In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.
Consider this site for, perhaps, better digital camera reviews:
dpreview . com
I think this website is important enough to see that I created an account here just to tell you about it.
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.
Up until I read these comments I had no idea what Pentax was or what they produce. I've been looking to replace my water logged camera for a while now (it wet at the beach). I'll have to look into Pentax some more.....
It means that you are looking through the taking lens, rather than through a viewfinder that is separate.
It uses a mirror in front of the film, or sensor, that flips up right before the picture is taken, and then right back down again. The mirror usually also reflects the light to the meter, which is usually in the area of the prism, on top of the camera (the bump you see on top).
The prism also enables the reflected light from the mirror to be projected out the back, and top of the camera, where the viewfinder is.
some cheaper digital cameras also allow viewing through the lens, but use no mirror, and show the image on a small, magnified, display inside the viewfinder. This is called "live view".
While such a camera is a single through the lens viewing camera, it's not a reflex, because it doesn't use a prism, which is where the term reflex comes from.
Some new D-SLR's now have live viewing as well, but under limited conditions, not as a general purpose function.
I hope that helped. If it's still not clear, ask more questions.
As far as I remember according to dpreview Sony A100 has terrible noise at ISO 800 and higher. It is quite a original choice to pick a camera with 400 ISO max. for low light.
Seriously, this isn't even remotely a good write up of the field. Pentax excluded as many have mentioned, Sony suggested for its paper features. If you are blown away by what is on the data sheet this is the review for you, otherwise read something half real at dpreview.
Stick to computers anandtech (not that anyone but Anand and Johan do a good job at that here either), or hire someone good.
I'm sure the answer to a better Photo Editor would be you. We understand you are disappointed that Anand did not hire you to write for AT, but the years of criticizing the Editors he did choose to hire is getting very tiring. You really need to get over it and move on.
The Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not designs purely for 4/3 as the Oly lenses are - they are mount adaptations of existing lenses such as the Bigma.
Some notes on the different implementations of AF in Live View between the different manufacturers might have been useful, as well as noting that the best AF performance will still be obtained through use of the real viewfinder.
Finally I agree with the need to go physically try a camera before buying. For example the reviews at DPReview typically complain about the grip of the 400D/XTi, while praising the A100. However I find that the 400D is much more comfortable as my pinkie just curls up below the body, while on the A100 the grip is too long to do that, but too short for the pinkie to actually grab, so my pinkie just kinda hangs in space.
[quote]The Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not designs purely for 4/3 as the Oly lenses are - they are mount adaptations of existing lenses such as the Bigma. [/quote]
That's correct.
As far as I'm concerned, the 4/3 system, which I was initially excited about upon its announcement, is not worth the long term purchase of the equipment.
Olympus could have used the image circle of the APS C sensor for a larger image sensor, which could have been done, but chose not to. So, instead of having a magnification of possibly 1.4 to 1.3x, it's 2x. A poor choice. Also, if they hadn't done that, all APS C sensor lenses would have the same magnification as Olympus's lenses, and better S/N, rather than worse.
As they made no concession to size when designing the cameras and lenses for this system, there is no advantage there either.
It seems to be a bastard system to me, and conveys no advantage.
... the largest (or tiniest) problem with 4/3 cameras like the Olympus. The ridiculously small and dim viewfinder. It's like looking through a small tunnel. Simply not practical. Just looking at any Nikon or Canon VF makes a world of a difference. I'm not even talking about the 5D.
I generally agree, and even the Pro E-1 was pretty small and dim. However,Look throught the E-3 viewfinder with a standard 1.15x viewfinder. I suspect any doubts that a 4/3 viewfinder can be huge, bright, and very easy to use will disappear. It took a few years but the E-3 viewfinder is definitely a huge leap forward for the 4/3 system.
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3.
Also, the E-3 doesn't have a lens cleaning feature:
"The E-3 is also the first Olympus pro model to feature built-in flash, and it's dust and splash sealed. Auto lens cleaning is a feature, image stabilization is built in and works with all lenses, and the latest incarnation of Live View with a fold out articulating LCD screen is featured."
I assume you're referring to the sensor cleaning feature?
This section refers to the E-510 having multiple cross type sensors:
"However, the autofocus is still a weakness in an otherwise very capable system. It uses the somewhat dated 3-point autofocus, but cross sensors provide for greater sensitivity. "
Or at least that's how I read it, of the three AF points only one of them is a cross type (the centre one) while the other two are vertical only.
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3.
Also, the E-3 doesn't have a lens cleaning feature:
"The E-3 is also the first Olympus pro model to feature built-in flash, and it's dust and splash sealed. Auto lens cleaning is a feature, image stabilization is built in and works with all lenses, and the latest incarnation of Live View with a fold out articulating LCD screen is featured."
I assume you're referring to the sensor cleaning feature?
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.
The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
This isn't a bad buying guide and certainly better than wired magazines recent guide which was horrible.
My main concern(and I am a photography teacher) is that these guides don't ever really take into account one of the primary reasons for buying a DSLR...the lenses & accessories. There are many reasons why most pros or semi pros choose nikon or canon(and I am a canon guy myself). They have lenses and accessories for everything. Need a macro lens, got it, need a tilt shift...got it...super tele for birdwatching or sports...got it...super low light prime...got it. And I think sports will be a main reason for many families buying DSLR's. Nikon and Canon are far superior for shooting sports. There are 3rd party alternatives for many other brands, but they often are not as good as the manufacturers lenses or have issues with focusing or compatibility(sigma is well known for this). Then there are the accessories...off camera flashes, macro flashes, off camera cords, battery grips...the list goes on. Some of the other brands might have some of these as well...but at some point, if a photographer progresses they will likely reach a point where sony or olympus or even pentax doesnt have the lens or accessory for what they want to do. Might not happen, but if you get really into the hobby it probably will. There is also the factor of the used lens market...It is far easier to find used lenses for Nikon and Canon on ebay, FredMiranda, B&H, etc.
I also fully agree with some of the above comments about image quality. These are DSLR's NOT point and shoots...I think people have gotten obsessed with features with point and shoot cameras, but with DSLR's its about the image quality...and what these articles frequently forget is that the image quality often comes down to the glass. You are really buying a lens system, not a body...Megapixels, in camera stabilization, and sensor cleaning really are not that big a deal.
The only '3nd tier' brand that would be interesting is Pentax, since you can use their older lenses...a big factor, since many of the older primes are great lenses and can be bought cheap. I would never recommend Sony or Olympus to students or friends.
If magazines and websites are going to start talking about DSLR's, they need to not focus on the bodies so much and start seriously talking about the lenses and recognize that Canon and Nikon are on top for a reason...they have everything you will ever need for your camera.
Actually we chose the Olympus E-510 2-lens kit BECAUSE of the superior imaging quality of the kit lenses. Both kit lenses, which cover the 35mm equivalent of 28mm to 300 mm are far better in image quality than either Canon or Nikon kit lenses. Check out other review sites and you will see many other sites agree the Olympus kit lenses are better quality than the competition and that Olympus 4/3 lenses in general provide better image quality than competing lenses on APS-C cameries.
Do we ignore image quality and select Canon or Nikon because they are better known in DSLR? We agree and stated that Canon or Nikon are the safe choices, but thy are not necessarily the best quality in digital imaging.
I can get a Nikon 18-200mm (27mm - 300m) in a single lens that is superior in both image quality and range than the two Olympus kit lenses. This lens is considered a convenience and not 'high quality', so what does that say about the kit lenses in absolute image quality? Of course this one lens alone is only slightly cheaper than the twin lens E-510 kit. SLRs cost a fortune in glass & accessories, not bodies. But I'm sure you knew that ;)
The E-510 is a fantastic cam, but it's far from a good choice if you want to get into photography as the earlier poster said.
The sample photos are also rather 'soft'. It's a great cam, but don't be trying to say it offers superior image quality to a Nikon or Canon body - both have larger sensors and therefore have the advantage.
If someone is going to stick solely to kit lenses then they're better off with a super-zoom because at least then they can point and shoot and get comparable image quality for a lot less money and a smaller overall package.
