Leeak wrote:.

These are the cameras I am considering, Pentax K100, Sony A100, Canon350d. No Oly because of the smaller sensor and no Nikon because D40need motorized lens and D80 is too expensive..

Reconsider the Nikon D40. There are over 40 lenses that will autofocus with it, from both Nikon and Sigma. It really isn't a big deal unless you already have some lenses...

Exactly. If you're buying a D40 and planning on only using inexpensive consumer-level lenses, you don't have to worry...there are plenty of lenses that will do exactly what you need them to do...

Leeak wrote:.

So the question to end all debate is:which system would give me the best bang for the buck in the existingnew and used marketplace?.

K100D.

Unfortunately, this will not end all debate. .

Please advise. = ).

Buy now...shoot later..

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

K100D is my choice, but the best thing to do is go and try them (and the D40) and find the one that you find the easiest to use!.

I love my K100D but you might notLook through the viewfinder, hold the camera, adjust the controls, take some shots...then make your choice. None of the cameras /systems mentioned are bad!..

The Sony will take any Maxxum (a.k.a., Dynax, Alpha, Minolta A mount, Minolta Autofocus Mount) lens, and the used market is full of them..

Minolta manufactured some 16 million Autofocus lenses that the Sony can use (and that doesn't count lenses from third party manufacturers like Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.)..

Here are some examples of lenses you could use with the Sony Alpha (and these are incomplete lists):.

Prime (fixed focal length) Lenses:http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=1.

Macro Lenses:http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=2.

Zoom Lenses:http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=3.

I got most of the lenses I use on the used market at bargain prices (I'm using a KM Maxxum 5D, and the Sony Alpha was based mostly on the Maxxum 5D), and they are all Autofocus lenses..

Thanks to the body based anti-shake system, all of them are stabilized, too (including bright primes, macro lenses, zooms). .

As for lens quality of older lenses, I've been happy with mine. See my profile for the lenses I use. My lowest quality lens is probably the Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4 Series I APO (and it's an Autofocus lens). But, then again, I only paid $79.95 for it (brand new in the box with warranty). lol.

If it weren't for some loss of contrast in harsh outdoor lighting, I'd probably use it more than I do. For things like low light concerts, it's fine (and a steal for what I paid for it). lol But, my Tamron and Minolta lenses appear to have much better coatings and flare resistance..

My guess is that the Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 is probably my most frequently used lens. I like it's focal range and it's not as heavy as a lens that has f/2.8 available throughout the range, and it's a relatively sharp lens for a zoom (so, it's my normal "walk around")..

You can find MTF charts on a lot of older lenses at http://old.photodo.com.

Keep in mind that the entire image circle isn't used on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor with most, so center sharpness is more important (since you're using the "sweet spot" of a lens designed for 35mm cameras on a DSLR like this)..

Here are some Minolta Lenses:.

Http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html.

Of course, MTF charts never tell the entire story. So, I'd make sure to get some user opinions for lenses you consider (and that would go for any camera/lens combination)..

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

Well you did ask for advice and I would say look at how many are lenses designed for digital. That is were the future lies..

And I would also suggest that Olympus are full frame without a crop factor and not - as some seem to have persuaded you - a small CDD. It's big enough for a lot of pro's to use and four times the size of the CCD on both my Leica Digilux 2 and Olympus SLR. And I get 32" x 24" pictures from them..

Lastly, we are talking digital and SLR's so abandon all hope of sticking to your budget....

Regards, David..

Here are the only three steps you need to pick out your DSLR:.

1. Pick your budget.2.Try out all those cameras that fall in your budget at the store.3. Buy the one you like the most..

Relying on other people's opinions will simply lead to disappointment. Go out and try the cameras that are in your budget and buy the one you like the most. You're more likely to enjoy shooting with it, less likely to second guess your purchase, and you'll be purchasing something based on personal experience and not conjecture...

David Hughes wrote:.

And I would also suggest that Olympus,,,.

[snip].

Lastly, we are talking digital and SLR's so abandon all hope ofsticking to your budget....

