[mattyb]

Now this isn't meant to provoke a flame war. It isn't meant to be Nikon vs Canon, in fact I'd really like to understand why you chose a certain brand over the others.

In particular, why not the Olympus / Pentax / Sony etc equivalent to the SLR that you did buy (presuming that most have bought Canon or Nikon).

Seems that even though there are less sales of Pentax and Olympus (I have only been focusing on them and not other SLR manufacturers) the owners are very pleased with their SLRs.

[OreoCookie]

Unless you have special needs, all dslr manufacturers have a camera and lenses for you.

I'd go to the store forgetting things like megapixels, noise and brand. Try cameras of all manufacturers and see which you like best. If it reads Pentax or Olympus on the badge, so what? It's about the picture and not about gear. Nobody will be able to discern the camera brand from your pictures.

[Oisín]

Ergonomics. Always ergonomics.

Pentaxes feel too small and dainty to me. Olympics … don’t have much experience, they’re not carried much over here (a second reason: availability). Sonys (Sonies?) both look and feel cheaply built. Nikon just feel clumsy—everything seems to be in the wrong place. Canons are the best fit. Don’t think I’ve tried any others.

[mattyb]

Availability. Thats one of the issues that us Europeans have.

Pentax lenses = €€€€€€

Not many 4/3 lenses around either.

[design219]

My first slr was a Yashica TL Electro. It was fine for learning with, but when I decided to take photography seriously in the mid 70s, Nikon was the choice of pros. I just thought that if most pros used Nikon, that's what I should get. Even then, Canon was a contender, and I considered an F1 (their only pro camera back then).

When digital arrived, Canon jumped in big and is now making really good equipment, but once in the Nikon system, it's hard justify moving away... Especially now that Nikon is back in the game with their latest digital cameras.

If I was starting in photography today, I would probably have a hard time deciding between the two systems. That said, if I lost all of my current equipment and had to rebuild a system from scratch, I would definitely go with Nikon.

[Railroader]

I'd owned a few Canon Point-n-shoots and was very happy with them. A friend was a pro and had Canon gear I could borrow. I was pretty ignorant about Nikon and no one I knew had one.

Did extensive research on the other brands and never read the kids of reviews I read about Canon and Nikon cameras. The only person I know who bought a non-Canon/Nikon DSLR has had major problems. He bought a Pentax and the first one died days before the warranty and the last one died the day after his warranty ran out.

I liked the Canon lens offerings as well.

And then I saw an excellent sale on the Canon XTi so I took advantage of that as well.

In the end I could have initially gone with either Nikon or Canon and been satisfied. But now I am pretty deep into Canon lenses and it would take a lot for me to switch.

I've never seen a pro use anything other than a Canon or Nikon (or Hasselblad, but that is way out of my league).

[jersey]

As has been said, it's all about the feel. The tool has to feel good in your hands and be comfortable. I prefer the build and weight of a Nikon over Canon, but I have plenty of colleagues who prefer Canons.

As well, the camera doesn't make the photographer - $10K in equipment doesnt guarantee great or even good images.

And finally if this is your first dslr, get a prime 50mm and stick with that. Learn the tool. Make it an extension of your eye.

[mattyb]

And finally if this is your first dslr, get a prime 50mm and stick with that. Learn the tool. Make it an extension of your eye.

Not sure if you saw my other thread in the Lounge. I actually bought a Canon SX10 (a pro-sumer, a wannabe SLR that you cannot change the lens). Its a really good camera, that takes far better pictures than I can. But I've got two kids, and when indoors I need to use the flash. So I want to sell it, get a dSLR and a prime. The prices of the newer Nikons and Canons is too much. Second hand is a rip off. Hence my question since I see equivalent Olympus or Pentax or even Sony at interesting 2nd hand prices.

