E-volt E-500 or D40? [Archive]

emaja

May 28, 2007, 09:41 AM

I know these questions are asked a billion times here, but here's one more...

I have never owned an SLR (film or digital). I want to have a larger zoom than is possible in a typical digital camera so I can take photos of sporting events and venues that my son and I travel to (we go on an annual baseball road trip - this year to Boston and NYC).

I found a good price on the E-500 with the two lens kit for $599. I was also looking at the D40, but it comes with one lens for the same price. The Olympus comes with a 35mm equivalent 28-90mm (with included 14-45mm lens) or 80mm-300mm (with included 40-150mm lens). I think that will be enough for me for now.

I know most will say, "Look at the lenses and not the camera as you will buy lenses once and several bodies," but I am not really looking to buy a ton of glass. In any case, whatever lenses I see myself buying are available from Olympus or Sigma. I may get a Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6 later.

I guess what I want to know is if there is any significan disadvantage to buying a four-thirds camera or the Evolt in particular. I know little about them, but do not want to make a $600 mistake. I like the feel of the Evolt and think the included lenses - which I understand are very nice quality kit lenses - will work well for me and provide a possible upgrade path with available lenses.

Opinions?

baby duck monge

May 28, 2007, 09:53 AM

I had to make almost the exact same decision within the past 1.5 months. I was choosing between those two cameras, but each only had 1 lens. I chose the Olympus and don't regret it one bit. It takes great pictures and is amazingly easy to use.

You're going to have more upgrade and lens options if you go with the Nikon, but there are some nice lenses out there for the Olympus, and the two it comes with should hold you for a while, anyway.

I'll go ahead and vote for the Olympus, but I doubt too many other people will. You can check out my Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/babyduckmonger) page to see some of the shots I have gotten with the Olympus. They're not professional pictures or anything, but they may give you a clue what someone who has been away from SLRs for a while can do with that camera and the 14-45 that comes with it.

Westside guy

May 28, 2007, 10:09 AM

baby duck monge

May 28, 2007, 10:35 AM

Might be worthwhile to look at DPreview's Olympus SLR forum (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1022) to see what's been said on this topic (if anything), and/or ask existing Olympus dSLR owners if there are drawbacks they've run into after choosing that route.

Along those lines, I consulted DPReview heavily when narrowing down my search to those cameras. Check out their full reviews to see what some of the major pluses and minuses of each system are. Both cameras are highly recommended, but each for different reasons.

emaja

May 28, 2007, 11:27 AM

I did browse through the forums there and found a bunch of info on the 510, but not much on the 500. It seems that the biggest drawback to a four-thirds system was the lack of lenses, but not so much anymore as there are more and more lenses available.

It seems like a great camera and has a good feel in my hands along with nice kit lenses, so I think I will pick one up here shortly. DP Review and Steve's Digicams both like it, mentioning a small viewfinder, USB 1.1 transfer speeds, and slow startup times (1.7 seconds) as the biggest drawbacks - which I think I can live with due to the quality of the included lenses and that I will use a card reader to save on batteries anyway.

They were saying it was a good camera and a great value at the $900 price with one lens at launch, but for $600 it is almost a steal with the two lenses.

Thanks for the input. Any others?

cube

May 28, 2007, 11:30 AM

Look through the viewfinder of both.

emaja

May 28, 2007, 11:37 AM

I did and coming from my 3.3MP Fuji A330 both were a great improvement which is why I said I could live with it. I am not coming at this from the perspective of an experienced SLR user, so the "smallness" of the viewfinder is not an issue for me.

compuwar

May 28, 2007, 11:46 AM

I know these questions are asked a billion times here, but here's one more...

I have never owned an SLR (film or digital). I want to have a larger zoom than is possible in a typical digital camera so I can take photos of sporting events and venues that my son and I travel to (we go on an annual baseball road trip - this year to Boston and NYC).

