Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 25, 2007, 3:06 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Default

Hi

Ive decided to buy an SLR, to replace my Konica/minolta z3. Ive looked into the following SLR's but i dont know which one to get.

1) Olympus e410 with 2 kit lenses. Pro: small, 10 mpix. contra: no anti-shake

2) Sony dslr-a100 with 2 kit lenses. Pro: anti-shake, 10 mpix. contra old, large andheavy

3) Pentax k100d with 2 lenses: Pro: anti-shake, contra: 6 mpix, large andheavy

Which camera should i choose? or is therea better slr in the same pricegroup?

Ive ruled out the nikon d40 because of the lack of auto bracketing.

merry christmas to you all




leon_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 25, 2007, 4:42 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 601
Default

have you actually held any of these cameras? i found all 3 pentaxes to be very light compared to my 30D. i find that a little weight helps steady my hands. for only a little more than the cameras you have listed you could get a pentax K10D, which is a little bigger and is a very nice camera.

also you might consider adding the rebel XT to your list as well as the samsung GX-1S.
pcake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2007, 5:22 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

All of your three choices are capable of taking great pictures. I notice that you mention the size and weight as "cons" for the Pentax and Sony - is that going to interfere with you taking and using the camera? Do you prefer the feel of the Oly? For many people that's a deal-breaker - the best camera in the world can't take priceless pictures if it is in your closet because you hate carrying/using it.

Anti shake (Pentax calls it shake reduction or SR) will be really important for some and will make no difference to others. If your primaryuse is outdoors, you are going to be using nothing longer than a medium telephoto lens and you are reasonably steady as a photographer then SR could be really low on your list of priorities. However, if you use long lenses, do a lot of shooting in low light without a flash or aren't the steadiest person in the world, then SR might be really high on your priority list (it's important to me, I'm not as steady as I once was).

My opinion is that those are the two factors you need to considermost - is your desire for SR going to outweigh your dislike of the extra weight. I don't think there's much difference between the 10 mp vs. 6 mp sensor size - I have both the PentaxK10 (10 mp)and the K100 (6 mp) and use them pretty much interchangeably. The 10 mp pictures don't have better image quality, especially if you are printing up to 8 x 10. I've never printed anything bigger than that, so I don't know how big you would have to go to see a difference. The extra mp does come in handy if you are a birder and doing some really severe cropping.

The other thing that might influence your choice is noise. If your primary purpose is is indoors, ambient light (no flash) and you will be using high ISOs, then take a good look at the various sample photos taken with these cameras. They all will be better than a point and shoot, but my opinion is that the K100 has less noise at ISO 1600 than the other two - and it has the option of using ISO 3200 while the other two camerasmax out at1600. If you plan on using a flash most of the time indoors, or don't mind shooting withslower shutter speeds/lower ISOs, then noise levels don't play into it - they are all very good up through 400 ISO. An interesting thing I just saw in Steve's review of the Oly E410 - you can only use automatic settings up to ISO 800 - you have to use manual for 1600. That might be a deal-breaker for some.

Good luck with your choice!
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 4:30 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Default

Hi again

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Thank you for the answers.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"In the begining of my huntI was mostly into the e410, but now I might choose the k100d instead.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"On my old z3 i enjoyed the anti shake, the zoom, and it used standard AA batteries

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I was browsing through ebay and found this lens

TAMRON 18-200/3.5-6.3 DI II LD PENTAX

Will it be any good on a k100d?

Im thinking about buying a k100d body and the tamron lens, butI know nothing about that lens, is it as good as the standardkit lens? I like the idea of a single lens from 18-200 instead ofone lens from 18-55 and another from 55-200


leon_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 4:42 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

The Tamron 18-200 is not a very good lens. It has geometric distortion at the wide end, chromatic aberration at the long end, and is soft throughout. I have the same lens with a Konica Minolta nameplate on it. It was my first lens. I, too, thought it would be a good "do everything" lens. What it is, is a "Jack of all trades; Master of none." I now have other lenses, that, together, cover a greater range, and any one of which is sharper, brighter, and has less distortion than the 18-200.

In general, superzooms are a bad idea, but if you really want one, the best of the breed seems to be the Tamron 18-250.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 6:12 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Default

Hi

Is the Sigma Standard Zoom Lens - 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC just as bad?
leon_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2007, 7:38 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

leon_ wrote:
Quote:
Is the Sigma Standard Zoom Lens - 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC just as bad?
The concensus seems to be that the Sigma isn't as good.

