What do you think about this?

[JimC]

No... you're not creating a mess and feel free to start new threads.

My point is that you're over analyzing. ;-)

My apologies if I offended you with that last post.

But, I think that JohnG may be "right on the money".

You're spending a lot of time analyzing things that are probably not going to make much difference in real world use in most conditions, and if you look at photos from the camera you buy in the same way, you probably won't be happy with it, especially if you pick a model that is deficient in one area compared to another (and any choice is going to be a compromise).

So, you may be better off buying the cheapest setup you can find (really). Then, use it so that you have a better understanding of where your equipment is a limiting factor, for the types of photos you end up taking with it, so that you'll make a wiser investment the next time around.

I don't think you're not going to determine that by reading reviews and articles. Consider it to be a "tuition fee".

[BenjaminXYZ]

No... you're not creating a mess and feel free to start new threads.

My point is that you're over analyzing. ;-)

My apologies if I offended you with that last post.

But, I think that JohnG may be "right on the money".

You're spending a lot of time analyzing things that are probably not going to make much difference in real world use in most conditions, and if you look at photos from the camera you buy in the same way, you probably won't be happy with it, especially if you pick a model that is deficient in one area compared to another (and any choice is going to be a compromise).

So, you may be better off buying the cheapest setup you can find (really). Then, use it so that you have a better understanding of where your equipment is a limiting factor, for the types of photos you end up taking with it, so that you'll make a wiser investment the next trime around.

I don't think you're not going to determine that by reading reviews and articles. Consider it to be a "tuition fee".

Glad to hear thatI'm quite safe.

I actually don't mind that you all guys gave me a small lecture, but I justdidn't like the feeling that I haveoffended anyone; if I felt like I have done it. (Such as just now : P) Glad it was a misunderstanding on my part.

At the mean time, I can see plenty of advice already given...I hope it can benefit someone elsein my position too. (If there is any ; ))

At the same time, I will be looking around to learn new things; then probably decide for my next camera by the end of this month. (I just like to buy new stuffs at the end of a month, or year etc...; p)

Too much imatest results, MTF charts, noise graphs, Grey patches, shadow noises and per-pixel-sharpness etc ahhhhhhhhh...:?

[Gozinta]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

I am getting sickwith researching cameras already. Can I just trust "my product adviser"? :-)I just turned up all the sliders to the max and hey, here's what I've got in order;

The recommended top five:

#1 Olympus EVOLT E-500

#2 Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi

#3 Olympus EVOLT E-330

#4 Nikon D80

#5 Pentax K100D

Any users of the Olympus EVOLT E-500 can tell me how great that camera really is? (It must be apretty prevalent camera to appearright atthe top)

BTW, I would like to see what you'll guys end up with>>>

My produce adviser.

I spoke to my produce advisor and he said that apples are good this time of year.

You should have bought a KM 5D or 7D while they were being closed out. I paid 350 for a display model 5D with a kit lens, while others paid a fraction more for brand new. I paid 599 for a 7D for with kit lens. I spent less than a thousand dollars for two cameras with basic lenses. There are tons of KM lenses out there for cheap prices on the used market despite the recently inflated prices. Either one would have been a great low light camera for you to learn on for a minimum investment and if you decided to sell, you would get most of your money back. You could also at some point dump the bodies and use the lenses withthe new Sonys as they come out.

Perhaps if you shop EBay, you can still buy one of these to minimize your investment.

[gaggu]

-Ben

Hi there ...

I too was confused between Nikon D50 and E 500.

I decided on E 500 for the value/penny proposition.

Image quality wise ... I don't think it's as bad as some
people make it sound like.

However, here are the points on which Olympus simply
did the camera wrong
1. Viewfinder: It is small. Not too dark but if you want to
shoot places with "suppressed" lighting ... you'll need a
tripod and bright lense. I took some pics inside Winchester
Cathedral in England.... I had to struggle ... I wished I had
a tripod, remote release and 14-54 lense

I also tried the ME-1 magnifier ... doesn't seem to work for
me. So I have to live with that viewfinder.But ... its only
difficult to use in poorly lit conditions ... otherwise I have
done manual focus shots with that viewfinder ... no trouble.

2. Slow USB transfers. (You can get a USB reader for that)

Other than those two ... maybe you have already seen and
compared how much of ISO 1600 makes a difference on Canon
and Nikon when compared with Olympus E 500.

Look for posts by "HarjTT" in Olympus DSLR forum ... he managed
some SUPERB hand held ISO 800 shots in limited lighting. (He used
E1 though)

So thats a decission you have to make ... you wanna live with the
_marginally_ poor high ISO of E 500 or not.

I personally don't think I'd use ISO 1600. On E 500 though you
have a finer control of ISO ... (value/penny proposition for a non
pro ocassional hobbyist)

Now the strong points
- Superb handling, ergonomics
- Ability to use the very nice Zuikos (and if you
are very serious you can now hope that Leica/Panasonic
will be producing 4/3rds lenses with in lense IS)
- You need to change to the 14-54 lense from 14-45 kit
pretty soon. I am planning to get one as soon as I can.
- The kit 40-150 lense is a great lense for the price you
pay for it when bought as a kit. I won't need to change
that lense. It serves it's purpose well.