That's one reason I wouldn't want to buy an Olympus. I'd be too tempted to get something like this Zuiko.  .

Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...EG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html.

I've got lots of choices in Autofocus lenses in the used market with the Minolta AF mount..

Sure, my Tamron SP 35-105mm f/2.8 AF Lens (that I paid $119.95 for from the used dept. at keh.com) may not be the greatest lens around. But, it's fine for when I need something brighter in a zoom (testing much sharper than the newer Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 on MTF charts). I've been especially impressed with it's rich colors and contrast..

Ditto for prices on lenses like my Minolta 50mm f/1.7 AF. I got it in a camera package including a working Maxxum 7000 35mm SLR, a Minolta 1800AF flash, cases and manuals for $49..

I got my Minolta 35-70mm f/4 Macro AF Lens in a similar camera package. I paid $52 for a Maxxum 7000 with this lens from the used department at keh.com (and the camera and lens work just fine)..

I got most of my lenses at bargain basement prices on the used market..

I did "splurge" on my Tamron SP 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5 AF Lens though (I bought it new, paying a whopping $169 for it, and it tests very nicely compared to other wide zooms on MTF charts, only losing a half stop to a zoom with f/2.8 available at it's long end..

My *most* expensive lens was a Minolta 100mm f/2 AF Lens (I bought it from Adorama for $299). It's sweet, especially since it's stabilized with the in body anti-shake. It brightness (and sharpness wide open) comes in very handy for things like photos of my great niece at dance recitals..

With an Oly solution, you've got lenses designed from the ground up for it's 4/3s system..

But, if you want AF, you have to go with those types of lenses (you don't have plenty of lens options in the used market like you do with the Minolta AF mount, if you want Autofocus, and my eyes are not what they used to be for Manual Focus)..

If I had plenty of spare cash, some of the Zuiko lenses would be nice though, especially one like that 35-100mm f/2 (brightest AF zoom you can find). lol.

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

For sure.You have your budget?Now go into the store and pick them up and handle the cameras..

I was dead set on the Canon 400 until I picked it up. Didn't feel right in my hands.I ended up going for the Nikon D40..

And with the money I saved I managed to get some nice accessories like a decent bag, filter, memory card etc...

Leeak wrote:.

I will never spend more that$500 on a new or used lense..

Yeah, Yeah. Come back in a year or two. .

Mmmmmm, 300 F2.8 IS....

Steve..

First off thank you all for your replies. I know I can always get frill-free info here. David mentioned how important it is to look at the lenses designed for digital for the future and I am wondering do older slr lense from Pentax and Minolta work less well for the K100 and A100 respectively? For example, what is the downside of using the legendary Minolta "Beercan" on the A100 comparing to a Sony alpha lense? Thanks again for all your help...

Leeak wrote:.

For example, what is the downside of usingthe legendary Minolta "Beercan" on the A100 comparing to a Sony alphalense?.

You really need to take each lens on a case by case basis, and that goes for new "made for digital" lenses and older lenses like the Beercan..

You'll find coatings differences that impact color, contrast, flare resistance, resolution at various apertures, focus speed differences due to the way a lens is geared and more. For example, a lens designed for macro use is going to have a mechanism geared for finer focus adjustment compared to a lens designed for general purposes and therefore focus slower. Size, weight ergonomics, etc. come into play, too..

The beercan (Minolta 70-210mm f/4 AF Lens) is an extremely well liked lens on a DSLR, and it's available at bargain prices (although a lot more than it was selling for a couple of years ago)..

The only gripe I sometimes hear about the Beercan is that it tends to have a bit more in the way of purple fringing at high contrast edges at wider aperture settings in harsher lighting, and you see a bit of quality differences between some of the older ones, too..

But, you can get the same thing with brand new made for digital lenses, too. There are many factors that can make up image quality and sometimes one thing is weighted by more users compared to another..

There are pros and cons to most of them, and quality varies by specific lens, made for digital or not.   You have to take them on a case by case basis..