In a year's time the SLRs that have been recommended here will be replaced with new models, making the choice here largely moot. However, the glass/flash you already have will still be as good then as it is now. Hence do you want to spend a load of cash each year on a good body and rubbish glass and end up with the same quality photos - or get a cheap body now and invest wisely in good glass? The body in a year will be worth very little, but the lens will barely have dropped in price at all, meaning you can still sell it without losing much money. This is why the system is so important and why the vast majority of people go Nikon/Canon, they have a great system that has lasted for decades.
The Olympus 18-180mm f3.5-6.3 (36mm-360mm) is available as a walk around for less than $400 if you want one lens. You really need to check Olympus lens reviews from several major lens review sites. I think you will be more than surpirsed at the quality and lens performance of the common 14-54mm f2.8-3.5, the 7-14 (14-28) f4.0 or 11-22 f2.8-3.5, the 50mm-200mm f2.8, the 50mm f2.8 Macro, etc.
Don't take my word for it, look at real comparisons, not just what you suppose is true. Imaging Resource was so impressed with the performance of the E-510 and E-3 lenses that they have recently been testing all the Olympus lenses at their affiliated www.slrgear.com site.
Many readers are too young to know this, but Olympus was one fo the premier lens makers, as far as performance and quality, in the 35mm era. They never got AF right, so seeing them coming back strong in DSLR is very interesting - and the lens development staff is still there for stellar optical designs for 4/3.
I own both a Canon 5D and 40D, a new Olympus E-3, and a Pentax K10D. I sold my Nikon equipment and a Sony A100 when I got the 5D. The lenses were carefully selected for my needs and optical performance. The Olympus and 5D produce the best images IMHO. The E-3 is the fastest and quietest in operation among all the cameras I own, and it is the camera I usually carry with me these days. That could change but I was genuinely shocked by the E-3 as I didn't expect what it is.
That's very interesting, and I like to be proven wrong :) I still have my doubts about the system overall - but the lenses do seem to be very good. The 18-180mm is somewhat disappointing in terms of price (in the UK) and aperture (6.3 :( ), but the 7-14 looks very fancy:
"Indeed, rather than just describing it as the only ultra-wide option for Four Thirds owners, we'd go as far as to say it's a compelling reason to buy a Four Thirds body in the first place. Certainly if you're a well-healed ultra-wide fanatic looking to invest in a new DSLR system, it should sway your decision towards Four Thirds. We particularly enjoyed testing the ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm and, reservations about price noted, can highly recommend it." - CameraLabs: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/pa...">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/pa...
If it was cheaper (a lot cheaper) and accomodated filters I would be tempted to have an Olympus E-510 for general use. None of the lenses match the best Nikon/Canon kit, but they definitely hold their own in the mainstream. Then again, given the relatively high cost of these Olympus lenses for what you get, I would still prefer a Nikon/Canon for barely any extra cash. I think in the next article you need to elaborate more on why Olympus may be better than Nikon/Canon? But also make sure to mention Nikon/Canon's merits rather than writing them off as just 'the most common'.
But still, the overall system is relatively immature albeit improving far more rapidly than I thought.
We get frustrated by the lack of Edit in comments also :). The 50mm Macro (100mm eqivalent) is a fast f2.0, not the f2.8 reported by my typo. Ther ias also a new, reasonable (about $200 plus a current $35 rebate - net $165) Macro lens in the 35mm f3.5 (70mm equivalent)
I'm not sure what to make of this article tbh, it doesn't seem to have a particular target audience in mind - at least not an obvious one.
I'm assuming the idea wasn't to target serious amateurs/enthusiasts at all, since for these people the body is secondary to the system itself. You buy an expensive lens - and use it for years and years, as well as numerous other accessories.
So that leaves one remaining target - the person who wants high quality snapshots with the odd serious creative photos in-between. I think in this case, the bias to Olympus is probably fine, they're small and cheap with liveview - perfect for family holidays, etc. I remember seeing a woman contemplating buying a Canon EOS 40D or Nikon D200 for family photos. Neither gives good photos in auto imo anyway. The Olympus on the other hand with liveview means it's almost trivial to get good snapshots.
But what does concern me, are the factual inaccuracies. I sense the author used film a lot and got cajoled into writing a DSLR article. The end result? Some quick research and some loaner bodies from the big-boys. For example Nikon has one full-frame body, and it's barely even out the door. That hardly shows Nikon are really big on full-frame. In fact their stance was borderline full-frame hostile for years:
Nikon also have more crop-sensor only lenses than any other manufacturer. There are more DX lenses out there than for the heavily under-used 4/3 system. Of all the manufacturers involved with 4/3, only two are producing bodies (Olympus/Panasonic) and only three are producing lenses (Leica, Olympus, Sigma) and in very limited quantities.
The 1.5x/1.6x format is easily a standard since it hasn't changed since inception. There are numerous lenses designed specifically for this standard too.
Now I'm not saying it won't disappear, potentially full-frame will become the dominant format. But given the sales cheap entry-level SLRs are getting, it's just as likely that entry level will remain with nice cheap (relatively) APS-C sensors indefinitely.
IMO I would rather have 35mm (aka full-frame) lenses than DX, simply because if you 'upgrade' later on you can continue on with the same glass. While you're still on APS-C, you have the advantage of using only the centre of the lens circle - the highest quality part.
I'm not a fan of in-camera stabilisation either, and the reasons are pretty clear. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned - especially since it was brought up so often. In-camera stabilisation means that any lens will benefit, but some more than others. A short wideangle will benefit a lot (not that it really needs it), while a long telephoto will hardly benefit (and it needs lots of stabilisation!). Finally, with in-body you can't see the stabilised image through the viewfinder so it's somewhat difficult to frame while everything is moving up and down. In-lens stabilisation (as used by Nikon/Canon) means what you see is what you get (more or less) - and it works just as effectively for a dirty great long telephoto as a wide angle.
You'll only notice the difference in the field, but when you do, it becomes a big thing. All the things that the manufacturers tend to push don't ultimately matter when in the field, it's all the little things that end up being a big deal. Things like the brightness of the viewfinder, the coverage, how the handgrip feels, the controls, the weight...
But anyway, all of this is for naught. A new SLR user should under no circumstance use a review as a basis for purchasing a piece of kit like this. You need to go out and HANDLE the camera in the shop and see which feels the best. You'll take infinitely better photos with a camera you're in tune with, than one you struggle to use properly. I personally use Nikon, because I like the way they lay everything else. You may like something else - that's fine! Whatever feels right IS right!
There is also a dearth of fast prime lenses available for APS C. The Canon 60mm Macro is the only one that comes to mind although I am sure someone will tell me others that I overlooked. There is also the Sigma 30mm f1.4 that is OK on Nikon/Canon, but pretty great in the 4/3 version.
I use mostly fast primes in product photography and you end up buying Nikon or Canon full-frame glass, pay dearly for it, and then use it at very non-demanding equivalent focal lengths.
you know, a lot of people prefer cropped sensors to full frame sensors... People who do not care about the "ultra wide" portion of their exposures and want more telephoto shots.
Personally, i'm a fan of ultra wide shots and full frame sensors. I've actually just ordered a D300 which will be here wednesday. I'm waiting for canon's successor to their 5D as i like the "non battery gripped" full frame body and their line of L series lenses. Personally, I see it to be better than nikon's ED glass series.
But hey, real photography isn't about the equipment that we use. The equipment that we use just helps our vision, no matter what what camera we use.
I agree the DSLR market will likely segment into full-frame pro/prosumer and aps-c, and then there is 4/3. Your criticism there are few lenses for 4/3 is simply not true. You can easily find an 8mm fish eye, 11-22 f2.8 ultra-wide zoom, 30 f1.4 normal, 12-60, 14-54 f2.8, 14-42/13-45 f3.5, 40-150, 50-200 f2.8 and additional specialized fast lenses aimed at the pro/prosumer. Compare the 4/3 lens lineup to the available APS-C lenses even from the majors and the selection is extensive by comparison.
Your statement is not fully correct on mechanical IS vs optical. Olympus Live View allows you to SEE the impact of IS on the image. In Live View you hold down the IS button to see the impact of IS on the screen. This is particularly useful on the new E-3.
Where is the 'testing' ? Sample images ? Extensive feature comparison ?
I know its holiday season guys, but come on, anyone could have tossed together a bunch of images of cameras, and read specifications on cameras, putting it all together into an 'article'.
I am all for you guys doing camera articles, but at the same time, I feel if you're going to do it, you need to do it right.
