Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
finally switching from 35mm...
- Thread starter wmmk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hmm...
That new K10D is looking pretty nice.
Anyway, outside of the foums, I've been convinced that canon would win the canon vs. nikon debate because of superior image sensors.
My top choices are now:
Pentax K100D kit w/18-55mm lense ($580)
Olympus E-500 kit w/14-45mm & 40-150mm lenses($620)
Canon EOS rebel XT kit w/18-55mm lenses($600)
EDIT: I added a poll
That new K10D is looking pretty nice.
Anyway, outside of the foums, I've been convinced that canon would win the canon vs. nikon debate because of superior image sensors.
My top choices are now:
Pentax K100D kit w/18-55mm lense ($580)
Olympus E-500 kit w/14-45mm & 40-150mm lenses($620)
Canon EOS rebel XT kit w/18-55mm lenses($600)
EDIT: I added a poll
Voted Olympus E-500 kit w/14-45mm & 40-150mm lenses($620).wmmk said:My top choices are now:
Pentax K100D kit w/18-55mm lense ($580)
Olympus E-500 kit w/14-45mm & 40-150mm lenses($620)
Canon EOS rebel XT kit w/18-55mm lenses($600)
EDIT: I added a poll
That's the kit I'll get as soon as I can afford it...
In a way it's going to replace my old OM-1 (35mm, not used since the mid 90s) and Centurion (APS, not in any serious use for a couple of years), and complement my current digital P&S, a µ digital 600 (aka stylus 600). All Olympus cameras. Just makes sense to stay with Olympus.
Also the anti-dust system is supposed to be fantastic (and only matched in the new Canon 400D), and I think the four thirds lens system, specially designed for digital cameras, makes sense.
Mitthrawnuruodo said:Voted Olympus E-500 kit w/14-45mm & 40-150mm lenses($620).
That's the kit I'll get as soon as I can afford it...
In a way it's going to replace my old OM-1 (35mm, not used since the mid 90s) and Centurion (APS, not in any serious use for a couple of years), and complement my current digital P&S, a µ digital 600 (aka stylus 600). All Olympus cameras. Just makes sense to stay with Olympus.
Also the anti-dust system is supposed to be fantastic (and only matched in the new Canon 400D), and I think the four thirds lens system, specially designed for digital cameras, makes sense.
Still can't beat a blower.
(Test of Sony and Olympus anti-dust)
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=468
job said:
OOPS
wrong link here is the right one
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=468
beavo451 said:
I suppose the blower is okay but you risk putting the dust right back on the sensor. Other methods risk damaging the sensor. I'm surprised that there is so much dust left on the Olympus sensor. After about 2.5 years with an Olympus E-1, I should be unable to see any detail of what I was shooting at that rate.
wmmk:
If you end up getting a Canon, don't get the 18-55mm kit lens. The camera may be fine but the lens is the cheapest piece I've ever seen and that includes the Quantaray brand sold by Ritz. It isn't worthy to sit on the camera. There are much better choices with the money you'll save, such as the 50mm f/1.8.
bousozoku said:
SORRY ABOUT THE HIJACK!!!
But, I just have to say this.
Think about this: When the sensor shakes with the lens on, the dust flies off right? Then it is just floating around in the air between the sensor and shutter. Where does it have to go? Wouldn't some of the dust (being dust) float right back onto the sensor?
The AA filter over the sensor is rather hard and only with carelessness can it actually be scratched or damaged.
I didn't vote...
because there were no Nikon options there. Why are you not considering the D50 or the new D80 if you can't afford the D200?
The D80 seems to be a terrific camera with pulling together some of the best functions and features of its predecessors the D70/D70s with a bit of the D50 thrown in, not to mention the D200's great VF! The body is extremely well priced and that new 18-135 mm kit lens being offered sounds as though it is pretty good bang for the buck.
Why not Nikon?
because there were no Nikon options there. Why are you not considering the D50 or the new D80 if you can't afford the D200?
The D80 seems to be a terrific camera with pulling together some of the best functions and features of its predecessors the D70/D70s with a bit of the D50 thrown in, not to mention the D200's great VF! The body is extremely well priced and that new 18-135 mm kit lens being offered sounds as though it is pretty good bang for the buck.
