snubbr.com

Nikon D40 or Olympus E510
I have been researching Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus for my first DSLR purchase. The reason for my purchase is several fold but I do have some specific criteria to be met. First is I am in real estate and need the camera to take good pics of inside houses. I know that I will need a wide angle to capture the images I want.(I know lenses can lead me to a whole new topic alone) Second use would be family vacations/family funtions, third would be to fuel my interest of photography..

I have handled all of the various models I mentioned above and I have two clear winners in the D40 and Olympus E510. Would anyone suggest one over the other with the my real estate need in mind. Will either platform give me better results(lenses aside)?? My initial thoughts from my research is that either body would serve me well. I am a bit of a perfectionist and that is probably causing me all the turmoil I am experiencing at the moment. I really want the pictures I take to be great and since I used these pictures to advertise the homes I sell; I want to make sure they say absolute quality and perfection. So in esscence I am looking for the best vehicle to allow me to do this once I learn the tricks of the trade..

My main concern after the bodies is the lenses... I know that the Nikon has a different focus system and I am concerned about the ability to have access to a wide variety of lenses of quality and differing pricea. With the Olympus I have not heard or seen much about the quality,quantity or pricing of lenses available. Last on the subject is would you recommend buying the camera and lense in a kit or body and lense sepparate....

Thank you for any help you can give!!..

Comments (46)

If you want the best 35mm dslr, buy the latest Mk from Canon. That aside either of the the two cameras you've chosen will do the job. You will find many people who have never used either product tell you one or the other is better..

Handle the cameras and see which feels best to you. I don't like the way the Nikon's operate. That is purely my problem..

I have a friend who only uses Nikons. He likes the name on the strap and he will put up with all kinds of nonsense to use Nikon. He would quit taking pictures if he had to use Olympus or Canon..

Both cameras will fit your image needs but only you know which one will inspire you to take photos..

REd..

Comment #1

When shopping around for a Nikon myself recently. I asked a difference between a d40x and a d80. The sales guy told me that certain lens do not auto focus on the lesser camera. Can any one else confirm that? Or does Nikon have a wide angle lens that autofocuses well on the d40?.

Also have you played with both cameras in the store to see which works out the best for you? I think most camera stores will open the lens out of the box for you to test it in the store...

Comment #2

With a Nikon, I had a choice to buy a D80 body only for $899, or packaged with a $180 lens for $999. The lens is probably a good lens for regular pics, and then buy a wide lens on the side...

Comment #3

I have tried them out in the store and these two are my favorites. The Autofocus is one of the hangups I have with the D40 series.... I don't want to be limited in my lense choice in the future. I am a beginner so I am not really aware of lense selection and compatability issues.....

Comment #4

Red13 wrote:.

If you want the best 35mm dslr, buy the latest Mk from Canon. Thataside either of the the two cameras you've chosen will do the job.You will find many people who have never used either product tell youone or the other is better..

Handle the cameras and see which feels best to you. I don't like theway the Nikon's operate. That is purely my problem..

I have a friend who only uses Nikons. He likes the name on the strapand he will put up with all kinds of nonsense to use Nikon. He wouldquit taking pictures if he had to use Olympus or Canon..

Both cameras will fit your image needs but only you know which onewill inspire you to take photos..

REd.

Thanks Red,.

I think I am looking for the silver bullet confirmattion that "This is the perfect camera for You"... After playing around with them in the stores I really like them both..

Any feelings on the lense systems or variety of lenses available from great lenses to cheap?? I am hoping to find a tiny bit of information to help push me over the edge to one or the other....

Thank you..

Comment #5

For a couple hundred more dollars a D80 is a pretty big step up with better lens capability. How does the D40X and D60 compare in lens capability? Does the Olympus have the same problem? Did you test a wide angle lens on either camera yet?..

Comment #6

Thurnau wrote:.

For a couple hundred more dollars a D80 is a pretty big step up withbetter lens capability. How does the D40X and D60 compare in lenscapability? Does the Olympus have the same problem? Did you test awide angle lens on either camera yet?.

I tested the "kit" lenses and I was more impressed with the Olympus. I did not try any other Lenses in the store. That might be my first priority when I return to the store. I think for me variety of lenses will be the deciding factor for me... After testing them out in the stores I was happy with image quality and how they operated and felt...

Comment #7

I recently made this decision based on my new entry into the DSLR field. Infact so recent my camera has yet to arrive. Should be here tomorow. I was very attentive to detail when discussing the two cameras you are curious about. I made my choice of the E-510 because of the quality of the kit lenses. I didn't want to have a camera bag full of lenses just to pack some around..

I felt the IS in camera with Oly would aid my inept skill set as well. Also reducing the final cost of future lenses because of the body mounted feature. One of the points I think you are asking directly..

I dont know much yet. I look forward to my future with my Oly. Maybe you will too?..

Comment #8

Thurnau wrote:.

When shopping around for a Nikon myself recently. I asked adifference between a d40x and a d80. The sales guy told me thatcertain lens do not auto focus on the lesser camera. Can any one elseconfirm that? Or does Nikon have a wide angle lens that autofocuseswell on the d40?.

Also have you played with both cameras in the store to see whichworks out the best for you? I think most camera stores will open thelens out of the box for you to test it in the store..

Initially, Nikon used a motor in the camera to focus the lenses. Subsequently, some lenses, designated AF-S, had their own motors that tended to work faster since they were in the lens already. So, with the D40, Nikon decided that they could skip the motor in the camera and just use the one in the lens, as long as it's an AF-S lens..

So, with the D40, you're stuck with lenses that have their own motors unless you focus manually, which, I've heard, is no picnic with a D40. With Nikon lenses, lenses with their own focusing motors are designated AF-S. Sigma has some too, with some other designation. All of Nikon's wide zooms except the 18-35 are AF-S but none of the wide-angle primes are..

Leonard Migliore..

Comment #9

RealGiff wrote:.

Thanks Red,.

I think I am looking for the silver bullet confirmattion that "Thisis the perfect camera for You"... After playing around with them inthe stores I really like them both..

There is no perfect camera. That is why there are so many. I reread my post and I didn't mean to sound flippant about the Name on the camera. It is important for once you buy a body you become part of a club..

Any feelings on the lense systems or variety of lenses available fromgreat lenses to cheap?? I am hoping to find a tiny bit of informationto help push me over the edge to one or the other....

Thank you.