Minolta also made a newer 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 that's able to focus a bit faster according to some users (and it's usually less expensive, too). It's also smaller and lighter compared to the beercan if you need something in that focal length..

Take a look at these links I mentioned and you'll see links to user reviews of them in each lens listing..

Prime (fixed focal length) Lenses:http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=1.

Macro Lenses:http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=2.

Zoom Lenses:http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=3..

Pentax does not have nearly the lens line up.

Sony is stil using outdated Minolta technology in the glass. Well over a decade+ old, for the most part. I know, I just switched from Minolta because of it. Was simply tired of not acheiving focus lock..

Canon has best focus, fastest focus and largest selection of lens choices. Nikon is close second.Siony is only player for teh Minolta Faithful, Complete Noobs who know absolutely nothing, and Middleclass USA buyers who have current Sony prodcuts, so the think they "know" the Sony brand and really unfamilar with the other choices available to them OR think Canon\Nikon are for professionals only.Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Jim Cockfield wrote:.

Minolta also made a newer 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5.

N E W E R ? .

The Minolta 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 was introduced in 1988 and Minolta Faithful honestly think of this as "Newer" lens. Sadly, it is one of the newer lens choices! Not a whole lot introduced since then. Sony has announced and shows quite a few in their literature, just try to get yoru hands on one. if you can, you will paying almost 30% more than you can buy in either Nikon or Canon..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Yes, it's a newer design compared to the beercan, but it's certainly not one of their newest..

There are lenses introduced much later, like the 100-300mm APO lens I mentioned in my last post..

Have you used that Minolta 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5? Users seem to like it if you read the reviews (dyxum has 17 user reviews), and I've seen it sell for well under $100..

That's why I mentioned it. There are many better lenses. This one is just what I'd perceive to be a good bargain..

Http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=49.

There are many other lenses and many other newer Minolta lenses (not to mention all of the new third party lenses listed at the previous links I included)..

Here are some of the Minolta zooms, and they have a wide variety of quality (as do lenses for any brand). See the column for date released if you want to see when they were introduced. But, just because a lens was introduced 20 years ago doesn't mean that it can't take great photos..

Http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e#zooms.

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

Jim Cockfield wrote:.

Yes, it's a newer design compared to the beercan, but it's certainlynot one of their newest..

There are lenses introduced much later, like the 100-300mm APO lensI mentioned in my last post..

I said there are a few newer lenses, but for the most part, Minolta stuff is two decades old. How many lenses introduced in the 90's? How many this Century?.

Http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php.

The signle most comprehensive sit eon teh 'net, for Minolta glass. Excepting for Zeiss glass, most of what passes for "current" is nothing more than rebadged Minolta design, no other changes. Look at when the Minolta version of teh "SONY" lens was introduced and add them up..

Not much in the last two decades. Two Freaking decades!.

How may thousands jumped ship because of the wait for a Minolta DSLR body?.

Yes, when that body arrived, it was spectular. except for the flash issues. Which was one of Minolta;s best kept secrets:Namely, their wireless flash system and it's almost flawless performance. Ruined the one thing that kept in the camp for as long as it did..

Have you used that Minolta 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5? Users seem to like itif you read the reviews (dyxum has 17 user reviews), and I've seen itsell for well under $100..

I've been singing it's praises for over a decade myself. yes, it's a performer.for a Minolta lens. But it's ancient design simply does not allow it to compete against newer glass, designed for the more demanding Digital Sensor. Like the venerable Beercan, this lens was design for film, and suffers the same pitfalls as most glass designed back in the days of Film. Even Pro level "G" glass has issues with the digital sensor, but thankfully, since the glass was designed to be more discerning, those issues are much less..

Released if you want to see when they were introduced. But, justbecause a lens was introduced 20 years ago doesn't mean that it can'ttake great photos..

Yes, that 20+ old glass can still take wonderful images. Regretably, it just cannot deliver as consistantly as the glass form other manufacturers..