Why not Nikon?
as i explained, canon and nikon make very expensive lenses. i still put canon up because i have heard that canons have better sensors than nikons. also, the D80 is a bit out of my price range, and I just don't like the way the D50 feels, as a guy who is coming from a big, bulky 35mm nikon (yes, im coming from a nikon). to be honest, nikons just kind of bug me when i actually use them. still, I could get a D70s with a 18-70mm lense for $700. is this worth the $120-$80 extra from the other cameras I'm considering?Clix Pix said:
bousozoku,
As I totally trust your advice on the canon XT kit lense, i'd definitely get a different lense. is there any nice general lenses for that camera priced around $120 or less?
wmmk said:
As I mentioned, the 50mm f/1.8 is a good, time-tested lens that you can find for fewer than $100. I can't recommend any 3rd party lenses because it seems to be hit or miss as to whether they work with the various Canon cameras. ChipNovaMac has said that it's not as bad as I believe but it's difficult to tell what works since Canon seems to mess with their firmware constantly to keep 3rd party lenses from working with the full line.
Things I have learned in my quest for the right camera for me (I'm roughly in the same situation as you, just less experienced with SLR):
Canon: I've used an A70 since 2003 and love it. I think that Canon has wonderful quality and power management. But, the XT is painful to hold. The grip is just too small and I end up useing the grip of death because I'm afraid it will slip through my fingers. Also, most of my shooting is hand held, not tripod, and I like evening shots, which means a good amount of blur if I don't spend a good deal of money on the lens.
Olympus: The 4/3 system is brilliant on paper. Taking the smaller sensor size and using smaller lenses designed for the smaller sensor should mean smaller amounts of material, leading to reduced weight and cost. The idea does work - all the other majors have their "designed for digital" lenses stuck on the larget mounts. But, the cameras and the lenses seem rather pricey to me. Maybe even a little more, since you have to buy new lenses - older lenses are too big to ever mount. A lot of money getting spent there.
Pentax: I'm looking at getting a K100, but have been tempted with the K10 (I have $600 credit at Ritz, so getting a K10 for $400 is really tempting - but a K100 for $100 is even moreso). Pentax has a strong history, and needs to get into the DSLR game - which they are doing by offering strong value wit their bosies and taking advantage of historically well-regarded lenses. but, there aren't as many people using them, so it is often tough to get a good opinion on general forums. That also makes it a bit tougher to get advice. Additionally, when you look for new lenses online, a lot of shops don't list very many of the lenses in their stock.
Everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. It frustrating when you hear all the good without recognition of the bad. I don't know a lot about any particular line, but hopefully this helps a little.
Canon: I've used an A70 since 2003 and love it. I think that Canon has wonderful quality and power management. But, the XT is painful to hold. The grip is just too small and I end up useing the grip of death because I'm afraid it will slip through my fingers. Also, most of my shooting is hand held, not tripod, and I like evening shots, which means a good amount of blur if I don't spend a good deal of money on the lens.
Olympus: The 4/3 system is brilliant on paper. Taking the smaller sensor size and using smaller lenses designed for the smaller sensor should mean smaller amounts of material, leading to reduced weight and cost. The idea does work - all the other majors have their "designed for digital" lenses stuck on the larget mounts. But, the cameras and the lenses seem rather pricey to me. Maybe even a little more, since you have to buy new lenses - older lenses are too big to ever mount. A lot of money getting spent there.
Pentax: I'm looking at getting a K100, but have been tempted with the K10 (I have $600 credit at Ritz, so getting a K10 for $400 is really tempting - but a K100 for $100 is even moreso). Pentax has a strong history, and needs to get into the DSLR game - which they are doing by offering strong value wit their bosies and taking advantage of historically well-regarded lenses. but, there aren't as many people using them, so it is often tough to get a good opinion on general forums. That also makes it a bit tougher to get advice. Additionally, when you look for new lenses online, a lot of shops don't list very many of the lenses in their stock.
Everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. It frustrating when you hear all the good without recognition of the bad. I don't know a lot about any particular line, but hopefully this helps a little.
nbs2 said:
I think the 4/3 system is a gimmick. All "standard" print size have to be cropped to some extent to be printed from a 4:3 ratio. Smaller sensor? Get a superzoom or compact digital camera. The 2x crop factor completely kills wide angle options. The 1.5x and 1.6x crop of Nikon and Canon are already bad enough. Smaller sensor also has noise problems. Look at the test samples in DPReview and you will see significant noise at higher ISOs.
That's my point. On paper, the idea that you can reduce size and weight while still retaining DSLR functionality is a great idea. Being able to get desktop functionality in a mobile machine is also a great idea. But, when you try and build that perfect replacement laptop, it either ends up incredibly hot or 15 lbs. Same thing with the 4/3 system. If the idea had been implemented with really short focal lengths, the wide angle might have been viable. 7mm*2.0 for a 14mm equivalent? But, the implementation is just too expensive, and so it struggles.beavo451 said:
One of the women on my women's digital photography Yahoogroups list has an Olympus Evolt. Frankly, I'm not impressed. It is slower between shots and has a smaller buffer, which she found to be a serious impediment when she was trying to shoot RAW.
