This article is not up to the usual standard. There are too many instances of phrases in the vein of "from a brief comparison" and "the Pentax image stabilisation is said to improve by four stops..." without any corroborating evidence.
Anandtech wouldn't publish a comparison of an nVidia and ATI graphics card with "from a brief comparison" and "the nVidia card is said to have..." without any comprehensive testing, and Anandtech normally never believe published specifications and advertising without proof from testing first.
Anandtech has built a reputation for well balanced, comprehensive reviews; I understand your point in publishing a brief buyers guide for first-time dSLR buyers, but please endeavour to make them a little more comprehensive in the future. In particular, please don't utilise advertised specifications as a recommendation to buy a product without showing us that they actually perform as the manufacturer says.
Thanks for the great guide Wesley. I've been an AT reader for a couple of years for good reason. I used to patronize many more sites including and Tom's Hardware, as well as AT and Tech Report and others. After spending a good amount of time on all of those sites, I generally find myself only visiting AnandTech and The Tech Report for reviews. I'm a young guy and I don't have that much cash, so I especially appreciate the attention to price/performance and value without compromise in quality.
I was going to go for the Nikon D40 originally, but after reading this article and doing a bit more research to verify, I picked up the Pentax D100 at B&H, and I love it. Yes, this is my first SLR, but the price and features were right for me. I really enjoy using hardware with high build quality, and the camera fits me very nicely. I like it so much that after having it for only a couple of weeks I'm already about to buy my first new lens, a 50mm f/1.4 pentax prime which I hope will serve me well.
I think most people who go to AT know that its not smart to judge purchases based only on the brand, so ignore the fanboys man. Thanks again for the great article and you should know you've made at least one person very happy and perhaps helped to start a future career in photography.
Not with the review - with most of these comments.
1. You could tell that the author knew what his conclusion was going to be before you reached the end of the article? You mean, you are surprised that the author did his tests, reached his conclusions, and then wrote the article? You were expecting something more stream-of-consciousness style? "I then tried the Canon, went to the bathroom, had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich...."?
2. Ad hominem attacks normally mean that the attacker is compromised, either in his own standing or in the argument he is bringing... shame on you (and you know who you are).
Which brings me to what I expect is the major conflict here - the article is not complementary to Canon products to the level to make people who have spent several thousands (sometimes on a single lens) to feel validated in their life choices.
I have owned both Pentax and Nikon equipment - I found, in my limited way, that the pentax pancake lens was wonderful, but that since I wanted to do a fair amount of macro work the Nikon lens selection was better. I gave my Pentax kit to my brother - who has a much better handle on picture composition than I have.
I studied the resolution of my Nikon lenses in some detail (I do know the difference between a double gauss and a tessar - both in terms of design and in results) and have posted results to usenet in the day.
I have stayed out of the fray in the digital realm since only recently has Nikon had a DSLR that looked like it had hit a sweet spot in terms of moderate price and usability (something between the D80 and the D200), and since Canon changes mounts and such in a way that did not allow me to consider the lenses as general optical elements in the way you can with Nikons (there is good reason why you can get c to T to N mount adapters, and almost no adapters to Canon).
The item I found interesting (and non-obvious) was the problem with sensor dust - I shall have to get more information on that. In verses Out of body camera shake compensation is rather trumped if in keeps the sensor clean and out does not.
The difference in Canon and Nikon lenses in the film days (and here I am primarily speaking prime lenses - zooms are interesting and useful compromise lenses), (other than that derived from Nikons longer back focal distance) can general be said that Canons have better sharpness over the field edge, and somewhat better color rendition. Nikons have better center sharpness and a less "artistic" color balance.
All of that may have shifted - computer design and more exotic glass choices shift the compromise balance, and in particular the smaller field being taken from the lens by the smaller digital sensor (as well as the shift in effective sensor thickness) make the design process and optimization results much less challenging in digital, until perhaps recently where sensor size and pixel size starts to get close to film again.
You have old lenses to mount? I would expect Nikon old stuff to work better than Canon - better center sharpness. Longer back focal distance also means deeper sensor active regions can be accommodated. I may be wrong - I would be interested in finding out.
However, the authors stated purpose/point-of-view was more along the line of "if you were going to spend a few hundred (and not too far back, more than several hundred) on a prosumer TTL fixed lens camera - you know, 10x zoom, slr like body... say, the Canon PowerShot S3 IS... and now consider if you could get similar capabilities from a DSLR with the kit lens or cheap upgrade".
Certainly this guide was not focused on those looking to spend ~$2k+ to get into the business... so for DSLR "newbees" function with kit lens is important, quality of exotic lenses (such a super telephoto or wide or macro) is not important, and brand loyalty is a very low priority.