Bottom line, Minolta sat on their hands. They lost market share, sold off to Sony, who has the bucks to develop new stuff. Just not enough time to do so, yet. Eveidently, Sony thinks they can slap their name on this old stuff and get Noobs and soccer moms to buy it up, thinking they are actually getting a competitive product..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Pentax will accept all ever produced lenses for Pentax and even more you will be able to use full functionality of those lenses..

Of course, don't expect manual lens suddenly becoming autofocus lens, however you will be able to meter and get focus confirm with such lenses..

Don't know anything about Sony/Minolta..

Edvinas..

Midwestshutterbug wrote:.

I said there are a few newer lenses, but for the most part, Minoltastuff is two decades old. How many lenses introduced in the 90's? Howmany this Century?.

Http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php.

I don't know. Count them.  .

Why would it matter anyway as long as the lenses work well? If it ain't broke, why fix it?  .

Heck, I think it would be a great idea to reintroduce some of the older primes like my 100mm f/2. I just can't imagine a newer lens design working any better than it does, even in harsher lighting, low light, etc., and I don't care if it's a 20 year old lens design. lol.

I'm quite fond of my Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, too. It never lets me down in the AF department, regardless of lighting and it's a great compromise between focal range, brightness and sharpness in a a walk around lens..

Heck, the only "made for digital" lens I've got is a newer Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT "Kit" lens, and I'll take my older Minolta 24-85mm over it any day of the week..

I used the kit lens when I first got my Maxxum 5D, and put it on a shelf because I thought the older lenses were much better. Well, I broke down a tried it again recently and put it right back on the shelf. It has too much CA compared to my older lenses. LOL.

There are many other lens choices available, too (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, and more). Heck, I've even seen Kodak branded AF lenses in Maxxum mount, and you can get newer "made for digital" lenses from other manufacturers, too..

Yes, that 20+ old glass can still take wonderful images. Regretably,it just cannot deliver as consistantly as the glass form othermanufacturers..

Why can't it? Have you performed any side by side comparisons of the same subjects in the same conditions with a wide variety of lenses? There are a lot of lenses out there..

Sony is going to introduce 8 more lenses soon anyway. But, I don't need anything more than what I've already got, and I don't care if some of them are Minolta designs..

About the only thing I've sometimes wanted from time to time is something a bit brighter on the wide end compared to my 28mm f/2. The lens is just fine. But, sometimes another stop could come in handy. So, I've considered something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 from to time to (or if I had more cash, perhaps even a Minolta or Sony 35mm f/1.4G)..

But, to be frank, I wouldn't think something like that newer "made for digital" Sigma would be any better than my 28mm f/2 overall anyway, even if it is a newer design..

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

Ignore all these fanboys who are trying to get you to buy what they own. Instead, go to the store and try them out. Then buy the one you personally like the best..

Jerry..

Thanks Jerry, I am trying to take all the fanboyism out of my decision..

As for Dave, you mentioned that older Minolta glass "regretably, it just cannot deliver as consistantly as the glass form other manufacturers." Do you think that is also true for most modern day glass manufacturers? There are bound to be higher-end lense as well as lower-end ones from most manufacturers. Is there anything, for example, that Nikon would do to their slr lense so that it works better on their digital sensor? I am still very new to this, and I always thought a nice piece of glass is always a nice piece of glass regardless whether it's film or digital..

I am only asking these questions because I am hoping to get an A100 and some cheap used Minolta lense with quality comparable to the Canon system, but at a lower cost..

Jim, what are couple solid Minolta lenses you would recommend if I decided to go with the A100?.

Mikelis, I haven't looked too hard at the Samsung, because I can't find enough professional reviews on it..

Thank you all...

And try some of the primes too if you can, with the relatively ark viewfinders (cf 35 mm slrs) the max aperture of a lens makes a big difference to your ability to manual focus...Check out how the camera and lens combos feel in your hands.....

Yup, trouble is zoom out on some (Not Olympus) and you get to f/8 and then you start thinking....

Regards, David.

PS At least with the FourThirds system you are buying designed-for-digital lenses and can carry them forward to your next FourThirds camera...

Jchoate wrote:.

Ignore all these fanboys who are trying to get you to buy what theyown. Instead, go to the store and try them out. Then buy the oneyou personally like the best..

