoomrange I would automatically need to shoot with a tripod (i dont want that when I am going on a holiday) or I need a lens with VR. And the thing is that I don't want to be forced to fork out the big bucks each time I need a lens (and IS)..

Michael Edward Rudge wrote:.

I would take a look at the NIKON D80 + 18-200 VR lens, and a goodlightwieght tripd.You will get outstanding photos with this setup, I think mostphotographers would love this kit.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

Thanks so far for all your insightful remarks! But it appears the judges are still out and for all 3 candidates is a lot to say..

So let's look at it in a different way..

Only the Olympus kitlenses in combination with the dust-bust system I would go for in combination with the body..

Especially for my holiday, I am not to kean to buy either Pentaxes in combination with their kitlenses. From what I gatter they are of lesser quality (though better as most), heavier/bigger than the Olympus kitlenses and dust is for the Pentaxes a bigger issue as for the Olympus..

So at the moment I would opt for either Pentaxes in combination with a bigger range lens like a 18-250mm Tamron for example..

But ofcourse this haven't brought me anywhere..

If I would be already an amateur, I guess I would drop the K100d. That would leave the Olly and the K10, and probably the K10 would slightly outperform the Olly at things like noise levels at 400 ISO and difficult light and shadows, so the K10d would win..

But I am not an amateur, only a novice very eager to jump into this dSLR wonderfulness... but with no clue how fast I am going to pick up this digital photography thing. I am not worried about the creative part of it, but the technical skills... dunno....

The thing is that I set my aims high (you get that being a graphic designer), so on one side you don't want your photographic tool to be the bottleneck after a few years (and yeah, I know what you will say... "ain't gonna happen"  ).

Sorry, I am getting carried away here .

My question is basically... I know what I want to do with the camera.. how can I decide which camera fits me best....

Creative photography, 'photostock', family and holiday pictures. As a graphic >> designer I love to dive into photography, so I am not affraid of a learning >> >> process, however my wife will also use it from time to time . So a dSLR that >> is able to make at least decent pics without requiring a huge amount of >> >> knowledge would be a plus. Output will be used for printing (bigger sizes (like >> A4) to frame, smaller ones 10x15), but also for 'cut outs' in Photoshop to use >> in design work and for stockphotos..

Which specs do I need to look for?.

I mean, the 3 vs 9 focuspoints could have been a dealbreaker if I would have been into sports photography..

So are there things concerning one of the camera which makes it more or not suitable for my requirements?.

Thanks for your patience!..

Idream wrote:.

Thanks so far for all your insightful remarks! But it appears thejudges are still out and for all 3 candidates is a lot to say..

So let's look at it in a different way..

Only the Olympus kitlenses in combination with the dust-bust system Iwould go for in combination with the body..

Especially for my holiday, I am not to kean to buy either Pentaxes incombination with their kitlenses. From what I gatter they are oflesser quality (though better as most), heavier/bigger than theOlympus kitlenses and dust is for the Pentaxes a bigger issue as forthe Olympus..

So at the moment I would opt for either Pentaxes in combination witha bigger range lens like a 18-250mm Tamron for example..

You may be making another beginners mistake. All those 18-200 and 18-250 lenses have terrible IQ. The Nikon 18-200 is the best and at both extremes, it has bad IQ. You decided against the Pentax Kit lenses, but they are MUCH better than that Tamgon! That doesn't make sense to me. If you want a big zoom range, get a camera with a smaller sensor....

But ofcourse this haven't brought me anywhere.If I would be already an amateur, I guess I would drop the K100d.That would leave the Olly and the K10, and probably the K10 wouldslightly outperform the Olly at things like noise levels at 400 ISOand difficult light and shadows, so the K10d would win.But I am not an amateur, only a novice very eager to jump into thisdSLR wonderfulness... but with no clue how fast I am going to pick upthis digital photography thing. I am not worried about the creativepart of it, but the technical skills... dunno....

You are thinking too much. As I think others have said, all the cameras will take OK pix...the biggest difference is the ergonomics and what brand(s) your friends have (and worship)..

The thing is that I set my aims high (you get that being a graphicdesigner), so on one side you don't want your photographic tool to bethe bottleneck after a few years (and yeah, I know what you willsay... "ain't gonna happen"  ).

Since you anticipated my response, I'll go another way. Modern cameras are NOT lifetime purchases! They are designed and built to be disposable. My old SLRs will last forever, but my digital cameras are already dying. Both of my old Kodak pocket cams are dead and my Nikon 5700 is away having the sensor replaced..

This may be distressing, but these modern consumer gadgets are not intended to last long. Of the 3 cameras you are considering, the Pentax K10D is the most rugged, but it will also only last a few years..

A good aproach is to get what will work for you in the near future..

Sorry, I am getting carried away here .

Appology accepted..

My question is basically... I know what I want to do with thecamera.. how can I decide which camera fits me best....

As I said, only be concerned about the ergonomics. Let everything else go..

Which specs do I need to look for?.

Ignore specs. We have already told you that each of the 3 cameras will be fine for you..

I mean, the 3 vs 9 focuspoints could have been a dealbreaker if Iwould have been into sports photography..

Nah. Ignore all that stuff..

So are there things concerning one of the camera which makes it moreor not suitable for my requirements?.

Nothing, other than the way it fits in your hands and how the controls seem to you..

Thanks for your patience!.

OK, but stop asking us questions and go out and buy something... .

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Idream wrote:.

Only the Olympus kitlenses in combination with the dust-bust system Iwould go for in combination with the body..

Especially for my holiday, I am not to kean to buy either Pentaxes incombination with their kitlenses. From what I gatter they are oflesser quality (though better as most), heavier/bigger than theOlympus kitlenses and dust is for the Pentaxes a bigger issue as forthe Olympus..

Honestly, I wouldn't regard dust as that big of an issue. I have a 20D (which has no dust-buster), and have rarely ever needed to clean the sensor. And the couple of times over the past year that I actually did, I just popped open the shutter, took a blower and puffed a few bursts of air at it. No more dust..

And I'm someone who changes lenses regularly and doesn't ever take too much precaution with it. I really wouldn't take the effectiveness of anti-dust into consideration at all, especially given that the current systems aren't all that effective..

As for the Pentax kit lens, you might want to hop over to the Pentax forum and ask them. From what I've seen, it's pretty decent. The only company whose kit lens is known to be bad is Canon's, and even then I don't think it's that bad..

Keep in mind that a lot of comments you hear are going to be people with VERY exacting expectations, and who are also comparing to their high end glass, and looking at all their images at 100%. In real life, the differences are fairly minimal, and really nothing you'll notice most of the time with viewing computers on the computer or printing out small prints like 4x6's..

So at the moment I would opt for either Pentaxes in combination witha bigger range lens like a 18-250mm Tamron for example..

A lot of people will tell you all of the 18-250, 18-200 lenses are junk, but the truth is that they're really quite usable. For web-size resolution, even the biggest 1600x1200 monitor is only displaying a 2MP image, which means that you're shrinking down your picture by 3x. For small prints as well, you're not going to see all the tiny minute detail. The sharpness isn't the same as expensive $1000 glass, but it's perfectly acceptable..

And since you seem like you are very much interested in actually LEARNING photography, I think one of the ultrazooms would be the perfect choice. The key part of learning photography, gear-wise, is expanding your versatility as much as possible. So you can get a good 16-45 zoom, and the quality will be very nice and you'll be very familiar shooting with the 16-45mm range, but you'll have no experience or familiarity whatsoever in the telephoto, 46-200mm range. Getting a ultrazoom like an 18-200 lets you practice and experiment over a much wider range, and I think that ultimately helps one learn more. If you're on a budget and seriously want to learn photography, I think the 18-200's make ideal lenses to learn and growth with (and then you could upgrade to a quality wide angle and quality telephoto, once you know enough to determine what "quality" really means, and what kind of performance you want from each range)..