I do think sample images would be overkill for so many cameras reviewed, don't you think ? If you want sample pictures there's full of sites that have them you can compare the same scene for n different cameras at different settings and pixel peep the whole day.
Since this is a guide your claims seem out of place and from personal experience if you take photography seriously it's very difficult to distinguish between entry level and even midrange DSLRs based solely on image quality so yeah features and build quality do count, in the film days you had basically the same sensor for every DSLR however some were xx$ other xxx$ and others even xxxx$.
I find the guide quite truthful the E510 is a great buy (check the dpreview review) certainly better than the D40X(features) or 400D (both features and build quality) and i would say a little weaker than the K10D(a special case as thios is an entry level camera only on price)as as for Sony(Minolta) i don't really consider them ever no matter how good the body is their limited range of modern lenses is way overpriced.
I doubt that any of the cameras were actually tested. They just seem to be his preferences, sometimes, based on incorrect information, or lack of understanding.
I personally have spent time shooting with EVERY camera mentioned in this Buyers Gude except the Nikon D300 which supposedly has just started shipping.
This is a Buyers Guide based on my experiences using these cameras. It is not a review. My first SLR was a Pentax over 40 years ago and I have owned and used almost every 35mm system over the years, and even shot medium format exclusively for several years. I made a living as a Professional Photographer for two periods in my career.
It is very easy to profess to know everything, but quite difficult to admit there are many things you don't know. I don't know everything about photography, but I suspect I have much more valid experience to write this Buyers Guide that most who would tackle this. I also have an open mind not severly blinded by conventional wisdom or marketing hype, which is why I have been writing for AnandTech for quite a while.
I personally have spent time shooting with EVERY camera mentioned in this Buyers Gude except the Nikon D300 which supposedly has just started shipping.
This is a Buyers Guide based on my experiences using these cameras. It is not a review. My first SLR was a Pentax over 40 years ago and I have owned and used almost every 35mm system over the years, and even shot medium format exclusively for several years. I made a living as a Professional Photographer for two periods in my career.
It is very easy to profess to know everything, but quite difficult to admit there are many things you don't know. I don't know everything about photography, but I suspect I have much more valid experience to write this Buyers Guide that most who would tackle this. I also have an open mind not severly blinded by conventional wisdom or marketing hype, which is why I have been writing for AnandTech for quite a while.
Corrected the typo. I personally have spent time shooting with EVERY camera mentioned in this Buyers Gude except the Nikon D300 which supposedly has just started shipping.
This is a Buyers Guide based on my experiences using these cameras. It is not a review. My first SLR was a Pentax over 40 years ago and I have owned and used almost every system over the years, including medium format. I made a living as a Professional Photographer for two periods in my career.
It is very easy to profess to know everything, but quite difficult to admit there are many things you don't know. I don't know everything about photography, but I suspect I have much more valid experience to write this Buyers Guide that most who would tackle this. I also have an open mind not severly blinded by conventional wisdom or marketing hype, which is why I have been writing for AnandTech for quite a while.
Photo people are always rabidly defensive of their own stuff. When the day is done, guess what... they all work pretty much the same for the rest of the world.
Is the prosumer section a joke? The only thing you can come up with for Canon is that "it doesn't break new ground" and that 10 MP is too skimpy? Excuse me? It's common knowledge that more megapixels does not equal better, and it's even more known that the difference between 10 and 12 megapixels in minuscule if not even impossible to tell the difference between in anything but 20"+ prints. Furthermore, the noise levels on the Canon are *so far below anything else out there* that it easily out-resolves its 12mp brethren.
But come on guys, stick with what you're good at, reviewing mobos/CPUs/PSU and so on. I've never really been impressed with your camera reviews/buying guides. The most important thing about buying a camera is image quality. Fancy bells and whistles are nice, but if the picture looks like crap, who cares. If you read real reviews of these cameras at sites like dpreview, you'll see that there is a valid reason why Canon/Nikon cameras are the best sellers, image quality.
I've long been a fan of Anandtech but this article and others that try to talk about high-end cameras make me do the "oh jeez did they really write that?" face.
As the above poster says it's about image quality in the D-SLR category. Optical image stabilization is simply better than mechanical. And there are many times when a straight prime with no stabilization is best.
And please don't talk about auto focus speed of the body alone. The lens has a lot to do with auto focus.
I could go on and on so please if you have to do camera articles just stay with rangefinders.
I got E410 in August just before my trip to Japan. The reviews were favourable and I wanted something light. After using it for a while, I am really happy with most aspects of it, and the price has fallen even further since. It is really a very light camera AND lens(es), making it easy to hang around your neck and take with you every day. Yet it's full featured and it makes nice pictures. I have no complaints on the lens whatsoever, and with a fast CF card it's pretty snappy. The only real complaint is dynamic range, as the various reviewers noted. It's easy to blow out highlights in high contrast situations - which is the most situations, unfortunately, when you're a tourist going outside on a sunny day. So one must keep fiddling with the exposure compensation. Other than that, I can't see any reason to not recommend this camera to someone who is going on a vacation and wants to make good pictures but is not interested in totting large bags and heavy lenses. Pictures these Olympus make were much better than what my friend's Canon Elph (the newest model) made, and for not that much more money.
Oh yeah, almost forgot. There is one more complaint - focus hunting. I never had a SLR before so I can't compare but it seemed to me that E410 has trouble focusing in some situations (not just low light) more than an DSLR should. It does have the least focus points of any DSLR if I remember correctly so that may be the reason. In the end I often just use the center sensor and manually lock focus, then do the composition.
I'd comment on the missing Pentax K10D, but who cares ? No Live View, only 10MP, 22bit A/D, dust and weather sealed, image stabilisation. AND a VERY long supply of high quality Pentax lenses... sub 1000$ ... but who cares ? It's last year news (tho you cover olympus 410/510 which are also not new).
I see you adapted the computer world obsession for numbers and new models. Get rid of it. Fast.
If I would buy a new DSLR now it would be either Pentax K10D (and I own a few Nikon lenses) or the Nikon D300 (but this is the more expensive decision).
Yes, I'd comment on the missing Pentax K10D... except it's already on page 5.
"Alternative: If low-light performance is a major concern, then you would do well to choose the Sony A100 kit with the 18-70mm kit lens. For a bit more money, the Pentax K10D gives you a great 11-point focus module, all the other features, and pro-type dust and moisture sealing."
I don't understand the statement here that only full frame and 4/3 are standard. This seems to be some prejudice on the part of the writer, who seems to be pushing Olympus very strongly.
The APS "C" sensor is more standard than is the 4/3. Just take a look at how many companies are producing "C" sensors, and how many are producing 4/3.
That said, my 5D does produce some of the best pictures around (though I'm looking forward to its expected replacement at the PPA in March.
Glad to see this column back!! Good article overall, but I wish Pentax had been included too, I miss HyperProgram from my film camera.
As a photography student, I'd like to add my two pennies worth to deciding on what camera.
First, if you have good lenses from older cameras, consider sticking w/ that brand. Bodies are cheap compared to good lenses, and there are good, in-depth reviews of lenses, like lightrules, on the web.
Second, there are plenty of reviews of cameras on the web, so do your homework. Look for fast autofocus, and just as important, low light auto focus speed, w/ and w/o flash and w/ and w/o image stabilization. Trying to get pictures of your childs face on christmas WILL SUCK if your camera keeps hunting and strobing the flash, then picks a bulb on the tree to focus on. Try to pony up for image stabilization, it really helps to get pictures in low light w/o using the flash, and most pictures w/o on camera flash are much nicer. Just to put autofocus in perspective, I'm a pentax guy that uses a canon, but if the d300's 51 point autofocus works as well as it should, I'd seriously consider switching.
Closely related to this is ISO number. Look for the lowest noise at the highest iso numbers. Many websites include crops of pictures at all iso numbers, check them to to see if its worth going to ISO1600. I'll say this, most sensors do well to ISO800 if exposed properly and to ISO1600 if exposed properly and kept highkey.
(don't worry about daylight, outdoor shots, most DSLR's and their lenses do well in bright light.)
Third, if your coming from a P&S, try get live view or what ever its called. It's very difficult to learn to keep the view finder up to your eye; if you see it thru the view finder, you missed the shot. Thats just the way DSLR's work.
I hope this helps, even if its just one person. These cameras are not cheap, and its way too easy to overbuy, like I did. EOS 30D owner.