I've found a Nikon D60 for 360€ and an AF 50mm f/1.8D for 160€ (~$700 together). I've been searching for the past two weeks and I cannot get something which is fairly modern with a prime for cheaper. Just to compare, a Canon 450D (no lens) is ~$660 new.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Pentax lenses = €€€€€€

That's because they are relatively high in quality. The better lenses are based on Tokina lenses (with ultrasonic motors). Good lenses cost money. IMO it's pointless to buy a dslr if you skimp out on lenses. Many bridge cameras can have a hot shoe for an external flash.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Not many 4/3 lenses around either.

There are plenty covering everything from 14 mm (full frame) to 600 mm (full frame). I'm not sure whether there is a fisheye, but they cover the basic needs. Unless you need something rather special (and from the looks of things, you don't), the 4/3rd lens family covers your needs. Where do you see gaps that are relevant to you?

What is your budget anyway?

[mattyb]

OreoCookie, I've got around 500€. Max 550€. Maybe I'm not searching for the right lens type in French to get some good prices though. I note that Amazon.fr doesn't seem to have such a wide selection.

Basically I'd like to start with a fairly decent SLR and a prime. In Canon or Nikon terms (IIUC) thats a 50mm 1:1.8 - I haven't been able to find a Pentax or Olympus lens that compares to the 100 -160€ of the equivalent Canon/Nikon 50mm primes.

Just did a search and found this : Olympus E-520 + Zuiko ED 14-42mm for 450€

[OreoCookie]

The 50 mm prime is not a very suitable lens for most situations. It is a good portrait lens, but you cannot do indoor group pictures or so with them. So even if you went for Canon and Nikon, you should look into a 35 mm prime (~ 200 € for the new Nikon, I guess) or something like 20 mm even.

With your budget, you have no choice but to go for the kit lens. Just try the cameras. The Olympus will be the smallest of the lot -- which may be an advantage.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Basically I'd like to start with a fairly decent SLR and a prime. In Canon or Nikon terms (IIUC) thats a 50mm 1:1.8 - I haven't been able to find a Pentax or Olympus lens that compares to the 100 -160€ of the equivalent Canon/Nikon 50mm primes.

Pentax lenses, over here, are a great value compared to their Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Canon brethren. In particular, the Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 is a steal at $250.

I got into Pentax for a couple of reasons:
• Lenses. I like primes, and I like compact primes (I still feel like a huge dork pointing one of those mongo zooms around, so I don't.) Pentax has great primes, in a great variety: compact ones, full-frame ones, weather-resistant ones. In particular, the limited series are mechanically very satisfying lenses on top of being great performers (e.g., one respected reviewer in 2002 called the FA77 among the best lenses ever made: sm-02-05-02 .) Other people love that (in some cases with an adapter) you can mount almost all of Pentax K mount lenses made ... and there are a lot of them out there. You might be able to pick up a manual 50mm for $20, e.g
• In body shake reduction. Brings SR to all your lens, modern or vintage
• Camera ergonomics: I like how Pentax has sorted their cameras, and they feel good in the hand. YMMV
• Weather resistance: actually useful

Not all is rosy, of course. I wish Pentax had a wide tilt-shift, but I console myself with knowing the Canon and Nikon versions are insanely expensive. You have to work with the camera in low-light focus, and while the view finder is tops in its class, I wish there were a bright big one like the full frame cameras have (in particular, Sony's is sweet.) And I still find my K20D too big ... but good news for me, it seems Pentax will announce in a few days a new, more compact K.

[mattyb]

The K200 looked fairly interesting. Like I said before though, the lenses seemed expensive on this side of the pond.

[iranfromthezoo]

I'll be the first to say that I own an Olympus E-410. Mainly the reason I have continued with Olympus is because I started with a Stylus, Prosumer SP and then the DSLR. Overall I am very satisfied with my camera. It takes excellent pictures, great quality and I really do like the 4/3's system.

There are some drawbacks to this system though, one is for my camera, lens are hard to find and pretty expensive, but you can find some on eBay.
I also don't like the way the camera handles photos in lowlight situations...I think Canon's do a much better job than that.

Overall it's a wonderful camera, simple and easy to use and I love the way the settings are. It's a wonderful camera.

[mattyb]

Tried a few cameras during lunch.