I found a good price on the E-500 with the two lens kit for $599. I was also looking at the D40, but it comes with one lens for the same price. The Olympus comes with a 35mm equivalent 28-90mm (with included 14-45mm lens) or 80mm-300mm (with included 40-150mm lens). I think that will be enough for me for now.

Part of it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. If they're just going to stay on the computer or be printed at 4x5", then it really won't matter too much what you choose. If you want to be able to print larger pictures- say 8x10-11x14 easily, and a little larger with some uprezing, then the D40 is the right answer.

emaja

May 28, 2007, 12:10 PM

If you want to be able to print larger pictures- say 8x10-11x14 easily, and a little larger with some uprezing, then the D40 is the right answer.

Is that a shortcoming of the four-thirds? The E-500 is an 8MP camera while the D40 is only 6. Pardon me if I don't understand why fewer megapixels would make for a worse picture if blown up. I also have read that the lenses included with the E-500 are better than the D40, which along with more MPs is why I think the Evolt is a better camera for me.

I plan on mostly viewing them on my Mac, but a few will likely be printed out, but probably nothing larger than 8x10.

cube

May 28, 2007, 12:21 PM

FourThirds uses a smaller sensor. All other things being equal, there's more noise in the pictures coming from a smaller sensor. If in addition, it has more mpix, you are just making the photosites even smaller.

Anyway, the E-400 looked like a very attractive camera at the time, but now that the D40 is out, the bulk advantage has vanished.

I would more look at what any additional lenses would cost.

Also, Nikon has the 18-200 VR which is quite unparalleled for travel.

emaja

May 28, 2007, 12:50 PM

Anyway, the E-400 looked like a very attractive camera at the time, but now that the D40 is out, the bulk advantage has vanished.

I am looking at the E-500, not the E-400.

I understand that the Evolt uses a smaller sensor, but since I will not be making enlargements I don't think that will matter too much to me.

cube

May 28, 2007, 01:05 PM

I know you're looking at the E-400. I meant that the E-400 caught my attention, while the others didn't.

When I looked at the lenses they seemed very expensive at the wide end, plus there's no ultrasonic ones.

But it looks like a good deal.

cube

May 28, 2007, 01:22 PM

K100D 1 lens kit for $480 minus rebates:

$50 mail-in rebate thru 7/31/07. Double that to $100 cash-back on the camera and earning UP TO $175 maximum rebate when purchasing a K100D in conjunction w/ 50-200mm lens & AF360FGZ flash. Offer is valid thru 7.31.07.

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKK100D1855

That way you get image stabilization plus a bigger sensor.

emaja

May 28, 2007, 01:25 PM

K100D 1 lens kit for $480 minus rebates:

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PKK100D1855

That way you get image stabilization plus a bigger sensor.

Thanks for that info! It makes the decision harder of course as I had almost given up on the E-500...

cube

May 28, 2007, 01:39 PM

I wouldn't give up so easily on the E-500 just for every detail we consider here. It seems to be a good camera, so if it fits you future plans, why not going for it if it happens to be the best deal?

emaja

May 28, 2007, 01:46 PM

I wouldn't give up so easily on the E-500 just for every detail we consider here. It seems to be a good camera, so if it fits you future plans, why not going for it if it happens to be the best deal?

I did say "almost"...

You are right of course, but I am making this is so much harder than it needs to be due to my desire to get it right the first time. Since I am new to SLRs, I do not have any investment in lenses, but this decision will certainly be a step towards locking me into one system - as would buying <I>any</I> dSLR.

cube

May 28, 2007, 01:47 PM

50 mail-in rebate thru 7/31/07. Double that to $100 cash-back on the camera and earning UP TO $175 maximum rebate when purchasing a K100D in conjunction w/ 50-200mm lens & AF360FGZ flash. Offer is valid thru 7.31.07.