The author was surprised with the quality of the Pentax product. It did have the examples of the majors to work with before release, it must be mentioned (which he did).
A useful review for me - your mileage will, of course, vary.
It might have been improved with some links to other sites with more detailed reviews, but Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?
Thanks for an interesting and informative amateur’s buying guide. I'm shocked at how heated and nit-picky the comments have been. I fail to see how a brief DSLR buyer's guide on a computer web site can be faulted for not having been far more detailed and analytical than it was ever intended to be. I have forwarded your buyer's guide to numerous friends who, after seeing my photos, are interested in perhaps buying a DSLR themselves. I strongly suspect that NONE of those friends have either the time or the desire to read a long, complex and detailed comparative analysis of entry level DSLR's had you written such a thing.
You’ve introduced AnandTech to some new people who may not have previously visited AnandTech for it’s computer-related content. So, THANK YOU for your efforts which, I assure you, ARE appreciated by a silent majority of visitors to this web site.
Overall, your review is unsatisfactory. Your tone is more subjective than objective, and the content you did provide was superficial. You could learn a bit from reading Jeff Keller's reviews over at dcresource.com--he runs one the most objective digicam comparison programs around. Every camera he gets is put through exactly the same rigors, and those tests are designed to make it very easy for a reader to differentiate between a camera's performance in distinct categories.
Quite dismayingly, you never show your readers any sample photos of your tests; you only report your own observations. For example, instead of just telling your readers, "From brief comparisons the Pentax and Canon XTi are the best at controlling noise at high ISO ("film") speeds," why not show us actual images from each camera, taken of the same subject at different ISO speeds? Going back to Jeff's reviews at dcresource.com, I've probably seen his Chicago skyline ISO comparison so many times that I can practically draw the city scene freehandedly. When he reviews a new camera, without reading a word, I can go directly to the ISO comparison samples and say, "Damn! That's one hell of a noisy picture, for only being ISO 200!" The same goes for his Mickey Mouse macro subject, which brings me to the question: did you ever compare the macro performance of the cameras? In more areas than I feel like discussing, you seem to have overlooked the importance of providing us with substantial review content.
In conclusion, your review lacks enough content to make it worthwhile, and I'm further annoyed by its overall subjective tone. For digital cameras, proof of performance is most easily shown and comprehended by using test images, and you provide your readers with no such examples.
The article is interesting, funny and inacurate at times.
I respect it is a buyers guide, however you cannot do a buyers guide on SLRs by just comparing the specs.
1. SLRs offer GREAT FLEXIBILITY. Macro, landscape, sports, wildlife, architecture etc. Depends mainly on the lens you use, the camera is mostly irrelevant (except some areas, focus speed and sports f.e.). This is nowhere even considered in the whole article.
2. SLRs are all about lenses (as mentioned above). Now I know this may be disputed by many, but you totaly forgot 3rd party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina to name a few). True they may not have the same quality as genuine brands, but are still a consideration. Now most offer Canon, Nikon, Minolta mounts. That's all. Pentax is almost non-existent. This widens the lens selection for the named 3 brands.
3. In some parts you are praising Pentax for lens compatibility with older lenses. So you are buying an AUTOFOCUS camera to use with MANUAL FOCUS lenses? Come on. There are adapters for M42/canon/nikon mounts made by 3rd parties. This is not even a point. Check out ebay for lenses and compare the amount available for each brand. Canon leads by a horse lenght followed by Nikon. This is the true benchmark for lens availability.
4. Metering system comparison? Metering systems are NOT MENTIONED in the whole article IIRC. This is on of the MOST important points of SLRs and make a buy or leave difference.
5. Pentax K100D. A friend bought this camera recently and I got to use it for a couple of indoor shots. Being used to Nikon I was lost with the controls. Focus point selection for example? I can do it blind with Nikon and after a brief look on Canon. I did not figure out on Pentax without consulting the menus.
6. I guess you miss the Nikon viewfinder picture in the review.
7. VR/IS/AS or whatever you want to call it. With lenses you don't loose it when changing bodies. It is the number 1 reason for pentax and sony miserably batery lifetime. VR lenses from Nikon are made cheap these days. Check out the new 70-300 AF-S VR.
8. Image format options ? RAW+JPEG ? Service centers availability ? f.e. you can find Canon gear in almost any village at the end of nowhere. Try that with Sony/Pentax.
All the above points are more or less relevant. However what you realy missed is the 1st point. You can do specs comparison on a P&S small digicam because you can 100% sure say it will be used for snapshots on vacation and parties, so the purpose is very limited. Not so with SLRs which fill many roles.
Just to end my rant, do it in reverse next time. Do extensive reviews of each camera and then make a buyers guide as a summary after all of them. With references to the previous articles. Will be much better.