I got mine last night and ho-hum about it as I upgraded from a D80. The ISO range is a welcome improvement, but need to spend some more time with it this weekend to feel it out. Set the deadline of this Sunday if I am going to return it. Need to do some more comparison shots using the 18-200 VR lens over the next couple days.
It's nice to see someone who isn't totally CaNikon blinkered.
The OM E510 looks to be a very good camera & even cheap in the UK too (Olympus rebates) as is the Pentax K10D.
The Sony A700 looks to at least match if not better the EOS 40D although it's a bit dearer.
& Sony A100 apparently is due for replacement Q1 2008 so that could be another interesting camera to watch out for.
It's an extremely competitive market so prices are falling & there are no bad DSLRs so it's a win all round for the consumers.
The Sony=Supplier for Nikon sensors so the next pro Sony will be full-frame argument isn't valid for full frame... The D3 uses a Nikon inhouse developed sensor, unless ofcourse Sony borows it from Nikon.
I forgot to say nice article :). Just a little too much focus on sensor mega pixels, anyone into photography knows that stuffing a camera with mega pixels isn't enough to make a good camera. The new 400D has "only" 10mp of resolution but, that provides for A3 or even A2 prints. Does one really need more? ok, you can crop more, sure but what is the real difference between 3000x4000 pixels (12mp) and 2800x3700 (10mp), 2-300 pixels isn't a very impressive extra crop. I'll take better high ISO performance to more MPs anyday.
Yeah, the unless you are using a full frame camera, the lens itself is limiting the effective resolution to not much more than 1OMP anyways. If you want a higher resolution without just adding garbage pixels that will end up as adding more noise(look at so many point and shoots that have these issues these days) you have to goto a larger format sensor, aka. 4" x 5" which is WAY beyond the scope of any non-professional photographer unless if you're a rich prick yuppie :)
The D40 is a steal though if you can live without manual focus, and I can't wait for the 18-55 VR to come out. (Though I wish I could afford a 12-24 instead hehe)
Wes, while it might be under NDA, what is the time frame for the Nikon 18-55 VR? Real soon, Q1, Q2 kind of thing? If they are coming out with it, very surprised they didn't launch for this holiday season.
PS - You should do these updates more often. Way back a while ago you started writing the DSLR column, but didn't continue. Keep it up ;)
11 months ago there was a review, RIGHT HERE, that identified the K10D as one of the best choices. It is barely mentioned here, even though it is being written elsewhere as a camera of the year due to the turnaround it has caused.
Why choose Pentax?
Built-in 3 axis image stabilization which works on ALL lenses.
Almost every Pentax and Pentax-compatible lens that has ever been made works just fine on this body
Dust and water sealed body - you have to spend double elsewhere to get this
Great prices and growing library of high quality and reasonably priced lenses
This is an excellent point. Pentax has actually had great, low-priced cameras from the film days. The K1000 was an awesome camera on the cheap.
Minolta Maxxum cameras (now Sony) was also a less expensive, but excellent camera. I have owned the Maxxum 7000, 600si and Minolta Maxxum Alpha 707 (my current camera). Although the 7000s were more durable, these cameras have excellent autofocus (they have almost always more fast and accurate than Canon/Nikon), great lenses, and are loaded with features. I am still looking for a cheap Maxxum 9 now that film is less popular.
If I were to get a new body, I would get a Sony A700, since my lenses will work, and be image stabilized (ever look at the cost of Canon's IS lenses? Ouch!). However, if I were buying a completely new system, I would be seriously tempted by Pentax, as I trust Sony less than I trusted Minolta :).
All of my pro photo customers are using Canon, even the Nikon fans. Anything big and they use a Hasselblad-Leaf system. I've heard lots of complaints about the D40x shooting JPEG poorly. Apparently to get good results one must shoot in RAW. I doubt any will switch to Sony or Pentax. Not because they aren't as good (and I think that the Sony is as good). But Minolta and Pentax have always been considered "second tier" amongst that crowd, and I just don't see that changing, whatever the merits.
Regarding lack of Minolta lenses, I have not noticed any difficulty getting good, reasonably-priced lenses, and there is a large used market in the form of eBay and B&H if one prefers something not-new.
I'm not sure how they "missed" the Pentax K10D....
Page 4: "One of the amazing price drops of this season is the Pentax K10D, which can be found with the kit lens for around $750, or as a body alone for as little as $650. The Pentax K10D is the only camera in this group that has full dust and moisture sealing. It also features body-integral image stabilization, auto sensor cleaning, and an 11-point focusing system."
Page 5: "Alternative: If low-light performance is a major concern, then you would do well to choose the Sony A100 kit with the 18-70mm kit lens. For a bit more money, the Pentax K10D gives you a great 11-point focus module, all the other features, and pro-type dust and moisture sealing."
Maybe you missed the word "barely". I read the review. I know what it said, and agreed with the OP that Pentax got "barely" a mention, where it really produces because it has to in order to compete against the name power of Nikon and Canon.
It's not just "name power". Pentax certainly deserves a mention due to features, build quality and price, but image quality and (above all) lens selection are far behind Canon or Nikon. It's an excellent alternative to compact cameras, and I suppose it's a reasonable choice for amateurs, but not really an option for pro / semi-pro work.
P.S. - As a whole, this article is a joke, as are pretty much all photo-related articles on this site. It seems the author decided to compare spec sheets and draw (dubious) conclusions from that, instead of actually using the cameras. Thankfully, there are plenty of camera review sites where these same cameras are covered in depth, by experienced people, who actually use them before writing their conclusions. I suggest you go there, look at what the photographers have to say and (above all) look at photos taken with each camera (and lens).
Maybe I did. And maybe that's why no one should assume that Anandtech readers read every article to come down the pike. Maybe some people were busy that week. Or maybe since this seems to be talking about which camera to buy, models still in the running should be given more attention considering some may buy based on the advice in this article. More exposure in the review and the camera might be considered. But when the other camera manufacturers have an entire page or more devoted to them, the chance of someone thinking of Pentax will be small indeed.
In any case, I enjoyed the article for the most part, and it seems that someone's worry over whether the article had some critical comment attached is overworked. It was a good point, I agreed with it, get over it.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
74 Comments
Back to Article
xoham - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.Consider this site for, perhaps, better digital camera reviews:
dpreview . com
I think this website is important enough to see that I created an account here just to tell you about it.
xoham - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.Consider this site for, perhaps, better digital camera reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/
I think this website is important enough to see that I created an account here just to tell you about it.
xoham - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.Consider this site for, perhaps, better digital camera reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/
I think this website is important enough to see that I created an account here just to tell you about it.
xoham - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.Consider this site for, perhaps, better digital camera reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/
I think this website is important enough to see that I created an account here just to tell you about it.
xoham - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link
In my view, Canon is great. I would prefer that they integrated the image stabilization into the camera body like their competitors but I am otherwise very happy with my Canon.Consider this site for, perhaps, better digital camera reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/
I think this website is important enough to see that I created an account here just to tell you about it.
ChibiKitty - Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - link
Up until I read these comments I had no idea what Pentax was or what they produce. I've been looking to replace my water logged camera for a while now (it wet at the beach). I'll have to look into Pentax some more.....rodspade - Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - link
For those of us who aren't already camera mavens, it would have been nice to have the term "SLR" explained.melgross - Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - link
Single Lens Reflex.It means that you are looking through the taking lens, rather than through a viewfinder that is separate.
It uses a mirror in front of the film, or sensor, that flips up right before the picture is taken, and then right back down again. The mirror usually also reflects the light to the meter, which is usually in the area of the prism, on top of the camera (the bump you see on top).
The prism also enables the reflected light from the mirror to be projected out the back, and top of the camera, where the viewfinder is.
some cheaper digital cameras also allow viewing through the lens, but use no mirror, and show the image on a small, magnified, display inside the viewfinder. This is called "live view".
While such a camera is a single through the lens viewing camera, it's not a reflex, because it doesn't use a prism, which is where the term reflex comes from.
Some new D-SLR's now have live viewing as well, but under limited conditions, not as a general purpose function.
I hope that helped. If it's still not clear, ask more questions.