That wording is a bit misleading. If you look at the rebate form you will see:

- $50 rebate for body/kit
- $100 rebate for body/kit if bought TOGETHER with 50-200 OR AF360FGZ flash
- 50-200 gets an additional $50 rebate
- flash gets an additional $25 rebate

So you get at most $175 on that stuff

cube

May 28, 2007, 01:57 PM

The E-500 body weighs 479g, while the K100D body weighs 660g

The FourThird lenses are theoretically smaller than those of APS-C brands.

cube

May 28, 2007, 02:08 PM

When combining these Pentax things it's a bit cheaper at Abe's.

IscariotJ

May 28, 2007, 03:26 PM

I was in the same position a while ago, as was a friend of mine. I went the D40 route, he the E-500. Even though he is very happy with his camera, he does envy my VR lens. If he wants something like VR, he would have to upgrade to the E-510 ( though it is rumoured Sigma is producing an Olympus fit version of their 18-200 OS ). Is VR an issue for you?

As has been mentioned, look to the lenses, then buy the body.

I know it doesn't make it any easier, but both produce superb shots :)

Westside guy

May 28, 2007, 03:35 PM

I was in the same position a while ago, as was a friend of mine. I went the D40 route, he the E-500. Even though he is very happy with his camera, he does envy my VR lens. If he wants something like VR, he would have to upgrade to the E-510 ( though it is rumoured Sigma is producing an Olympus fit version of their 18-200 OS ). Is VR an issue for you?

Note that in-body VR does not work nearly as well as in-lens VR.

compuwar

May 28, 2007, 04:28 PM

Is that a shortcoming of the four-thirds? The E-500 is an 8MP camera while the D40 is only 6. Pardon me if I don't understand why fewer megapixels would make for a worse picture if blown up. I also have read that the lenses included with the E-500 are better than the D40, which along with more MPs is why I think the Evolt is a better camera for me.

I plan on mostly viewing them on my Mac, but a few will likely be printed out, but probably nothing larger than 8x10.

The number of pixels isn't the only factor. Sensor size changes how much an image must be maginified to be printed, which changes how much noise will be in an image (this is also true of film, not just digital.) My minimum print size is 8x10 unless I'm just proofing to see how an image looks. I'd pay the extra money for a 4MP D2HS over any of the 4/3rds bodies, and I'd probably get that over the 6MP D40 given the choice despite having 33% fewer pixels.

There are a few reasons that sales of 4/3rds bodies are relatively flat- the D40 is one of them (while the 4/3rds bodies are likely the pricing thing that had the focus motor pulled from the D40- hey- it's a market.)

If you're looking on a computer, you're not likely to appreciate the difference, and ultimately it's up to you to get the camera you like the best.

emaja

May 28, 2007, 11:40 PM

Thanks for all the input guys. I thought that the E-500 was a good value, but if I want any upgrade path my options are much more limited than if I went with either Nikon or Canon.

It looks like I will be choosing between the D40x and the Rebel XTi to guarantee a future for any lenses that I will buy.

cube

May 29, 2007, 01:16 PM

beingme

May 29, 2007, 02:45 PM

i was also interested in the e500 because bhphoto had a deal for around 600 dollars included two lens and the body.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/405346-REG/Olympus_262064_Evolt_E_500_Digital_Camera.html

emaja

May 29, 2007, 06:26 PM

Now you're going all the way to the D40x instead of the D40?

The reason I said D40x was because of the larger sensor and more MPs. It seems to be the best of both worlds to me.

I can either get a D40 for $599-ish or the D40x for $799-ish. In either case, I figure I will start off with the kit lens and then add the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR later and meet my forseeable needs.

I think I am almost set on either of these, unless other opinions come forth.

Thanks again.

ChrisA

May 29, 2007, 09:38 PM

I found a good price on the E-500 with the two lens kit for $599. I was also looking at the D40, but it comes with one lens for the same price. The Olympus comes with a 35mm equivalent 28-90mm (with included 14-45mm lens) or 80mm-300mm (with included 40-150mm lens). I think that will be enough for me for now.

