Digital Slrs

[rusty]

Ok, so I've narrowed my selection down to two cameras - the Nikon D40x and the Olympus E-410. Both cameras are 10.2MP and look like they would be way too much fun.

 

I have the following questions:

 

1. Both cams come with basically an 18-55 and a 75-300, 18-55 only, or just the body. Are the kit lenses worth picking up or would I be better off picking up the body and a good third party lens?

 

2. What's the main difference between the 18-55 and the 75-300 and just a single lens with a wider range (like 18-200)?

 

3. Someone in the know told me that Olympus is not a great choice because of the lack of third party lens/flash support. How big a deal is that? How do Olympus lenses compare to Nikons (or Sigmas or Tamrons)?

 

4. I know that the Nikon has a 1.5X crop factor while the Olympus has a 2.0X. Is this a big deal? Will it affect macro or close shots enough to tell?

 

I like the Olympus because of the Live View but my laptop has a built in SD card slot so the Nikon is attractive as well.

 

Would really appreciate any feedback on these models. I'm planning on doing a fair amount of outdoor as well as some indoor lower-light stuff too.

[sirocco]

Nikon All The Way. This is my personal preference but, think about it like this: You'll often see a lot of olympus shooters switch to Nikon or Canon later on, whereas you would rarely see it the other way around. Here's my take on your questions:

 

1. Forget about the kit lenses, from either brand. The 18-55's are junk (poor construction quality, poor glass quality... that's why they're so cheap), and the 75-300 is a little bit of a step up, but not a big one. Buy the body and a better lens.

 

2. Both lenses are of relatively poor quality. Therefore, I wouldn't buy either. An 18-200mm is a great choice, because it covers such a large spectrum, however this is also why it has a specific drawback. The fact that the lens is built to handle such a wide range brings with it compromises in image quality (really hard to explain without visuals). That being said, Nikon's 18-200 VR is supposed to be killer, and the VR is worth it if you're not regularly using a tripod and if you're relatively new to photography. I'm not sure what Olympus offers, but like I said, I'd stay away from them.

 

3. Nikon and Canon both have huge third party support as far as accessories go, wheter it be flashes, lenses etc. Olympus probably has more limited support, as most smaller companies do. I think it's a big deal, because I like accessories and lenses etc. As far as lenses go, you're going to find that they can get expensive, even more expensive than the body. Now, if you're serious about photography, just buy the expensive stuff ($1000-$2000+) now and forget about it, if it's within your means. You'll avoid having to upgrade in the long run. If you're a casual shooter, buy mid-range stuff ($400-$1000). You'll get decent quality and decent images. You can buy the cheap stuff but you'll probably end up upgrading down the road.

 

This is all personal preference here, but I would stay away from Tamron, and buy either Sigma or Nikon, preferably Nikon (or Olympus, if you choose to buy their camera). Going with the manufacturer is almost always your best best. Based on my experience, Nikon's lens construction is better than Sigma's, but the image quality is about the same, and Sigma is cheaper. However, NEVER buy a cheap Sigma lens. You'll be throwing away your money. I own the Sigma 50mm Macro, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 which are both solid choices. That being said I'll probably buy Nikon from now on.

 

4. The crop factor is a whole different discussion on its own. The 1.5x crop factor means that a lens that goes to 200mm actually gives you 300mm in 35mm film terms (this is good). However, on the wide angle end, it means that an 18mm lens actually gives you 27mm (which isn't as wide, which isn't as good). For a 2x crop factor, these numbers are both exaggerated a bit more. Based on this, macro capability wouldn't be affected since it only affects focal length, not focusing distance. Now don't hold me to this, but I'm pretty sure that the Olympus sensor is smaller than the Nikon (this is why they have different crop factors), and therefore since the Nikon sensor is bigger, the image quality is inherently better because the pixels are physically larger in size.

 

The D40x is an awesome choice. Various pros use them as back up cameras. I don't know a single pro who shoots Olympus. I use a Nikon D70s, which is considered "a step-above" the D40x, but for your needs I'm sure it would suit you well.

 

Hopefully this helps. Bottom line: buy the Nikon. The 24-120 VR and the 18-200 VR would both be good first lenses until you decide to upgrade.

 

Also feel free to check out my site to check out what the D40x would be capable of. All of the photos were taken with my D70s, but like I said, the D40x would be comparable. Don't forget though that those shots aren't "out of the camera", they've been enhanced using photoshop.... www.ehphoto.ca

 

Cheers

 

Erik

[dryfly]

I agree with Erik on most points.