First off the advice you received about not all lenses have complete functionality on the lower end bodies is true for Nikon and Canon. Olympus has chosen to cut costs in manufacturing for example, they use plastic instead of metal brackets on the kit lenses. They have total functionality but they use a plastic mounting..

Nikon has more lenses than Olympus but Olympus covers the complete range. Olympus "pro-line" lenses are as pricey as any line you can buy..

For me if I were buying a body I wouldn't buy the ones that are crippled. I would be upgrading too quickly. If you're not sure if you are going to like taking pictures buy a good p&s see if you use it. It will serve as a back up if you choose to go forward..

Remember there is no perfect answer..

REd..

Comment #10

Speaking of point and shoot, I think some cameras have a wide angle lens attachment..

I do not have any experience with a wide angle lens attachment, but I do have experience with the macro version of a lens attachment. While I had a primitive dsc-h1, the lens attachment gave me some really nice pics with little skills needed. It might save you a learning curve, and a little money if one is available with your current camera..

Here is an example of one..

Http://www.sonystyle.com/...p;productId=8198552921665069540&storeId=10151..

Comment #11

I personally have the E-510 and I think it would do the job just fine... but the Nikon probably would too. I've never used Nikon. Olympus has some nice lenses and I've taken lots of great pictures with the olympus kit lenses. That said, I think the thing that might help the most either way, is for you to think about a flash, no matter which body you chose. Having a flash that you can bounce light off the ceiling will help give the homes a richer warmer feel than the pop up flash can deliver.

In the olympus line I'd recommend the FL-36. You can bend and twist it many directions. It's the best thing I ever purchased!.

Good Luck!..

Comment #12

Both seem like very nice cameras..

The E-510 2 lens kit is one of the best values out there. It is an excellent camera and the kit lenses are better than most kit lenses. There are now about 30 other 4/3 mount lenses available that will work on it. Almost all are zooms, though. Not very many primes..

If you will be changing lenses, Olympus has far and away the best system for keeping dust off your sensor. This is an outstanding feature..

Lastly, the in body IS makes all of your lenses stabilized lenses..

I've always liked Nikon products and the D40 and D40x seem very nice. The biggest concern I would have is that by taking out the AF motor from the body, they have just taken away a huge amount of backwards compatibility. Zillions of Nikon mount lenses are now no longer going to work right with this camera. If you don't plan on buying many lenses, then this is not a problem...

Comment #13

I'm really quite biased in that I've been shooting Nikon since the late 60s., but here's my take..

Unless you're totally a beginner and don't ever intend to take on photography as a hobby or profession, any of the DSLRs on the market will do just fine..

On the other hand, if you intend to grow with this hobbly, I'd suggest you stick with either Nikon or Canon. These two companies offer, by a long shot, the largest systems, and you aren't just buying a camera. You're buying into a system of photographic cameras, lenses and accessories. Moreover 3rd party companies make more items for Canon and Nikon than they do for all the others. Just go to the camera websites and look how many lenses each has available to grow into..

Take Olympus. Great equipment, but only six lenses they call pro glass. No lenses above 300 mm. Very few primes or macro lenses. Another negative is the small 4/3 sensor, especially for wide angles. The only real wide zoom for Olympus is over $1500.

Canon's is also highly regarded and is $3900. Both Nikon and Canon's have built in image stabalization. Olympus has IS built into the body so you don't have to pay for it in the lens, they say. So, what are those Olympus lenses so much more and not better quality?.

Sony and Pentax are the same as far as smaller selectiions, but not the 4/3 mount..

I'd get a D40 with the 18-135 kit lens. I'd add a Sigma 10-20 super wide angle for real estate use. To that, I'd add an SB400 or SB600 flash. That will get you along for quite a while. Just my opinion...

Comment #14

Guidenet is right. Every DSLR currently on the market is very good. However, I do not agree with some of his statements and consider the E-510 to be my favored of the two you are considering..

Guidenet wrote:.

I'm really quite biased in that I've been shooting Nikon since thelate 60s., but here's my take..

Unless you're totally a beginner and don't ever intend to take onphotography as a hobby or profession, any of the DSLRs on the marketwill do just fine..

There are pros in the Oly and Pentax communities. If they are good enough for certain professional uses, they will do for a hobbiest like myself. That goes for all brandsbut I've paid for my Oly gear without trying to promote myself..

On the other hand, if you intend to grow with this hobbly, I'dsuggest you stick with either Nikon or Canon. These two companiesoffer, by a long shot, the largest systems, and you aren't justbuying a camera. You're buying into a system of photographic cameras,lenses and accessories. Moreover 3rd party companies make more itemsfor Canon and Nikon than they do for all the others. Just go to thecamera websites and look how many lenses each has available to growinto..

I agree. Canon and Nikon have larger systemsmostly carried over from film. Not always a bad thing. But sheer number of lenses and accessories is no substitute for quality and if you're happy with the quality of lenses offered; you're good..

Take Olympus. Great equipment, but only six lenses they call proglass. No lenses above 300 mm. Very few primes or macro lenses.Another negative is the small 4/3 sensor, especially for wide angles.The only real wide zoom for Olympus is over $1500. Their 300 mm f2.8is $5800 whereas Nikon's is around $4500 with Flourite nanotechnology and considered one of the sharpest lenses ever made.Canon's is also highly regarded and is $3900. Both Nikon and Canon'shave built in image stabalization.

So, what arethose Olympus lenses so much more and not better quality?.

I agree that the 300mm f2.8 is too expensive for what it is. I won't ever afford it. Hardly reason to not buy into a system. I wouldn't ever afford the Nikon variety either. But I am happy with the 4/3rds selection shown here:.

Http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html.

Even wides are great. All Olympus wide angles are sharp right to the corners. Not so with Nikon or Canon wide angles (especially on FF cameras). You basically have to put out the money for an UWA in any mount. That said, the Oly 7-14mm is expensive, but also much adored by it's userssome who purchased into Oly just for this lens. Sigma has announced that they will release the 10-20mm in 4/3rds.



As far as the 300mm being the longest lens, and there being only 6 top pro lenses. Oly high grade is weather sealed, fast, and of pro quality as well. Lots more options. And with the 2x crop factor, the equivalent field of view is comparable to a 600mm on a FF camera. So the zoom lenses get you close to your subject without as much bulk. This works for me.

That should be long enough..

As far as 4/3rds being too small a sensor. It's similar in size to other APS-C crop sensors. These vary in size too, but take the Canon APS-C sensor. It's 1.3mm taller than the Olympus. The Sigma APS-C sensor is .5mm taller. 4/3rds is just slightly smaller..