Neither camera is really very good for sports. What you should do is fisrt look for a good LENS that cn do what you need. Nikon makes some great optics but the D40 is "crippled" and lacks an interal focus motor that is inside every other Nikon camera and so it can only use lenses that contain their own motor. Nikon cals these "AF-S" type. Many of the best lenses are not AF-S and very few of the used lenes you will find are AF-S. A used D50, D70 or a D80 would be better if you go with Nikon. Olympus is good but their selection of lenses for the evolt is very limited.

So back to shopping. First pick out the lens then pick a camera to fit the lens. Sports is a really hard photographic genre. It combines fast action with long distance and this combination generally means expensive gear.

Here is what to do... Envision a photo that you would want to take. What is the size of the subject. Say a 6 foot tall player. do you want him to fill up 1/2 or 1/3rd of the frame? Lets' say 1/2. So the frame is 12 feet tall. How far away are you? 50 yards? A 150mm or 200mm lens might do it. At double that distance, double the lenght of the lens. You can work it out using basic trig. You can't "cheat" if you want a certain size image from a given distance you need a certain focal length.

Next how "fast" does the lens need to be? If the camera is hand held then the shutter speed must be kept faster than "one over the focal length" to avoid camera shake induced blur. Ok so you have a 200mm lens then you can't go slower than 1/200. unless you opt for one of the "image stabilized" lenses or for a tripod. So how fast need the lens be? The camera's light meter will apply the "sunny 16 rule" which says shuter is 1/ISO aperture at 1/16 in a bright mid day cloudless day. Clouds and late afternood sun angle can cost you four stops. so, that's 1/ISO at f/5.6. Bottom line here is that those chap f/5.6 lenses are just "marginal" for this task. You will have to shoot at ISO 200 with the lens wide open much of the time. but will work fine in bright direct midday sunlight.

I'm not telling you what to buy just how to think through your needs. Look at the lens first in terms of exposure and focal length requirements. Have some one help you with the math if you don't know how. Pick out a lens or two and do consider used lenses. Lenses last nearly forever and the technology is not moving very fast. camera bodies on the other hand are a moving target and become obsolete quickly. So look at the market for used optics brfore yu pick a brand. Mostly you will find Canon and Nikon being offered. I would recommend a body that can take advanage of good used optics if you discover you need a big, expensive lenses (hint, $600 will buy a nice Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom)

emaja

May 29, 2007, 10:28 PM

I'm not telling you what to buy just how to think through your needs. Look at the lens first in terms of exposure and focal length requirements. Have some one help you with the math if you don't know how. Pick out a lens or two and do consider used lenses. Lenses last nearly forever and the technology is not moving very fast. camera bodies on the other hand are a moving target and become obsolete quickly. So look at the market for used optics brfore yu pick a brand. Mostly you will find Canon and Nikon being offered. I would recommend a body that can take advanage of good used optics if you discover you need a big, expensive lenses (hint, $600 will buy a nice Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom)

Thanks for the input, Chris. Part of the problem is that I do not know enough to ask those questions. It makes it very hard for me to know if I am buying the right camera/lens system as well as making it very hard for you guys to help me out. I do not have anyone that I know personally to ask these questions of, so you guys here are my support.

As far as used goes, I do not know what to look for to make sure I am not getting something with problems or not, so as a result I am looking new. It looks like B&H has a few used cameras and I wish I could still get a D50 as that one seems perfect for me with a large sensor and AF so I can use almost any Nikon lens. B&H has one for $399 so that may be an option. The D80 is still around, but a little more than I think I should spend.

That does leave the XT/XTi which would both fit my needs nicely, and the lenses I see myself getting are readily available. Either Canon or Nikon have everything that I could imaging needing, so I think I will stay with either of those two.

I guess it comes down to personal preference at this point and everyone will have a point to make as to why either of them are better, but in the end I feel that I could not really go wrong with either company.

