Camera Comparison

Yeah but make sure you go for the F4.2 lenses not the F3.0 ones, they tend to blow up after about 120,000 photos.

I agree, but only with the first make for reasons below LOL

Thanks Graham
No I didn't consider the Nikon as it didn't have inbuilt stabilisation so you had to buy stabilised lenses but I might revisit this again.
See my reply to Andrew below as to my reasoning. Will go online again and restart.

Thanks for the advice

I believe many Nikon lenses won't work with VR stabilization on the N40 and N60, only N80 up. Check it out and understand the issue before buying.

Actually they are D40 D60 And D80 D for Digital The previous Film cameras had the prefix F
The D60 which is the nearly the latest model is advertised as a package bwith VR lenses.

The D40 is the odd one out and does not Have autofocus compatibility with some lenses

This from the D40 specs

Compatibility with world famous, high-quality Nikkor lenses* with Nikon F mount with AF coupling and AF contacts (*Autofocus is supported only with AF-S and AF-I CPU lenses, which are equipped with built-in motors).

From product compatibility page

AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED, a compact, lightweight 11.1x zoom lens that is ideal for everyday photography and incorporates...

So as you say check it out

um... we are talking ratios not rations.

Thanks Andrew, it is so bloody confusing that I have camera overload as I have been doing reviews etc on Pentax K20, Canon 1000D, Sony A350, Olympus E520 etc etc.
They are all around the same price $1000 to $1200 and I am trying to get the best camera for the money. I know if I go up a notch to the 2 thou bracket it opens up a whole new ball game.
The reason I sort of settled on these two was that both have inbuild Image Stabilisation and live view. I'm a bit worried obout Sony reliability or service and I guess thats not a problem with Olympus. The other one that I like is the Pentax K20D but it came with Sigma lenses and I wasn't sure of the quality of them. The Pentax camera was heavier but seemed the better camera.

Frankly the camera you get is probably not the issue with your first DSLR. I frequently find that people are better off spending less on their first DSLR so they know what they really need when they spend the bigger money.
Clearly the Canon and Nikon are the broadest systems, but as you have identified charge a premium for image stabilisation (aka vibration reduction for pete) and you have to buy it in each lens.
The in-camera systems seem to work pretty well.
I don't think I would be any more worried about reliability although the Olympus cameras always have felt well built - not as well built as the Pentax, Nikons, or the mid-high end Canons.
Sigma lenses have served me well and are usually good value, although I have none at present.
The 4/3 system doesn't suit me - probably only what I'm used to, so the Olympus was never on my shopping list.
That said I like the look of the new Panasonic Lumix G1 as a light super-small walk around camera - currently I use the 5D with fixed 50mm lens which probably costs about 5x as much ;-) One can never have enough cameras.
Someone else mentioned the importance of getting these cameras in your hands and firing away quite a few frames so you know how it really feels... how easy the controls work for you, etc. I totally support this observation.
And don't think about it too hard - get out and take lots of photos, and you'll feel you got a lot of value out of your first DSLR, and you'll feel good about buying your second in 1, 5 or 10 years.
Cheers,
Andrew.

" (aka vibration reduction for pete)"
LOL
Thanks Andrew wondered what VR stood for. Although never really thought about it too much. I'm a prime boy personally apart from a 80-200
Peter

Yeah - primes for me too... except the 17-40 f4/L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS... but then I guess you don't have access to that sort of resolution ;-)

Image Could Not Be Found

yeah the d700 is full frame....... gives me a 41 meg pic.It is pretty bloody nice camera actually



Peter

I have used Pentax cameras for the last 8 years and been very happy.I started with the sigma kit lens on a Ds but have now moved to a K10D with pentax DA kit lens. I was very happy with the sigma and find the pentax lens just as nice. You should be able to pick up the pentax with the DA kit lens for similar to the sigma. Also you get alot more features with the Pentax K20D than you will for the same price in a Sony,Nikon or Canon.

This photo was taken with the sigma kit 18-55.
Also don't be fooled into thinking you have a 600mm lens when you put your 300mm lens on its only croping the picture to that of a 600mm not zooming in any closer like you would get from a true 600mm

Nice work Malleerv. I really like the choice of composition and the silhouetted element.