But ofcourse this haven't brought me anywhere.If I would be already an amateur, I guess I would drop the K100d..

I still think the K100D is the best choice for you, if only because the K10D is a fair bit more expensive and the JPG output isn't that fantastic. It's a quite capable camera, and while on paper the others may seem more full-featured, go and write down a list of features that the E510 and K10D have that you will miss out on with the K100D. I'm looking at the three cameras myself, and I honestly don't see much..

The thing is that I set my aims high (you get that being a graphicdesigner), so on one side you don't want your photographic tool to bethe bottleneck after a few years (and yeah, I know what you willsay... "ain't gonna happen"  ).

Heh, yeah, this is true. These days, pretty much every camera is capable of getting you the results you want. I have a 20D now, and upgraded from the Canon Rebel XT just because I liked the feel of the body better. But aside from that, the Rebel XT is 100% as capable as the 20D - has all of the same controls and settings, and the image quality is the exact same. It's the same case with all three cameras you mentioned - there isn't any kind of shot that one of those cameras can get, that the other two can't (aside from possibly sports, or very high ISO images for the Olympus E-510)..

Which specs do I need to look for?I mean, the 3 vs 9 focuspoints could have been a dealbreaker if Iwould have been into sports photography.So are there things concerning one of the camera which makes it moreor not suitable for my requirements?.

I can't think of any other dealbreakers among the other cameras. I think they're all quite capable, just with the exception of sports. I think the Olympus E510 is also less capable of low-light photography where you'd want ISO1600, but even then the E510 is quite good and quite usable..

To me, it sounds like you're someone who's definitely interested in photography and very much wants to grow and learn, which isn't the case for everyone looking to buy a new SLR. My advice is to really look at the system you want, which means the kind of lens system you want to grow and learn with. To me, the Pentax line of lenses is far wider (except for telephotos), and definitely cheaper and more affordable, than Olympus...

Nobody said this would be easy .

Best thing to do is check the specs (because despite what my colleague down here is saying, it isn't just a matter of seeing which ergonomics you like best, especially when you indicated you have no strong preference)..

Check the differences and see which differences relate to the kind of shooting you intend to do..

In any case, the K10D may be a wonderful camera, but it's steep learning curve, no scenesmodes, high price and soft jpegs do not weight up to it's pros (water/dust seals, some advanced settings and 11 point AF..

So remove that one of the list..

So the E510 and the K100D are left..

The K100D has no JPG/RAW option and has serious white balance issues indoors, while the Olympus has no top LCD panel and a smaller viewfinder. The other points are non confirmed or not relevant in your case..

Now decide which one rests best in your hand and if you want to go for the cheaper body or the convenient kitset..

Goodluck!..

From what I have read, the soft JPEG issueon the K10D is a matter of settings. It is the same as with my old DS. I adjusted the setiings and get RAW resolution in a JPEG...

This forum desperately needs FAQ stickies .

K1000Photographer wrote:.

From what I have read, the soft JPEG issueon the K10D is a matter ofsettings. It is the same as with my old DS. I adjusted the setiingsand get RAW resolution in a JPEG...

I find too much speculation and not enough facts on how a given product will operate in the field. The soft Pentax JPEG tale has been going on for years. I get JPEGs that are the same resolution as RAW from my DS. This is far from what the review here would have you believe. Yet, many DS users have discovered what I have. Change the default settings and you have incredible JPEG's.

It will give sharp JPEG's. It just is not there at the defaults...

The irony is that here in Holland, Pentax is not that well available. At least at the local photography shop they are selling Olympus..

Anyway, I check an online shop here to see which lenses are affordable apart from the 14-45 and 40-150mm kitlenses. I doubt I will ever spend more than 500 euro on a lens and first on my shoppinglist would be a nice macrolens, perhaps later a telezoomlens and a fast (prime?) lens for shooting portraits and 'studio like work'..

Olympus:.

Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f/3.5 Macro 213.00Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 419.00Olympus Zuiko E ED 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 459.00Olympus Zuiko E ED 50mm f/2.0 Macro 478.00Olympus Zuiko E ED 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 749.00.

Sigma AF 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds) 388.00Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds) 244.00Sigma AF 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds) 103.00Sigma AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds) 147.00.

So the Olympus clearly lacks a decent and affordable big zoom, apart from the Sigma 55-200mm..

Pentax:.

Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro 523.00Pentax FA J 75-300mm F4.5-5.8 ZWART 169.00Pentax SMC DA 16-45mm AF f/4.0 ED AL 398.00Pentax SMC P-D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro 446.00Pentax SMCP-DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 (IF) Fisheye 497.00Pentax SMCP-DA 40mm f/2.8 ED Digital Limited Edition 317.00Pentax SMCP-DA 70mm f/2.4 ED Digital Limited Edition 484.00Pentax SMCP-FA 21mm f/3.2 AL Wide Angle Limited Edition 489.00Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 238.00.

Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM voor Pentax 459.00Sigma AF 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro voor Pentax / Samsung 388.00Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro voor Pentax 308.00Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC voor Pentax 244.00Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC SLD voor Pentax/Samsung 311.00Sigma AF 20mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF voor Pentax / SamsungSigma AF 24-70mm F2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro voor PentaxSigma AF 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 DG Macro voor Pentax 218.00Sigma AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 SLD DG Macro voor Pentax / Samsung 275.00Sigma AF 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro voor Pentax 279.00Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro voor Pentax 218.00Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro voor Pentax 144.00.

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO voor Pentax / Samsung 314.00.

Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO voor Pentax 448.00Tamron AF 28-105mm F/4-5.6 (IF) voor Pentax / Samsung 179.00Tamron AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 XR IF voor Pentax / Samsung 249.00Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR IF voor Pentax / Samsung 318.00Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 voor Pentax/Samsung 139.00Tamron AF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro voor Pentax / Samsung 156.00Tamron AF 90mm F/2.8 SP Di Macro (1:1) voor Pentax / Samsung 369.00Tamron SP 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di LD-IF voor Pentax / Samsung 329.00.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) voor Pentax / Samsung 447.00...............................................................

Wow, that is an enormous difference.....

The thing is that I cannot judge if perhaps the available affordable Olympus lenses are more than enough... which would ofcourse remove the reason to go for the camera with by far the bigger lens system (not to mention all those old Pentax lenses that should work as well)....

So you advice is still (sorry Charlie) greatly appreciated!..

As stated in another thread, the whole lens system dogma is hugely overrated. There are no dSLR systems which don't have more than enough affordable lenses for the average user..

I really would love to hear from a hobby photographer that wasn't able to shoot certain subjects because his brand didn't have a certain lens.....

Ericinho wrote:.

As stated in another thread, the whole lens system dogma is hugelyoverrated. There are no dSLR systems which don't have more thanenough affordable lenses for the average user..

I really would love to hear from a hobby photographer that wasn'table to shoot certain subjects because his brand didn't have acertain lens....

There are a number of lenses missing from Olympus' lineup, from what I can see:.

Ultra-wide angle lens: Canon can get down to 16mm equivalent with their 10-22 or Sigma's 10-20, and Nikon and Pentax and Sony can get down to 15. The Sigma 10-20 runs for $500. Olympus only has a 8mm, which runs nearly $700 and is a fisheye, or a 7-14mm, which matches the range but is $1500. So that's one lens - a rectalinearized ultrawide, that Olympus can't get me..

Large aperture (f2.8) standard zoom? I'm not going to look for an f2.2 4/3 lens that would be more equivalent, I just want a 28-80 (or thereabouts) f2.8 lens. Nope, Olympus only has the 14-54 f2.8-3.5. I can get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for Canon, Nikon, Sony for $450. That's another lens, a large aperture standard zoom, that Olympus can't get me..