I am leaning towards grabbing that D50 now, but if anyone has a reason to NOT buy it, please let me know - and other options are welcome also of course.

Thanks again.

Abstract

May 29, 2007, 11:16 PM

The reason I said D40x was because of the larger sensor and more MPs. It seems to be the best of both worlds to me.

The D40X and D40 have the same size sensor, though. The only difference is that the D40 performs better when set to higher ISO.

It looks like B&H has a few used cameras and I wish I could still get a D50 as that one seems perfect for me with a large sensor and AF so I can use almost any Nikon lens. B&H has one for $399 so that may be an option.

Get it! Solves every problem you have with the D40/D40X, and the E-500.

emaja

May 29, 2007, 11:59 PM

The D40X and D40 have the same size sensor, though. The only difference is that the D40 performs better when set to higher ISO.

Sorry, I meant that the D40s had a larger sensor and more MPs than the E-500, solving the sensor size and MP issue.

As far as the D50 goes, it does sound like a good solution for me, but it is just the body and now I have to get a lens right away. It still gets me going for a good price, but now I have a whole new set of questions.

I am looking at the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF as a general use lens, but am open to suggestions. B&H has it for $249 new and $179 used. I also see a Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5g ED-IF AF-S for $349 that I could get as well.

Ideas?

Westside guy

May 30, 2007, 12:13 AM

emaja

May 30, 2007, 12:29 AM

For a digital body, I strongly suggest you get a lens that starts at 18mm.

The 18-70 is a great lens (I had one for two years, until I bought the 18-200). I heartily recommend it. It's the best of the 18-xxx lenses (excluding the 18-200, which is certainly a great lens but it's also $750).

Thanks for that info.

Just so that I know we are talking about the same lens, I am looking at this 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/324190-USA/Nikon_2149_18_70mm_f_3_5_4_5_G_AFS_ED_IF.html

...but is there any reason not to look at this Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449087-USA/Nikon_2162_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_ED_IF_AF_S.html

It is a few bucks less - not really an issue - and has a bit more reach.

Just curious.

(sorry for the raw links, but AD is not allowing me to do either the HTML or use the "link" button right now)

Westside guy

May 30, 2007, 12:35 AM

Just so that I know we are talking about the same lens, I am looking at this 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/324190-USA/Nikon_2149_18_70mm_f_3_5_4_5_G_AFS_ED_IF.html

...but is there any reason not to look at this Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449087-USA/Nikon_2162_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_ED_IF_AF_S.html

It is a few bucks less - not really an issue - and has a bit more reach.

When it comes to buying lenses, reviews are important. Go to Thom Hogan's Nikon website (http://www.bythom.com/) and read the respective reviews of those lenses, for example.

The 18-70 (yes, the one you've linked) was the original kit lens released with the D70. Nikon was trying to make a big splash in the low-end dSLR market, and part of what made the purchase so compelling was this high-quality lens. The later kit lenses have been cheaper, in one way or another.

But read the reviews, and then decide for yourself.

IscariotJ

May 30, 2007, 03:23 AM

...but is there any reason not to look at this Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449087-USA/Nikon_2162_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_ED_IF_AF_S.html

It is a few bucks less - not really an issue - and has a bit more reach.

I've the 18-135, and find it to be a great lens. It pairs nicely with a 70-300mm.

However,

<Controversial>Unless you're going to start buying non-AFS lenses in the very near future, or using features like auto-bracketing, there's no reason not to go the D40/x route. You do gain a bigger LCD, better kit lens ( I've seen D40x bundles with the 18-55 kit lens, and the new 55-200 VR ), and the option for bigger memory cards ( seems trivial until you start running out of space ). Plus, the D40x is 10MP, and noise is well controlled.