Morro - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
As far as I remember according to dpreview Sony A100 has terrible noise at ISO 800 and higher. It is quite a original choice to pick a camera with 400 ISO max. for low light.drwho9437 - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
Seriously, this isn't even remotely a good write up of the field. Pentax excluded as many have mentioned, Sony suggested for its paper features. If you are blown away by what is on the data sheet this is the review for you, otherwise read something half real at dpreview.Stick to computers anandtech (not that anyone but Anand and Johan do a good job at that here either), or hire someone good.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link
I'm sure the answer to a better Photo Editor would be you. We understand you are disappointed that Anand did not hire you to write for AT, but the years of criticizing the Editors he did choose to hire is getting very tiring. You really need to get over it and move on.KorruptioN - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link
Burn.strikeback03 - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
The Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not designs purely for 4/3 as the Oly lenses are - they are mount adaptations of existing lenses such as the Bigma.Some notes on the different implementations of AF in Live View between the different manufacturers might have been useful, as well as noting that the best AF performance will still be obtained through use of the real viewfinder.
Finally I agree with the need to go physically try a camera before buying. For example the reviews at DPReview typically complain about the grip of the 400D/XTi, while praising the A100. However I find that the 400D is much more comfortable as my pinkie just curls up below the body, while on the A100 the grip is too long to do that, but too short for the pinkie to actually grab, so my pinkie just kinda hangs in space.
melgross - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
[quote]The Sigma lenses for 4/3 are not designs purely for 4/3 as the Oly lenses are - they are mount adaptations of existing lenses such as the Bigma. [/quote]That's correct.
As far as I'm concerned, the 4/3 system, which I was initially excited about upon its announcement, is not worth the long term purchase of the equipment.
Olympus could have used the image circle of the APS C sensor for a larger image sensor, which could have been done, but chose not to. So, instead of having a magnification of possibly 1.4 to 1.3x, it's 2x. A poor choice. Also, if they hadn't done that, all APS C sensor lenses would have the same magnification as Olympus's lenses, and better S/N, rather than worse.
As they made no concession to size when designing the cameras and lenses for this system, there is no advantage there either.
It seems to be a bastard system to me, and conveys no advantage.
frombauer - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
... the largest (or tiniest) problem with 4/3 cameras like the Olympus. The ridiculously small and dim viewfinder. It's like looking through a small tunnel. Simply not practical. Just looking at any Nikon or Canon VF makes a world of a difference. I'm not even talking about the 5D.Wesley Fink - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
I generally agree, and even the Pro E-1 was pretty small and dim. However,Look throught the E-3 viewfinder with a standard 1.15x viewfinder. I suspect any doubts that a 4/3 viewfinder can be huge, bright, and very easy to use will disappear. It took a few years but the E-3 viewfinder is definitely a huge leap forward for the 4/3 system.Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3.
Also, the E-3 doesn't have a lens cleaning feature:
"The E-3 is also the first Olympus pro model to feature built-in flash, and it's dust and splash sealed. Auto lens cleaning is a feature, image stabilization is built in and works with all lenses, and the latest incarnation of Live View with a fold out articulating LCD screen is featured."
I assume you're referring to the sensor cleaning feature?
This section refers to the E-510 having multiple cross type sensors:
"However, the autofocus is still a weakness in an otherwise very capable system. It uses the somewhat dated 3-point autofocus, but cross sensors provide for greater sensitivity. "
Or at least that's how I read it, of the three AF points only one of them is a cross type (the centre one) while the other two are vertical only.
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
...turns out it was posting them despite it erroring and not showing initially...Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Yes I was thinking of the 2 as they long similar. Thanks for the info. I have corrected the reference.Johnmcl7 - Sunday, November 25, 2007 - link
Thanks for the correction, the other errors (E-3 lens cleaning and E-510 AF) are still there though.John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3.
Also, the E-3 doesn't have a lens cleaning feature:
"The E-3 is also the first Olympus pro model to feature built-in flash, and it's dust and splash sealed. Auto lens cleaning is a feature, image stabilization is built in and works with all lenses, and the latest incarnation of Live View with a fold out articulating LCD screen is featured."
I assume you're referring to the sensor cleaning feature?
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
Johnmcl7 - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Digilux 3 is the Leica branded version of the Panasonic DMC-L1 and they're both relatively hefty cameras when compared to the smaller E-410/E-510 cameras or even their Olympus sibling the E-330. Although not anywhere near as big as something like the 5D, the Digilux 3 is bigger than the E-510.The Digilux 2 was a smaller camera (Leica version of the Panasonic LC-1) which may be the one you're thinking of although this wasn't an SLR despite the similarity in design to the L1/Digilux 3
John
smmorrison - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
This isn't a bad buying guide and certainly better than wired magazines recent guide which was horrible.My main concern(and I am a photography teacher) is that these guides don't ever really take into account one of the primary reasons for buying a DSLR...the lenses & accessories. There are many reasons why most pros or semi pros choose nikon or canon(and I am a canon guy myself). They have lenses and accessories for everything. Need a macro lens, got it, need a tilt shift...got it...super tele for birdwatching or sports...got it...super low light prime...got it. And I think sports will be a main reason for many families buying DSLR's. Nikon and Canon are far superior for shooting sports. There are 3rd party alternatives for many other brands, but they often are not as good as the manufacturers lenses or have issues with focusing or compatibility(sigma is well known for this). Then there are the accessories...off camera flashes, macro flashes, off camera cords, battery grips...the list goes on. Some of the other brands might have some of these as well...but at some point, if a photographer progresses they will likely reach a point where sony or olympus or even pentax doesnt have the lens or accessory for what they want to do. Might not happen, but if you get really into the hobby it probably will. There is also the factor of the used lens market...It is far easier to find used lenses for Nikon and Canon on ebay, FredMiranda, B&H, etc.
I also fully agree with some of the above comments about image quality. These are DSLR's NOT point and shoots...I think people have gotten obsessed with features with point and shoot cameras, but with DSLR's its about the image quality...and what these articles frequently forget is that the image quality often comes down to the glass. You are really buying a lens system, not a body...Megapixels, in camera stabilization, and sensor cleaning really are not that big a deal.
The only '3nd tier' brand that would be interesting is Pentax, since you can use their older lenses...a big factor, since many of the older primes are great lenses and can be bought cheap. I would never recommend Sony or Olympus to students or friends.
If magazines and websites are going to start talking about DSLR's, they need to not focus on the bodies so much and start seriously talking about the lenses and recognize that Canon and Nikon are on top for a reason...they have everything you will ever need for your camera.
just my .02
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Actually we chose the Olympus E-510 2-lens kit BECAUSE of the superior imaging quality of the kit lenses. Both kit lenses, which cover the 35mm equivalent of 28mm to 300 mm are far better in image quality than either Canon or Nikon kit lenses. Check out other review sites and you will see many other sites agree the Olympus kit lenses are better quality than the competition and that Olympus 4/3 lenses in general provide better image quality than competing lenses on APS-C cameries.Do we ignore image quality and select Canon or Nikon because they are better known in DSLR? We agree and stated that Canon or Nikon are the safe choices, but thy are not necessarily the best quality in digital imaging.
boogle - Sunday, November 25, 2007 - link
The kit lens is better, no question. But the lenses you get later on are vastly superior from Nikon / Canon. I don't see any Olympus lenses used in industry: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/do...">http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/do...I can get a Nikon 18-200mm (27mm - 300m) in a single lens that is superior in both image quality and range than the two Olympus kit lenses. This lens is considered a convenience and not 'high quality', so what does that say about the kit lenses in absolute image quality? Of course this one lens alone is only slightly cheaper than the twin lens E-510 kit. SLRs cost a fortune in glass & accessories, not bodies. But I'm sure you knew that ;)
The E-510 is a fantastic cam, but it's far from a good choice if you want to get into photography as the earlier poster said.
As for image quality, Nikon and Canon are superior there too:
ISO performance is noisier: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page17...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page17...
Dynamic range is lower: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page19...">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page19... (think burnt out skies)
The sample photos are also rather 'soft'. It's a great cam, but don't be trying to say it offers superior image quality to a Nikon or Canon body - both have larger sensors and therefore have the advantage.
If someone is going to stick solely to kit lenses then they're better off with a super-zoom because at least then they can point and shoot and get comparable image quality for a lot less money and a smaller overall package.