What about some primes. A 50 f1.8? An 85 f1.8? Any kind of wide angle primes? Olympus has ZERO primes in this range, with the closest thing being a 50mm f2, which is a macro (slower focusing than regular lenses). That's a whole bunch of lenses - wide-angle prime, normal prime, telephoto portrait prime - that Olympus can't get me. This situation is even worse than Nikon's D40..

Also look at the cost of their lenses. I want a high quality telephoto zoom. With Canon I can get a 70-200 f4L for $500. Olympus' equivalent 35-100mm f2 is $2200! Their 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is $800 Yet another lens missing..

So the current Olympus lens system can't provide me ANY affordable ultrawide. And it can't provide me ANY large aperture standard zoom. Can't provide me with ANY large aperture primes. Can't provide me with ANY affordable high-quality telephoto zooms..

I'm not trying to trash Olympus, but there is a huge difference between their lens system and the other manufacturers' lens systems. For a photographer who is interested in learning photography and experimenting with things like different focal lengths and large apertures, the Olympus system is going to severely hinder that...

Idream wrote:.

Wow, that is an enormous difference....the thing is that I cannot judge if perhaps the available affordableOlympus lenses are more than enough... which would ofcourse removethe reason to go for the camera with by far the bigger lens system(not to mention all those old Pentax lenses that should work aswell)....

So you advice is still (sorry Charlie) greatly appreciated!.

I wouldn't think about older lens compatability as a consideration, unless you actually have those older lenses. The newer lenses work better in terms of things like autofocus, and there's not really a cost advantage anymore with how inexpensive the newer lenses are..

Olympus has a half-decent system of lenses, but with several gaping holes (as noted in the above post). They have an ultrazoom (18-180mm) range covered, standard zoom and telephoto zoom covered. What they don't have is a viable ultra-wide angle, and after you outgrow those kit lenses, there's a HUGE gap up to the next range of Olympus lenses - there are no good-performing, ~$500 midlevel lenses that you can upgrade to..

Will you ever want to upgrade beyond the Olympus kit set of the 14-42 and 40-150? It depends how serious you get about photography. Those two lenses will suffice for a very wide range of situations, but once you get into more advanced photography, there are a lot of things that extreme focal lengths and large apertures do that those two kit lenses (and the 4/3 sensor) will never be able to do...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

There are a number of lenses missing from Olympus' lineup, from whatI can see:.

Ultra-wide angle lens: Canon can get down to 16mm equivalent withtheir 10-22 or Sigma's 10-20, and Nikon and Pentax and Sony can getdown to 15. The Sigma 10-20 runs for $500..

Pretty well understood that Canons UWA are a lot less than perfect and a definate weakness for FF users who seek alternates on boards everywhere. Sigmas 10-20 is pretty terrible unless well stopped down, you might have mentioned the Sigma 12mm-24 zoom instead which is still a bit soft but quite a lot better than the 10-22..

Olympus only has a 8mm,which runs nearly $700 and is a fisheye, or a 7-14mm, which matchesthe range but is $1500. So that's one lens - a rectalinearizedultrawide, that Olympus can't get me..

Ok you never heard of the 11-22mm, for 22mm EFL thats UWA and one of the best UWA lenses around, in the bag at $670. A 12-60mm is inbound for September release. The 7-14 is probably the ultimate UWA in ANY system.

Large aperture (f2.8) standard zoom? I'm not going to look for anf2.2 4/3 lens that would be more equivalent, I just want a 28-80 (orthereabouts) f2.8 lens. Nope, Olympus only has the 14-54 f2.8-3.5.I can get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for Canon, Nikon, Sony for $450.That's another lens, a large aperture standard zoom, that Olympuscan't get me..

Olympus 14-35/2.0 coming, 14-50/2.8-3.5 Leica D, Olympus 14-54/2.8-3.5, 18-50/2.8 Sigma.

What about some primes. A 50 f1.8? An 85 f1.8? Any kind of wideangle primes? Olympus has ZERO primes in this range, with theclosest thing being a 50mm f2, which is a macro (slower focusing thanregular lenses). That's a whole bunch of lenses - wide-angle prime,normal prime, telephoto portrait prime - that Olympus can't get me.This situation is even worse than Nikon's D40..

No Primes ?Olympus ZD ............................8/3.5Sigma EX DG .........................24/1.8Leica D Summilux ...................25/1.4Sigma EX DC HSM ..................30/1.4Olympus ZD macro .................35/3.5Olympus ZD macro .................50/2Sigma EX DG Macro ..............105/2.8Olympus ZD .........................150/2.0Sigma EX DG HSM APO Macro 150/2.8Olympus ZD .........................300/2.8.

Also look at the cost of their lenses. I want a high qualitytelephoto zoom. With Canon I can get a 70-200 f4L for $500.Olympus' equivalent 35-100mm f2 is $2200! Their 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is$800 Yet another lens missing..

Err what, the lens thats there is missing ?a 70-200 F4 zoom is the way you choose your system .... fineyou could have bought an Olympus 40-150/3.5-4.5 for $260 ...thats 80-300 EFL.

So the current Olympus lens system can't provide me ANY affordableultrawide. And it can't provide me ANY large aperture standard zoom.Can't provide me with ANY large aperture primes. Can't provide mewith ANY affordable high-quality telephoto zooms..

Im thinking you would be reconsidering this about now .

I'm not trying to trash Olympus,.

Oh really .... ok ....

But there is a huge differencebetween their lens system and the other manufacturers' lens systems.For a photographer who is interested in learning photography andexperimenting with things like different focal lengths and largeapertures, the Olympus system is going to severely hinder that..

Im thinking what hiders them most is posts that amount to piffle, that simply arnt true, or are at the very least uneducated nonsense..

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Idream wrote:.

You make it sound so easy, Charlie .

It IS easy if you don't think that you have a 67% chance of screwing up!.

One of my observations is that too often buying a product becomes a 9-month ordeal. The result being that you love the thing too much. You become a fanboi..

Love children and like cameras..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Idream wrote:.

The irony is that here in Holland, Pentax is not that well available.At least at the local photography shop they are selling Olympus..

Few "brick and mortar" stores carry all brands. Places like B&H in New York do, but my local store only carries N, C, and F. If P is really not available in Holland, then it's a bad choice for you..

Anyway, I check an online shop here to see which lenses areaffordable apart from the 14-45 and 40-150mm kitlenses. I doubt Iwill ever spend more than 500 euro on a lens and first on myshoppinglist would be a nice macrolens, perhaps later a telezoomlensand a fast (prime?) lens for shooting portraits and 'studio likework'..

I can't tell if you are ignoring what is stupidly called "crop factor"? If you are ignoring it, you shouldn't. Multiply the FL of all the lenses for the Oly by 2. Multiply the FL of all the Pentax lenses by 1.5..

Olympus:.

Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f/3.5 Macro 213.00Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 419.00Olympus Zuiko E ED 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 459.00Olympus Zuiko E ED 50mm f/2.0 Macro 478.00Olympus Zuiko E ED 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 749.00.

Sigma AF 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds)388.00Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds)244.00Sigma AF 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds)103.00Sigma AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC voor Olympus/Panasonic (Four Thirds)147.00.

So the Olympus clearly lacks a decent and affordable big zoom, apartfrom the Sigma 55-200mm..

Well, that last lens is effectively 110 to 400mm. That's pretty long. Add the 1.4X tele-converter and it's 154 to 560mm..

Pentax:.

Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro 523.00Pentax FA J 75-300mm F4.5-5.8 ZWART 169.00Pentax SMC DA 16-45mm AF f/4.0 ED AL 398.00Pentax SMC P-D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro 446.00Pentax SMCP-DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 (IF) Fisheye 497.00Pentax SMCP-DA 40mm f/2.8 ED Digital Limited Edition 317.00Pentax SMCP-DA 70mm f/2.4 ED Digital Limited Edition 484.00Pentax SMCP-FA 21mm f/3.2 AL Wide Angle Limited Edition 489.00Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 238.00.

Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM voor Pentax 459.00Sigma AF 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro voor Pentax / Samsung 388.00Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro voor Pentax 308.00Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC voor Pentax 244.00Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC SLD voor Pentax/Samsung 311.00Sigma AF 20mm F1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF voor Pentax / SamsungSigma AF 24-70mm F2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro voor PentaxSigma AF 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 DG Macro voor Pentax 218.00Sigma AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 SLD DG Macro voor Pentax / Samsung 275.00Sigma AF 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro voor Pentax 279.00Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro voor Pentax 218.00Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro voor Pentax 144.00.

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO voorPentax / Samsung 314.00Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO voorPentax 448.00Tamron AF 28-105mm F/4-5.6 (IF) voor Pentax / Samsung 179.00Tamron AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 XR IF voor Pentax / Samsung 249.00Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR IF voor Pentax / Samsung 318.00Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 voor Pentax/Samsung 139.00Tamron AF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro voor Pentax / Samsung 156.00Tamron AF 90mm F/2.8 SP Di Macro (1:1) voor Pentax / Samsung 369.00Tamron SP 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di LD-IF voor Pentax / Samsung 329.00Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) voor Pentax /Samsung 447.00...............................................................

Wow, that is an enormous difference.....

Yes, the 4/3 system is new and it takes time and money to build up a comprehensive lens collection..

The thing is that I cannot judge if perhaps the available affordableOlympus lenses are more than enough... which would ofcourse removethe reason to go for the camera with by far the bigger lens system(not to mention all those old Pentax lenses that should work aswell)....

Well, we can't tell either. My guess is that even the Oly 4/3's system will satisfy you. By the time you grow as a photographer, there will be more lenses available..

So you advice is still (sorry Charlie) greatly appreciated!.

I can't believe that "Sorry Charlie" is echoing from Holland! Cheeze....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Agree about the 4:3 system lens availability. The Leica glass shipping through the Leica/Lumix effort are fantastic. If they release the 14-55 2.8, it is quite a lens (I have one on a Digilux 3) and the 25mm 1.4 (50mm equivalent) is, by all accounts, superb..

I would consider the Oly, or even the Lumix L1. Panasonic/Lumix is also due to announce a new lineup any day now. Might want to see what they introduce (if anything) for the 4:3 system. Rumours about that there will be a less expensive camera introduced that is comparable to the L1..

Anyway, to whomever suggested that the growth path with the Oly glass is limited, I agree with the followup below that the 4:3 system is expanding nicely and promises to offer you really extraordinary glass choices, something a whole lot better than buying up a lot of mediocre glass along the way..

Rlinnell wrote:.

Ericinho wrote:.

The Olympus is a bit of anybody's guess, since there are hardly anyserious reviews available at the time. I guess you can position it inbetween the K10D and K100D, but closer to the K10D though. The hugeadvantage of the Olly is that with this body and the two kitlensesyou have a great start, plenty of features but at the same time amuch less steep learning curve because of the several scene modes andperhaps also the LiveView. Another plus is the lightweight of itsbody and lenses, not to be lightly disregarded since you state youwill be traveling with it a lot. And with the only working 'dustremoval system' at the market, there is no need anymore for acompromise lens with a bigger range, though I don't think thatthirdparty manufacturers even produce lenses for the Fourth Thirdsystem..

Leica and Sigma both make lens' for 4/3. The lineup for 4/3 systemis taking shape quit nicely actually, both from Oly and other lensmakers..

Http://www.massengale.co.uk..

Rriley wrote:.

Pretty well understood that Canons UWA are a lot less than perfectand a definate weakness for FF users who seek alternates on boardseverywhere. Sigmas 10-20 is pretty terrible unless well stopped down,you might have mentioned the Sigma 12mm-24 zoom instead which isstill a bit soft but quite a lot better than the 10-22..

I'm not even going into the full-frame lenses, since in the context of the OP's thread, we're talking about a general foray into digital SLR and looking at sub-$100 bodies, not someone who is in the market for $2800 bodies..

Have you ever used a Sigma 10-20? I use it, and it matches and even exceeds the 10-22 I used to have in certain areas. I use it at the wide-open f4 all the time. The Canon 10-22 is well regarded as one of the best ultrawides around. Still, none of this addresses the point that Olympus has NO alternatives to any of these lenses..

Ok you never heard of the 11-22mm, for 22mm EFL thats UWA and one ofthe best UWA lenses around, in the bag at $670. A 12-60mm is inboundfor September release. The 7-14 is probably the ultimate UWA in ANYsystem.

The 11-22 is a 22mm equivalent. This is not anywhere close to Canon's 16mm or everyone else's 15mm. A 12-60 is still a 24-120mm, not ultra wide. Yes there is a 7-14 which sounds fantastic, and it damn well better be for $1500. I could almost buy a Sigma 10-20 for all four of the other systems for this price..

Olympus 14-35/2.0 coming, 14-50/2.8-3.5 Leica D, Olympus14-54/2.8-3.5, 18-50/2.8 Sigma.

The Olympus 14-35 has been "coming" since early 2005. It still has not come yet.http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp.

The 14-50 Leica is still 3.5 on the long end, which translates to f7.1 in equivalent terms. And it costs $1000 because of IS, which is a far cry from the quality you can get from the sub-$500 17-50 f2.8 lenses for all the other systems..

You are right on the Sigma 18-50, I missed that one..

Olympus ZD ............................8/3.5: Fisheye lens, $670Sigma EX DG .........................24/1.8: Macro, $340Leica D Summilux ...................25/1.4: $800, not even released yetSigma EX DC HSM ..................30/1.4: $430Olympus ZD macro .................35/3.5: Macro, $200Olympus ZD macro .................50/2: Macro, $425Sigma EX DG Macro ..............105/2.8: Macro, $400Olympus ZD .........................150/2.0: $2200Sigma EX DG HSM APO Macro 150/2.8: Macro, $600Olympus ZD .........................300/2.8: $5700.

Here is Olympus' range of primes. A whopping 10 of them, FIVE of which are macros (as I noted before, focusing is slower to be more precise). Out of the remaining five, THREE of those are actually under $2000. Out of those three, 1 is a specialty fisheye lens, and on top of this is f3.5, which corresponds to an f-stop of f7.1 - not even close to a large aperture prime lens. Out of the remaining two, one of those lenses has not even been released yet..

So at the end of this list, there is a SINGLE large aperture prime lens for the 4/3 mount - the Sigma 30 f1.4. I like the Sigma 30, although it has a few quality issues, but that's besides the point. If a photographer were to go with a 4/3 mount, there would be a SINGLE large aperture prime lens available, corresponding to a 60mm equivalent focal length..

Now I'm going to give you the list for Canon, under the same criteria that I put the Olympus lens under:.

Less than $2000Not a fisheyeNot a macroReleased lenses (I can log onto B&H and buy these right now).

Canon 50mm f1.8, $80Canon 28mm f2.8, $170Canon 35mm f2, $230Canon 135mm f2.8, $280Canon 24mm f2.8, $290Canon 50mm f1.4, $310Canon 85mm f1.8, $340Canon 100mm f2, $390Canon 28mm f1.8, $400Sigma 20mm f1.8, $409Canon 20mm f2.8, $420Sigma 30mm f1.4, $430Canon 200mm f2.8L, $660Canon 135mm f2L, $900Tamron 14mm f2.8, $1100Canon 400mm f5.6L, $1100Canon 35mm f1.4L, $1120Canon 24mm f1.4L, $1120Canon 300mm f4L IS, $1150Canon 50mm f1.2, $1360Canon 85mm f1.2L, $1790Canon 14mm f2.8L, $1800.

That's 22 lenses to Olympus' 1. And this doesn't even count the plethora of f2.8 zoom lenses that have equal large aperture ability. Since we were initially discussing Pentax and Olympus here, let's take a look at Pentax..