What should be mentioned about Oly lenses is that the kit that comes with the E-510 is very very good giving you a 28-300mm (equiv). range in two very small, sharp lenses. If you don't plan to dish out thousands for lens upgrades, these will really do well for you. The Nikon kit lense is decent. Canon kit lenses stink. I would consider the Oly to take the day here..

Sony and Pentax are the same as far as smaller selectiions, but notthe 4/3 mount..

I'd get a D40 with the 18-135 kit lens. I'd add a Sigma 10-20 superwide angle for real estate use. To that, I'd add an SB400 or SB600flash. That will get you along for quite a while. Just my opinion..

Ha, the 10-20mm also for 4/3rds. Not all Nikon lenses work with the D40 because many Nikon lenses are screw mount and the D40 is only electrically connected to the lenses. So that really expensive 300mm f2.8 Nikon mentioned above that is one of the sharpest ever made will not focus on the D40..

I've shot Nikon and Canon too. Nothing wrong with them. But don't discount the little guys because they may have more to offer you than meets the eye of some..

Cheers, Seth.

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?.

Wallygoots.smugmug.comwallygoots.blogspot.com..

Comment #15

SirSeth wrote:.

There are pros in the Oly and Pentax communities. If they are goodenough for certain professional uses, they will do for a hobbiestlike myself. That goes for all brandsbut I've paid for my Oly gearwithout trying to promote myself..

Very very few pros..

On the other hand, if you intend to grow with this hobbly, I'dsuggest you stick with either Nikon or Canon. These two companiesoffer, by a long shot, the largest systems, and you aren't justbuying a camera. You're buying into a system of photographic cameras,lenses and accessories. Moreover 3rd party companies make more itemsfor Canon and Nikon than they do for all the others. Just go to thecamera websites and look how many lenses each has available to growinto..

I agree. Canon and Nikon have larger systemsmostly carried overfrom film. Not always a bad thing. But sheer number of lenses andaccessories is no substitute for quality and if you're happy with thequality of lenses offered; you're good..

They both have a much larger system if you only consider equipment made after the start of the digital era. In fact, pre-ef Canon lenses won't work on digital..

I would say that Canon and Nikon lenses are probably better, on the average than Olympus, but to each their own. There are a lot of Zuiko stinkers..

Http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp.

Even wides are great. All Olympus wide angles are sharp right to thecorners. Not so with Nikon or Canon wide angles (especially on FFcameras). You basically have to put out the money for an UWA in anymount. That said, the Oly 7-14mm is expensive, but also much adoredby it's userssome who purchased into Oly just for this lens. Sigmahas announced that they will release the 10-20mm in 4/3rds.Interesting option, but close to Oly's own 11-22mm which is a gem..

Neither the Sigma nor the Oly 11-22 are superwide. In a 4/3 mount their field of view is 20-40 and 22-44 respectively. Not wide at all..

As far as 4/3rds being too small a sensor. It's similar in size toother APS-C crop sensors. These vary in size too, but take the CanonAPS-C sensor. It's 1.3mm taller than the Olympus. The Sigma APS-Csensor is .5mm taller. 4/3rds is just slightly smaller..

Unfortunately the trend is for larger and larger sensors to defeat the noise issue and increase resolution. Olympus and a few others have locked themselves into the smallest of all DSLR sensors. They can't grow without obsoleting their entire lens lineup. 4-3 mount was developed when the cost of sensors was so expensive, they thought that small size would be good for a long time, but now there is no real compelling reason to go that small..

Ha, the 10-20mm also for 4/3rds. Not all Nikon lenses work with theD40 because many Nikon lenses are screw mount and the D40 is onlyelectrically connected to the lenses. So that really expensive 300mmf2.8 Nikon mentioned above that is one of the sharpest ever made willnot focus on the D40..

Like I said, the 10-20 Sigma won't be wide on 4/3rds mount. That's the point. It's going to be the same field of view as a 20-40mm lens. There's only one superwide for the Oly and that's $1590..

Moreover the 300mm f2.8 will focus just fine on a D40. I'm not sure why you think the 300 is not AFS. Most new lenses are AFS like the 300 f4, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4, 70-200 f2.8, 200-400 f4 and on and on. They will all work just fine on the D40 including the AFI older lenses..

Every manual focus lens made since 1959 also works fine, if you don't mind focusing by hand..

Look, I have no problem with the Olympus line. They are just not a large enough system to buy into, IMO, and they're stuck with that little 4/3rds mount. Again, if you intend to not grow that far with a system, it is very good...

Comment #16

When man is considering D40, existense of multi-thousand pro lens lineup is completely irrelevant. Any system will ofer for him more than he needs..

Edvinas..

Comment #17

There is a thread here about your ill-informed take on Olys Zuiko lenses:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26758013.

BTW, there is MUCH less talk on the Olympus forum about lens quality control than on any other forum on this site. Olys standards are VERY high and their glass is a great value for the money!!.

Favorite Images: http://www.myfourthirds.com/folder.php?id=1912.

Best, John S...

Comment #18

Seems very odd to me - is that just a throw away based on very little knowledge?.

I run Nikon FX and Oly 4/3rds side by side. Nikon seem to be catching up now, with the new 14-24 (which is right up there with Oly's previously untouchable 7-14), and the 24-70, which is absolutely fine, but before that to my mind by far the best digital lenses were the Zuikos (Olympus, in other words). This isn't coincidence - it is a feature of the 4/3rds mount, which was designed for telecentricity in the first place..

Or are you thinking of the cheap and cheerfuls? Oly have three clearly defined ranges - standard, pro, and top pro. Most of the standard stuff seems to be linked to Sigma, one way or another. It seems no worse than, and in some cases is markedly better than, the competition..

No, I'm sorry, I think you are quite wrong about that.http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam..

Comment #19

Thurnau wrote:.

When shopping around for a Nikon myself recently. I asked adifference between a d40x and a d80. The sales guy told me thatcertain lens do not auto focus on the lesser camera. Can any one elseconfirm that? Or does Nikon have a wide angle lens that autofocuseswell on the d40?.

Also have you played with both cameras in the store to see whichworks out the best for you? I think most camera stores will open thelens out of the box for you to test it in the store..