Well, it's not on your survey, but I'd strongly consider a reconditioned (factory) Nikon D50 w/kit lens for under $500. The 18-55 kit lens isn't constructed as well as some of the more expensive lenses, but once it's stopped down to f/5.6 or greater, it's extremely sharp, particularly from 18mm to 35mm range. Even at 55mm it's quite good once stopped down. Despite the lens snobbery that exists out there, considering the price it's a great little lens. Just check out some of the posts at dpreview....) I considered getting the 18-70 Nikkor to replace it at first, but now see now reason to duplicate the 18-55mm range by spending more money, unless the extra reach to 70mm is worth $300. I'd say get another lens to compliment the kit lens, either a wider zoom, or the 50mm f/1.8 or something with more reach.
The factory reconditioned D50's come with Nikon 90 day warranty and all the stuff the new ones come with, and for all practical purposes are brand new. I'd feel as comfortable buying a Nikon refurbished product as buying an Apple refurbished Mac or iPod. I did add a 5 yr extended warranty on mine for $60, which includes an annual cleaning (including sensor.) I may not keep the body that long, but felt the warranty was cheap insurance for those mysterious electronic maladies that randomly affect electronic gear.
The only bad thing is I'm sure the supply of refurb D50s is dwindling rapidly, but it's a great starter dSLR, and creates great images. It does remarkably well at iso 1600, and can produce excellent prints at usable sizes. Even though it's a 6.1 mp sensor, it seems to have hit a sweet spot in the compromise between resolution, pixel density and noise. Anyway, just thought I would chime in with some D50 feedback. cheers -phil
The factory reconditioned D50's come with Nikon 90 day warranty and all the stuff the new ones come with, and for all practical purposes are brand new. I'd feel as comfortable buying a Nikon refurbished product as buying an Apple refurbished Mac or iPod. I did add a 5 yr extended warranty on mine for $60, which includes an annual cleaning (including sensor.) I may not keep the body that long, but felt the warranty was cheap insurance for those mysterious electronic maladies that randomly affect electronic gear.
The only bad thing is I'm sure the supply of refurb D50s is dwindling rapidly, but it's a great starter dSLR, and creates great images. It does remarkably well at iso 1600, and can produce excellent prints at usable sizes. Even though it's a 6.1 mp sensor, it seems to have hit a sweet spot in the compromise between resolution, pixel density and noise. Anyway, just thought I would chime in with some D50 feedback. cheers -phil
beavo451 said:
The 7-14mm f/4.0 and the 8mm f/3.5 fisheye aren't enough?
The noise problem with the sensor is an issue for some. I haven't noticed it at all but then, I never tried to push colour film to ISO 800, either. In the E-400 (Europe and Japan only for now) has some improved linkage for the 10 MP sensor to cut down on noise. I was surprised by the 17mm x 13mm dimensions of the sensor but it seems to have worked well enough for me because I would be spending more money to buy "standard" paper sizes. If you look at the difference between point and shoot sensors and the 4/3 type sensor, there is a lot more surface area and I seriously doubt I would get the clear prints on 13 x 19 inch paper that I'm currently getting with my E-1.
nbs2 said:
Struggles, yes; fails, no. Yes, some of it is expensive, especially since you're not using adapted equipment. The pro lenses are worth the price. The odd thing about four thirds is the weight of the equipment. It's smaller in most cases but heavy for its size. The E-400 is about the same size as the OM-series and much lighter but it's the only camera to really claim being lightweight, along with the matching lenses.
Clix Pix said:
Evolt pertains to 3 different cameras: E-300, E-500, and E-330. The E-300 was seriously flawed. I believe that the only thing that it does right is fitting inside the underwater housing.
You should all seriously think about being Mac bashers--I hear there's more call for it.
Let's see...have you used an Olympus digital SLR for a week, 10 minutes? Have you held one? What were the other things we applied to Mac bashers? I figured I'd chime in since I own the E500 kit.
It is a fantastic camera and with the dual lens kit I doubt you'll find a better deal from other manufacturers. The 40-150mm lens is great and the 14-45 mm seemed to be a bit higher quality then the Canon and Nikon kit lenses. I aslo liked the menu layout better then on the Rebel XT and D70.
Now there are of course some things I don't like about the 500. ISO noise is higher than if you went with Canon but I don't find it to be as bad as some people say. And certainly it can be corrected a bit by using Noise Ninja or Neat Image. 3fps shooting is a bit slow, but this may not be a big deal for you, I know I have only found myself in a few situations where I wanted faster continuous shooting. The last thing I don't like is there is no battery grip, when using a heavier lens like the 50-200mm I wish I had one.
If you are looking to spend as little money as possible the e500 dual lens kit is a great deal. The other cameras you have listed are great too, but I'd recommend you hold the Rebel in your hands before you buy it, I hated it immediatly after picking it up.
