Just been out at lunchtime and handled both cameras. Have to say the Nikon seemed to feel better though it is quite chunky but the feel of the Olympus lenses against the Nikons seemd a lot better (the Nikon did not feel as smooth when using the zoom ring!!):?

From the tests I've seen of these Nikkor lenses, including a direct comparison in Popular Photography, the 18-55mm lens is really quite poor in sharpness, both at the center and the edges. If you prefer "quite poor" to "nearly junk" I'll grant that concession. IMHO, the 18-55mm Nikkor is unacceptably soft for use as the main lens on a $600 camera body.

rjseeney wrote:"[/quote]"Junk" is a bit harsh and also misleading. While I agree the Olympus kit lens is clearly the better lens, the difference between the 18-55 and 18-70 isn't as distinct as many are lead to believe. The biggest difference is in zoom range. Each lens has its strengths and weaknesses. Wide open on the short end of the focal range, the 18-55 is actually better than the 18-70, especially in terms of vignetting. If your shooting mostly wide angle shots, the 18-55 is the better choice. It is also a bit less prone to CA. The 18-70 has a better zoom range, slightly better build quality (is a true AF-S lens, whereas the 18-55 is a slightly stripped down version) and is slightly sharper through the middle part of the zoom. Overall, I think the two lens kit is a better value for the beginning photographer as it can be had for nearly the same price as just getting the 18-70 with the D50. At normal print sizes (up to 8x10), the typical user will not see any difference in image quality. [/quote]

They've tested all four of those lense at slrgear.com. And it sounds like they liked the Nikon 55-200 just slightly better than the Olympus 40-150. Overall, I think the two kit lens packages are very close, as the 14-45 isn't much different than the 18-55 either:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

It is true that there are still a couple of gaps in the lineup of currently available four thirds lenses on the entry level, but most are being filled. You still aren't going to find the relly low end Vivitar type cheapie lenses. And they could still use a low budget zoom that goes beyond a 300mm equivalent field of view.

Hopefully Sigma will eventually release their 70-300 APO, which for about $200 would end up brigning you to a 600mm equivalent field of view. Right now you can't easily get the 450mm EFOV which that lens and others can give you on the Nikon. The Sigma 135-400, however, is on the way in the next couple of months, delivering a 270-800mm EFOV for around $540.

The other area that has been a bit lacking is low end primes, but Sigma has already adressed much of that, with the 30mm f1.4 and the 105mm f2.8 Macro available now, and the 24mm f1.8 due very soon. The systm does lack the $100 cheapie 50mm available on others, but the 35mm f3.5 Macro for $200 is a nice alternative.

It is true though that there would be more options for older used Nikon lense available for the D50. To use these on the Olympus, you would have to buy an adaptor for around $30 and manually focus:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=280044591095

It will also be easier to rent lense or gear from a camera shop for either Canon or Nikon cameras.

In addition, the Nikon would be better for action or sports shooting. You will tend to have quicker focusing and better focus tracking of moving subjects. The Olympus will focus accurately, but not as quickly. It only has a 3 point auto focus, and it's cameras also do not suppor silent wave motor technology (available in Nikon bodies with some mid range lenses).

The problem with older manual focus Nikon lenses on the D50, in addition to requiring manual focus is that they don't meter at all.

Add that $30 adapter and they WILL meter on the Olympus bodies at Aperture priority and manual modes.

In fact, I use several manual focus Nikkor lenses on my E-300 and E-1 bodies, and if you are comfortable manual focusing, they are great, but forget about shooting sports with them in that manner.

Is the speed difference that great between the cameras? I can't say I will be taking lot's of action/sports photo's but it would be nice to have a camera that can adequately capture movement as the majority of my shooting will be my 2 year old boy growing up!!

I'm not saying the 18-55 is a great optical marvel, or even that it is a good as the 18-70. On a D50, in the hands of a typical user, the differences between the lenses are not as great or signficant, especially when printing at typical sizes. would I recommend the 18-55 to a pro?? No, I wouldn't. Heck, the typical pro probably won't even be shooting the 18-70. Is the 18-70 twice as good as the 18-55?? No way...I've used both extensively. For the typical user, when you can get two decent (not great) lenses that covers the most common focal lengths, for the price of one good one that's a bit more limited, I think the two lens kit is a better value. Not a better performer. To do twice as good as the 18-55, you'd have to spend 5 times the money, and the average person likely wouldn't notice the difference. You even say it yourself :

I think either will do fine in that case. It may seem. when you are chasing him, as though your son has all of the speed and moves of LaDainian Thomlinson, but I promise he does not. Yet.

You might be best off going ot a shop and handling the cameras, as ergomonics will likely be the biggest difference for you at this point.

The D50 is maybe a bit better at ISO 1600. The E500 has a bit more adjustability and the auto cleaning sensor to prevent dust buildup is one convenient feature.

Ok, my mind is made up. I have been out and handled both cams and I think the Olympus is the one for me as I just prefer the whole package with it. I will not nned to upgrade the lenses immediately and I prefer the ergonomics and screen aswell as the lighter weight and smaller size (the Nikon just feels a bit bulky for me!!)

Thanks for all the input and I hope to get it soon and post some Pics in the Oly forum!!:|