Canon ESO 50D = BEAST. This thing is HUGE. How do you carry it around all day? On a golf cart?

Pentax K20 and K200. Liked them but then I saw the lenses. Don't understand why they should be so expensive, its not like they have a far greater reputation than Canon or Nikon.

Olympus 510 and 520, not bad either. But lens price / availability problem.

Pity because both Olympus and Pentax seem to get pretty good reviews.

Sony. Dunno why but I don't like Sony. I've always had issues with my cellphone and the iMac. My mother in laws Sony PnS always has problems downloading all the photos to my iMac. I didn't even bother picking one up. Maybe irrational, but humans are irrational aren't they?

Tried a Nikon D60. Liked it, good size and weight. It didn't have a battery though so I wonder how much more it would weigh. Been looking at prices. Found some good deals. Now I just need to convince someone to take my SX10.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by mattyb

Canon ESO 50D = BEAST. This thing is HUGE. How do you carry it around all day? On a golf cart?

Around your neck, of course.

Yes, it’s a bit heavy (especially if you have a lens that also weighs about a kilo on it, and a flash that weighs 650 g), but it’s not that heavy.

However, a 50D might be overkill for you, unless you’re planning on going beyond shooting family pics and snapshots and getting into ‘real’ photography (where you go on photo shoot outings, start hauling little makeshift mini-studios with you, and generally spend tons of money on lenses, flashes, etc.). The 450D—or even the even smaller 1000D—would be more than enough for your current needs (the 450D is more comparable to the Nikon D60, too). According to pixmania.fr, you can easily get a 1000D with an 18–55mm kit lens for under €500.

The 18–55mm lens is not a particular good lens, but it works fine until you save up some extra money to get a better one (the 17–85 IS is a great lens that’s not too expensive).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Canon ESO 50D = BEAST. This thing is HUGE. How do you carry it around all day? On a golf cart?

A 50D is outside of your budget anyway. There are people (like me) who like a sizeable weight in their hands when they shoot things. (Take that literally, my D80 + 80-200 Nikkor looks like a weapon to most ) Plus, you should invest in lenses, not in the body.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Pentax K20 and K200. Liked them but then I saw the lenses. Don't understand why they should be so expensive, its not like they have a far greater reputation than Canon or Nikon.

Their kit lenses and other lenses tend to be more expensive, because they are of better quality than the cheap lenses Nikon and Canon offer (at that price!). It costs money to make good lenses. For instance, their 17-70 mm f/4 standard zoom goes longer (70 mm as opposed to 50/55 mm) and that at a constant aperture (f/4 instead of f/5.6). That's what makes lenses more expensive. Similar lenses from Nikon, for instance, are more expensive.

Same goes for bodies: the K20D is a competitor of the Nikon D90/Canon 500D -- which are beyond your budget.

In short, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Olympus 510 and 520, not bad either. But lens price / availability problem.

Why? Amazon has quite a few and I'm sure there are some French photography webshops that sell 'em just as well. Don't be afraid to take a camera that doesn't have Canon and Nikon on them. And that's coming from a guy who has a Nikon, so I'm not really rooting for `my team' here. (I went for Nikon because at that time, Olympus did not have an affordable camera with a viewfinder comparable to that of the D80.)

[design219]

I know a lot of people on here say ergonomics is THE most important thing, but I disagree. You can get used to holding any camera after using one a little bit. Nobody makes a camera with spikes on the grips or anything.

As for weight, I like heavy cameras. I used to have an Mamiya RZ67 (medium format), and I loved that beast.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by design219 

I know a lot of people on here say ergonomics is THE most important thing, but I disagree. You can get used to holding any camera after using one a little bit. Nobody makes a camera with spikes on the grips or anything.

Ergonomics ≠ weight.
Cameras of the same class weigh about the same, but the ergonomics differ among the manufacturers.

[design219]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Ergonomics ≠ weight.