Your observation about the 600mm lens is based on the fact that a 300mm lens is always a 300mm lens - true. But on cameras like the Olympus with a smaller sensor, the field of view for the whole frame is that of a 600mm lens on a 35mm camera, so it is the equivalent field of view that is relevant for most purposes. Nothing is actually cropped... it is just the image circle containing the sensor is Much smaller, thus the 2x "crop" factor - but only "cropped" compared to a full sized 35mm frame.

In other words Rodney B's cocky up the top of a gum tree fill the frame on his Olympus with the 300mm lens. So when he prints it out the frame is all cocky. On his old 35mm film camera with a 300mm lens cocky is surrounded by a lot of blue sky. When he prints that frame there's a lot of blue sky around it. To fill the frame with cocky like on the Olympus he would have needed a 600mm lens - which would have been very heavy and very expensive!

The only impacts are generally from reduced lens quality because the lens resolution is the same regardless of the fact that you are using a smaller image circle, and theoretical - although practically less relevant - differences in depth of field.

Lastly, I don't see that any of the Pentax, Sony, Nikon or Canon cameras really provide "alot more features". They're all about the same give or take a little in different areas. It is usually the photographer that makes the difference as it is clear you know ;-)

Side by side comparison on DPReview

d80

The D 80 is outdated now and is too expensive in comparison to the price for the specs of the newer models IMHO

the newer model only came out last week. The D90 and I can only presume it is 1500 without lense but I am only guessing, It is also a high def video also

I have a Sony A100 and am about to upgrade to an A700.

Reason i bought the A100 was I had Minolta 35mm cameras and could use the lenses, so only bought the body not the Sony lenses.

Since then have bought a Tamron 18-250 and have not regetted it what so ever. I still use the lenses and the Minolta 35mm as well.

Having looked at the lens in the twin lens kit with the A350 I would not bother.

Buy a body and a tamron 18-250 that's all you will ever need. Unless you want super long range telephoto.

Regards
Ross

www.digitalcamerawholesale.com.au had the best price on the K20D + Pentax 18-250 when I bought mine.

They're in Melbourne as well as Sydney.

Boobook,
you are dead right there. I am up to my 8th nikon and am looking at getting another at the beginning of next year. I still have and use all the same lenses. My first auto focus lense went onto an F3 body it was a 20mm and I have had it for over 15 years now, and I bought it second hand. I didn't get a body to suit the lense untill 2 years later. These lenses will outlast me.

My 37 year old 50/1.4 is now Image-Stabilised on my Pentax K20D.

In the dpreview comparison the A700 lost out.

Fully agree, the best reviews in the world bar none.

They do make occasional mistakes (testing Shake Reduction at 1 metre when the manufacturer says it doesn't work well at close distances), but there is no site that does better comparison testing with results you can see yourself.

Most people want more than 2 Mpixel resolution for their images.

You just don't have the aperture and ISO control you have on a DSLR.

Hullo Mike,

My Sony HDD Handycam takes 16:9 still photos at 4.6 megapixels.

My Canon DSLR is 6 Megapixels (one of the first, several years old now).

My Canon G9 is 12 megapixels.

I'm an enthusiastic practical photographer. Not in the class of those above who have posted their pictures.

I can remember, only a few short years ago, when 2 megapixels was considered outrageously huge (I still have a Kodak D2.8, built like a brick s**thouse).

For me, these cameras are fine. The G9 pictures have to be reduced to be practical. Twelve megs is too much.

That's my 2 bob's worth.

Here's one that I like:

Image Could Not Be Found

It was actually taken by another EO member but it suits me.

"I can remember, only a few short years ago, when 2 megapixels was considered outrageously huge "

Yes, I still have my first Digital Camera which was used to print A3 size posters for display - it was 1.3 MPixel !

To produce FullHD a videocamera only needs to produce 2 MPixels (1920 x 1080). Those videocams that produce still pictures above 2Mpixel do so by upresing - creating pixels that weren't photographed.

Videocams do have a great zoom range (10:1) and some have capabilities not in any DSLR, like Nightshot (shots in total darkness using infra-red illumination).

But they can't go near a DSLR in quality, especially as soon as you get into low lighting.

Thanks Brian
I already have a Konica/Minolta Z2 that does the same but is not manually adjustable focus so this is why I want a true SLR. We have several thousand 35mm slides taken over the last 45 years and one of the jobs I have to do is put them onto a disc.
I've done several hundred of them but the Konica just doesn't focus accurately enough to my liking so hence the need for an SLR. Plus I want to take better Macro and wildlife stuff so would like a play with a good SLR.

Cheers