Yes, the D50 is still a great camera. Yes, the D40/x is missing some features ( the link below will give you an idea of what it can/can't do ), but it is not by any means a crippled camera.</Controversial>

Check out the Picture Of The Day thread, there are several users on there showing what the D40/x is capable of ( freebooter, MartinC spring to mind ).

dpreview have justed posted their review of the D40x here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/).

emaja

May 30, 2007, 08:41 AM

<Controversial>Unless you're going to start buying non-AFS lenses in the very near future, or using features like auto-bracketing, there's no reason not to go the D40/x route. You do gain a bigger LCD, better kit lens ( I've seen D40x bundles with the 18-55 kit lens, and the new 55-200 VR ), and the option for bigger memory cards ( seems trivial until you start running out of space ). Plus, the D40x is 10MP, and noise is well controlled.

That is seen by many as the biggest strike against the D40s, but since I have no lenses at all, I don't really feel that is a shortcoming for me. I overlooked the lack of HDSD compatibility on the D50 and that might be a problem.

SIGH...

The biggest problem that I am having is that all the cameras/lens systems that I am looking at are excellent cameras and come highly recommended from so many sources. I know that I will go through more bodies than lenses, but I still do not want to make a mistake off the bat.

I am also fighting two of my personal tendancies. First, I tend to over-by electronics. If there is a "best" option out there, that is what I usually buy, eventhough it might not be the best option for me. Second, I am trying not to suffer from "analysis paralysis" and make a good choice, but since I know so little about dSLRs I am having issues. Combine that with the fear of making a very expensive mistake and I have several dilemmas.

Thanks for all the input and for being so patient. I just want to make the right choice and you are all giving me great things to think about.

cube

May 30, 2007, 04:10 PM

I overlooked the lack of HDSD compatibility on the D50 and that might be a problem.

Another reason to try to find a D70s for $100 more, as it uses CompactFlash.

Anyway, you must be able to put over 300 pics in RAW+BASIC in a 2GB card
(around 5 MB per raw, 0.8 MB per BASIC).

CNI Dawg

May 30, 2007, 04:29 PM

Now you're going all the way to the D40x instead of the D40?
6 mpix is OK. I would consider a used D70s (not D70 because of BGLOD fear) for about $500 for more lens options (specially used). It also has some valuable features over the D40(x), like DOF preview, commander mode, top lighted status display, more buttons).

Sorry to be ignorant but what is BGLOD?

I was leaning towards a used D50

What do you think of those?

WIll all Nikon lenses work on the D50?

Does it have a full size CCD ?

I moving over to digital from a Canon A1 35mm with Canon 30-70mm & 70-210mm lenses.

I've heard the digital SLRs are still not as good as good old 35mm film

cube

May 30, 2007, 04:45 PM

BGLOD = Blinking Green Light of Death is a defect which can affect D70 (not s) cameras. It stops working. Nikon repairs this even out of warranty is USA and other countries (I don't know if everywhere).

The D50 is a good camera. The pics might even be better than with the D70(s), but the D70(s) has some features which are important for advanced users.

These cameras will take basically any lens that is not "pre-AI" (read: really old), but will only meter with autofocus lenses (ie, you need to use a spotmeter or judgement with manual lenses). The D200 and up also meter with manual lenses.

Nikon does not have (expensive) "full-frame" cameras. They are APS-C, the usual size for DSLRs.

Film still has an edge in dynamic range, but if the scene is static you can do HDR with digital. If this is important to you for moving subjects, look at a Fuji model with SuperCCD SR.

emaja

May 30, 2007, 07:25 PM

Well, today I did what I should have done before and I went to my local camera shop and fiddled with the cameras I am considering. The D50 was very large for me and the D40 felt much better. The Rebels had a very quick AF where the D40 seemed very sluggish to me. I also played with the E-500 just to see if I was overlooking something and I was happier with the controls on either the Canon or Nikons.

Since Cube mentioned it, the salesman showed me a Pentax K10D and the K100D. They felt great in my hands, had a top LCD monitor and had anti-shake in the body and can use any Pentax lens. I was impressed to say the least.