The sales person was correct. Some lenses will not AF with the D40/D40x. This is due to the lack of an internal AF motor in the camera which all other Nikons have. Therefore, all lenses must have their own built-in AF motor in order to use them in AF mode on a D40.My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #20

Guidenet wrote:.

SirSeth wrote:.

There are pros in the Oly and Pentax communities. If they are goodenough for certain professional uses, they will do for a hobbiestlike myself. That goes for all brandsbut I've paid for my Oly gearwithout trying to promote myself..

Very very few pros..

On the other hand, if you intend to grow with this hobbly, I'dsuggest you stick with either Nikon or Canon. These two companiesoffer, by a long shot, the largest systems, and you aren't justbuying a camera. You're buying into a system of photographic cameras,lenses and accessories. Moreover 3rd party companies make more itemsfor Canon and Nikon than they do for all the others. Just go to thecamera websites and look how many lenses each has available to growinto..

I agree. Canon and Nikon have larger systemsmostly carried overfrom film. Not always a bad thing. But sheer number of lenses andaccessories is no substitute for quality and if you're happy with thequality of lenses offered; you're good..

They both have a much larger system if you only consider equipmentmade after the start of the digital era. In fact, pre-ef Canon lenseswon't work on digital..

I would say that Canon and Nikon lenses are probably better, on theaverage than Olympus, but to each their own. There are a lot of Zuikostinkers..

You really need to check your facts on this because you are so wrong in what you are telling people. Ever since film cameras it has been common knowledge throughout the industry that lenses has never been Canon's strong point. Yes they make a few good lenses but not many. Nikon has a higher percentage of good lenses but the percentage is even higher with Olympus. Always has been since the OM series..

Http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp.

Even wides are great. All Olympus wide angles are sharp right to thecorners. Not so with Nikon or Canon wide angles (especially on FFcameras). You basically have to put out the money for an UWA in anymount. That said, the Oly 7-14mm is expensive, but also much adoredby it's userssome who purchased into Oly just for this lens. Sigmahas announced that they will release the 10-20mm in 4/3rds.Interesting option, but close to Oly's own 11-22mm which is a gem..

Neither the Sigma nor the Oly 11-22 are superwide. In a 4/3 mounttheir field of view is 20-40 and 22-44 respectively. Not wide at all..

As far as 4/3rds being too small a sensor. It's similar in size toother APS-C crop sensors. These vary in size too, but take the CanonAPS-C sensor. It's 1.3mm taller than the Olympus. The Sigma APS-Csensor is .5mm taller. 4/3rds is just slightly smaller..

Unfortunately the trend is for larger and larger sensors to defeatthe noise issue and increase resolution. Olympus and a few othershave locked themselves into the smallest of all DSLR sensors. Theycan't grow without obsoleting their entire lens lineup. 4-3 mount wasdeveloped when the cost of sensors was so expensive, they thoughtthat small size would be good for a long time, but now there is noreal compelling reason to go that small..

You really need to study lens design a bit more because you would discover as more FF cameras come out it is Canon and Nikon who will have the problems. Both have smaller lens mounts than Olympus which will hamper lens design..

Ha, the 10-20mm also for 4/3rds. Not all Nikon lenses work with theD40 because many Nikon lenses are screw mount and the D40 is onlyelectrically connected to the lenses. So that really expensive 300mmf2.8 Nikon mentioned above that is one of the sharpest ever made willnot focus on the D40..

Like I said, the 10-20 Sigma won't be wide on 4/3rds mount. That'sthe point. It's going to be the same field of view as a 20-40mm lens.There's only one superwide for the Oly and that's $1590..

Moreover the 300mm f2.8 will focus just fine on a D40. I'm not surewhy you think the 300 is not AFS. Most new lenses are AFS like the300 f4, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4, 70-200 f2.8, 200-400 f4 and on andon. They will all work just fine on the D40 including the AFI olderlenses..

Every manual focus lens made since 1959 also works fine, if you don'tmind focusing by hand..

Look, I have no problem with the Olympus line. They are just not alarge enough system to buy into, IMO, and they're stuck with thatlittle 4/3rds mount. Again, if you intend to not grow that far with asystem, it is very good...

Comment #21

There are a lot of Zuikostinkers..

I know of none in the current line up - pls enlighten me. One could argue the 17.5-45mm lens *was* a stinker - never used it myself, it was produced in a small quantity only and was discontinued long ago. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of Canon lenses that are plain bad, and not all Nikkors are all that great either. I know I shoot a D70 too..

Neither the Sigma nor the Oly 11-22 are superwide. In a 4/3 mounttheir field of view is 20-40 and 22-44 respectively. Not wide at all..

If you think 94.5 and 89 degrees - angles of view at 10 and 11mm, respectively - are not wide at all, you don't know what you are saying. But of course if you want to go even *wider* on FourThirds, you have no other options than the 7-14mm f/4 or a fisheye. For now..

Every manual focus lens made since 1959 also works fine, if you don'tmind focusing by hand..

On the D40? The D40 doesn't *meter* with older lenses. That they "work fine" is a bit of an exaggeration. Ironically, any F-mount lens with an aperture ring will work better on a FourThirds body - with an adapter - than on a D40 or D40x, because any and all metering modes will work - you just have to stop down the lens to the working aperture manually.pbase Supporter..

Comment #22

Was a cheap as chips thing offered to chain stores so they could sell the camera very, very cheaply with no batteries either..

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam..

Comment #23

Guidenet wrote:.

Nikon's is around $4500 with Flourite nano technology.

What's "Flourite nano technology"?!.

Back to OP, I'd recomend to try out both cameras yourself if possible, also d/l both manuals to check out the features for yourself. imo when I got to use the D40 for a couple of days I did notice the simplified setup/menu options to be potentially limiting in the long run...

Comment #24

Stu 5 wrote:.

You really need to study lens design a bit more because you woulddiscover as more FF cameras come out it is Canon and Nikon who willhave the problems. Both have smaller lens mounts than Olympus whichwill hamper lens design..

Sorry pal, but this one takes the cake. Are you suggesting that Nikon's venerable F-Mout is going to hamper lens design when it comes to 35mm full frame lenses?.

I mean what has happened to the Olympus fan boy reasoning? I only suggested that a person who was considering a new camera ought to consider the whole system. I pointed out some shortfalls to Olympus and the Fan-Boys have gone wild with some really far-fetched nonsense like the above..

I mean Nikon's F-Mount was designed for 35mm full frame. It was and is the mount all along, 35 years before DX and digital, for full frame. Nikon has been making full frame lenses since 1959 for the F-Mount and I can mount them on today's D40. The will also mount on today's D3 full frame with a $25 modification (P-AI)..