> Now I know this may be disputed by many,
> but you totaly forgot 3rd party lens
> manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina to
> name a few). True they may not have the
> same quality as genuine brands, but are
> still a consideration.
And then there's Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander, and I suppose one can say that those don't have the same quality as most Canon or Nikon lenses, either, but they're only a consideration if you robbed a bank recently. ;^)
BTW, compact digicams offer great flexibility, too. The difference, as you point out, is that with a compact, it's the camera that matters. With an SLR, it's the lens selection. So, when you buy an SLR, you should buy the SLR that will take the lenses you want to use, not the other way around.
Have you ever even bothered to read about Pentax lenses before you brushed them off as being inferior?
It sure doesn't seem like it.
Because if you have, you'd realize that Pentax is legendary in making primes, and their lenses are often considered as poor-man's leicas as the offer nearly the same quality for a fraction of the cost.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05...">They only make the best autofocus lenses in the world
And this link is from luminous landscape, one that you said is credible.
If you want to argue about pro equipment, then yes, a Canon 1DS MK2 or a Nikon D2X with multi-thousand dollar pro zooms that costs more than a car, would blow the socks off anything Pentax has to offer. But we're not talking about pro equipment here. We're talking about sub $1000 prosumer cameras. And that's where Pentax shines.
What you're saying is basically if I argued that Canon and Nikon was junk because Hasseblad's 39MP MF back destroys anything Canon/Nikon has to offer. It's simply comparing apples to oranges.
Pentax has some very good primes in the 35-135 range. Nikon has had better wide angle lenses for a long time, and Canon has had better teles for a long time (Canon's 50 mm MkI is nothing to write home about, BTW - it's not even an "L" -, so that comparison is hardly surprising). And both Canon and Nikon have been improving their "weak ends" recently (ie. Nikon has improved their teles and Canon has improved their wides), and both make much better zoom lenses than Pentax (arguably, even Sigma does).
When you go SLR, you're buying the system (unless you plan to replace your camera and all your lenses each time something new comes out). So the fact that Canon's and Nikon's high-end stuff is the best out there (unless you're willing to use manual focus, anyway) should definitely weigh on your decision, no? And should, at the very least, be mentioned in a "buyer's guide".
If I was going to buy something today, on a low budget, know what I'd get? A second-hand Digital Rebel (yes, the prehistoric one), and one good lens (ex., an 18-55 f/2.8). And I bet I could take better pictures with it than I could with a brand new $1000 Pentax (or Canon, or Sony, or Nikon) camera and the kit lens.
The whole point of SLRs is lenses and accessories. Picking a system based on a single camera and a single (cheap, kit) lens is missing the point. People who aren't planning to buy more lenses would be much better served with a compact camera (cheaper, lighter, smaller, easier to use). Unless this is a buyer's guide for posers and masochists, it's a very poor buyer's guide.
In fact, as other people have pointed out before, it seems that the "conclusion" of this "buyer's guide" had been decided long before it was written, and information is selectively omitted or twisted to support that conclusion (i.e., dishonest comparison of Pentax's lens lineup with other manufacturers', dishonest comparison of IS/VR with sensor stabilization, lack of comparative sample images, lack of objective performance measures, etc).
So, no, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that "Pentax sucks". I said this article sucks, and I'm saying it again. Bigtime.
Go read the articles about these cameras on DPReview, for example, and you'll see that they are all very good cameras (each with certain strengths and weaknesses, but all very capable). The issue isn't the cameras; the issue is the article itself, which seems to be a 20-minute job based on a previously decided "conclusion" and marketing leaflets. The K10D can be the best choice, under certain specific circumstances. As can any of the others. But the "blanket" anti-Nikon and anti-Canon statements in this "article" only show the author's lack of experience and understanding of pro photography (and yes, any of the cameras in this review can produce professional results, in the hands of a good photographer - in fact, pretty much any dSLR released in the last 3 years can). There is a reason (several reasons) why 95% of professional photographers pick Canon or Nikon. They are not all completely stupid. And if you're buying an SLR, maybe you should be paying some attention to the choices of the people who use them every day, and depend on them for their work.
P.S. - Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a poor man's Leica. :P
You still don't seem to get it.
This article isn't about rating lenses or what is the best DSLR to get if you have $2000 to spend. It's to talk about the latest released bodies in the sub $1000 sector, NOT the professional sector.
Just because Canon/Nikon makes multithousand dollar professional equipment, it doesn't mean their consumer product line is the best too.
And as for the 50mm MK1 not being an L, there has been many canon owners that owned the Canon 50mm F/1.0 L and the Pentax 50mm F/1.4, and just about everyone of them will tell you the latter is better.
Many photography review sites tested the 200mm macros, and have all concluded that the Pentax FA* 200mm F/4 macro is the best they've ever seen.