In a year's time the SLRs that have been recommended here will be replaced with new models, making the choice here largely moot. However, the glass/flash you already have will still be as good then as it is now. Hence do you want to spend a load of cash each year on a good body and rubbish glass and end up with the same quality photos - or get a cheap body now and invest wisely in good glass? The body in a year will be worth very little, but the lens will barely have dropped in price at all, meaning you can still sell it without losing much money. This is why the system is so important and why the vast majority of people go Nikon/Canon, they have a great system that has lasted for decades.
Wesley Fink - Sunday, November 25, 2007 - link
The Olympus 18-180mm f3.5-6.3 (36mm-360mm) is available as a walk around for less than $400 if you want one lens. You really need to check Olympus lens reviews from several major lens review sites. I think you will be more than surpirsed at the quality and lens performance of the common 14-54mm f2.8-3.5, the 7-14 (14-28) f4.0 or 11-22 f2.8-3.5, the 50mm-200mm f2.8, the 50mm f2.8 Macro, etc.Don't take my word for it, look at real comparisons, not just what you suppose is true. Imaging Resource was so impressed with the performance of the E-510 and E-3 lenses that they have recently been testing all the Olympus lenses at their affiliated www.slrgear.com site.
Many readers are too young to know this, but Olympus was one fo the premier lens makers, as far as performance and quality, in the 35mm era. They never got AF right, so seeing them coming back strong in DSLR is very interesting - and the lens development staff is still there for stellar optical designs for 4/3.
I own both a Canon 5D and 40D, a new Olympus E-3, and a Pentax K10D. I sold my Nikon equipment and a Sony A100 when I got the 5D. The lenses were carefully selected for my needs and optical performance. The Olympus and 5D produce the best images IMHO. The E-3 is the fastest and quietest in operation among all the cameras I own, and it is the camera I usually carry with me these days. That could change but I was genuinely shocked by the E-3 as I didn't expect what it is.
boogle - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
That's very interesting, and I like to be proven wrong :) I still have my doubts about the system overall - but the lenses do seem to be very good. The 18-180mm is somewhat disappointing in terms of price (in the UK) and aperture (6.3 :( ), but the 7-14 looks very fancy:"Indeed, rather than just describing it as the only ultra-wide option for Four Thirds owners, we'd go as far as to say it's a compelling reason to buy a Four Thirds body in the first place. Certainly if you're a well-healed ultra-wide fanatic looking to invest in a new DSLR system, it should sway your decision towards Four Thirds. We particularly enjoyed testing the ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm and, reservations about price noted, can highly recommend it." - CameraLabs: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/pa...">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/pa...
If it was cheaper (a lot cheaper) and accomodated filters I would be tempted to have an Olympus E-510 for general use. None of the lenses match the best Nikon/Canon kit, but they definitely hold their own in the mainstream. Then again, given the relatively high cost of these Olympus lenses for what you get, I would still prefer a Nikon/Canon for barely any extra cash. I think in the next article you need to elaborate more on why Olympus may be better than Nikon/Canon? But also make sure to mention Nikon/Canon's merits rather than writing them off as just 'the most common'.
But still, the overall system is relatively immature albeit improving far more rapidly than I thought.
Wesley Fink - Sunday, November 25, 2007 - link
We get frustrated by the lack of Edit in comments also :). The 50mm Macro (100mm eqivalent) is a fast f2.0, not the f2.8 reported by my typo. Ther ias also a new, reasonable (about $200 plus a current $35 rebate - net $165) Macro lens in the 35mm f3.5 (70mm equivalent)boogle - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
I'm not sure what to make of this article tbh, it doesn't seem to have a particular target audience in mind - at least not an obvious one.I'm assuming the idea wasn't to target serious amateurs/enthusiasts at all, since for these people the body is secondary to the system itself. You buy an expensive lens - and use it for years and years, as well as numerous other accessories.
So that leaves one remaining target - the person who wants high quality snapshots with the odd serious creative photos in-between. I think in this case, the bias to Olympus is probably fine, they're small and cheap with liveview - perfect for family holidays, etc. I remember seeing a woman contemplating buying a Canon EOS 40D or Nikon D200 for family photos. Neither gives good photos in auto imo anyway. The Olympus on the other hand with liveview means it's almost trivial to get good snapshots.
But what does concern me, are the factual inaccuracies. I sense the author used film a lot and got cajoled into writing a DSLR article. The end result? Some quick research and some loaner bodies from the big-boys. For example Nikon has one full-frame body, and it's barely even out the door. That hardly shows Nikon are really big on full-frame. In fact their stance was borderline full-frame hostile for years:
http://jancology.com/blog/archives/2005/03/13/the_...">http://jancology.com/blog/archives/2005/03/13/the_...
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Nikon_cl...">http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ne...ies_full...
Nikon also have more crop-sensor only lenses than any other manufacturer. There are more DX lenses out there than for the heavily under-used 4/3 system. Of all the manufacturers involved with 4/3, only two are producing bodies (Olympus/Panasonic) and only three are producing lenses (Leica, Olympus, Sigma) and in very limited quantities.
The 1.5x/1.6x format is easily a standard since it hasn't changed since inception. There are numerous lenses designed specifically for this standard too.
Now I'm not saying it won't disappear, potentially full-frame will become the dominant format. But given the sales cheap entry-level SLRs are getting, it's just as likely that entry level will remain with nice cheap (relatively) APS-C sensors indefinitely.
IMO I would rather have 35mm (aka full-frame) lenses than DX, simply because if you 'upgrade' later on you can continue on with the same glass. While you're still on APS-C, you have the advantage of using only the centre of the lens circle - the highest quality part.
I'm not a fan of in-camera stabilisation either, and the reasons are pretty clear. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned - especially since it was brought up so often. In-camera stabilisation means that any lens will benefit, but some more than others. A short wideangle will benefit a lot (not that it really needs it), while a long telephoto will hardly benefit (and it needs lots of stabilisation!). Finally, with in-body you can't see the stabilised image through the viewfinder so it's somewhat difficult to frame while everything is moving up and down. In-lens stabilisation (as used by Nikon/Canon) means what you see is what you get (more or less) - and it works just as effectively for a dirty great long telephoto as a wide angle.
You'll only notice the difference in the field, but when you do, it becomes a big thing. All the things that the manufacturers tend to push don't ultimately matter when in the field, it's all the little things that end up being a big deal. Things like the brightness of the viewfinder, the coverage, how the handgrip feels, the controls, the weight...
But anyway, all of this is for naught. A new SLR user should under no circumstance use a review as a basis for purchasing a piece of kit like this. You need to go out and HANDLE the camera in the shop and see which feels the best. You'll take infinitely better photos with a camera you're in tune with, than one you struggle to use properly. I personally use Nikon, because I like the way they lay everything else. You may like something else - that's fine! Whatever feels right IS right!
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
There is also a dearth of fast prime lenses available for APS C. The Canon 60mm Macro is the only one that comes to mind although I am sure someone will tell me others that I overlooked. There is also the Sigma 30mm f1.4 that is OK on Nikon/Canon, but pretty great in the 4/3 version.I use mostly fast primes in product photography and you end up buying Nikon or Canon full-frame glass, pay dearly for it, and then use it at very non-demanding equivalent focal lengths.
finbarqs - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
you know, a lot of people prefer cropped sensors to full frame sensors... People who do not care about the "ultra wide" portion of their exposures and want more telephoto shots.Personally, i'm a fan of ultra wide shots and full frame sensors. I've actually just ordered a D300 which will be here wednesday. I'm waiting for canon's successor to their 5D as i like the "non battery gripped" full frame body and their line of L series lenses. Personally, I see it to be better than nikon's ED glass series.
But hey, real photography isn't about the equipment that we use. The equipment that we use just helps our vision, no matter what what camera we use.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
I agree the DSLR market will likely segment into full-frame pro/prosumer and aps-c, and then there is 4/3. Your criticism there are few lenses for 4/3 is simply not true. You can easily find an 8mm fish eye, 11-22 f2.8 ultra-wide zoom, 30 f1.4 normal, 12-60, 14-54 f2.8, 14-42/13-45 f3.5, 40-150, 50-200 f2.8 and additional specialized fast lenses aimed at the pro/prosumer. Compare the 4/3 lens lineup to the available APS-C lenses even from the majors and the selection is extensive by comparison.Your statement is not fully correct on mechanical IS vs optical. Olympus Live View allows you to SEE the impact of IS on the image. In Live View you hold down the IS button to see the impact of IS on the screen. This is particularly useful on the new E-3.
yyrkoon - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Where is the 'testing' ? Sample images ? Extensive feature comparison ?I know its holiday season guys, but come on, anyone could have tossed together a bunch of images of cameras, and read specifications on cameras, putting it all together into an 'article'.