It is a fantastic camera and with the dual lens kit I doubt you'll find a better deal from other manufacturers. The 40-150mm lens is great and the 14-45 mm seemed to be a bit higher quality then the Canon and Nikon kit lenses. I aslo liked the menu layout better then on the Rebel XT and D70.
Now there are of course some things I don't like about the 500. ISO noise is higher than if you went with Canon but I don't find it to be as bad as some people say. And certainly it can be corrected a bit by using Noise Ninja or Neat Image. 3fps shooting is a bit slow, but this may not be a big deal for you, I know I have only found myself in a few situations where I wanted faster continuous shooting. The last thing I don't like is there is no battery grip, when using a heavier lens like the 50-200mm I wish I had one.
If you are looking to spend as little money as possible the e500 dual lens kit is a great deal. The other cameras you have listed are great too, but I'd recommend you hold the Rebel in your hands before you buy it, I hated it immediatly after picking it up.
bousozoku said:
LOL! Ah, OK, thanks! I believe she does have the Evolt E-300. Since she and her husband have a toddler and now are expecting their second child I doubt that she'll be getting a new camera any time soon.
Olympus makes great lenses -- many years ago I had the Oly "bridge" camera (DLX 3 IS). It was a wonderfully convenient camera to take places and image quality was excellent. This past summer I picked up the Oly 720 SW for use at the pool and the beach and it's not only a fun camera but again the image quality is very good.
So you have to admit that there are some failings with the 4/3 system. That was what I was hoping to convey to the OP - that every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and when people try to avoid weaknesses by changing the subject you need to hold their opinions suspect.bousozoku said:Struggles, yes; fails, no. Yes, some of it is expensive, especially since you're not using adapted equipment. The pro lenses are worth the price. The odd thing about four thirds is the weight of the equipment. It's smaller in most cases but heavy for its size. The E-400 is about the same size as the OM-series and much lighter but it's the only camera to really claim being lightweight, along with the matching lenses.
You should all seriously think about being Mac bashers--I hear there's more call for it.
I think that the concept behind the 4/3 system is brilliant, and that for people looking for a compact solution the Oly/Pana/etc offerings are brilliant (I really love the L1 or whatever Pana is calls their DSLR - their on board flash implementation is brilliant). I just think that the "all new design" renders a lot of really good, old, and cheap lenses essentially worthless.
I agree that the system hasn't failed completely, but the inability to use older lenses (I think) drives a lot of people away before they can give it a chance. Some of the cheap lenses are really cheap, but a lot of them were out of my price range - and I didn't have older lenses to fall back on. Do I think 4/3 will ever fail? No - as more early adopters move on to better lenses, the used market will mature, helping people feel more comfortable with 4/3. But, until then, it will struggle to grow (not that stuggling is bad - I think 4% market share is struggling).
To be honest, I have no comment on IQ, ease of use, etc, because I've only held the Oly for about 3 minutes when I first started my quest. My opinions are just based on cost and what I've read as I have researched my own camera.
The size of the Rebel may just be one of that special group of things that nobody can be ambivilent about - either pure love or pure hate.NinjaMonkey said:
nbs2 said:The size of the Rebel may just be one of that special group of things that nobody can be ambivilent about - either pure love or pure hate.
LOL! Well, to me the Digital Rebel looks cheap and plasticky and does not feel "right" in my hands.....for someone else it may be just the perfect thing. The outside appearance and feel of a particular camera do not really indicate how well it actually performs, especially as the important factor is actually the lens rather than the camera body. We've seen some excellent images on here from Canons, Nikons, Olympuses (Olympi??), Pentaxes..... While the camera body is important, lenses are more important, but the MOST significant piece of this is....the photographer. I've seen some wonderful images from inexpensive cameras and I've seen some lousy images from Hasselblads. Creativity and a good sense of composition, color, contrast, etc., are key elements which are needed for good images, regardless of the camera gear used to make the image.
nbs2 said:
Along with the official Olympus OM-series lens adapter, this company offers quite a few adapters so that you can use just about any lens with an E-system camera.
When I first saw the companies supporting four-thirds, I wasn't pleased. Kodak and Sigma have never been high on my list. Kodak had a lot of technology but never got it quite right. If not for Fuji, we'd still be using low contrast film. Sigma was known to me as the lenses you bought when you couldn't afford Vivitar. Soft focus filters weren't needed with their lenses.
However, looking at Nikon's D70 and Canon's 300D, there wasn't another choice for me. Had the E-1 not been as amazing as it was and the shots as clear and colour just right, I would have returned everything within a week and searched for a Pentax dealer. I've another week to see the replacement body and the scoop is that it's behind schedule. How can you be behind schedule with over 2 years time?