So when you suggest that Nikon's mount will hamper FF lens design, what are you thinking? I use a Gauss design 105mm and a 55 f3.5 micro from the late 60s on my new D300 regularly and they'd also fit a D3. They meter...

Comment #25

Guidenet wrote:.

Stu 5 wrote:.

You really need to study lens design a bit more because you woulddiscover as more FF cameras come out it is Canon and Nikon who willhave the problems. Both have smaller lens mounts than Olympus whichwill hamper lens design..

Sorry pal, but this one takes the cake. Are you suggesting thatNikon's venerable F-Mout is going to hamper lens design when it comesto 35mm full frame lenses?.

Yes it will. I do not have the time to go into lens design too much now but I am qualified in it. You can't just stick a film lens onto a FF camera and hope things will be perfect. For a start a film lens is designed to brings colours to different points of focus than a digital lens to compensate for the makeup of film. That is why film lenses colour fringe so much on digital cameras. Then there is the issue of telecentric lens design.

Nikon would need to increase the size of their lens mount to compete..

I mean what has happened to the Olympus fan boy reasoning? I onlysuggested that a person who was considering a new camera ought toconsider the whole system. I pointed out some shortfalls to Olympusand the Fan-Boys have gone wild with some really far-fetched nonsenselike the above..

I mean Nikon's F-Mount was designed for 35mm full frame. It was andis the mount all along, 35 years before DX and digital, for fullframe. Nikon has been making full frame lenses since 1959 for theF-Mount and I can mount them on today's D40. The will also mount ontoday's D3 full frame with a $25 modification (P-AI)..

So when you suggest that Nikon's mount will hamper FF lens design,what are you thinking? I use a Gauss design 105mm and a 55 f3.5 microfrom the late 60s on my new D300 regularly and they'd also fit a D3.They meter...

Comment #26

In case you haven't noticed, your question is getting hijacked by folks who are grinding their axes over differences among these competing systems. Don't worry about..

Your needs are well defined real estate and perhaps some other kinds of images. Specifically, you need to do some wide interiors, and probably want a simple kit for travel and family shooting. Both the 510 and D40 can do a good job with this. Some folks are arguing about lens lineups, whether or not there is a pro community, etc. But that has absolutely nothing to do with your needs. Ignore them they're like NASCAR fans arguing about race cars when your question was about which family car to buy..

On the Oly line, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the E-510. It has image stabilization which may be helpful to you when taking shots in lower light in real estate interiors. The second issue is then which wide lens to choose. The 7-14 would be terrific for your needs, but it's $1600. Olympus is supposed to be coming out with a much less expensive ultrawide which probably is the one you want. So if the price is too steep, what you could do is get the 12-60 for now, and add the lower cost uw when it comes out.

There is an 11-22 as well, but you may be better off with the 12-60 and the eventual uwa..

Alternatively, you go with the D40. The Nikon 12-24 is pretty popular for real estate work from what I understand. It wouldn't be as wide as the 7-14 on the Oly, but it would be wider than the 12-60. There is also the sigma 10-20 which, again, would not be as wide as the 7-14..

The 4:3's format of the olympus is a litte more square than the 3:2 format of the Nikon. This might be of some help in real estate images..

It's really too bad this thread is getting hijacked away from your very straightforward question..

Jeff.

RealGiff wrote:.

I have been researching Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus formy first DSLR purchase. The reason for my purchase is several foldbut I do have some specific criteria to be met. First is I am inreal estate and need the camera to take good pics of inside houses.I know that I will need a wide angle to capture the images I want.(Iknow lenses can lead me to a whole new topic alone) Second use wouldbe family vacations/family funtions, third would be to fuel myinterest of photography..

I have handled all of the various models I mentioned above and I havetwo clear winners in the D40 and Olympus E510. Would anyone suggestone over the other with the my real estate need in mind. Will eitherplatform give me better results(lenses aside)?? My initial thoughtsfrom my research is that either body would serve me well. I am a bitof a perfectionist and that is probably causing me all the turmoil Iam experiencing at the moment. I really want the pictures I take tobe great and since I used these pictures to advertise the homes Isell; I want to make sure they say absolute quality and perfection.So in esscence I am looking for the best vehicle to allow me to dothis once I learn the tricks of the trade..

My main concern after the bodies is the lenses... I know that theNikon has a different focus system and I am concerned about theability to have access to a wide variety of lenses of quality anddiffering pricea. With the Olympus I have not heard or seen muchabout the quality,quantity or pricing of lenses available. Last onthe subject is would you recommend buying the camera and lense in akit or body and lense sepparate....

Thank you for any help you can give!!.

Jeff..

Comment #27

For a living, I use Olympus gear (see profile).

RealGiff wrote:.

First is I am inreal estate and need the camera to take good pics of inside houses.I know that I will need a wide angle to capture the images I want.(Iknow lenses can lead me to a whole new topic alone) Second use wouldbe family vacations/family funtions, third would be to fuel myinterest of photography..

You need (in EFL terms) 24mm or better for interiors and exteriors were you cant step back to get the entire front of a house in view.

I have handled all of the various models I mentioned above and I havetwo clear winners in the D40 and Olympus E510. Would anyone suggestone over the other with the my real estate need in mind..

4/3rds offers excellent lens suite, of interest to you should be 3 lenses* any of the kit zooms for longer shots re exteriors* 11-22, shoots good wide open, low distortion, 89 degrees field of view* 7-14/4 UWA, *only* if you need it, it's so wide it's uses are more limited.

Will eitherplatform give me better results(lenses aside)?? My initial thoughtsfrom my research is that either body would serve me well..

You are less limited shooting wide open with 4/3rds, their lenses perform better in the zone F4-F5.6. Olympus provides much deeper DoF (depth of field) so you can get all the room in focus, and the view outside.

I am a bitof a perfectionist and that is probably causing me all the turmoil Iam experiencing at the moment. I really want the pictures I take tobe great and since I used these pictures to advertise the homes Isell; I want to make sure they say absolute quality and perfection.So in esscence I am looking for the best vehicle to allow me to dothis once I learn the tricks of the trade..

Biggest difference is Olympus offers IS, this allows lower shutterspeeds, helps steady the camera without using a tripod. This allows shorter time for shoots and less inconvenience to clients. Tripods stiffle creativity..