From PhotoZone.de:

On the Sigma 18-200: "There's no such thing as a free lunch in lens land and the Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC is no exception here. The resolution figures are generally quite decent and regarding the extreme zoom range you may accept the very pronounced distortions present throughout the zoom range as well as a few other shortcomings. Unfortunately the AF accuracy leaves something to be desired with this lens especially towards the long end of the zoom range - at least on the EOS 350D. Typically such a type of lens is used by beginners on entry level DSLRs where a rather dark viewfinder combined and an average AF system don't really help here. So if you're interested in this lens it's a good idea to take your DSLR to your trusted photo dealer around the corner to check whether the camera's AF system is really up to the task. If so it is a good compromise between quality and zoom range."

On the Tamron 18-200: "There's no such thing as a free lunch and the Tamron is no exception here. The extreme zoom range combined with the small lens dimensions comes at cost of some compromises. One is the rather slow max. aperture which limits the creative potential regarding shallow depth-of-field and the other compromise is, naturally, optical quality. In absolute terms the lens shows rather extreme distortions at the 18mm and vignetting as well as border quality don't impress either. The latter is also true for the 200mm setting. Nonetheless the lens is capable to deliver decent quality images under controlled conditions - reads: f/8 (see also the sample shots). In the field the Tamron AF 18-200mm XR felt far more convincing than the Sigma AF 18-200mm DC thanks to a decent AF performance so if it has to be such an extreme zoom lens the Tamron is the better bet. For critical applications you should consider to split the zoom range into at least two lenses though."

On the Tamron 18-250: "Early user comments already suggested that new Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro does not only offer a longer range but also a higher quality over the old Tamron AF 18-200mm XR and the lab results confirm these impressions. The results may not touch the sky but the new AF 18-250mm delivers a very solid performance for most of the range. Unsurprisingly the weak spot is at 250mm @ f/6.3 - stopping down to f/8 is a good idea here. Nonetheless the resolution characteristic is fairly amazing regarding the extreme zoom range. Typical for such lenses the Tamron exhibits a quite extreme level of barrel distortions at 18mm but at longer focal lengths to the problem isn't overly significant. In critical situations you need to take care about vignetting at 18mm @ f/3.5 (~1.2EV) and less so at 250mm @ f/6.3 (~0.7EV). Lateral CAs (color shadows at the image borders) are on a medium level except at 250mm where the problem can get more disturbing. As to be expected for a zoom lens in this price league (<450€/US$) the lens body is mostly made of plastic but the build quality is fairly decent. The AF speed and accuracy are Ok. All-in-all the Tamron is a decent allround/travel zoom lens. Just be a bit careful regarding its rather slow max. aperture at the long end. Unless you've a DSLR with built-in image stabilizer (Sony, Pentax) you'll often find yourself choosing ISO 400 although this isn't really a problem with the low-noise Canon DSLRs so far."

If you really need a superzoom, I think only the Tamron 18-250 stands a chance of being any good at all.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 3:04 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Default

Not a day goes by without i find a new favorite SLR. Today I have seen some pretty good offers on the e510 with two kit lenses, as i see it the e510 might be perfect for me, but i still havent decided yet. So if any one has something good or bad to say about the e510 Ill be glad to hear it.


leon_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 7:30 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18
Default

Why would you consider all of the cameras that you mention and not the Canon EOS400D/Rebel xti?

I say this as I am a newcomer to the dSLR scene and it seemed a choice between the Sony A100, the Nikon D40x and the Canon when I was choosing.

Some reviews rated the image stabiisation of the Sony enough to rate it highly, but not all. Some said the Nikon was the one, despite it only doing autofocus on selected add-on lenses. I went with Canon, as almost all reviews agree that it's as good as any (for the price) with no major weakness.

All that said, most of the entry level dSLRs are good cameras and you'll get good results with (pretty much) any of them. It's more down to you and how much you're prepared to put into it and by that I mean knowledge rather than cold hard cash.
MattSwain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 7:49 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

The E-510 is a fine camera. It has sensor shift image stabilization like the Sony and Pentax, but unlike the E-410, plus a few other bells and whistles that the Sony and Pentax don't have.

The only thing I can say about it that might keep me from getting it is that the selection of lenses is pretty small, and while there are some fine lenses in that selection, they are really expensive. But if you think you can live with the two lens kit, it might be a good choice.

You haven't mentioned the type(s) of photography you do (or would like to do) so we can't really discuss lenses. And that is an important part of selecting a dSLR.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:08 PM.