Pentax 50mm f1.4, $200Pentax 40mm f2.8, $270Pentax 35mm f2, $300Sigma 20mm f1.8, $410Sigma 30mm f1.4, $430Pentax 85mm f2.8, $440Pentax 21mm f3.2, $440Pentax 70mm f2.4, $470Pentax 43mm f1.9, $470Pentax 70mm f2.4, $480Pentax 14mm f2.8, $615Pentax 77mm f1.8, $680Pentax 31mm f1.8, $870Sigma 14mm f2.8, $900Tamron 14mm f2.8, $1100.

That's 15 lenses to Canon's 22 and Olympus' 1. I could go on and list all of Nikon's offerings and all of Sony/KM's offerings, but you get the idea..

4/3 is perhaps the only camera system that is woefully lacking in lens options. You can take a Nikon D40 argument and say "but all you need is a kit lens!", which would be semi-acceptable, but for people who are seriously interested in learning photography, large aperture lenses (which still today are exclusively primes) are a HUGE part of photography, and Olympus simply doesn't offer much in this area...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Have you ever used a Sigma 10-20? I use it, and it matches and evenexceeds the 10-22 I used to have in certain areas. I use it at thewide-open f4 all the time..

Its a full stop slower, it vignets prominently, has pronounced distortions,.

The Canon 10-22 is well regarded as oneof the best ultrawides around..

By who ... you?.

Its slower, yet it STILL needs to be stopped down for good results, it vignets has not inconsiderable CA with soft edges and might well be outresolved by a 10Mp sensor.

Still, none of this addresses thepoint that Olympus has NO alternatives to any of these lenses..

In these cases that appears to be a good thing.

The 11-22 is a 22mm equivalent. This is not anywhere close toCanon's 16mm or everyone else's 15mm. A 12-60 is still a 24-120mm,not ultra wide. Yes there is a 7-14 which sounds fantastic, and itdamn well better be for $1500. I could almost buy a Sigma 10-20 forall four of the other systems for this price..

That 16mm is pretty widely trashed elsewhere, and is in no way a comparison for 7-14, glue it to a 1.62x APS C and nor is it as wide by a long long wayso your UWA alternatives are what?you dont have any?.

The Olympus 14-35 has been "coming" since early 2005. It still hasnot come yet.http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp.

Its slotted on the lens roadmap for 2008along with a budget 8-16 zoom.

The 14-50 Leica is still 3.5 on the long end, which translates tof7.1 in equivalent terms. And it costs $1000 because of IS, which isa far cry from the quality you can get from the sub-$500 17-50 f2.8lenses for all the other systems..

It translates to WHAT?how on earth does a 3.5 zoom suddenly become F7.1?and equivalent to what ? .

We use the F stop system because it is universally adaptive, F2 on 4/3rds is still F2 on MF.

You are right on the Sigma 18-50, I missed that one..

Olympus ZD ............................8/3.5: Fisheye lens, $670Sigma EX DG .........................24/1.8: Macro, $340Leica D Summilux ...................25/1.4: $800, not even released yetSigma EX DC HSM ..................30/1.4: $430Olympus ZD macro .................35/3.5: Macro, $200Olympus ZD macro .................50/2: Macro, $425Sigma EX DG Macro ..............105/2.8: Macro, $400Olympus ZD .........................150/2.0: $2200Sigma EX DG HSM APO Macro 150/2.8: Macro, $600Olympus ZD .........................300/2.8: $5700.

Here is Olympus' range of primes. A whopping 10 of them, FIVE ofwhich are macros.

And ? .

(as I noted before, focusing is slower to be moreprecise). Out of the remaining five, THREE of those are actuallyunder $2000. Out of those three, 1 is a specialty fisheye lens, andon top of this is f3.5, which corresponds to an f-stop of f7.1.

Which is rubbish.

- noteven close to a large aperture prime lens. Out of the remaining two,one of those lenses has not even been released yet..

The 25/1.4 is released. B&H in NY do sometimes have it in stock - but only one or two and they go like greased lightning. You just have to monitor constantly. You can backorder from Panasonic agents. Also coming from Leica D is a 45/2http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/...cda/parts/image_for_link/56449-4049-2-1.html.

Being macro is just added versatility via short focussing, I cant see why this discounts them from use other than to be obnoxious.

So at the end of this list, there is a SINGLE large aperture primelens for the 4/3 mount - the Sigma 30 f1.4. I like the Sigma 30,although it has a few quality issues, but that's besides the point.If a photographer were to go with a 4/3 mount, there would be aSINGLE large aperture prime lens available, corresponding to a 60mmequivalent focal length..

Well your math that turns 10 lenses into 1 is very very questionable behaviour.

Now I'm going to give you the list for Canon, under the same criteriathat I put the Olympus lens under:.

Let me guess how many are legacy junk...half ? .

Less than $2000Not a fisheyeNot a macroReleased lenses (I can log onto B&H and buy these right now).

That's 22 lenses to Olympus' 1. And this doesn't even count theplethora of f2.8 zoom lenses that have equal large aperture ability.Since we were initially discussing Pentax and Olympus here, let'stake a look at Pentax..

That's 15 lenses to Canon's 22 and Olympus' 1. I could go on andlist all of Nikon's offerings and all of Sony/KM's offerings, but youget the idea..

Just wondering how big translates to quality.

Surely many lenses are good and very good, but many of them are not worth the time or money, this is the bane of legacy systems, they just do not work as well as digital lenses for digital systems, that is why all makers are moving toward digital designs with digital coatings..

4/3rds needs more glass, perhaps in particular primes, but where the zooms exceed the quality of most legacy primes by a good way, not to mention many of the zooms especially in UWA. Its a workable system the way it is without the math gymnastics you create in your mind, and there are more lenses coming probably at a faster rate than other systems. There are rumours too that Tamron are coming aboard..

Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The Canon 10-22 is well regarded as oneof the best ultrawides around..

By who ... you?.

Well, seeing as I have actually OWNED AND USED both lenses, I would say my credentials for assessing the quality of both is better than yours..

Its slower, yet it STILL needs to be stopped down for good results,it vignets has not inconsiderable CA with soft edges and might wellbe outresolved by a 10Mp sensor.

Still, none of this addresses thepoint that Olympus has NO alternatives to any of these lenses..

In these cases that appears to be a good thing.

I am a prospective buyer in the SLR market. I would like to shoot at the ultrawide end, in the 15-16mm 35mm equivalent range. My budget for a camera and body is about $1500. What can I do with the Olympus system. NOTHING..

Well your math that turns 10 lenses into 1 is very very questionablebehaviour.

Look, when you're quoting $2000 and $5000 lenses to bolster your argument that Olympus has a good lens system for learning photographers, you're going to get called out on that..

Now I'm going to give you the list for Canon, under the same criteriathat I put the Olympus lens under:.

Let me guess how many are legacy junk...half ? .

Gee, wonder if you even bothered to look at any of the lenses. Since Canon is on their EF system, there's really no such thing as "legacy glass". Can you name a single one on my list that is?..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Well, seeing as I have actually OWNED AND USED both lenses, I wouldsay my credentials for assessing the quality of both is better thanyours..

Ok enough, Im making http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html the adjudicator in UWA lenses you nominated******************************************************.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

Vignetting.

The EF-S 10-22mm is a native APS-C lens with a reduced image circle so it is not surprising that vignetting is a more pronounced than with full frame lenses. Wide-open vignetting is at about 1.2EV throughout the range but at f/5.6 the problem is already reduced to very acceptable levels..

Distortions.

The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite impressive performance here and that's not only for an ultra-wide zoom but also in absolute terms - at 10mm there're slight barrel distortions which even out at about 14mm. At 22mm there're marginal pincushion distortions..

Vignetting.

The EF-S 10-22mm is a native APS-C lens with a reduced image circle so it is not surprising that vignetting is a more pronounced than with full frame lenses. Wide-open vignetting is at about 1.2EV throughout the range but at f/5.6 the problem is already reduced to very acceptable levels..