Um, yes, I know. I was talking about two different things.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

However, a 50D might be overkill for you, unless you’re planning on going beyond shooting family pics and snapshots and getting into ‘real’ photography (where you go on photo shoot outings, start hauling little makeshift mini-studios with you, and generally spend tons of money on lenses, flashes, etc.). The 450D—or even the even smaller 1000D—would be more than enough for your current needs (the 450D is more comparable to the Nikon D60, too). According to pixmania.fr, you can easily get a 1000D with an 18–55mm kit lens for under €500.

The 18–55mm lens is not a particular good lens, but it works fine until you save up some extra money to get a better one (the 17–85 IS is a great lens that’s not too expensive).

I'd like to get a camera without the kit lens, and a prime - ideally something like the very popular 50mm f1.8 from Canon or the equivalent from Nikon / whomever.

The 1000D looks interesting, seems like it matches the D60 on paper. Very similar in price here in France, maybe a bit cheaper.

I found several quotes for the 1000D with the 18-55 but the non IS version. It seems like the IS/VR kit lenses bump the price up considerably. As for your 17-85, thats 500€ !!

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A 50D is outside of your budget anyway. There are people (like me) who like a sizeable weight in their hands when they shoot things. (Take that literally, my D80 + 80-200 Nikkor looks like a weapon to most ) Plus, you should invest in lenses, not in the body.

Yeah I know that its out of my budget, I just wanted to see what it felt like. And to see the wife's face when the guy said the price.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Their kit lenses and other lenses tend to be more expensive, because they are of better quality than the cheap lenses Nikon and Canon offer (at that price!). It costs money to make good lenses. For instance, their 17-70 mm f/4 standard zoom goes longer (70 mm as opposed to 50/55 mm) and that at a constant aperture (f/4 instead of f/5.6). That's what makes lenses more expensive. Similar lenses from Nikon, for instance, are more expensive.

I don't mean to argue, and I do understand about quality lenses and that they cost, however the 17-70mm f/4 that you mention touches 600€ here (yes I've looked around). Some prices for Pentax, Olympus and Tamron lenses for you to laugh at here and here. Tamron lenses here.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Same goes for bodies: the K20D is a competitor of the Nikon D90/Canon 500D -- which are beyond your budget.

In short, you're comparing apples to oranges.

I know, just wanted to touch what the 'big boys' get to play with.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why? Amazon has quite a few and I'm sure there are some French photography webshops that sell 'em just as well. Don't be afraid to take a camera that doesn't have Canon and Nikon on them. And that's coming from a guy who has a Nikon, so I'm not really rooting for `my team' here. (I went for Nikon because at that time, Olympus did not have an affordable camera with a viewfinder comparable to that of the D80.)

I'm not afraid of non Canon/Nikon products, in fact that was the initial point of this thread. To find out what made people choose a certain brand. Like most people I have a budget, and I'd like to stick to it. I could afford to splash out, but being the beginner that I am, I don't feel that spending thousands is justified. I have of course read the forums, the sites, the reviews etc. The D60 comes very highly rated and falls within my budget. I would get the D40 in fact but (after searching like mad for the past few days) I cannot find one new that is cheaper than a D60 - bizarre I know. Nikon d40, reflex grand public and Nikon d60, reflex grand public This is just an example from Pixmania, but I've found that its the same on Amazon as well. No I don't understand why.

I've looked for 2nd hand stuff as well and TBH the price difference for the quality SLRs between new and 2nd hand isn't that great.

I really do appreciate your opinions, I just wanted to explain some of the thinking with the reasons behind it. Plus I'm learning something new.

[mattyb]

After looking more closely at the prices of lenses that I posted earlier, I've come to realise that apart from the popular 50mm f/1.8 by Canon, and Nikon that in fact they are just as expensive as Pentax and Olympus. There does however seem to be more choice, and I presume more third parties are making lenses for Canon/Nikon due to their market leads over Pentax and Olympus.

One of the future needs that I identified was the ability to rent a lens for a weekend, so I presume that having a Canon or a Nikon would help ensure that I could rent something interesting.

Please excuse my ramblings.