I agree with Jerry, up to a point. But the point is would you like to hear my opinion of a camera I own? Or would you prefer my opinion of one I've not even touched?.

As I see it you learn from your experience but it is cheaper and safer to pay some attention to other people's experience..

BTW, here's a nice link about Olympus and some of their offerings..

Http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/index.html.

Talking of cameras I have owned them in a variety of formats and most makes at one time or another. (I've not owned a Sinar F but would like too, FWIW.) Just mentioning this to point out that I am not a fan of any one make to the exclusion of all others. Three different digital makes in the house at present and I could say that for several years back..

Regards, David..

Exactly. Every manufacturer has good and not so good glass. That goes for Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, Tokina, etc..

You'll find brand new lenses from the major manufacturers (including Canon and Nikon) that are very bad. Ditto for older lenses (some are very bad)..

That's one reason you see a huge price difference between lenses with the same focal range, both new and old..

In addition to the quality of the glass, brightness (available apertures) and construction, lens coating come into the equation, impacting things like flare resistance, color and contrast. It's more important to have lenses with better coatings with digital (because of the reflectivity of the sensors and the design of the microlenses over each pixel)..

As a general rule, higher end lenses have better coating to begin with, even on older glass. For example, I never have a flare problem or problem with loss of contrast shooting in harsher lighting with my Minolta 100mm f/2, and it's a 20+ year old design..

But, it's not a "cheap" lens either. The last time I checked, it was selling for around $500 on the used market (and it's not even a zoom). I got mine for $299 (I snatched one up quickly when I saw Adorama list one). It's a super lens..

I made a comment last night in a thread where someone posted some images from one (shooting at wide open apertures, where lenses are their softest), pointing out that if I were Sony, I'd reintroduce this old design. Any lens that works this well with the aperture wide open is a keeper for sure, and the poster was taking some of these photos at f/2 (the widest aperture supported by that lens).  .

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=24020987.

When stopped down (set to use a smaller aperture, represented by a higher f/stop number) most lenses sharpen up considerably. It all depends on what you need to do with one..

Minolta's G series lenses are their best (and my guess is that my 100mm is probably the best of the non-G glass out there). It's a highly regarded lens..

But, Minolta's G glass is *not* cheap, just like Canon L glass (their pro glass) is *not* cheap, new or used. I don't own any Minolta G glass (my wallet can't afford it). lol.

I'm a pretty good shopper, and the good deals don't last long. So, when I'm looking for a specific lens (which is the way I've bought all of my lenses), I tend to visit keh.com, ebay.com, adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com multiple times per day to try and snatch a bargain before someone else spots it. lol.

I put a lot of thought into every lens I bought for my Maxxum 5D, and went looking for the specific lenses that I bought. It was not a random kind of thing with me. lol But, there are pros and cons to any of them, and I was aware of the compromises I was making with each one..

Another example: I've found that my Tamron SP 35-105mm f/2.8 AF Lens also does very nicely in most lighting. The SP lenses are Tamron's best (SP is for "Super Performance"), so they are much better lenses compared to their consumer line..

This one was EISA Europian lens of the year for 1992/1993 and originally listed for more than $1,000 (although street price was lower). I bought mine for $119 in bargain condition from the used dept. at keh.com .

Because of it's focal range, it's not a sought after lens now (because it starts out at 35mm, which would have the same angle of view as a 52mm lens on a 35mm camera (because of the smaller APS-C size sensor it's being used with on most DSLR models, you'll have more apparent magnification)..

So, I wouldn't suggest it as a walk around lens. For one thing, the focal range is not very useful (especially in tighter quarters). You can only back up so far.   It's also not the lightest lens in the world (and on a smaller camera like the Sony, it's going to make it "front heavy")..

You have to take each lens on a case by case basis, both new and old, and more sought after lenses are going to be more expensive. That's supply and demand working..

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

Jim, what are couple solid Minolta lenses you would recommend if Idecided to go with the A100?.

