...with their excellent 2 kit lenses, pixel mapping, and dust-busters..
The new '20s are excellent values, especially the 420. It lacks the in-body image stabilization of the 510/20, but it's a teriffic dslr..
Check the Oly SLR forum for info from 420 owners and users and to see some of the beautiful shots taken with it and it's kit lenses..
The other cameras you listed are all very good equipment which would serve you well, but if you're just starting out, you owe it to yourself to handle the Oly's as well.bob naegelesan diego, cahttp://www.rjndesign.com/..
I have just bought a Canon 450D with vouchers given by my work. (Long Service Award). Having done loads of research I would say that any of the 3 are more than capable of giving you good results. I chose John Lewis vouchers and took a trip to Cribs Causeway to purchase. I found the John Lewis staff pretty knowledgable about their cameras and happy to let you play with all 3. Your 3 were the same 3 I had on my shortlist.
I chose the Canon as I have Canon lenses already and I wanted a depth of field preview button..
Go into Jessops and get a feel of all 3 cameras and feel what feels good in your hands. That is pretty important. The Sony feels quite different from the other two..
If you are new to photography, be prepared to put some time in learning. It requires a bit more effort with a DSLR than a compact camera, but the rewards are worth it..
Have fun and let us know what you boughtDai..
Welcome aboard: just adding my 2d worth about the Olympus. Their "kit" lenses are very nice and excellent value..
I have been looking at:.
Canon EOS 450D w/ 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (dont know what the hellthis last bit means..
Nikon D60 w/ 18-55mm VR f/3.5-5.6G Lens.
Sony Alpha A350 w/ 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6.
What are the pros and the cons of these 3? Which one would yourecommend? Thanks in advance for your help..
The IS means "image stabilization", which is the same concept as VR in the Nikon (vibration reduction), and is matched by SSS (Super Steady Shot) in the Sony. Allows you to take shots at slower shutter speeds than normal by offsetting the normal trembles of your hand..
It's a helpful feature. The advantage goes to Sony here since it's stabilization is built into the camera, so any lens you buy, including cheap second-hand or third party (Sigma, Tamron) lenses, will be stabilized. The other two cameras require that you buy a special lens that has image stabilization built into it, limiting your future lens choices..
In addition, the Sony has what's probably the most functional implementation of Live View (whereby you can use the LCD at the back as a substitute for looking through the viewfinder). The Sony LCD is the only one of the three cameras you listed where the LCD is articulated so that you can angle it to shoot over people's heads, or down low at baby level..
The Sony also has the widest range on it's kit lens, which again gives you more flexibility than the other two kit lenses..
I'll admit my bias towards Sony. After all I chose it for what I believed to be good reasons..
But if I were you, I'd pick the Sony A300 over the A350. You'll probably not need the extra resolving power of 14 megapixels, but you might appreciate the better noise performance of the A300...
I'd get the Nikon or the Canon or possibly the Olympus..
These all have pretty good kit lenses. They all have nice viewfinders. Nikon and Olympus both have excellent lenses for later purchase..
The only model I don't care for is the Sony. It has possibly the worse kit lens of the bunch, right up there with Canon's old 18-55 non-is kit lense. Sony's optical viewfinder is like looking down a dark tunnel, in my opinion. I'd stick with companies who have a great history of SLR cameras.Cheers, Craig..
At the end of the day, if you get say 50 replies you may well get 50 very good reasons for going with the camera all of the 50 poster own and like. My advice to you is get the one that you feel comfortable with, they all take high quality shots and you will not be unhappy provided you spend a bit of time doing the 'learning' thing..
Now I will join in as one of the 50. I use a Pentax K100d, I purchased it over a year ago. My choice was limited by lack of funds but I have to admit that if I was to ever change it would be to another Pentax. It is fantastic.Whatever you get, please post your shots and have fun.Richard..
If you have time, please have a look at my website. http://www.lincolnshireimages.co.uk/http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/richardspencer..
I'd get the Nikon or the Canon or possibly the Olympus..
I'm not a fan of the 4/3rds Olympus system, but certainly the other two offer good entry level cameras. How would you help the original poster to select amongst them? That was the point of his post..
These all have pretty good kit lenses. They all have niceviewfinders. Nikon and Olympus both have excellent lenses for laterpurchase..
They all have excellent lenses for later purchase. All lenses are compromises though, compromises between price and image quality, price and build quality, reach of zooms, maximum aperture vs price and weight, image stabilization in-lens or in-camera, etc. How would you help the OP to choose amongst them?.
The only model I don't care for is the Sony. It has possibly theworse kit lens of the bunch, right up there with Canon's old 18-55non-is kit lense. Sony's optical viewfinder is like looking down adark tunnel, in my opinion. I'd stick with companies who have a greathistory of SLR cameras..
Sony continued the fine legacy of Minolta when it acquired Minolta's camera business and hired more than 200 of it's engineers. Minolta's history, and now Sony's SLR history, dates back to 1928, and includes the development of many significant camera milestones.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta.
Remember that Sony is the number two camera company in the world, and that it supplies sensors to other camera manufacturers such as Nikon. They must be doing something right..
As for the dark tunnel viewfinder, that's a compromise to get the articulated quick focus Live View implementation. It's an implementation that many P&S upgraders prefer to the non-articulating slow-focus Canon implementation..
I don't have a pressing need for Live View. So if it were me, I'd choose the less expensive Sony A200 without Live View, and with the saved money buy the well-regarded Sony 18-250mm lens instead of the kit lens, or save $50 and buy the slower focus Tamron 18-250 version of that almost 14x zoom lens..
Second choice would be a Nikon D80 with the equally highly regarded Nikkor 18-200 VRII lens. Again, no Live View..
But those weren't the choices offered by the OP..
I don't care for the build quality of the Canon entry level cameras. I'd prefer a used 30D, but that too was not within the purview of the OP..
Instead of attacking Sony, why don't you offer the OP some help in making a choice between the camera manufacturers with whom you don't have emotional issues?..
Thank you all so much for you help, it's good to see what everyone thinks about different products. As I suspected I have had a mixed responce so I guess I will just have to go see which one feels the best..
I will be starting a new thread about things I need to learn, shortly, so any advice would be brilliant! Thanks again to everyone who responded!..
Wow, I didn't attack Sony any more than you attacked Olympus. I'm just not a fan of Sony as a still camera manufacturer. Just because they bought a failing Minolta doesn't mean they bought the legacy of Minolta, not that Minolta had a great legacy to begin with..
I just think that Sony advances point and shoot mentality to Single Lens Reflex technology to garner consideration of the point and shoot upgraders. People end up with poor kit glass on bulky point and shoot type cameras with poor optical viewfinders. They also have the advantage of being able to add mediocre Minolta glass. They also get to view a video of their scene on a LCD instead of viewing through the lens using a bright clean viewfinder. Why bother with an SLR at all?.