The Pentax DA 14mm F/2.8 is rated to be better than both Nikon and Canon versions, and costs half the price(due to being APS cropped).
Sigma has many lenses that are better than Canon/Nikon's too. All makers have their gems and their dogs. Don't be silly.
Again, if you don't even have the slightest clue about the pentax lenses you are talking about, don't come up with ignorant assumptions.
And you must have some insane brand loyalty if you found wesley's article to be anti-nikon, when he placed their camera has #2 best choice.
Only Canon's was placed last, and deservedly so with the poor viewfinder and flimsy construction. Now don't tell me you're blind enough to defend Canon's subpar build too?
No, the article is, according to its own author, "not a review of the cameras", it is "a buyer's guide".
A "buyer's guide" for SLR cameras must take into account the fundamental difference between SLRs and compact cameras. When you buy an SLR, you do it for the lenses and accessories. Either that or you're a masochist, because SLRs are more expensive, heavier, bigger and harder to use than compacts (and that's why even pro photographers with a ton of high-end equipment often carry around a small P&S).
The only other reason to use an SLR would be speed (faster power-up, faster shooting, etc., so you don't miss any good shots). But, guess what, the "article" doesn't cover that, either.
As to your claims that certain lenses have been very higly "rated", could you post some links or references? To tests with actual images? That's another thing this "buyer's guide" is missing: comparative photos taken with each camera. I guess that's an insignificant detail when comparing cameras, what really matters is the spec sheets and which one is 10% cheaper... sigh...
As to Sigma, they have a couple of lenses that are indeed better than the equivalent ones made by Canon or Nikon (although, to be honest, that's only because both Canon and Nikon have pretty crappy lenses for some focal lengths)... Anyway, Sigma sells nearly all of them in Canon and Nikon mounts, so if you have a Canon or Nikon camera, you have access to pretty much any Sigma model. And that goes for most manufacturers.
Sigma lenses with EOS mounts are part of Canon users' lens selection. As are Tokina or Tamron (or Leica) lenses with EOS mounts. In fact, you can even put Pentax M42 lenses on an EOS camera (but not the other way around). How's that for lens selection?
I'll be the first to agree that both Canon and Nikon have some real stinkers (as does ever manufacturer). But that's not the point. You don't have to buy the stinkers. The point is that when you pick a Canon or Nikon SLR, you have access to pretty much any lens out there. And that particular point (which is a fundamental one when it comes to SLRs) was completely distorted in this "buyer's guide". Maybe this was "Pentax fanboyism", as some people have suggested above, but personally I think it was just ignorance or lack of experience.
And that is why I suggest that anyone who wants to buy an SLR spend some time reading articles in photography sites, first to understand the difference between SLRs and compact cameras, and then to understand what are the ascpects of SLRs that they should be comparing, depending on what they are planning to do with them.
P.S. - I don't like the Rebel XTi, as I mentioned on another post above, and I'd never buy one, mainly due to ergonomics. But it has the best overall image quality of the four cameras tested here, and by far the best lens selection on the tele end.
Ok, so you like to tout your high and mighty canon/nikon lens selection.
They do have very amazing lenses for professionals that Pentax lacks and dozens of lenses overlapping the same focal range.
However, as of March 2007, they will come out with their own line of DA* lenses, that will directly compete with Canon/Nikon's professional like. They will have the quick focusing USM motors, weather sealing, very high optical quality, and fast apertures.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092102pentaxda...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092102pentaxda...
This will fulfill pentax's most lacking sector in their lenses.
Now, with the introduction of these lenses, tell me what part of Pentax's lens selection is lacking, that a user will find themselves starving of lens choice?
Pentax may not have a dozen lenses that overlap the same focal range, but they are certainly adequate in covering their bases. Does that make them inferior? Does the lack of dozens of lenses that overlap the same focal range make pentax an unworthy competitor?
I don't see your line of reasoning in that Pentax is inadequate in their lens selection.
But tell me this, does Canon have a high quality 16-45mm F/4 zoom that costs $350? Does Canon have a high quality 14mm F/2.8 prime that costs $600?
Canon has their pro base covered with full frame 17-40mm F/4 L, and a full frame 14mm F/2.8 lens. But what about their semi-pro range for those who don't want to splurge a car worth for a camera? They'd have to pay double for full frame equivalents. How is that a good buy?
That's where Pentax excels in. It may not be the best choice for professionals that depend on their camera system costing five figures that puts food on the table. But for your average consumers, it'll easily give canon/nikon a run for its money.
All in all, each brand has their own strengths and weaknesses. To claim a brand is the end all-be all is just ludicrous. It's up to the consumer to decide what they find is important and to find the brand that best suits their needs.