I just revisited your first post to this thread. Am I reading your budget correctly (you only want to spend $700 total for a system including camera and lenses)?.

About all you're going to find for that much money is the base Alpha 100 camera and something like the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Kit lens..

The body alone sells for about $599. If you're seeing it for less, it's probably a scam from one of the Brooklyn based dealers with nice looking web sites (and there are a number of Brooklyn based scammers). Always check any dealer you consider using http://www.resellerratings.com.

If they are not listed, avoid them (as the well known scammers startup new web sites under different names pretty often). Ditto if they have small number of customer reviews (as the scammers have been know to try and pad the ratings with bogus reviews). Ask about a vendor here if you're not sure..

After the body price (if your $700 budget is accurate), that only leaves you with about $100 for lenses. I don't want to "burst your bubble". But, you're not going to find a high quality lens (new or used) with that kind of focal range from wide to long for $100 (what the kit lens adds to the cost of this model if it's included)..

You'll want something that covers the focal ranges that you plan on using most often until you have a better idea of what you need for the type of shooting you plan on doing, and where your existing lens or lenses may be lacking for your needs..

For example, that lens is not going to work indoors without a flash. It's just not bright enough for that purpose, and it's not the sharpest lens at wide open apertures either (sorry, new design or not, it's a consumer grade lens), and it also tends to exhibit some CA (Chromatic Abberations/Purple Fringing), depending on the conditions, focus distance, background, aperture being used, etc.. Distortion is a bit high, too..

Ditto for the kit lenses from Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others. They are consumer grade lenses and make good inexpensive choices as a starter lens. Better glass will cost you more..

Does that mean you won't be happy with a lens like the typical kit lenses? No. You may love it..

It's all a matter of perspective, and you may not even see the flaws at the print and viewing sizes you use, especially if you're using the lens in better lighting or with a flash indoors..

Because these types of lenses are not very bright with a lot of plastic in their construction, they are also smaller and lighter for a given focal range (which is a factor you need to consider when lens shopping, since you'll have to lug them around with you).  .

Any choice is a compromise (size, weight, cost, focal range, brightness, flare resistance, color, contrast, optical quality, construction quality and more)...

Is that budget correct ($700 for a camera and lens)?.

With that budget, it's going to be very tough finding anything better than the kit lens (and the Alpha 100 kit sells for $699 including it). Your budget is then maxed out if that $700 figure is correct...

I'd probably opt for something like a used Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 instead (but, it will probably run you a bit more used than the kit lens would cost you new and you may want something wider in closer quarters), or perhaps even a 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (even more money) to get a bit more usable focal range on the long end (and again, you may want something starting out wider in closer quarters)..

The Minolta 24-85mm f;/3.5-4.5 is my most used lens, and it tests very nicely for a zoom that's not a pro grade lens. See it's MTF chart:.

Http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/minolta.shtmlJimChttp://www.pbase.com/jcockfield..

Your budget seems pretty tight to me. I use Canon cameras and Canon and Sigma glass and have been very happy with the EOS system as a whole but it isnt exactly an inexpensive system. I have actually found the EF-s 18-55mm kit lens to be of pretty decent quality so though it looks and feels pretty junky it can actually deliver good results so long as you dont have a defective one..

The XT will offer you excellent picture quality and is actually a very durable camera despite the plastic outer casing. I used mine extensively under a variety of conditions usually with a large and heavy lens mounted to it and it performed beautifully. However, the XT does not offer some of the features that are becoming more and more common on the more modern models (automatic dust cleaner and in-camera IS). These are features that you might find useful (I know I would love to have in-body IS on an EF mount camera)..

My second choice behind Canon would be Olympus. The newer cameras do appear to be very competitive in terms of image quality and the 510 offers what is said to be the most effective automatic dust removal system available as well as in-body IS and LiveView. You can pick up the 510 two lens kit for not a whole lot more than your suggested budget which would give you a very nice focal length range. I wouldnt let the smaller sensor of Olympus knock it out of the running. Check the review for the 410, the IQ looks pretty darn good compared to the competition. The overall system size should be smaller as a result of the smaller sensor which is generally a good thing.