My main concern after the bodies is the lenses... I know that theNikon has a different focus system and I am concerned about theability to have access to a wide variety of lenses of quality anddiffering pricea. With the Olympus I have not heard or seen muchabout the quality,quantity or pricing of lenses available. Last onthe subject is would you recommend buying the camera and lense in akit or body and lense sepparate....

Concerning Nikon/Olypmus lenses, there are around the same number of lenses that offer AF for Nikon D40 as there are Olympus lenses. You have no business dealing with MF (manual focus) in this racket.

Riley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous..

Comment #28

Guidenet wrote:.

Take Olympus. Great equipment, but only six lenses they call proglass. No lenses above 300 mm. Very few primes or macro lenses.Another negative is the small 4/3 sensor, especially for wide angles.The only real wide zoom for Olympus is over $1500. Their 300 mm f2.8is $5800 whereas Nikon's is around $4500 with Flourite nanotechnology and considered one of the sharpest lenses ever made.Canon's is also highly regarded and is $3900. Both Nikon and Canon'shave built in image stabalization.

So, what arethose Olympus lenses so much more and not better quality?.

You really have to substantiate such claims before making statements like that. Olympus make very good lenses, even the ones that aren't 'top pro' would stand up well to another system's 'L' or whatever designation pro lens lineup. There may be less choice compared to other brands but there isn't a stinker amongst them..

My bloghttp://photocamel.com/forum/blogs/paul-shields/.

My picshttp://www.flickriver.com/photos/noisyoly/popular-interesting/..

Comment #29

Heres a difficult shoot I did last week. This is a converted church with a multi level living space and is quite dark due to smaller than average windows..

This is E3 with 11-22, FL50 flash barely adding to exposure because what I did was expose for ambient light by boosting the iso to 800, and letting flash just support lighting. otherwise too strong a flash would not fill the entire space. first shot is the 'money shot' for this property used on offer copy.

E3 11-22 lens, iso800 F4 1/60th sec.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Same gear and exposure, see shadow caused by flash on the ceiling.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

E3 11-22 lens, iso400 F4 1/30th sec.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

For more usual interiors, I use more flash, here I need to balance daylight outside with flash lit room inside. Mirror makes it look bigger than it is!F4.5, 1/200th sec, iso100.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Kitchen space belong to Army Officeriso160, F4.5 1/200th.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Using Liveview for low angle (really trying to hide horrblw view of nieghbours !ios160 F9 1/800th.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Nice deep Dof from short focus yet good average light.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Dusk shot with backup E300iso200 F4 1/2.5 sec.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Riley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous..

Comment #30

I would suggest my images speak for me, it looks like getting ugly here so Ill try to remain above the rhetoric..

I use 4/3rds for real estate because it offers deep depth of fieldyou should choose systems on that basis, and the available featuresdustshaker means you are always ready to go.

Liveview very useful for more difficult low angles, and shooting camera overhead (looking uphill).

Telecentric lenses are more useful wide open, less vignetting, fall-off sharp edges.

Suggest minimum kitE-51011-22 lensFL 50 flash and stofen72mm Polariser filter (outdoors)2 spare camera batteries12 metal hydride cells for FL50 flash.

Better kit or additionalE3add 7-14/4additional slave flash x2 (ebay)Cactus wireless remote triggertall tripodRiley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous..

Comment #31

Rriley wrote:.

I would suggest my images speak for me, it looks like getting uglyhere so Ill try to remain above the rhetoric..

I use 4/3rds for real estate because it offers deep depth of fieldyou should choose systems on that basis, and the available featuresdustshaker means you are always ready to goLiveview very useful for more difficult low angles, and shootingcamera overhead (looking uphill)Telecentric lenses are more useful wide open, less vignetting,fall-off sharp edges.

Suggest minimum kitE-51011-22 lensFL 50 flash and stofen72mm Polariser filter (outdoors)2 spare camera batteries12 metal hydride cells for FL50 flash.

Better kit or additionalE3add 7-14/4additional slave flash x2 (ebay)Cactus wireless remote triggertall tripodRiley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Thank you for the great examples and advice... I ordered the 510 and battaries and now I will look inot your other suggestions as well. the 510 felt the best to me as when I tried them in the shops. I really have no doubt now about my choice..

Thank you to all that have contribueted, I see that I have a lot to learn and everyones opinion helped me alot. Thank you!!..

Comment #32

Now that's the way to answer the OP's question!.

Rriley wrote:.

I would suggest my images speak for me, it looks like getting uglyhere so Ill try to remain above the rhetoric..

I use 4/3rds for real estate because it offers deep depth of fieldyou should choose systems on that basis, and the available featuresdustshaker means you are always ready to goLiveview very useful for more difficult low angles, and shootingcamera overhead (looking uphill)Telecentric lenses are more useful wide open, less vignetting,fall-off sharp edges.

Suggest minimum kitE-51011-22 lensFL 50 flash and stofen72mm Polariser filter (outdoors)2 spare camera batteries12 metal hydride cells for FL50 flash.

Better kit or additionalE3add 7-14/4additional slave flash x2 (ebay)Cactus wireless remote triggertall tripodRiley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Jeff..

Comment #33

Rriley, those shots are beautiful!.

I can't wait to get the whole image to be in focus like that...

Comment #34

Stu 5 wrote:.

Yes it will. I do not have the time to go into lens design too muchnow but I am qualified in it. You can't just stick a film lens onto aFF camera and hope things will be perfect. For a start a film lens isdesigned to brings colours to different points of focus than adigital lens to compensate for the makeup of film. That is why filmlenses colour fringe so much on digital cameras. Then there is theissue of telecentric lens design.

Nikon would need to increase the size oftheir lens mount to compete..

Pal, you've been reading comics too much, or maybe that 4/3 website. The only difference between film and digital is the lense coating advances. Different points of focus??.

Where do you get this about film lenses and digital lenses? They just add modern coatings. They don't change the elements, unless they're designing for a larger sensor. Much of the nonsense one sees when someone is attempting to show validity for smaller sensors talk about NEAR telecentric lenses and display images portending to be modern CCDs but these arguments tend to only hold true with very large photosite (low megapixal) sensors from the past..

Telecentric lenses can have several disadvantages. First, telecentric optical designs tend to be much more complex and thus prone to error more than normal designs, especially in manufacturing. This also contributes to higher manufacturing costs..