> However, as of March 2007, they will come out
> with their own line of DA* lenses, that will
> directly compete with Canon/Nikon's professional like.
Yes, I'm sure that in March 2007 they'll magically be able to match the line-up that Canon and Nikon (and Sigma, etc.) have put together over the last decades... sigh...
Are you seriously saying that people should pick an SLR system based on some vague marketing promises for the future...?!?
And, as I've written above, what matters isn't the lenses that Canon (or Nikon) makes, it's the lenses and accessories that can be used with their cameras. And virtually every good lens out there comes in Canon and Nikon mounts, if only for economic reasons.
Calling the DA 16-45 a "good quality lens" is stretching it a bit. If that's your idea of good quality, I guess we're playing on different leagues. I've seen Mini DV cameras with less chromatic aberration and better corner sharpenss.
The only "good" (meaning sharp, balanced, CA-free) images I've seen from a DA 16-45 were scaled down to 640x480 and so post-processed that I felt sorry for the original photons.
It's not exactly up to the level of a Canon 17-55 2.8 or even a 10-22 (which isn't even considered very sharp). Yes, I know those are more expensive, but there are also cheaper alternatives for Canon / Nikon cameras (from the original manufacturers as well as from Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc.). Canon's 18-55 kit lens costs $100 and if it's not sharper than the DA 16-45, then at least it's very, very close (for 1/3rd of the cost!). Pentax makes a few great lenses, but that ain't one of 'em. In fact, can't say I remember any Pentax zoom that I'd rate as "good" (they do have some good primes).
Anyway, my point is that if you want a good lens, and you have a camera with a Canon / Nikon mount, you can get it. Reading this AT "article", one would get the impression that K-mount cameras not only have the best of the best lenses, but also the widest lens selection, which is simply not true.
If you read my posts above, I've written that every camera body in this test is a good one, and they can all be "the right choice" in some circumstances. My issue is with the way the article is written, and how it distorts or selectively omits facts to support its conclusions (ex., the comparison of lens lineup or the comparison of IS/VR with sensor stabilization).
Either the author did that deliberately, or he's written an "SLR buyer's guide" without understanding the point of SLRs (as compared to lighter, cheaper, smaller, and easier to use compact cameras). Either way, it's not a very good service to readers (as isn't the complete absence of comparative sample photos, but I see that more as a symptom than the cause).
You're right about lens selection. Canon and Nikon win hands down. Though once Pentax comes out with those three DA* gems they will match the former at those focal lengths.
Having said that, Canon and Nikon will still have the fast ultra zooms (600mm) and they will still have much faster AF speeds in low light. Lets face it, all dslrs have good speed with adequate light but as light levels fall, Canon, Nikon (from D80 and up) and Sony have fast AF speed. Pentax? They refuse to even acknowledge that they have a problem!
Sony's low light images are too noisy though and Canon XTI has less detail in their ISO 1600 images than the XT had which tells me that they are applying too much noise reduction.
No camera system is perfect. Pentax is good in just about everything but lens selection in pro-level glass and AF speed. Sony has noise issues in high ISO. Canon and Nikon do not have built in SR like Pentax or Sony. Pick what deficiency you can live with and base your decision on that.
For me I get irritated with AF speed on my K100D, but the more indoor shots I take, the more I realize that I could not get by without SR and clean high-ISO images I get, so for me the Sony, Canon and Nikon are out.
Yes, I could get IS or VR in Canon or Nikon lenses, but I would have to pay through the nose for it. 18-50 f/2.8 IS or VR are in the $1500 range, 3 times the cost of my camera and nearly four times the cost of Sigma's brand new 18-50 f/2.8 Macro which will be stabilized on my K100D.
So yeah, go ahead, buy Canon or Nikon, but be prepared to pay extra for it.
I wouldn't describe lenses I've never seen as "gems", especially considering the quality of Pentax zooms I've used (ie, not very good).
Sony actually has pretty good noise reduction in their compact cameras, borrowed from their camcorders. I haven't used the Alpha, but the sensor is supposed to be the same as in the D200, and the D200 is pretty good. Still not as good as Canon's, noise-wise, but close enough to be competitive (which, for a long time, Nikon really wasn't). So if the Alpha is noisy my guess is the D200 does good post-processing. It preserves detail very nicely.
The XTi has a higher pixel count than the XT with the same physical sensor size. Less light per photosite means more noise. Overall, you probably have the same detail for the whole image, but less detail "per pixel". I think the XTi also comes with different image processing defaults (i.e. "0" sharpness on the XTi is actually the equivalent to "2" on the XT). But I think you can turn NR off, anyway. My real problem with the XT and XTi is the ergonomics. The menus and buttons are ok, but the viewfinder and the grip are just terrible. Don't know what they were thinking. The sensor is still the best out there, unless you go for (physically) bigger ones (1D, 5D, 1Ds).