I am all for you guys doing camera articles, but at the same time, I feel if you're going to do it, you need to do it right.
tomycs - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
I do think sample images would be overkill for so many cameras reviewed, don't you think ? If you want sample pictures there's full of sites that have them you can compare the same scene for n different cameras at different settings and pixel peep the whole day.Since this is a guide your claims seem out of place and from personal experience if you take photography seriously it's very difficult to distinguish between entry level and even midrange DSLRs based solely on image quality so yeah features and build quality do count, in the film days you had basically the same sensor for every DSLR however some were xx$ other xxx$ and others even xxxx$.
I find the guide quite truthful the E510 is a great buy (check the dpreview review) certainly better than the D40X(features) or 400D (both features and build quality) and i would say a little weaker than the K10D(a special case as thios is an entry level camera only on price)as as for Sony(Minolta) i don't really consider them ever no matter how good the body is their limited range of modern lenses is way overpriced.
melgross - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
I doubt that any of the cameras were actually tested. They just seem to be his preferences, sometimes, based on incorrect information, or lack of understanding.I agree, stick to computers.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Corrected the typo to 5.0fps.I personally have spent time shooting with EVERY camera mentioned in this Buyers Gude except the Nikon D300 which supposedly has just started shipping.
This is a Buyers Guide based on my experiences using these cameras. It is not a review. My first SLR was a Pentax over 40 years ago and I have owned and used almost every 35mm system over the years, and even shot medium format exclusively for several years. I made a living as a Professional Photographer for two periods in my career.
It is very easy to profess to know everything, but quite difficult to admit there are many things you don't know. I don't know everything about photography, but I suspect I have much more valid experience to write this Buyers Guide that most who would tackle this. I also have an open mind not severly blinded by conventional wisdom or marketing hype, which is why I have been writing for AnandTech for quite a while.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Corrected the typo to 5.0fps.I personally have spent time shooting with EVERY camera mentioned in this Buyers Gude except the Nikon D300 which supposedly has just started shipping.
This is a Buyers Guide based on my experiences using these cameras. It is not a review. My first SLR was a Pentax over 40 years ago and I have owned and used almost every 35mm system over the years, and even shot medium format exclusively for several years. I made a living as a Professional Photographer for two periods in my career.
It is very easy to profess to know everything, but quite difficult to admit there are many things you don't know. I don't know everything about photography, but I suspect I have much more valid experience to write this Buyers Guide that most who would tackle this. I also have an open mind not severly blinded by conventional wisdom or marketing hype, which is why I have been writing for AnandTech for quite a while.
KorruptioN - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
The Sony A700 does 5fps continuous, not 6.5fps as quoted in the article.Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Corrected the typo. I personally have spent time shooting with EVERY camera mentioned in this Buyers Gude except the Nikon D300 which supposedly has just started shipping.This is a Buyers Guide based on my experiences using these cameras. It is not a review. My first SLR was a Pentax over 40 years ago and I have owned and used almost every system over the years, including medium format. I made a living as a Professional Photographer for two periods in my career.
It is very easy to profess to know everything, but quite difficult to admit there are many things you don't know. I don't know everything about photography, but I suspect I have much more valid experience to write this Buyers Guide that most who would tackle this. I also have an open mind not severly blinded by conventional wisdom or marketing hype, which is why I have been writing for AnandTech for quite a while.
AssBall - Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - link
I didn't realize you were 60 years old Wes.Photo people are always rabidly defensive of their own stuff. When the day is done, guess what... they all work pretty much the same for the rest of the world.
hoppa - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Is the prosumer section a joke? The only thing you can come up with for Canon is that "it doesn't break new ground" and that 10 MP is too skimpy? Excuse me? It's common knowledge that more megapixels does not equal better, and it's even more known that the difference between 10 and 12 megapixels in minuscule if not even impossible to tell the difference between in anything but 20"+ prints. Furthermore, the noise levels on the Canon are *so far below anything else out there* that it easily out-resolves its 12mp brethren.Get a clue, guys. This write-up is pathetic.
Captmorgan09 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
But come on guys, stick with what you're good at, reviewing mobos/CPUs/PSU and so on. I've never really been impressed with your camera reviews/buying guides. The most important thing about buying a camera is image quality. Fancy bells and whistles are nice, but if the picture looks like crap, who cares. If you read real reviews of these cameras at sites like dpreview, you'll see that there is a valid reason why Canon/Nikon cameras are the best sellers, image quality.Hulk - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Exactly.I've long been a fan of Anandtech but this article and others that try to talk about high-end cameras make me do the "oh jeez did they really write that?" face.
As the above poster says it's about image quality in the D-SLR category. Optical image stabilization is simply better than mechanical. And there are many times when a straight prime with no stabilization is best.
And please don't talk about auto focus speed of the body alone. The lens has a lot to do with auto focus.
I could go on and on so please if you have to do camera articles just stay with rangefinders.
andrew007 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
I got E410 in August just before my trip to Japan. The reviews were favourable and I wanted something light. After using it for a while, I am really happy with most aspects of it, and the price has fallen even further since. It is really a very light camera AND lens(es), making it easy to hang around your neck and take with you every day. Yet it's full featured and it makes nice pictures. I have no complaints on the lens whatsoever, and with a fast CF card it's pretty snappy. The only real complaint is dynamic range, as the various reviewers noted. It's easy to blow out highlights in high contrast situations - which is the most situations, unfortunately, when you're a tourist going outside on a sunny day. So one must keep fiddling with the exposure compensation. Other than that, I can't see any reason to not recommend this camera to someone who is going on a vacation and wants to make good pictures but is not interested in totting large bags and heavy lenses. Pictures these Olympus make were much better than what my friend's Canon Elph (the newest model) made, and for not that much more money.andrew007 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Oh yeah, almost forgot. There is one more complaint - focus hunting. I never had a SLR before so I can't compare but it seemed to me that E410 has trouble focusing in some situations (not just low light) more than an DSLR should. It does have the least focus points of any DSLR if I remember correctly so that may be the reason. In the end I often just use the center sensor and manually lock focus, then do the composition.haplo602 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Hey nice to see the new DSLR buyers guide.I'd comment on the missing Pentax K10D, but who cares ? No Live View, only 10MP, 22bit A/D, dust and weather sealed, image stabilisation. AND a VERY long supply of high quality Pentax lenses... sub 1000$ ... but who cares ? It's last year news (tho you cover olympus 410/510 which are also not new).
I see you adapted the computer world obsession for numbers and new models. Get rid of it. Fast.
If I would buy a new DSLR now it would be either Pentax K10D (and I own a few Nikon lenses) or the Nikon D300 (but this is the more expensive decision).
Frumious1 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Yes, I'd comment on the missing Pentax K10D... except it's already on page 5."Alternative: If low-light performance is a major concern, then you would do well to choose the Sony A100 kit with the 18-70mm kit lens. For a bit more money, the Pentax K10D gives you a great 11-point focus module, all the other features, and pro-type dust and moisture sealing."
haplo602 - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
Ah ... I knew I missed the Pentax section with nice picture of the K10D and a 1/2 page description like all the others got ... NOT !melgross - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
I don't understand the statement here that only full frame and 4/3 are standard. This seems to be some prejudice on the part of the writer, who seems to be pushing Olympus very strongly.The APS "C" sensor is more standard than is the 4/3. Just take a look at how many companies are producing "C" sensors, and how many are producing 4/3.
That said, my 5D does produce some of the best pictures around (though I'm looking forward to its expected replacement at the PPA in March.
lumpy327 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Glad to see this column back!! Good article overall, but I wish Pentax had been included too, I miss HyperProgram from my film camera.As a photography student, I'd like to add my two pennies worth to deciding on what camera.
First, if you have good lenses from older cameras, consider sticking w/ that brand. Bodies are cheap compared to good lenses, and there are good, in-depth reviews of lenses, like lightrules, on the web.