So ... those are my inputs ...

Cheers,
--
Gaggu

[gaggu]

- You need to change to the 14-54 lense from 14-45 kit
pretty soon. I am planning to get one as soon as I can.

eeeeks ... thats not a stroing point.

But yes ... one has to think of upgrading to 14-54 from
the 14-45 kit lense sooner or later. It's been not even
a month since I got my E 500 kit and I do feel I'd need
that lense at some point of a time.

Sorry for putting that point under the wrong head.

Cheers,
--
Gaggu

[tmoreau]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

Sorry if this is not a pixel peeping forum (I didn't know I had offended photographers in here), I actually intent to discuss all this out of interest actually. Cameras are all actually just a decision away only, I can actually get any dSLR orpro-sumer for under $1000 or even at $1000 right now. I am just not in a rush, so I still have thetime to discuss in here.

I hope I have not created a mess in here, which apparently seemsI did.

Anyway, I am sorry forstarting such a uselessthread like this (In your terms), I will never start a thread like this ever again.

Bye. (Hope you all experienced photographers don't take any offense in my post)

Regards.

Good god get ahold of your emotions.



All this technical analysis may be interesting, but it really is irrelevant to photography. I bet most of the optical and electrical engineers that design the bits and pieces of our cameras are not photographers at all, but they certainly have more than a few year of schooling!

Your not discussing these issues as an area of interest, your discussing them as if they will have an effect on your photography. They dont. You dont even begin to understand the numbing web of complexities involved in optics and sensor design, few (if any) of us here do. Its terrifically complicated stuff.

What we can do though, is measure how one implementation works compared to another. We can make some generalizations about sensors and photosite size based on engineering theory validated by real-world observations, but its only worth so much. Even the designers have to go through testing stages to validate thier designs, an ameture analytic on a web forum is not going to crack the whole of camera design and turn it into a simple e=mc² formula. You need to back off this aproach, or pursue it independant from photography.

And plase stop worshipping the R1. Its nothing special.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Sorry, my post screwed up (Sucky laptop!), so I deleted everything.

Just wanted to thank youall guys for the advises, and gaggu for providing some feedbacks of the Olympus EVOLT E-500.

I really appreciate them all, regards.

BTW, just now I tried"My camera adviser" again seriously this time, and got those >>>

1: Olympus EVOLT E-500 (1st Again!)

2: Nikon D50 (Since they had no D70s, it should be included also...I think. :-))

3: Canon EOS 400D (From second place to third place...)

4: Nikon D80 (Again got it atfourth position!)

5: Pentax K100D (Again got it at fifth position!)

P.S. not trying to prove anything, just informing that's all; bye!

[DougJGreen]

Benjamin, I am afraid that you are the poster boy for the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You are comparing cameras that don't compete with each other - The Nikon D80 is better than the other cameras in the group, but it is also much more richly featured and more expensive. You regurgitate the the mantras about pixel size from people on bulletin boards who don't know any more than you do about PHOTOGRAPHY (as opposed to cameras).

The fact is, that is a MINOR, almost TRIVIAL issue compared to the ergonomics of the camera, the lenses you'll be using, how YOU compose and expose the image, and the basic capabilities of the systems, which vary widely in the group you picked.

If you are looking at the D80, you should also look at the Canon 30D and the Pentax K10D.

The other cameras are a more reasonable set of competitors with one another as they are each entry level DSLR cameras. And while YOU will almost surely not be satisfied with ANY of those cameras, the fact is, that they are ALL more than sufficient for your understanding of photography, and for you to grow, so long as YOU understand that between all of those cameras you listed, THEY may affect a mere 5% of the image quality, while you the photographer are responsible for 95%. Until you actually understand that simple fact, your question is, unfortunately, unanswerable by any of the folks on this board who actually know what they are talking about.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Actually what I have done in the "My camera adviser" was selecting my criteria(s) and placing full emphasis on the important or necessaryaspects (aka. full bars). So please don't take anyoffense, because I don't meant to say that theNIKON D80 dSLR is more lousy or whatever...than the OLYMPUS EVOLT E-500 dSLR camera.Basically I have answered almost every questions in there except the price and mega-pixels part. (Because I am no mega pixel fan and I also do not want to include the prices just yet; I am more curious to know which camera will just fit my criteria(s)) Basically, what the camera adviser have recommended me; must be in accordance to my criteria(s). (Or at least by being very close to) I have NOTHING against ANY of the above cameras at all. In case if you DO think so, then you should ask yourself WHY I didn't use those articles I have provided before above; to justify that BIGGER photo-detectors are BETTER, and then go on to lecture about it. (Go, ask yourself why) I could have done it if I wanted too, but instead, you saw me talking about the advantages of having more smaller pixels instead. (Which will individually place the Nikon D80 at a great advantage) Ofcouse, I could have decided to lecture the complete oppositeand explain how much more advantages having fewer and larger photo-detectors can be. (Which is in fact very true, but I just choose not to talk about it) So please keep in mind that I am not bias, or whatever you think of me to be. (I have given the Nikon D80 it's advantage)

Right now, I am not concerned about any of the above (To affect my next camera purchase). Instead, I am now very concerned about getting "the camera" with a high quality lens; this time, good quality lenses will play a much more essential role in my decision making. (There might be various high quality lenses out there for meto choose for a selected camera body...and I would only choose one) On the other hand, if all else fails for some reason, I will be looking at the Sony DSC-R1.