Unless you have Parkinson's, image stabilization at 18mm is pretty much useless (even "proper" optical stabilization, which is better than sensor stabilization, and fine-tuned for each lens). Using a faster lens (ex., f/2.8 instead of f/4) will give you much more noticeable improvements than stabilization. Stabilization is only really useful above 50mm or so. Below that, in 99% of cases, blur is caused by subject motion, not camera shake, and a stabilizer won't do anything about that; what you need is a faster lens, good low-light AF and low noise.
People can put the Sigma 18-50 on their Canon or Nikon cameras, and it costs exactly the same as the Pentax mount version, so no, you don't have to be "prepared to pay extra" (for the same). The difference is that if you're willing (and able) to pay extra, you can get something better.
The Sigma 18-50 is pretty good at f/5.6 and above, but if I'm going to pay for an f/2.8 lens, I want it to be good at f/2.8, and at that aperture the Sigma doesn't really come close to Canon's 17-55, for example.
Yes, that extra quality has a price (+200%, in this case). But if you're not going to buy good lenses for your SLR, then chances are you're better off with a compact P&S (some have image stabilization, too, and pretty decent lenses).
A "budget SLR" seems like the worst of both worlds. I don't mean the camera itself; newer, better and cheaper cameras are released every 6 months (and you can pick up last year's model for peanuts, in 2nd hand). I mean the lenses. A top-quality lens doesn't devalue, and will give you better results with future cameras. A so-so lens will only look worse as sensor quality increases, and effectively limits your image quality, crippling your fancy new camera.
quote: So, no, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that "Pentax sucks".
Yes, you did in an above post, completely without explaining your reasoning and labeling the author as clueless for prefering one.
As for primes, one of the best ever pentax lenses is the 28 f/3.5 and is regarded as being massively better than even the 50mm
Here is what you are: A nikon fan who thinks there are no other viable options and who disseminates misinformation, a la ken rockwell to convince newbies to think like you.
Maybe for you there aren't any other viable options. But I could never choose the oversharened messes Canon outputs to the film-like output of a Pentax. I just don't like the way the Canon pictures look. Having never used Nikon (except for a few minutes), Olympus or Minolta , I can't judge their products.
But to imply that anyone who chooses pentax is a clueless fool is ludicrous. Ask ANY current pentax owner is they're satisfied, they'll say yes. Pentax has up until recently been THE standard SLR, whether you like it or not.
Their lenses are exceptional for ludicrously low prices, and their DSLRs are very capable products.
I didn't like the article even though I mostly agreed with it. But it's important to remember it's not a review. Just the author's opinion and weighting of different specifications.
I maintain that if you are not Ken Rockwell, then you are his child molesting twin brother.
I see you have me all figured out... except... I don't own a single piece of Nikon equipment, I had no idea who Ken Rockwell was until I searched for it, and no, I never said that "Pentax sucks". So either you got me mixed up with someone else, or you live inside a reality distortion field, or you're the article's author posting under a different name... either way, not really worth the time to read, let alone reply.
Thanks for taking the time to post detailed comments.
1 - I certainly agree SLRs are about lenses and I talked about this in depth in my earlier article "Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet". I did not feel it needed to be repeated in a Buyers Guide, but your point is well taken.
2 - Sigma makes almost all their lenses in Pentax AF mount. It is true they are not available everywhere for Pentax, but you can find the popular and unusual ones like the 10-20mm on eBay, at Amamzon, and some large etailers. THere are MANY more Pentax KAF mount lenses available from 3rd parties than 4/3 mount lenses for example - if that matters to you. It is true Tamron has fewer Pentax mount lenses available, particularly in their newest designs, where the newest Sigma designs are almost all available in Pentax/Samsung.
3 - Compatability does not mean just older MF lenses. THere are many Pentax AF lenses available that are fully functional on the new K10D, K100D, K110D. There are also many KA lenses that do all metering functions on the new Pentax - everything except AF and there is focus assist built-in for that. Older K-mount lenses from Pentax and many other makers also will meter but they do not provide complete lens info to the body - you need to tell the cmera the focal length for AS with the early K lenses. Any lens you can mount - directly or by adapter can meter manually, focus with viewfinder aids, and utilize AS after providing the camera with focal length. This is certainly more than basic compatibility and is worth praising in my opinion.
4 - I agree metering systems are critically important, and should have been covered in the Guide. The K10D offers accurate 16-segment metering and the ability to select multi-zone, center-weighted, and spot metering. You can also turn on (or off) the linking of the active AF point to metering. I did mention the unique exposure programs like the Sensitivity Value program and Hyperprogram with user adjustable aperture and/or shuter speed.