Second, there are plenty of reviews of cameras on the web, so do your homework. Look for fast autofocus, and just as important, low light auto focus speed, w/ and w/o flash and w/ and w/o image stabilization. Trying to get pictures of your childs face on christmas WILL SUCK if your camera keeps hunting and strobing the flash, then picks a bulb on the tree to focus on. Try to pony up for image stabilization, it really helps to get pictures in low light w/o using the flash, and most pictures w/o on camera flash are much nicer. Just to put autofocus in perspective, I'm a pentax guy that uses a canon, but if the d300's 51 point autofocus works as well as it should, I'd seriously consider switching.
Closely related to this is ISO number. Look for the lowest noise at the highest iso numbers. Many websites include crops of pictures at all iso numbers, check them to to see if its worth going to ISO1600. I'll say this, most sensors do well to ISO800 if exposed properly and to ISO1600 if exposed properly and kept highkey.
(don't worry about daylight, outdoor shots, most DSLR's and their lenses do well in bright light.)
Third, if your coming from a P&S, try get live view or what ever its called. It's very difficult to learn to keep the view finder up to your eye; if you see it thru the view finder, you missed the shot. Thats just the way DSLR's work.
I hope this helps, even if its just one person. These cameras are not cheap, and its way too easy to overbuy, like I did. EOS 30D owner.
JCheng - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
The D300 shipped on Wednesday--I have one in my hands.Lord 666 - Thursday, November 29, 2007 - link
I got mine last night and ho-hum about it as I upgraded from a D80. The ISO range is a welcome improvement, but need to spend some more time with it this weekend to feel it out. Set the deadline of this Sunday if I am going to return it. Need to do some more comparison shots using the 18-200 VR lens over the next couple days.Heidfirst - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
It's nice to see someone who isn't totally CaNikon blinkered.The OM E510 looks to be a very good camera & even cheap in the UK too (Olympus rebates) as is the Pentax K10D.
The Sony A700 looks to at least match if not better the EOS 40D although it's a bit dearer.
& Sony A100 apparently is due for replacement Q1 2008 so that could be another interesting camera to watch out for.
It's an extremely competitive market so prices are falling & there are no bad DSLRs so it's a win all round for the consumers.
StephenP - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
The Sony=Supplier for Nikon sensors so the next pro Sony will be full-frame argument isn't valid for full frame... The D3 uses a Nikon inhouse developed sensor, unless ofcourse Sony borows it from Nikon.StephenP - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
I forgot to say nice article :). Just a little too much focus on sensor mega pixels, anyone into photography knows that stuffing a camera with mega pixels isn't enough to make a good camera. The new 400D has "only" 10mp of resolution but, that provides for A3 or even A2 prints. Does one really need more? ok, you can crop more, sure but what is the real difference between 3000x4000 pixels (12mp) and 2800x3700 (10mp), 2-300 pixels isn't a very impressive extra crop. I'll take better high ISO performance to more MPs anyday.AsicsNow - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Yeah, the unless you are using a full frame camera, the lens itself is limiting the effective resolution to not much more than 1OMP anyways. If you want a higher resolution without just adding garbage pixels that will end up as adding more noise(look at so many point and shoots that have these issues these days) you have to goto a larger format sensor, aka. 4" x 5" which is WAY beyond the scope of any non-professional photographer unless if you're a rich prick yuppie :)The D40 is a steal though if you can live without manual focus, and I can't wait for the 18-55 VR to come out. (Though I wish I could afford a 12-24 instead hehe)
Lord 666 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Wes, while it might be under NDA, what is the time frame for the Nikon 18-55 VR? Real soon, Q1, Q2 kind of thing? If they are coming out with it, very surprised they didn't launch for this holiday season.PS - You should do these updates more often. Way back a while ago you started writing the DSLR column, but didn't continue. Keep it up ;)
Wesley Fink - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
The Nikon Press announcement for the 18-55mm VR was 11/19/2007. The street price for the new lens is $199 and it is said to be available now.Camaban - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Hmm, so the Olympus E-510 is something like $570-$670, while on Amazon UK, it's £618.....Ya know, that's like the equivilent of $1250 or something.
Ridiculous.....
makulit - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
Pentax? Ever heard of them???mcnabney - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
No kidding!!!!!!11 months ago there was a review, RIGHT HERE, that identified the K10D as one of the best choices. It is barely mentioned here, even though it is being written elsewhere as a camera of the year due to the turnaround it has caused.
Why choose Pentax?
Built-in 3 axis image stabilization which works on ALL lenses.
Almost every Pentax and Pentax-compatible lens that has ever been made works just fine on this body
Dust and water sealed body - you have to spend double elsewhere to get this
Great prices and growing library of high quality and reasonably priced lenses
takumsawsherman - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
This is an excellent point. Pentax has actually had great, low-priced cameras from the film days. The K1000 was an awesome camera on the cheap.Minolta Maxxum cameras (now Sony) was also a less expensive, but excellent camera. I have owned the Maxxum 7000, 600si and Minolta Maxxum Alpha 707 (my current camera). Although the 7000s were more durable, these cameras have excellent autofocus (they have almost always more fast and accurate than Canon/Nikon), great lenses, and are loaded with features. I am still looking for a cheap Maxxum 9 now that film is less popular.
If I were to get a new body, I would get a Sony A700, since my lenses will work, and be image stabilized (ever look at the cost of Canon's IS lenses? Ouch!). However, if I were buying a completely new system, I would be seriously tempted by Pentax, as I trust Sony less than I trusted Minolta :).
All of my pro photo customers are using Canon, even the Nikon fans. Anything big and they use a Hasselblad-Leaf system. I've heard lots of complaints about the D40x shooting JPEG poorly. Apparently to get good results one must shoot in RAW. I doubt any will switch to Sony or Pentax. Not because they aren't as good (and I think that the Sony is as good). But Minolta and Pentax have always been considered "second tier" amongst that crowd, and I just don't see that changing, whatever the merits.
Regarding lack of Minolta lenses, I have not noticed any difficulty getting good, reasonably-priced lenses, and there is a large used market in the form of eBay and B&H if one prefers something not-new.
Frumious1 - Friday, November 23, 2007 - link
I'm not sure how they "missed" the Pentax K10D....Page 4: "One of the amazing price drops of this season is the Pentax K10D, which can be found with the kit lens for around $750, or as a body alone for as little as $650. The Pentax K10D is the only camera in this group that has full dust and moisture sealing. It also features body-integral image stabilization, auto sensor cleaning, and an 11-point focusing system."
Page 5: "Alternative: If low-light performance is a major concern, then you would do well to choose the Sony A100 kit with the 18-70mm kit lens. For a bit more money, the Pentax K10D gives you a great 11-point focus module, all the other features, and pro-type dust and moisture sealing."
takumsawsherman - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Maybe you missed the word "barely". I read the review. I know what it said, and agreed with the OP that Pentax got "barely" a mention, where it really produces because it has to in order to compete against the name power of Nikon and Canon.Justin Case - Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - link
It's not just "name power". Pentax certainly deserves a mention due to features, build quality and price, but image quality and (above all) lens selection are far behind Canon or Nikon. It's an excellent alternative to compact cameras, and I suppose it's a reasonable choice for amateurs, but not really an option for pro / semi-pro work.P.S. - As a whole, this article is a joke, as are pretty much all photo-related articles on this site. It seems the author decided to compare spec sheets and draw (dubious) conclusions from that, instead of actually using the cameras. Thankfully, there are plenty of camera review sites where these same cameras are covered in depth, by experienced people, who actually use them before writing their conclusions. I suggest you go there, look at what the photographers have to say and (above all) look at photos taken with each camera (and lens).
yyrkoon - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
maybe you missed the last SLR lineup they did several months ago that had several pages 'dedicated' to Pentax cameras ?takumsawsherman - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Maybe I did. And maybe that's why no one should assume that Anandtech readers read every article to come down the pike. Maybe some people were busy that week. Or maybe since this seems to be talking about which camera to buy, models still in the running should be given more attention considering some may buy based on the advice in this article. More exposure in the review and the camera might be considered. But when the other camera manufacturers have an entire page or more devoted to them, the chance of someone thinking of Pentax will be small indeed.In any case, I enjoyed the article for the most part, and it seems that someone's worry over whether the article had some critical comment attached is overworked. It was a good point, I agreed with it, get over it.
bigboxes - Saturday, November 24, 2007 - link
Is there a reason that Pentax is overlooked? Anyone?