[BenjaminXYZ]

I am afraid that you are the poster boy for the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You are comparing cameras that don't compete with each other - The Nikon D80 is better than the other cameras in the group, but it is also much more richly featured and more expensive. You regurgitate the the mantras about pixel size from people on bulletin boards who don't know any more than you do about PHOTOGRAPHY (as opposed to cameras).

Unfortunately DougJGreen, the more I read this statement of yours, the more I think that you are being BIAS towards the Nikon D80! The Nikon D80 is a great camera I agree, but what you have failed in is by overlooking the individual qualites of the other cameras as well, such as the Olympus EVOLT E-500.

You argued that the Nikon D80 is more richly featured etc than the rest, but the fact is, the Olympus EVOLT E-500 have much of what it has, and even some features that it doesn't have. For example;

The E-500 have many more image size selections than the D80. (Including VGA)

It has more file formats. (Such as TIFF)

It has advance JPEG compression settings. (Not the usual fine, standard etc)

It has highlight and shadow based metering. (Just like on the Sony A100)

It also have ISO selection steps at 1/3 E.V. increments.

It also have Kelvin & W.B. temperature settings. (2000 - 14000 K; the most I've seen)

It also have W.B. finetuning. (Red - Blue: +/- 7 steps (2 mired each), Green - Magenta: +/- 7 steps (2 mired each)


It also have B&W mode with selectable filters.

It also have the ISO noise reduction/filter control.

It also have an extensive image perimeter settings.

It also have a high resolution 2.5" Hyper Crystal wide viewing angle TFT LCD.

It also have a Pentaprism viewfinder with .9x magnification + anti-reflective coating.

It has many more pre-programed scene modes including document. (Hard task for the software engineers, and expert photographers onthe part; to make it all correct)

It also have the build in RAW developement.

It has a build in lens shading correction. (Based on lens CPU providing optical informations)

It also have theRGB histogram.

It has the side by side scene comparison feature.

It has flash bracketting.

It has exposure bracketting.

It has W.B. bracketting. (4, 8 or 12 mired steps)

It has a manual flash output adjustment. (Flash power: Up to +/- 2EV in 1, 1/2, or 1/3 EV steps)

It also have advance flash settings. (TTL Auto FP / TTL auto for Olympus dedicated flash (FL-20, FL-36, FL-50), (Auto, Manual, Red-eye reduction, Slow syncro with red-eye reduction, Slow syncro, 2nd curtain slow syncro, Fill-in for exclusive flash.)


It has a custom mirror lock up feature with custom delay.

It has exposure steps in 1/3, 1/2 or 1.0 EV increments.

It has AE Bracketing in 1/3, 1/2, 0.7 or 1.0 EV steps. (3 frames)

Supports larger capacity Microdrives.

60 second slow shutter!

Aperture, Shutter Priority mode: 60 - 1/4000 sec! (CPU auto evaluate depending on scene)

*Cheaper!*

Digital ESP. AND it has the well known Super Sonic Wave Filter!

Whencomparing D80to the Canon EOS 400D:

*The EOS 400D still have slightly better image quality to start with.*

*Slightly better high ISO performance.*

More extensive image perimeter settings.

*Cheaper.*

*Have the dust buster.*

Have an equal quality2.5" TFT LCD. (Wide viewing angle)

Have the RGB histogram as well.

The rest of the camera is still very good as well. (Just that it is comparing to the more expensive D80)

Sure, the Nikon D80 is better than the EOS 400D in some other areas, but it is also more expensive (Keep that in mind!) And the EOS 400D alsohave slightly better image qualities and high ISO performance. (Which is more important in my book)

It is also a very strong advantage in my opinion, for a cheaper camera to be able toout-perform a more expensive camera even in just some areas by a little. (Expecially in the more important areas)

Same goes to the D80 vs the (cheaper)Sony A100 as well:

The A100 have the dust buster,shake reduction, advance dynamic range optimizer, eye start A.F., 2.5" hi-res TFT with anti-reflective coating, slightlybetter resolution, supports microdrives, shadow and highlight based metering, and slightly more details at higher ISO(s).

I know some of the things are small issues only, but once again, the Sony Alpha A100 cost cheaper than the Nikon D80; so it is worth noting it's advantages. (And it's advantages are rather significant IMO)

The fact is, that is a MINOR, almost TRIVIAL issue compared to the ergonomics of the camera

And about what is important or not soimportant, it is all subjective.

I have my criteria(s). You have your criteria(s).