MTF (resolution).

The lens produced a very good performance in the lab. The center resolution scratches, maybe even exceeds the limits of the 8MP sensor of the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT). The borders and even the extreme borders are generally good except at 22mm where they're a little soft at wide-open aperture. Stopping down does marginally improve the performance at 10mm and 14mm but at 22mm the border quality can be lifted good levels at f/5.6 and even very good levels at f/8. Diffraction effects reduce the performance from f/8 onwards. All-in-all very impressive results here..

Chromatic Aberrations (CAs).

The EF-S 10-22mm produced another surprise regarding chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) - for an ultra-wide lens they can be considered as quite low. In absolute terms CAs can be noticeable at 10mm and 14mm where they exceed an average pixel width of 1 pixel at the borders. This is still very respectable here. CAs can be corrected via imaging tools..

Verdict.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM delivered a very sound performance with a combination of very decent build quality and very good if not impressive optical results. If anything vignetting at wide-open aperture could be better. The center performance is excellent throughout the range with generally good borders. The level of distortions is surprisingly low and CAs are quite well controlled..

Naturally it makes sense to compare the lens to a serious competitor like the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX. All in all the resolution figures are very similar. The Canon has less CAs and a better contra light performance whereas the Tokina shows less vignetting. The build quality of the Tokina is also a little better (the Canon is good enough though) and finally the Tokina is substantially cheaper (420 EUR vs 670 EUR locally)..

***************************************************continued belowRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM EX DCDistortions.

The Sigma AF 10-20mm DC showed a rather unusual distortion characteristic. At 10mm most of the image field is almost free of distortions so the measured distortions figures look fairly fine here (taken a little inward from the borders). However, this is only part of the truth. If you check the 10mm distortion chart below you will notice that the outer image portion is actually heavily (barrel-)distorted - probably in the 2-3% range..

At 14mm the lens shows a rather strong degree of pincushion distortions, less so at 20mm..

Vignetting.

Typical for many ultra-wide zooms the Sigma also suffers from vignetting problems which are most pronounced at 10mm @ f/4 where the vignetting exceeds 1.3EV. At 14mm @ f/4.5 vignetting is also fairly heavy, a little less so at 20mm. One stop down from the max. aperture helps to reduce the problem to an acceptable degree..

MTF (resolution).

The lens produced a good to very-good performance in the lab. Surprisingly this also includes the 10mm setting where you would usually expect the worst performance. Generally the center performance is exceptionally high at all focal lengths and aperture settings. At 10mm the borders and even the extreme borders are already pretty good at wide-open aperture and did even manage to wander well into very-good territories at medium aperture settings. At 14mm and 20mm the border quality is slightly worse but still good to very-good..

It is worth to mention that we tested two samples of this lens. One had a slight centering problem at 10mm which also resulted in slightly worse MTF figures here..

Chromatic Aberrations (CAs).

Chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are moderate for an ultra-wide zoom lens. At 10mm the average CA pixel width at the borders exceeds 1.5 pixels which isn't good in absolute terms but still acceptable relative to similar other lenses. At 14mm and 20mm CAs are only a minor issue..

Verdict.

The Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM DC is a worthy alternative in the ultra-wide arena for APS-C DSLRs. At 10mm it showed some of the highest resolution figures that we've seen so far here whereas at 14mm and 20mm the results are slightly worse than the rest of the gang but still pretty good..

On the down-side the lens shows fairly heavy vignetting at large aperture settings. At 10mm there're some quite pronounced barrel distortions at the extreme corners (far less in the inner image field) whereas at 14mm pincushion distortions can be quite obvious..

It's a joy to use this lens with it's excellent build quality, smooth controls and fast AF on top..

The alternatives in this zoom range perform quite similar so you've to consider your priorities. The Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM DC is surely worth a deeper look here.Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Olympus Digital Zuiko 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5.

Distortions.

The lens shows a relatively minor though visible degree of barrel distortions at the extreme wide end. You may notice this at straight lines. At 14mm there're only marginal barrel distortions and at 22mm the problem disappears altogether. All-in-all a very good performance for an ultra-wide zoom here..

Vignetting.

Vignetting is very well controlled with this lens. At 11mm @ f/2.8 it may be visible in very critical situations but at ~0.5EV it isn't really something to complain about. At all other focal lengths and aperture settings the problem is basically negligible..

MTF (resolution & chromatic aberrations).

The lens performed excellent in the lab. In terms of resolution it's quite safe to state that the lens exceeds the sensor resolution of the E-300 (8 mega pixels) at least at the 11mm setting. More than that the lens is already perfectly usable at 11mm with no significant drop in edge performance. The curve indicates that the lens is basically diffraction limited which exceptional for any lens and more so for an ultra-wide zoom. At 22mm the resolution is marginally worse but still very good..

Verdict.

The Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 offers an very good build quality, handling and AF speed combined with a generally excellent optical performance. The resolution figures are exceptional for an ultra-wide lens. On the down-side the lens exhibits visible chromatic aberrations at the borders (can be corrected). The level of distortions is very low for a lens of this class and vignetting is no real issue to worry about. At about 750EUR/700US$ the lens isn't cheap but worth every penny. Highly recommended!.

*****************************************.

Now if I'm not mistaken, the lens they find good enough to highly recommend is the 11-22. So despite your assertions, and those of myself who works in UWA everyday for a living it pretty well tops out both of your options unless they are significantly stopped down, and even at that they have considerable issues. The 11-22 is a better lens in every way, and the 7-14 is far far superior to the 11-22, so it's 'your reputation' where you say.

Well, seeing as I have actually OWNED AND USED both lenses, I wouldsay my credentials for assessing the quality of both is better thanyours..

That in comparison to the reputation of photozone.de is without credit, and as you go on to say.

I am a prospective buyer in the SLR market. I would like to shoot atthe ultrawide end, in the 15-16mm 35mm equivalent range. My budgetfor a camera and body is about $1500. What can I do with the Olympussystem. NOTHING..

You have no hope of recovering your position in any meaningful way.

__ __Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Rriley wrote:.

I am a prospective buyer in the SLR market. I would like to shoot atthe ultrawide end, in the 15-16mm 35mm equivalent range. My budgetfor a camera and body is about $1500. What can I do with the Olympussystem. NOTHING..

You have no hope of recovering your position in any meaningful way.

You keep sidestepping the issue. I have never ever said that Olympus made bad lenses. My only point, which you seem to have jumped on as a "I need to defend the Olympus system!" is that Olympus lacks lens options in certain areas..

The Olympus 11-22 is only 22mm equivalent. This is not the same ultra-wide as a 15 or 16mm. Where is the option for a 15 or 16mm equivalent?..

Http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/page6.shtml.

Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm verdict.

The Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm is without a doubt an extremely impressive lens. Not only does it offer noticeably wider coverage than any other ultra-wide zoom on the market, it also features highly-corrected optics..

As our results pages show, the 7-14mm exhibits virtually no geometric distortion, impressively low vignetting considering it's extreme coverage, and is sharp in the corners throughout it's focal range. It's also very well-built and designed to stand-up to professional use. There's admittedly some coloured fringing in the extreme corners at wide angle, but otherwise no other technical aspect we can fault it on..

Indeed, rather than just describing it as the only ultra-wide option for Four Thirds owners, we'd go as far as to say it's a compelling reason to buy a Four Thirds body in the first place. Certainly if you're a well-healed ultra-wide fanatic looking to invest in a new DSLR system, it should sway your decision towards Four Thirds. We particularly enjoyed testing the ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm and, reservations about price noted, can highly recommend it..

"we'd go as far as to say it's a compelling reason to buy a Four Thirds body in the first place" ...thats it from me ..Riley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

...1 is a specialty fisheye lens, andon top of this is f3.5, which corresponds to an f-stop of f7.1 - noteven close to a large aperture prime lens..