Abe's has the K10D with a 18-55mm $838.95 or a K100D with the same lens AND the 50-200 f/4-5.6 for $799.08. I can add a DA series 50-200mm f/4-5.6 lens for $215.95 or an FA-J series 75-300mm f/4.5-5.8 lens for $134.95. Then there is the $150 rebate on top of that. I could get the K10D with two lenses for $905.90 after rebates or the K100 and the two lenses for $649.08.

I think this is the way that I will go.

Opinions?

IscariotJ

May 31, 2007, 01:40 AM

Well, today I did what I should have done before and I went to my local camera shop and fiddled with the cameras I am considering. The D50 was very large for me and the D40 felt much better. The Rebels had a very quick AF where the D40 seemed very sluggish to me. I also played with the E-500 just to see if I was overlooking something and I was happier with the controls on either the Canon or Nikons.

The slow AF is not the fault of the body. Which lens were you using on the D40? Was it the kit lens? My 18-135 is fast, and my 105 is very fast.

There are some Pentax users on this board who will probably be able to tell you better, but I think the main difference between the K10 and K100 is the MP ( 10 vs 6 ). Both have inbody IS ( unless you get an K110 without, which is cheaper still ).

Abstract

May 31, 2007, 04:14 AM

There are some Pentax users on this board who will probably be able to tell you better, but I think the main difference between the K10 and K100 is the MP ( 10 vs 6 ). Both have inbody IS ( unless you get an K110 without, which is cheaper still ).

That's like saying there is no difference between the Nikon D80 and D200. :o

The Pentax K10D body feels very good. Actually, I can say the same thing about the K100D. The K100D feels as good as the Nikon D50, if not better, and noticeably better than the Canon 400D/XTi and Olympus E-500, IMO. You have more control with the K10D and can change settings faster. Its more....shall we say...."swift". The K10D is bigger than the K100D, but good cameras are big cameras.

I would get the K100D and the 2 kit lenses, and go from there. :)

IscariotJ

May 31, 2007, 07:40 AM

That's like saying there is no difference between the Nikon D80 and D200. :o

Not knowing the Pentax range, a quick glance over the price/specs made the difference look like it was down to MP :rolleyes:

compuwar

May 31, 2007, 09:17 AM

The slow AF is not the fault of the body.

Sure it is. Pick any lens you want, and I'll bet real money that it'll focus faster and better on a D2x than on a D40. Number of AF points, accuracy of the CAM software for that body and voltage all play a role.

emaja

May 31, 2007, 09:25 AM

I was using the kit lenses all around since that was what I would be using at first. I thought that would be most fair to compare them that way.

The Pentax K10D body feels very good. Actually, I can say the same thing about the K100D. The K100D feels as good as the Nikon D50, if not better, and noticeably better than the Canon 400D/XTi and Olympus E-500, IMO. You have more control with the K10D and can change settings faster. Its more....shall we say...."swift". The K10D is bigger than the K100D, but good cameras are big cameras.

I would get the K100D and the 2 kit lenses, and go from there. :)

Besides the quick AF, what impressed me was the general build quality of the Pentax cameras. I know that is not an indication of how good any thing is, but I want a $900 camera to feel like it costs $900 and neither the Rebels nor the D40 felt that way. They both felt cheap in comparison.

I priced out both kits with the same lenses and the difference comes to $360. For that $360, the K10D give you rechargeable batteries, dust removal and 10MP instead of 6. There are some other features as mentioned, but those are the features that matter most to me. I am rather hung up on the batteries, but realize that I could get rechargeable CR-V3s, but that makes the difference less than $300 after I buy batteries and a charger.

Both felt great in my hands and I could see myself using either one rather easily once I get used to all the options that I have which I have never had with a P&S.

I plan to order one of the Pentax cameras today from Abe's. I will talk to them and see what their opinion is, but I am pretty sure I will go with the K100D and two lenses. I am trying to get over the AA/CR-V3 batteries and 6.1MP as shortcomings.

Thanks again. You all have been a tremendous help. Really.