[Timo]

I just don't know about buying into a camera system based on the potential rentability of some lenses. Really? Well of course it could be a factor, but as a deciding one ... well, "you're the boss" as they say.

But, I would read this:
The Online Photographer: T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #6
and evaluate using a version of his criteria. I think his reasoning is very well thought out.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Timo 

I just don't know about buying into a camera system based on the potential rentability of some lenses. Really? Well of course it could be a factor, but as a deciding one ... well, "you're the boss" as they say.

But, I would read this:
The Online Photographer: T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #6
and evaluate using a version of his criteria. I think his reasoning is very well thought out.

I should explain the renting stuff. A guy at work rented a 3 or 400mm super-duper-thingy and took it to a rugby match. The photos that he took of the game were just outstanding. I *think* that it would have costed over 2000€ to buy the lens. Maybe more. I'd like to try and do the same sort of thing. The family is quite into surfing / sailing / wind surfing, so getting shots of family members doing these activities during the summer would be nice.

Good article. Thankyou.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'd like to get a camera without the kit lens, and a prime - ideally something like the very popular 50mm f1.8 from Canon or the equivalent from Nikon / whomever.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a decent lens, but it’s not magnificent. The only reason it’s so extremely popular is that it’s so extremely cheap (a lens for €100? You won’t see that anywhere but these models).

The 1000D looks interesting, seems like it matches the D60 on paper. Very similar in price here in France, maybe a bit cheaper.

I found several quotes for the 1000D with the 18-55 but the non IS version. It seems like the IS/VR kit lenses bump the price up considerably. As for your 17-85, thats 500€ !!

And €500 is not a lot for a good lens. Takes a while to get used to these numbers for something that’s ‘just’ a little round piece of plastic you screw onto your camera, but at some point (unfortunately, says my bank account), it becomes natural and you no longer consider €500 a lot of money for a lens.

(I bought the 70–200mm f/4L IS lens four months ago, and barely even twitched at the €1,100 price tag. I did, however, shy away from the €1,900 70–200mm f/2.8L IS version. But only partly because of the price. The thing weighs 1.57 kg as well.)


As for kit lenses vs. primes, it all comes down to personal preferences. If I recall correctly, Jawbone54 basically only shoots with primes; I, on the other hand, rarely use the only prime I have (the above-mentioned 50mm f/1.8). My gut instinct would tell me that if your main use of the camera would be taking pictures of your family and places you go on vacations, etc., then a zoom would fit your needs better than a prime.

Of course, since you already have a camera with a zoom lens, test it out before you decide (if you haven’t already both tested and decided, that is): take pictures as you normally would, and then see if you use the zoom function a lot. If you do, a prime will likely drive you nuts to use.

[mattyb]

Shows how often I change my mind : 440€ gets a Pentax K200D with the kit 18-55mm lens.

Looks like I'll get it. Just have to persuade wifey over the (long) weekend.

Yeah yeah I know, I slagged off the prices. But thanks to you guys I looked into it more and realised that Pentax (and Tamron and Sigma for Pentax) are around the same prices as Canon and Nikon lenses.

Thankyou for your comments, it made me look closely at the cameras and the lenses that go with them. I appreciate it.

[mduell]

I shopped for a DSLR about 6 months ago. Quickly ruled out the small players (Sony/Olympus/Pentax/etc) for various reasons. Held the D40, D90, and XS(i) bodies with various lenses attached many times and decided I liked the Nikon ergo better than Canon (controls, especially the shutter release). The larger camera wasn't an issue, but autofocus was, so I went with the D90 (18-105VR kit, SB-600, 35/1.8). In retrospect, a D40 (16-85, 55-200VR, SB-400, 35/1.8) would have been smaller, but it wasn't apparent that primes that could autofocus on the D40 were coming.

Now if only they'd release a ~12mm DX prime...

[mattyb]

I ordered the D40 with the 18-55mm non-VR kit lens this morning. Since its being delivered to the UK, I won't be able to touch it until July though.