• You can't go wrong with Nikon .. I am NOT Nikon because I've been a Minolta for 39 years. So went Minolta and now the Sony a700, 12MP.
• Kit lenses tend to be lower quality no matter whose they are. Buy better Q zooms or primes. I've five lenses...none were "kit."
• The 2X crop factor (a poor use of the word "crop"... nothing is cropped ... WYSIWYG) means the sensor is SMALLER...not a good thing from a Q perspective!!
• You can't go wrong with Nikon ...
• You can't go wrong with Nikon ... Ida gone Nikon DSLR had I not so many good Minolta lenses.

Get at least one fast lens if you plan on some low light images. I've a Minolta 100-mm macro, f2.8 which is top-end glass and most handy in low light. You might consider a 50-mm f1.4 or 1.7... Ka-ching!

 

Don't discount all Tamron lenses--I once did. Some are top-drawer. I purchased a Tam SP 24-135, 18 months ago based on another's advise. It is first-rate glass. It was $700 here ... less from NY where I purchased it.

 

I understand the current DSLR Live View screens are a bit iffy and some manufacturers are staying away from them because of this...waiting till they make 'em better. However ... not sure what your camera background is. I've been peering thru an eyepiece for well over 40 years and see little use in a live screen.

 

Welcome to the world of DSLRs. This is cosmic technology.

 

Clive

[hydropsyche]

Erik knows his stuff. I agree with him 100%. On the glass advice, everything. I have a 80-200 2.8 ED and I love it. You can't take bad pictures with that thing (but $1400 12 years ago).

 

I've always been a Nikon and my setup takes great pictures all by itself. Too bad its analog. I'll have to make the switch soon.

 

Nice site, Erik. Top quality images. I really like that "rose" in your second gallery. Very sensual.

[Flytyer]

Most brands have the quality there but as far as glass goes get the best you can afford. The kit lenses are garbage. Just got my new Canon 1Ds MarkIII yesterday and like it so far from the test shots I've done with it.

[rusty]

Wow...thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive response.

 

Was starting to lean towards the Olympus but I'm pretty much settled on the Nikon now.

 

Are there any specific things to watch out for buying a DSLR or lenses on Ebay?

[Flytyer]

Wow...thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive response.

 

Was starting to lean towards the Olympus but I'm pretty much settled on the Nikon now.

 

Are there any specific things to watch out for buying a DSLR or lenses on Ebay?

 

 

My biggest concern would be warrenty coverage and where you have to go to get if needed.

[Taco]

Concur with FT... watch where the warranty is valid, I ended up an Canadian Ebay Power Seller-Camera dealer out of Ontario just for the Canadian warranty, cost me an extra $60-$100.

[hydropsyche]

Another plus for Nikon is their commitment to keeping the lens mount the same as new models come out. When you spend that much on glass, you don't want the next generation of bodies to make them obsolete.

 

Erik, I've heard my older analog lens won't work with the new DSLR's. Do you know if thats true?

[Taco]

Another plus for Nikon is their commitment to keeping the lens mount the same as new models come out. When you spend that much on glass, you don't want the next generation of bodies to make them obsolete.

 

Erik, I've heard my older analog lens won't work with the new DSLR's. Do you know if thats true?

 

That's the biggest reason I went with Pentax, all my old manual K mount lenses will still work.

[Weedy1]

That's the biggest reason I went with Pentax, all my old manual K mount lenses will still work.

 

Get one of these and you'll open up another world also.

[sirocco]

Erik, I've heard my older analog lens won't work with the new DSLR's. Do you know if thats true?

 

Hydropsyche, I don't own any older lenses so I'm not entirely sure. I'm fairly certain that most lenses are compatible with the DSLR's, however on some of the older ones certain functions are impaired (i.e. no matrix metering with "X" lens).

 

According to my manual, type G and D CPU lenses are recommended (all functions are supported). It explicitly says IX Nikkor CPU lenses can not be used. The AI, AI-S, and Series E non cpu lenses do not have in camera metering but can be used.

 

Let me know which lenses you are wondering about and I can try and provide a more detailed response. Sorry I couldn't be of much help!

[Weedy1]

Here's a Nikon compatibilty chart.

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

[dryfly]

Digital sensors are most important, but good glass is more important. My selection is middle high-end, but not top drawer--I've a couple of ED/APO/SP lenses. I lust for a f2.8 300 mm but they are (ready for this!!??) ... $6,900!

[ladystrange]

Digital sensors are most important, but good glass is more important. My selection is middle high-end, but not top drawer--I've a couple of ED/APO/SP lenses. I lust for a f2.8 300 mm but they are (ready for this!!??) ... $6,900!

 

cough, sputter. ACK!

 

i was thinking about looking into a nikon myself. maybe in a few years. holy *&%%#@!!!!