5 - The Nikon D80 and Pentax K10D both provide the most extensive options in the guide. If you are familiar with Nikon menu logic, as you are, the D80 makes perfect sense. However, many have complained that the D80 has everything buried in mensus and is very complex. I find the K10D very easy to use and particularly like the Fn dial with the most commonly used menu items and the RAW button for when you want to shoot a few RAW shots spontaneously. I find the D80 equally satisfying, with great options.
The rest of your points have been addressed in other comments here. In general we are back to the question of what role AT can play in Digital Camera reviews. While you may not agree with my picks based on your personal situation, I think most people will find my expressing an opinion and rational for that opinion more useful than 4 reviews that all end with the same buying rating.
Computer parts are becoming cookie-cutter similar in some categories, while Digital SLRs still have unique personalities and unique lens capabilities in each lineup of new lenses and in the very active used market for lenses. We hope we can provide information so our readers can better navigate that landscape.
after 3 tries with always an error when posting the reply:
I agree for most part. Of course my comment was biased with my own experiences :-)
Anyway since my previous reply to you was lost (probably login timeout), I'll keep this short.
Looking from a lens point of view, Canon and Nikon are the clear winners.
Looking from a body features point of view, the Pentax followed by Sony.
Looking on the price, Sony wins (IIRC).
There are many points to argue in between (like weight and bulk of the Pentax body vs the weather sealing). And many people will come down to price (Sony) and accessory options (Nikon and Canon win here).
If you want a faster P&S and you'll never use any other than the kit lens, you missed 80% of what the SLR can do for you. Image stabilisation is available in fixed lense cameras, you don't have to worry about dust on sensor, they offer larger zoom range than any kit lens (up to 12x). Sure they are slower, there's always a negative point somewhere.
As AT is not a photo site, I'd expect a buyers guide to reflect the PC guides. In those you start with a budget and draw out a picture of the capabilities you expect from the PC in the respective price ranges. Than you start to assemble them to meet the stated minimum functionality. I'd expect something like that also from this SLR BG.
Anyway the article is not that bad, has some nice information.
WOW! I had a difficult time deciding where to put this post so I gave up and added a new thread.
I agree with some of the criticism, but think much of it would have been of more value if put in constructive terms instead of insults to the author. What bothers me about the article is that over 3 months ago we were promised "reviews" of several 10MP DSLRs, but this reads like something that was thrown together in a hurry. Are those reviews still coming?
I have been shopping for a DSLR body for many months and have read just about every review I can find. I only own a couple PAS digicmas (1 Canon, 1 Fuji) so I really don't have any bias (or expertise). But as a well accomplished overshopper...DSLR's are all about the lenses!
A casual shooter who is going to stick to the kit lens and maybe 1 other lens probably cannot go wrong with any of these cameras. For example, most review sites agree that the Olympus E-500 is outclassed by the competition. But if you read user reviews of casual shooters at various retail sites, they all are thrilled with their purchase. For casual users, spending an extra $200-400 for 2 more MP or spot metering is probably not worth it.
If you are looking to become a hobbyist photographer (or more) it's all about lenses.
In the case of the D40, if all you plan on using is the kit, go for it. If you plan on building a system, think twice. Your first Nikon lens upgrade is going to cost you over $1,000 (unless you don't mind manual focus only). But why limit yourself when Nikon has a great line of affordable AF lenses that will autofocus on their other DSLRs?
Personally, I like the entry price into the Pentax K searies, but having spent so much time reading lens reviews, Canon offers the most comprehensive line of lenses that fit my anticipated uses - with Nikon as a close second. For me it's a long term investment I cannot quite find satisfaction in the Pentax line of lenses - at least not comparatively speaking.
As for the Rebel XTi build quality, it feels plenty sturdy to me. Is it built like a tank? No, but I don't think any of the other DSLRs will survive a fall from the second story balcony. CAlling it the lowest quality camera is not accurate. So, I like the compromise of material in favor of portability (although that 30D is so tempting).
I have been an Anandtech reader for at least 6 years. I recently spent 2 hours at a Christmas party having an electrical engineering PHD candidate help me start to understand (on some level) all the information I have stored in my head about processor pipelines, FSBs, digital vs. analog signals, etc. (many of the other guests, including my wife, were giving me the "what are you talking about" look). But that is what I appreciate about Anandtech articles. Eventhough I cannot always fully understand AT's processor and video card achitechure articles, I always enjoy making the attempt. The attention to detail and methodology are almost always impressive. I have come to trust AT conclusions more than any other tech site.
If you're going to do digital camera reviews, I think you have to go all the way. Take them apart...help me understand why camera's with the same sensor perform differently, etc.