Also, the front and rear elements tend and need to be larger than the image space. Hence the need for a larger mounts for a smaller sensor. The aperture diameter needs to be considerably larger than the image or sensor size to avoid vignetting, again, hence the need for a larger mount..

All in all, telecentric design is not a panacea for optic crafting by a long shot, but it sounds good and is thrown about by many. Anyone can read the advertising..

Now, again I say. I have nothing against Olympus and 4/3rds mount. Olympus has always made a great camera. Their owners are very loyal. I understand, and its understandably true. I own an old OM1 and a couple of lenses myself..

It is a fine camera..

I still say that if someone getting into photography with the intent of growing into a full system of equipment, Nikon and Canon have that large system to grow with. Moreover, Canon L glass and Nikon pro glass is as good or better than most other companies can produce. Chances are it is either Nikon or Canon lenses that go into producing the integrated circuitry found in any brand of digital camera. Canon and Nikon make $100,000 plus lenses for cinema cameras. I think it's trivial for them to be able to make great $200 to $10,000 consumer to pro glass. I do agree that all of them have a couple of stinkers, especially consumer Canons...

Comment #35

Zoltan2 wrote:.

Neither the Sigma nor the Oly 11-22 are superwide. In a 4/3 mounttheir field of view is 20-40 and 22-44 respectively. Not wide at all..

If you think 94.5 and 89 degrees - angles of view at 10 and 11mm,respectively - are not wide at all, you don't know what you aresaying. But of course if you want to go even *wider* on FourThirds,you have no other options than the 7-14mm f/4 or a fisheye. For now..

Darn, we agree. The only way to get to SUPERWIDE that isn't fisheye is $1590, like I said one lens..

Of course 90 degree angle is wide angle, just not wide enough, not wide at all compared to the superwides many of us desire. Read what I said again.. Quote "Neither the Sigma nor the Oly 11-22 are superwide."..

Comment #36

RealGiff, good luck with your new camera, and dont forget to drop in to Olympus dSLR here..

Jeff and Thurnau, thanks for the compliments, much appreciated.Riley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous..

Comment #37

Guidenet wrote:.

Darn, we agree. The only way to get to SUPERWIDE that isn't fisheyeis $1590, like I said one lens..

Since the 7-14 is 14-28 in 35mm EFL terms, it compares favourably to Nikons new and quite nice 14-24. Since the Nikon and the Olympus are in the same price bracket, and are together the most superior UWA lens available anywhere..

The point comes down to this, the cost of the systems differs widely, with Nikon D3 FF exceeding the cost of E3 by a factor of 2x+.

Of course 90 degree angle is wide angle, just not wide enough, notwide at all compared to the superwides many of us desire. Read what Isaid again.. Quote "Neither the Sigma nor the Oly 11-22 aresuperwide.".

Since most rooms in my experience have 90 degree corners your point falls to near obtuse logic. The risks with UWA are in inconveniently showing more of the floor an ceiling that becomes a distraction in itself. The convenience of a 22mm EFL/2.8 lens far outweighs using *less* of an UWA zoom to satisfy a good composition..

Riley.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous..

Comment #38

That the upper limit on DoF is diffraction, which in turn is a function of sensor size (via pixel size and pitch). So all cameras, for a given number of MP, are capable of the same DoF before diffraction cuts in..

To be honest, I'd much rather have an Oly 510 than a Nikon D40, it is a completely different class of camera, but they will both be able to do what Riley is demonstrating equally well.http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam..

Comment #39

You know. You might be right on the room. I hadn't thought of that. I just love superwides myself. You can have a lot of fun with them...

Comment #40

I try not to grind my ax over anyone's head; nor do I feel like we have to think the same. But I care to express that your "pal" language and accusations of fan boys are distasteful. You received a strong response from your comments because they were heavily biased. For example, you say that Canon and Nikon lenses are probably better and that there are a lot of Zuiko stinkers. That's quite a statement Guidenet, best made by one who considers their use of a lens to add to it's quality. Zuiko lenses stand up to the highest quality standards on their own merit, but it sounds like your pudding only comes in one flavor..

On the other points, I can appreciate your opinion. I have a much looser definition of pros than you do. I would consider that they are people using their cameras to make money..

As far as the ultra wides go. 20mm is wide enough for me, and I agree that the 7-14mm is expensive (and worth every golden penny). I also see that any Nikon or Canon ultra wide that is sharp in the corners is going to cost golden pennies..

Lastly, crop sensor DSLRs are how all the camera companies make their money (apart from lens and accessory sales) to support R and D on 35mm DSLRs.

Which are still large, heavy, and expensive. Do you shoot with a D3? It's a monster brick thing. It's simply not for everyone; so crop sensors will be cheaper still and always have a market. I'd wager for the exact opposite reasons that you quote. Noise and resolution are improving in leaps and bounds over the past 3+ years. They are getting good enough to be licking at the heals of even the newest 35mm cameras; especially when you consider the price/quality.

That alone may reveal that there is room for a smaller systemand I'm betting on the consumerist hordes for this one..

As far as the D40 goes. I'll do my homework better on that one. I took a look at the Nikon site and there are plenty of AF-S lenses that don't require a screw drive. My roommate who shoots Nikon held it up as huge gripe against the D40. Now I know it's a non-issue unless you want a specific prime that requires a screw drive..

One more thing. I counted 16 new Nikon lenses since 1999. Olympus released 20 since 2003the birth of 4/3rds. Feel free to debate my count. I'm not going to touch the 4/3rds mount. What are the IDs of the mounts? Who cares.

They seem to be doing just fine with that..

Problem is, the OP just wanted to know about an entry level DSLR with good kit lenses. And here we go with info overload. Most buyers will stick with the kit lenses for the duration so might as well get some of those lousy Zuikos as part of the deal..

Cheers, Seth.

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?.

Wallygoots.smugmug.comwallygoots.blogspot.com..

Comment #41

Guidenet wrote:.

I'm really quite biased in that I've been shooting Nikon since thelate 60s., but here's my take..

Unless you're totally a beginner and don't ever intend to take onphotography as a hobby or profession, any of the DSLRs on the marketwill do just fine..

On the other hand, if you intend to grow with this hobbly, I'dsuggest you stick with either Nikon or Canon. These two companiesoffer, by a long shot, the largest systems, and you aren't justbuying a camera. You're buying into a system of photographic cameras,lenses and accessories. Moreover 3rd party companies make more itemsfor Canon and Nikon than they do for all the others. Just go to thecamera websites and look how many lenses each has available to growinto..