[Archiform 3D]

I use Canon and I love the lenses. To be honest Canon & Nikon just play catch up to each other, so any new features that come out on one are in the other one in 6 months.

My original choice was based on what all my friends have, and I still help them out and vice-versa with gear.

I do a lot of 3D photo-montage work so I need megapixels and clarity, so a good body and high quality lenses. As long as I have manual control I can do anything on either platform.

[Veltliner]

Image quality, image characteristics, lens offerings, ergonomy, and sheer gut likey or non-likey.

Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus - those are all good brands. Sony's lens offerings are quite limited, but increasing. Olympus has smaller sensors, but are still perfectly good cameras.

Sony's full frame camera has great image quality in low ISO, but gets problematic above iso 800.

You need to know what you are photographing and take this into your decision making. The Sony full frame SLR, for example, is a great tool for a studio photographer or those who don't do extreme low light photography.

[moep]

I picked the brand years ago with my first DSLR - a Canon 300D/Digital Rebel. It was pretty much the only one of its kind (~1000$ DSLR kit) at that time.
Then I started buying lenses and upgrading to the same brands bodies was just the only logical thing to do.
Even if Nikon came out with an absolutely killer body tomorrow, I’d stick with Canon because of the glasses.

And mattyb, I realize that you already ordered a D40 but this might still be relevant if you decide to change your mind because of the shipping times.

Canon T1/2000D rumors

[ghporter]

I'm a Canon guy. My first SLR was a Canon A1 (not an AE1, which lacked manual modes). I like the way Canon cameras are laid out, perhaps because I "cut my teeth" on a Canon SLR. The "user interface" of my XTi is similar enough to that of my A1 that it felt like a natural progression from a camera with fewer features to one with more features.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by moep 

I picked the brand years ago with my first DSLR - a Canon 300D/Digital Rebel. It was pretty much the only one of its kind (~1000$ DSLR kit) at that time.
Then I started buying lenses and upgrading to the same brands bodies was just the only logical thing to do.
Even if Nikon came out with an absolutely killer body tomorrow, I’d stick with Canon because of the glasses.

And mattyb, I realize that you already ordered a D40 but this might still be relevant if you decide to change your mind because of the shipping times.

Canon T1/2000D rumors

It seems that the stockpiling of lenses is the number one reason that people don't change systems/manufacturers. Pity that we couldn't have a standard lens interface. Suppose its asking too much.

The 'delivery' time of the D40 is due to a visit by my mother and not any supplier. Like I said a few posts above, for some reason the D40 is very expensive in France. So I ordered from Amazon.co.uk and got it delivered to the parents house (in the UK) to avoid paying French sales tax. Mum will be delivering it in person soon.

Cheers for the continued updates to this thread.

[I'mDaMac]

I started shooting with an old Pentax film slr. If Pentax had anything available when I switched to digital I would have seriously considered it as an option. As it was, I chose Canon at the time because it had the better bodies and glass. Nikon has caught up a bit but if I would be making a decision today, I would still base it on who, in my opinion, has the better lens line-up and that is still Canon. Glass will outlive the bodies, so it should definitely be taken into account when choosing which system to go with. As it stands, if there was no Canon or Nikon, my first and second choices respectively, I would certainly look at Sony because they do have some nice Leica lens offerings and IS in body is a nice feature.

[design219]

Originally Posted by I'mDaMac 

I would still base it on who, in my opinion, has the better lens line-up and that is still Canon.

Well, this could sure start a debate, but I'll not go there. My opinion would differ.

[mattyb]

I've been spending a lot of time in the dpreview forums recently. While there are the die-hard Mark-X users, there are quite a few people who have different makes or who have tried different makes. Obviously with the recent announcements of the D5000, T1i and especially the new PEN from Olympus, you see all sorts of forum users. Worse than Apple fans I must say.

There are obviously hundreds of 'What SLR should I buy' type threads, and its interesting to see the diversity of replies and opinions. History and budget seem to be the deciding factors in most cases. There are however complete noobs who have $X000 to spend and need help on which pro-spec SLR to get.