The Sony system also seems pretty good but again it looks like many of their lenses are very expensive relative to the competition..

I am sure the Pentax is also a great camera but as far as I can tell the lens line is pretty limited unless you are willing to go back and use MF only lenses..

Greg.

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

Http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/..

PeaceFrog wrote:.

Your budget seems pretty tight to me. I use Canon cameras and Canonand Sigma glass and have been very happy with the EOS system as awhole but it isnt exactly an inexpensive system. I have actuallyfound the EF-s 18-55mm kit lens to be of pretty decent quality sothough it looks and feels pretty junky it can actually deliver goodresults so long as you dont have a defective one..

From the XTi review conclusion cons section:.

"Kit lens disappointing, better to buy body only and spend more on a good lens".

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page29.asp.

None of these kit lenses are going to be super quality. But, they don't add much to the cost of a camera either, and with the OP's budget, that's about all he'll be able to afford after a camera body..

In better lighting, when stopped down a bit from wide open apertures, most can deliver good enough photos for most needs, depending on a user's expectations..

So, the typical kit lenses can be OK until a user has a better understanding of their needs and where they may need something sharper, brighter, etc..

The Sony kit lens has a better focal range though (it's got 18-70mm available)..

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

Having actually used the thing on many occasions in the field I disagree. I find the kit lens to be plenty good and it is actually what I carry with me when I want focal lengths in that range. I am not saying that it is not better when stopped down (it certainly is better when stopped down as are pretty much all lenses in this FL range)..

Best of luck,.

Greg.

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

Http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/..

PeaceFrog wrote:.

Having actually used the thing on many occasions in the field Idisagree. I find the kit lens to be plenty good and it is actuallywhat I carry with me when I want focal lengths in that range..

I don't think we're really disagreeing here, despite Phil's wording in the Canon review (suggesting a different lens instead). I just wanted to make sure the OP didn't think there was any "special" about the Canon kit lens. lol If anything, it's just average for a kit lens based on images I've seen..

These are cheap, consumer grade lenses, and they really don't add much to the cost of a camera kit, and give the user a better idea of where they may (or may not) need a different lens later (after they get more experience with one "under their belt"..

Quality is a matter of perspective, and for most uses, the cheaper zooms do OK (in good light), depending on the use for the images..

If you're going to be more critical, looking at things like barrel distortion, edge softness, CA/Fringing (especially at the frame edges in out of focus areas at wider apertures), etc., then they don't stack up so well to the pro quality glass. They are all pretty much useless in low light without a flash if you zoom in much with them, too (they are all down to around f/5.6 if you zoom in much, which is very dim)..

Many users of the Sony/KM kit lenses really like them, too. The same thing probably applies to the kit lenses available with most any major camera brand..

There are always tradeoffs (size, weight, cost, brightess, focal range, etc.) with any lens choice, and with the OP's apparent budget, there are going to be some compromises..

Does that mean he want be thrilled with the quality (of any camera brand he decides to use). No, he many be just fine with it..

Heck, my wife has used nothing more than an inexpensive Sigma 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 "Zoom Master" lens for around 15 years now on a Nikon film body, and some of the images she's taken with it are absolutely stunning (but, I'd probably rank that cheap Sigma a bit higher than most kit lenses). lol.

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

I am using a bunch of new and old glass on my Pentax and they all meter. My 20 year old Pentax A28/2.8 is a wonderful lens. So is my F50/1.7. My new Sigma 17-70 is a great lens but is not as refined as my old primes. Even my old Tokina 80-200/4 one touch zoom gives it a good run for the money...

A good point here:.

PeaceFrog wrote:.

Your budget seems pretty tight to me..

- - - Snip! - - -.

My second choice behind Canon would be Olympus. The newer cameras doappear to be very competitive in terms of image quality and the 510offers what is said to be the most effective automatic dust removalsystem available as well as in-body IS and LiveView. You can pick upthe 510 two lens kit for not a whole lot more than your suggestedbudget which would give you a very nice focal length range. Iwouldnt let the smaller sensor of Olympus knock it out of therunning..