Hmmm... Care to explain WHY you used the crop factor to reduce the effective aperture?.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Could anyone put that in lamens terms for me? ..

Just get the 510 and you will be happy. No need to look any further.Bruce DodsonAireTex Compressors..

Chuxter wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

...1 is a specialty fisheye lens, andon top of this is f3.5, which corresponds to an f-stop of f7.1 - noteven close to a large aperture prime lens..

Hmmm... Care to explain WHY you used the crop factor to reduce theeffective aperture?.

I'm putting everything in 35mm terms, as it's the only way to easily compare cameras from different sensor formfactors. If you were asked to compare an SLR with a 1/2.5" sensor consumer camera, how would you explain and compare the difference between a f2.8 lens on the SLR and the f2.8 lens on the consumer camera, especially when talking about light-capturing ability and depth of field?..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

...1 is a specialty fisheye lens, andon top of this is f3.5, which corresponds to an f-stop of f7.1 - noteven close to a large aperture prime lens..

Hmmm... Care to explain WHY you used the crop factor to reduce theeffective aperture?.

I'm putting everything in 35mm terms, as it's the only way to easilycompare cameras from different sensor formfactors. If you were askedto compare an SLR with a 1/2.5" sensor consumer camera, how would youexplain and compare the difference between a f2.8 lens on the SLR andthe f2.8 lens on the consumer camera, especially when talking aboutlight-capturing ability and depth of field?.

I'd start by explaining that a camera with a small sensor requires a corresponding small lens. I'd explain that specifically it requires a FL that matches the format. I'd explain that a shorter FL lens has increased DOF. That's all..

A short FL lens does NOT have reduced light-capturing ability, so your "f:3.5 corresponds to f:7.1" is incorrect in at least 2 ways. Statements like that confuse beginners and experts alike..

I have a WWII vintage Kodak Medalist II camera. It has a Kodak Ektar 100mm f:3.5 lens. This icamera takes a 2.25" x 3.25" image, commonly called 6 x 9, the exact metric size is 5.715 cm by 8.255 cm. I also have a Bealieu Super-8 movie camera, with an Angenieux zoom lens. This lens has a zoom range of 8 to 64 mm and a maximun aperture of f:1.9. The Super-8 frame is 0.166" x 0.245"..

Using the Medalist as the reference (similar to using FF 35mm as a reference), the "crop factor" for the Beaulieu is 13.4. If I multiply the aperture of the Angenieux lens by the "crop factor", I get f:25. I think you can understand that to claim that the Angenieux lens "corresponds" to a lens with a max aperture of f:25 would not be helpful or accurate!.

In fact, the traditional descriptions of lenses, using FL and aperture are still valid. We have had different film formats since the dawn of photography. For some reason, we were never confused about the differences between different formats until recently. We didn't need a "crop factor". It wasn't confusing to beginners that an f:2.0 lens was an f:2.0 lens regardless of how big or small the film was. They didn't have problems understanding that a camera with a short FL lens had a big DOF and a camera with a long FL lens had a small DOF..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Of all the things I worried about...the dust on the sensor tops my list. although I change lenses rarely (18-55mm/3.5-5.6 and 50mm/1.4 are only my lenses) I already experience it and cleaning the sensor may not be that hard but it's a pain in the a$$ when you get dirty sensor..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Honestly, I wouldn't regard dust as that big of an issue. I have a20D (which has no dust-buster), and have rarely ever needed to cleanthe sensor. And the couple of times over the past year that Iactually did, I just popped open the shutter, took a blower andpuffed a few bursts of air at it. No more dust..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.exp1orer.com..

Chuxter wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

...1 is a specialty fisheye lens, andon top of this is f3.5, which corresponds to an f-stop of f7.1 - noteven close to a large aperture prime lens..

Hmmm... Care to explain WHY you used the crop factor to reduce theeffective aperture?.

I'm putting everything in 35mm terms, as it's the only way to easilycompare cameras from different sensor formfactors. If you were askedto compare an SLR with a 1/2.5" sensor consumer camera, how would youexplain and compare the difference between a f2.8 lens on the SLR andthe f2.8 lens on the consumer camera, especially when talking aboutlight-capturing ability and depth of field?.

I'd start by explaining that a camera with a small sensor requires acorresponding small lens. I'd explain that specifically it requires aFL that matches the format. I'd explain that a shorter FL lens hasincreased DOF. That's all..

A short FL lens does NOT have reduced light-capturing ability, soyour "f:3.5 corresponds to f:7.1" is incorrect in at least 2 ways.Statements like that confuse beginners and experts alike..

I never said the shorter focal length reduces the light capturing ability. Rather, due to the 4/3 sensor, the overall camera system is less sensitive to light at that given focal length. The following two photos, for example, would theoretically yield the exact same image, yielding same blur due to shutter speed, yielding same depth of field, yielding same field of view, and most importantly yielding the same signal to noise ratio (i.e. amount of light captured per pixel).

4/3:50mm, 1/100s, f3.5, ISO100.

35mm:100mm, 1/100s, f7.1, ISO400.

Meaning that, if I wanted to max out the f3.5 aperture on my lens, for 4/3 I would get a 1/100s shutter speed. To maintain the same signal to noise ratio, on 35mm all I would need is a f7.1 max aperture to attain the same shutter speed. Thus f3.5 for 4/3 and f7.1 for 35mm are equivalent in these terms..

Another way to think of it is that, a f3.5 on 35mm would give me a 1/400s shutter speed, so you can readily see the greater "light capturing ability" of f3.5 on 35mm vs. f3.5 on 4/3 or APS-C or whichever system..

Using the Medalist as the reference (similar to using FF 35mm as areference), the "crop factor" for the Beaulieu is 13.4. If I multiplythe aperture of the Angenieux lens by the "crop factor", I get f:25.I think you can understand that to claim that the Angenieux lens"corresponds" to a lens with a max aperture of f:25 would not behelpful or accurate!.

If you were to regard the Angenieux as a 6x9 format camera, then yes, that lens you put on it would correspond to a f:25 lens..

Think of it this way - what if I mounted a 4/3 lens onto a 35mm body? What would happen? Well, due to the smaller imaging circle, I'd have to crop out the middle portion since the corners would be all black (giving me 2x focal length). This would also extend my depth of field by 2 stops. Secondly, say I were to maintain the same composition as with a regular lens, i.e. I'd shoot from farther away with the crop lens. I get the exact same subject with both the 35mm and crop lens, yet with the 35mm lens I am getting light information from my entire sensor, while with the 4/3 lens I would only get the light information from the 25% center of the sensor, meaning 4x less light information, or 2 stops of light..

In fact, the traditional descriptions of lenses, using FL andaperture are still valid. We have had different film formats sincethe dawn of photography. For some reason, we were never confusedabout the differences between different formats until recently. Wedidn't need a "crop factor". It wasn't confusing to beginners that anf:2.0 lens was an f:2.0 lens regardless of how big or small the filmwas. They didn't have problems understanding that a camera with ashort FL lens had a big DOF and a camera with a long FL lens had asmall DOF..

That's very true. I'm not denying that "f3.5" is a 100% accurate description of any crop lenses. It's just that for the purpose of COMPARISON across systems, which we didn't do back then as much as we do now with APS-C, 4/3, APS-H, and 35mm, the only way to easily compare different systems is to standardize them to one equivalent (in most cases the 35mm equivalent)...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

I never said the shorter focal length reduces the light capturingability. Rather, due to the 4/3 sensor, the overall camera system isless sensitive to light at that given focal length. The followingtwo photos, for example, would theoretically yield the exact sameimage, yielding same blur due to shutter speed, yielding same depthof field, yielding same field of view, and most importantly yieldingthe same signal to noise ratio (i.e. amount of light captured perpixel).

4/3:50mm, 1/100s, f3.5, ISO100.

35mm:100mm, 1/100s, f7.1, ISO400.