Take Olympus. Great equipment, but only six lenses they call proglass. No lenses above 300 mm. Very few primes or macro lenses.Another negative is the small 4/3 sensor, especially for wide angles.The only real wide zoom for Olympus is over $1500. Their 300 mm f2.8is $5800 whereas Nikon's is around $4500 with Flourite nanotechnology and considered one of the sharpest lenses ever made.Canon's is also highly regarded and is $3900. Both Nikon and Canon'shave built in image stabalization.

So, what arethose Olympus lenses so much more and not better quality?.

Sony and Pentax are the same as far as smaller selectiions, but notthe 4/3 mount..

Wow.a lot of personal (biased) opinion passed off as fact!.

What you fail to mention in your rant about Oly's 300mm lens is that on the Oly body it is a 600mm lens..

And the 4:3 sensor.not that much smaller.but I'm sure you are gonna' start hashing that one around, too!.

Lots of professional photographers shoot with brands other than Nikon or Canon!.

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

From Oly E-510:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Remember.always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!..

Comment #42

Red13 wrote:.

First off the advice you received about not all lenses have completefunctionality on the lower end bodies is true for Nikon and Canon.Olympus has chosen to cut costs in manufacturing for example, theyuse plastic instead of metal brackets on the kit lenses. They havetotal functionality but they use a plastic mounting..

Apparently you haven't checked out many kit lenses..

Nikon and Canon 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses also have plastic mounts..

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!..

Comment #43

Guidenet wrote:.

Stu 5 wrote:.

Yes it will. I do not have the time to go into lens design too muchnow but I am qualified in it. You can't just stick a film lens onto aFF camera and hope things will be perfect. For a start a film lens isdesigned to brings colours to different points of focus than adigital lens to compensate for the makeup of film. That is why filmlenses colour fringe so much on digital cameras. Then there is theissue of telecentric lens design.

Nikon would need to increase the size oftheir lens mount to compete..

Pal, you've been reading comics too much, or maybe that 4/3 website.The only difference between film and digital is the lense coatingadvances. Different points of focus??.

Where do you get this about film lenses and digital lenses? They justadd modern coatings. They don't change the elements, unless they'redesigning for a larger sensor. Much of the nonsense one sees whensomeone is attempting to show validity for smaller sensors talk aboutNEAR telecentric lenses and display images portending to be modernCCDs but these arguments tend to only hold true with very largephotosite (low megapixal) sensors from the past..

Telecentric lenses can have several disadvantages. First, telecentricoptical designs tend to be much more complex and thus prone to errormore than normal designs, especially in manufacturing. This alsocontributes to higher manufacturing costs..

Also, the front and rear elements tend and need to be larger than theimage space. Hence the need for a larger mounts for a smaller sensor.The aperture diameter needs to be considerably larger than the imageor sensor size to avoid vignetting, again, hence the need for alarger mount..

All in all, telecentric design is not a panacea for optic crafting bya long shot, but it sounds good and is thrown about by many. Anyonecan read the advertising..

Now, again I say. I have nothing against Olympus and 4/3rds mount.Olympus has always made a great camera. Their owners are very loyal.I understand, and its understandably true. I own an old OM1 and acouple of lenses myself.. actually three, I think. It is a finecamera..

I still say that if someone getting into photography with the intentof growing into a full system of equipment, Nikon and Canon have thatlarge system to grow with. Moreover, Canon L glass and Nikon proglass is as good or better than most other companies can produce.Chances are it is either Nikon or Canon lenses that go into producingthe integrated circuitry found in any brand of digital camera. Canonand Nikon make $100,000 plus lenses for cinema cameras. I think it'strivial for them to be able to make great $200 to $10,000 consumer topro glass. I do agree that all of them have a couple of stinkers,especially consumer Canons..

I would have expected that someone that states they use large format would know a little bit more about lens design than this. Interesting that you state lots of reasons for producing a wider mount to improve design........ that's the reason Olympus do it...

Comment #44

Biglizard1 wrote:.

I made my choice of the E-510 becauseof the quality of the kit lenses..

Same here. After doing a LOT of reading over the last 4 months (forums, website reviews, and magazines), I see that Oly's lenses get rave reviews by users, and their kit lenses are excellent. I also like the concept of in-body IS, rather than in each lens, although I know many Nikon owners will disagree..

I also noticed that out of the large number of lenses Nikon produces, only 14 are VR (VR = in lens image stabilized). And those are longer focal length lenses that tend to be slower (high f number). You can buy faster AF-S lenses, but they usually don't have VR..

If you bring this up in the Nikon forum (like I did), those folks will tell you that IS (or VR) is only important in long (telephoto) lenses. They have argued that cameras with high ISO / low noise capabilities coupled with fast lenses don't need to be image stabilized. Nikon users have been getting along just fine without IS, they will say..

Truth be told, I'd probably be happy with either the Nikon D40 or the Oly E-510 and respective lens family. But I decided to give Oly a try, based on the reasons I gave...

Comment #45

Not sure what you mean by "Pal thing," but if it was offensive to you, I apologize. I also agree, that bit about stinkers was uncalled for. I suppose I was stirring the water because of the reaction in some of the responses..

The funny thing is that I've always liked Olympus. As I mentioned, I still own an OM1 and 3 lenses..

My only point, and I believe it to be valid, is that when you buy a camera, you're buying into the entire system. If one decides that this will become a life-long hobby, a huge system like Canon or Nikon offers might be the only two choices for expansion..

Also, I believe that the trend toward larger and larger sensors is in the future, even for small DSLRs. Canon's 5D is an example of a full-frame camera that is not as big a "brick" as the bigger pro D3 and Canons. Possibly in 3 or 4 years most DSLRs will be full frame. I know that I'm planning on it by buying only full frame lenses from this point forward. At this time I'm not even intending to go full frame. I'm happy with my D300 and D80, but who knows what the future will bring..

I don't think that Olympus can go to a bigger sensor. They might have to settle for nitch market in the future, catering to people wanting small high quality cameras. That's sort of what the OM series became, IMO. It filled that nitch well. In the 50s and 60s Pentax was the small super quality SLR. I still have an H3V that is like a swiss watch with it's quiet precision..

For most people, I totally agree with you. One camera and one or two kit lenses will be all that people will own. For that, they should buy the features, quality and price they can afford and not worry about who has the large system. I was merely suggesting that one might consider the total system when making the decision..

Have fun...

Comment #46

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.