But I'll explain by pointing out that the older Olympus E-500 might just still be around and available in the two lens kit _and within your budget_. When it came out the camera got a "Highly Recommended" and is one of the most amazing bargains going if you get in and find one. Don't worry about it being a previous model as it is one of the best and the Japanese 40 - 150 mm with it to make it a two lens kit is brilliant. Try a quick Google....

Regards, David..

Doesn't the E500 have a different sensor technology from the 510?.

Greg.

Http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/..

PeaceFrog wrote:.

Doesn't the E500 have a different sensor technology from the 510?.

Yes, the Olympus E-500 uses an 8MP Kodak sensor. The newer E-510 uses a 10MP Panasonic (Matsushita) sensor..

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

Thank you all for offering your insight on the different systems you know..

Jim, thank you very much for your insight. I have $700 to spend on a body and a lens and so I kinda knew I have to stick with the kit lens for a while which ever system I decided on. I can get the the Pentax with two lense for $550 (w/rebate), Canon 350D w/ kit lens for $550, and the Sony A100 w/ kit lens for $650. Before commiting to a system, I want to know how easily it is to get some good used lense as I get better in the future. It sounds like you have no problem with the non-digital-slr lense w/ the A100 and that's encouraging..

Thanks Greg and David for the great info. I didn't know the 4/3 system was design w/ digital sensor from the ground up. I'll look more into the E500 and the E510..

Thanks K100photographer to reassure that there are good used lense for the K100..

I really like the Pentax K100 but too bad it's current/used lense selection is more limited...

Edvinas wrote:.

Of course, don't expect manual lens suddenly becoming autofocus lens,however you will be able to meter and get focus confirm with suchlenses..

Edvinas.

Actually Pentax is the one brand you CAN get your manual focus lenses to autofocus......

With a 1.7x increase in focal length...using the adapter that goes for between $300 and $700us+ on ebay....great for telephoto lenses......

Neil..

With your $700 budget, here's what I'd probably do:.

Sony DSLR-A100 Body only.

Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Autofocus Lens, used..

Keh.com has one in bargain condition for $85 (no hood though)..

Http://www.keh.com/...amp;BCC=1&CC=7&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=.

If you can spare a couple of extra bucks and need something longer to use on a tight budget, include a Sigma 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 APO Autofocus lens. It's the best of the budget zooms with that kind of focal range. It's a tad soft on the long end (zoomed in to 300mm). But, it's as good as you'll find for the money and most users really like it...

Keh has one in budget condition now for $62.

Make sure to get the APO version (it's better, and typically sells for a bit over $200 new)..

Http://www.keh.com/...amp;BCC=1&CC=9&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=.

So, with the Sony Alpha body and those two lenses in budget condition (which probably means that they look good and work great, knowing keh.com, since they tend to have *very* conservative ratings, marking down lenses missing hoods, etc.), you'd be a just a hair over your $700 budget:.

Sony DSLR-A100 Body for approx. $599.

Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Autofocus lens (used in budget condition) for approx. $85.

Sigma 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 APO Autofocus lens (used in budget condition) for approx. $62.

Total: approx. $746 + shipping.

If you can spare another $50, get a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Autofocus lens for use in low light without a flash..

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

ANSWER

ANSWER

Some of those were at higher ISO speeds than the Sony would be capable of..

But, from what I can tell from the photos, it was focusing where I told it to focus (not always the best spot, but that's user error, not camera error, and because I was framing pretty tight, DOF was darn shallow). Remind me to bring my 50mm next time around if I go to another game. lol.

For general purpose photography, with the lenses you can find on the used market that would work with the Sony, I just don't see how the other models the OP is considering would be a better deal ,especially given the built in stabilization you have with every lens you use on the Sony..

If I were in his shoes, I'd grab the Sony with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 and use it until I had a better understanding of where I may need different lenses..

From what I've seen from this lens, it's as good as you can find for the money (and a lot better than the kit lens). My 5D wears a 24-85mm most of the time..

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