I can't agree with that assertion, because it isn't true..

Meaning that, if I wanted to max out the f3.5 aperture on my lens,for 4/3 I would get a 1/100s shutter speed. To maintain the samesignal to noise ratio, on 35mm all I would need is a f7.1 maxaperture to attain the same shutter speed. Thus f3.5 for 4/3 andf7.1 for 35mm are equivalent in these terms..

Blather....

Another way to think of it is that, a f3.5 on 35mm would give me a1/400s shutter speed, so you can readily see the greater "lightcapturing ability" of f3.5 on 35mm vs. f3.5 on 4/3 or APS-C orwhichever system..

Sorry, I don't see it..

Using the Medalist as the reference (similar to using FF 35mm as areference), the "crop factor" for the Beaulieu is 13.4. If I multiplythe aperture of the Angenieux lens by the "crop factor", I get f:25.I think you can understand that to claim that the Angenieux lens"corresponds" to a lens with a max aperture of f:25 would not behelpful or accurate!.

If you were to regard the Angenieux as a 6x9 format camera, then yes,that lens you put on it would correspond to a f:25 lens..

Huh?.

Think of it this way - what if I mounted a 4/3 lens onto a 35mm body?What would happen? Well, due to the smaller imaging circle, I'd haveto crop out the middle portion since the corners would be all black(giving me 2x focal length)..

Th imaging circle has NOTHING to do with the light gathering ability or DOF of a lens. If you took a 20mm 4/3 lens and a 20mm FF 35mm lens and put them on that 35mm body, the central part of the images should be identical..

This would also extend my depth offield by 2 stops..

No, it would not..

Secondly, say I were to maintain the samecomposition as with a regular lens, i.e. I'd shoot from farther awaywith the crop lens. I get the exact same subject with both the 35mmand crop lens, yet with the 35mm lens I am getting light informationfrom my entire sensor, while with the 4/3 lens I would only get thelight information from the 25% center of the sensor, meaning 4x lesslight information, or 2 stops of light..

I think that's true, but not germaine..

In fact, the traditional descriptions of lenses, using FL andaperture are still valid. We have had different film formats sincethe dawn of photography. For some reason, we were never confusedabout the differences between different formats until recently. Wedidn't need a "crop factor". It wasn't confusing to beginners that anf:2.0 lens was an f:2.0 lens regardless of how big or small the filmwas. They didn't have problems understanding that a camera with ashort FL lens had a big DOF and a camera with a long FL lens had asmall DOF..

That's very true. I'm not denying that "f3.5" is a 100% accuratedescription of any crop lenses. It's just that for the purpose ofCOMPARISON across systems, which we didn't do back then as much as wedo now with APS-C, 4/3, APS-H, and 35mm, the only way to easilycompare different systems is to standardize them to one equivalent(in most cases the 35mm equivalent)..

No. In fact our current passion to compare everything to FF 35mm is silly. It actually means nothing. My R1 has a 14.3mm to 71.5mm lens. It's written right on the lens! Sony marketing can CLAIM that it's a 24mm to 120mm lens all they want and it doesn't change that fact..

Your claim that 35mm is THE standard format for all lenses is silly too. Why not choose something bigger? Why can't a FF 35mm camera have a "crop factor"?.

Your system only works if the lens is attached to a camera. If I pull out a strange lens from my junk box and give it to you, how can you describe the lens? You would need to know the size of the film/sensor before you could describe the lens technically!.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Chuxter wrote:.

Nathan Yan wrote:.

I never said the shorter focal length reduces the light capturingability. Rather, due to the 4/3 sensor, the overall camera system isless sensitive to light at that given focal length. The followingtwo photos, for example, would theoretically yield the exact sameimage, yielding same blur due to shutter speed, yielding same depthof field, yielding same field of view, and most importantly yieldingthe same signal to noise ratio (i.e. amount of light captured perpixel).

4/3:50mm, 1/100s, f3.5, ISO100.

35mm:100mm, 1/100s, f7.1, ISO400.

I can't agree with that assertion, because it isn't true..

Meaning that, if I wanted to max out the f3.5 aperture on my lens,for 4/3 I would get a 1/100s shutter speed. To maintain the samesignal to noise ratio, on 35mm all I would need is a f7.1 maxaperture to attain the same shutter speed. Thus f3.5 for 4/3 andf7.1 for 35mm are equivalent in these terms..

Blather....

Another way to think of it is that, a f3.5 on 35mm would give me a1/400s shutter speed, so you can readily see the greater "lightcapturing ability" of f3.5 on 35mm vs. f3.5 on 4/3 or APS-C orwhichever system..

Sorry, I don't see it..

One word dismissals with no counterargument or evidence don't prove anything. Go back to my initial comparison:.

4/3:50mm, 1/100s, f3.5, ISO100.

35mm:100mm, 1/100s, f7.1, ISO400.

What isn't true about this? They WILL yield the EXACT same image. Depth of field is the same, field of view is the same, signal to noise ratio is the same. What about these images will be different?.

No. In fact our current passion to compare everything to FF 35mm issilly. It actually means nothing. My R1 has a 14.3mm to 71.5mm lens.It's written right on the lens! Sony marketing can CLAIM that it's a24mm to 120mm lens all they want and it doesn't change that fact..

Your claim that 35mm is THE standard format for all lenses is sillytoo. Why not choose something bigger? Why can't a FF 35mm camera havea "crop factor"?.

Your system only works if the lens is attached to a camera. If I pullout a strange lens from my junk box and give it to you, how can youdescribe the lens? You would need to know the size of the film/sensorbefore you could describe the lens technically!.

I'm trying to COMPARE lenses between systems, goodness, not trying to say your lens isn't really f3.5 or your focal length isn't really 50mm. 35mm is a standard just out of sheer familiarity - we could use 4/3, APS-C, 6x9, ANYTHING, but most people are familiar with 35mm. I can repeat all of my posts equating things to large format cameras if you would like...

Right..

A choice got all of a sudden much more easy..

Back to the shop(s)... tried all 3 again....

K100d least comfortable (bottom corner).

K10d and e510 remain... K10d lovely camera, best built of all of em, but really heavy and fairly large..

Down to those two... but Mr Pentax decided for me... the availability of Pentax cameras and lenses in Holland is abysmal. "It should be back to acceptable levels at the end of this year".

I went to 3 shops, 1 didn't have it, 2 had only 1 piece... with the next one arriving at unknown time... and I am living in the third largest city of Holland (still small by basically any other country's standard, but still)..

So would I choose for Pentax and something would be wrong (not unlikely), I would have no camera for our upcoming honeymoon..

Shame, because the k10d seems a great camera, but Pentax dropped the ball on this one (surprised by their own success is always poor management)...

In your case a very smart choice..

Especially when you don't have a clear preference for one, go for the one which you can buy at a reputable shop or which availability of accessories/lenses is better.anyway, the e510 should be a great camera, so this is not a loss for you..

Idream wrote:.

Right..

A choice got all of a sudden much more easy..

Back to the shop(s)... tried all 3 again....

K100d least comfortable (bottom corner)K10d and e510 remain... K10d lovely camera, best built of all of em,but really heavy and fairly large..

Down to those two... but Mr Pentax decided for me... the availabilityof Pentax cameras and lenses in Holland is abysmal. "It should beback to acceptable levels at the end of this year"I went to 3 shops, 1 didn't have it, 2 had only 1 piece... with thenext one arriving at unknown time... and I am living in the thirdlargest city of Holland (still small by basically any other country'sstandard, but still)..

So would I choose for Pentax and something would be wrong (notunlikely), I would have no camera for our upcoming honeymoon.Shame, because the k10d seems a great camera, but Pentax dropped theball on this one (surprised by their own success is always poormanagement)...

Didn't Pentax open a new factory in vietnam recently?..

Yeah, but nam is nothing like holland man trust meRiley.

I like to think the bs can never be higher than the ah..