thoughts on pentax, olympus DSLRs?

[mcliffy2]

I've read a few of the posts that say body doesn't really matter. But I still have to ask b/c it seems like everyone here goes w/ Nikon and Canon.

I'm looking at the Pentax K10D (10 MP) or K100D (6 MP), and I really like the features - shake reduction, 11 point AF, good white balance (which I've read is not so great on the Nikon D40x??), it seems to compete more with the D80, but at a price closer to the D40x. So what are people's thoughts on these cameras? If worth buying, is the k10D worth the extra $250 or so?

Also, what about the Olympus E500 or E510?

Thanks.

 

[BlueCorn]

I'm getting lazy in my old age. This is my standard post:

--
If you decide to go the DSLR route you need to consider more variables than you do with a point and shoot (P&S) camera.

The order of importance, in regard to picture quality, with a DSLR is:

Photographer skill, lens quality, camera body.

Every DSLR body on the market today will take excellent pictures. Your lens choices are far more important than which body you buy.

You also have to be comfortable with how the camera feels. If you're not comfortable with your camera you won't be out shooting with it. Go to a local camera store (avoid places like Ritz, Best Buy, etc.... if at all possible), play with several different camera bodies and see what feels the best in your hand. Buy the one that feels best.

/ personal rant /
If you go to a local store with subject expertise (again, not a Ritz, Best Buy, Wolf Camera, etc) and take advantage of the knowledgeable folks buy your camera there. You might pay a little bit more but they deserve to be compensated for their assistance. In the long run building a relationship with a local store can be very helpful as a good camera is a long term investment. I have no problem buying online to save money; I just don't do it if I've involved the local store in the sales process.
/ end rant /


Buying a DSLR is more than buying a camera, it's buying into a system. That being said Canon and Nikon currently have most of the market. Choosing one of those gives you more choices for expansion down the road. The new Sony looks good as well and it's compatible with Konica/Minolta lenses.

If saving money, by buying used gear, allows you to spend more money on lenses you should go that route. A good lens on a used body will take better pictures than a cheap lens on a brand new body.

Cheers

 

[mcliffy2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10659751#post10659751 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
I'm getting lazy in my old age. This is my standard post:

--
If you decide to go the DSLR route you need to consider more variables than you do with a point and shoot (P&S) camera.

The order of importance, in regard to picture quality, with a DSLR is:

Photographer skill, lens quality, camera body.

Every DSLR body on the market today will take excellent pictures. Your lens choices are far more important than which body you buy.

You also have to be comfortable with how the camera feels. If you're not comfortable with your camera you won't be out shooting with it. Go to a local camera store (avoid places like Ritz, Best Buy, etc.... if at all possible), play with several different camera bodies and see what feels the best in your hand. Buy the one that feels best.

/ personal rant /
If you go to a local store with subject expertise (again, not a Ritz, Best Buy, Wolf Camera, etc) and take advantage of the knowledgeable folks buy your camera there. You might pay a little bit more but they deserve to be compensated for their assistance. In the long run building a relationship with a local store can be very helpful as a good camera is a long term investment. I have no problem buying online to save money; I just don't do it if I've involved the local store in the sales process.
/ end rant /


Buying a DSLR is more than buying a camera, it's buying into a system. That being said Canon and Nikon currently have most of the market. Choosing one of those gives you more choices for expansion down the road. The new Sony looks good as well and it's compatible with Konica/Minolta lenses.

If saving money, by buying used gear, allows you to spend more money on lenses you should go that route. A good lens on a used body will take better pictures than a cheap lens on a brand new body.

Cheers

I've seen this post, thus the preface about the body being least important - so I guess what I'm wondering is just whether Pentax (and maybe Olympus) are comparable to Nikon overall. I know they have less lens selection, but is what they have adequate/good?

 

[BlueCorn]

Every DSLR body on the market today will take excellent pictures. Your lens choices are far more important than which body you buy.

 

[mcliffy2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10660858#post10660858 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy

Ok right, I get that - so maybe I didn't phrase the question the right way. Since the lens differ from brand to brand, are there good choices available for the pentax and olympus? I know Nikon and Canon have MORE choices, but as far as quality, or Pentax and Olympus lenses up to par?

 

[gregr]

This site has lens tests that you might find helpful. Just scroll down to the 'verdict' if you don't understand the technical stuff.
For most people lenses covering wide angle [17mm to 40mm or so] all the way to telephoto [up to 3 or 400mm] will be all that is needed, so if you can find lenses that cover those focal lengths you will be ok. However- I would recommend you take a look at the prices and quality of the basic lenses. The basic lenses would be: wide angle zoom, medium range zoom, macro, and telephoto zoom. Prime lenses are great but most non-pros go with zooms. To give you a better idea of what to look for-- something close to 17-40 for a wide zoom, a medium zoom is something like 28-105 and a telephoto zoom would be the standard 70-200. All those are rough numbers so look for lenses that are at least similar in focal range.
More lens info: the wide zoom is good for things like landscape pics, or pictures inside your house where you want the whole room to fit into the pic. The medium range zoom is what we call a 'walking around lens'-- it's good for those times when you can only choose one lens. The telephoto zoom is for portraits, sports, etc.- shots where you can't get so close to the subject. Long telephoto (300-600mm) is for sports and wildlife for the most part.
So check out what they've got in those lenses, check the prices, check the lens tests and then you'll know how they compare to the competition. Another lens test site is photodo.com

 

[gregr]

Oh yeah- for macro lenses you want, at the very least, a solid 100mm macro lens (105 micro in Nikon-speak). A 50mm macro would be ok but most people end up with the 100. At this point I'd say Canon and Nikon have the competition beat in the macro department. Nikon because they've added vibration reduction to their micro lens, and Canon because theirs focuses internally. Canons is far less expensive though. Also take a look at Sigma macro lenses if they make them in the mount you need- Sigma makes good stuff.

 

[mcliffy2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10662534#post10662534 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gregr
Oh yeah- for macro lenses you want, at the very least, a solid 100mm macro lens (105 micro in Nikon-speak). A 50mm macro would be ok but most people end up with the 100. At this point I'd say Canon and Nikon have the competition beat in the macro department. Nikon because they've added vibration reduction to their micro lens, and Canon because theirs focuses internally. Canons is far less expensive though. Also take a look at Sigma macro lenses if they make them in the mount you need- Sigma makes good stuff.

Thanks, that is the info I was looking for.