This comparison is frankly ridiculous. The sony over the nikon and the canon? Please people do yourselves a favor and read a real site that knows something about camera's. The sony has been shown on tons of pro camera sites to be a noise laden monster and doesn't hold a candle to the XTI or the nikon offerings even though the nikon uses the same sensor as the sony it still takes a better picture. Plus you have a ton more lens choices with the nikon and canon. And on top of that once you outgrow that body if you upgrade your canon or nikon to the next level you still are able to use your lenses. What's sony got for a higher level offering that compares with the canon 5d, or any of the higher level nikons. There's also a bit of misinformation about the XTI in this article, i would think the reviewer would do better to do his homework a little more. Next time just save your review and post a link to dpreview or somewhere else that does more exhaustive and accurate reviews.
There are a number of areas within the article that I feel should be revised. If not, it should at least be understood that they are not accurate. For example, everything i've read states that more than 6mp makes no difference unless your prints are huge. Anything larger than 12x24 and you're not going to see a difference.
"In practical terms it is very difficult to tell any difference between 6 and 8 megapixel images, or between 8 megapixel and 10. However, there is a discernable improvement in moving from 6 to 10 megapixels."
This really makes no sense. If you can't see a difference between 6 and 8mp images and you can't see any difference between 8 and 10mp, then doesn't this mean that you can't see a difference between 6 and 10? It's exactly what it means. Again, you're not going to see a difference in day to day use.
Another statement that concerned me:
"The Nikon D40 is a significant upgrade to the D50 it replaced, with a larger LCD and faster operation."
Completely subjective, yet stated as fact. These cameras are given their names for a reason. Nikon had originally planned to give it the D60 name, yet it was dropped and rebadged as D40. Why? Well...when compared to the D50, the D40:
- loses 2 AF Sensors (has only 3 AF points)
- AF-S (internal motor) lenses only. Won't focus with older (or current, brand-new non-AF-S) AF lenses
- No top LCD (those who have been using this for years will miss it)
The D40 does have a bigger/nicer LDC. Not sure i'd trade it for the above missing items, though.
Previous SLR was an old Minolta SRT-201 with a wonderful - and cheap! - 43mm prime. It is about that time that Sony bought Minolta, and I wanted nothing to do with them as a result.
I got my first DSLR back in July. After mych deliberation, i had narrowed it down to 3 choices.
Canon Rebel XT, Nikon D50, or Pentax *ist DL. All had similar kit lenses.
After using the Canon for about 20 minutes, i rejected it ouright. It felt cheap, it was way too small for my hands, and the viewfinder was atrocious. I didn't like the menus either. Another problem I had was that the images looked oversharpened and overprocessed... Coming from film, this was not something I wanted, but I can see how it would appeal to others.
Nikon vs Pentax now:
What is never mentionned is that for the 6mp class, Nikon D50 and ALL the Pentax cameras of the time had the exact same (sony) ccd. Differences were in the processing.
I liked the Nikon picture quality. I liked its heft. I liked its multipoint autofocus.
I hated the menus though. The li-ion battery didn't appeal to me either but it was not a dealbreaker.
Pentax DL
The viewfinder was AMAZING, and this is just the crappier pentamirror, not that much better than the Nikon's, but lighteyars ahead than the awful Canon.
The image quality was excellent, easily on par with the Nikon.
Nice, quick menus.
So I bought it. It was around the same price at the time, maybe 50 bucks less or so.
After using it for a while..
Pentax has a collection of TOP-NOTCH, cheap primes, every last one of which works flawlessly on the DL.... All the way from the 1940s-era M42 mount to the latest, greatest digital-only AF bayonet mounts.
Good high-iso performance.
very intuitive control
The faults?
"Soft" JPEG images means careful attention for pics on the wide end. It's a very film-like softness but pics are somewhat sharper in RAW. This may not bother some though.
Lame, 3-point autofocus.
Ugly, Canada-only silver body... irrelevant.
All the above faults were fixed on the k100/110d and later cameras.
So, 2000 pictures and 2 'new' lenses later?
50mm f/1.4 (circa 1975)
DA 50-20mm zoom (brand new)
and of course, the 18-55 kit lens...
I am completely satisfied with the camera. Picture quality blows me away time after time, and completely destroys my P&S Canon SD600.
The 3-point autofocus wasn't really a limitation, as I find that I use spot-focus almost exclusively.
AA-NIMH batteries are widely available and cheap.
All I wish was that I had waited 4 months for the k100d! I despise flash and when it's dark, you have to be real careful about camera shake, but the 50mm made this much easier. I have a decently steady hand... But SR in any form would take some of the pressure off....
BTW, for software:
I don't know what Nikon's software us like.
If the Canon software for DSLRs is their Zoombrowser suite (also included with their P&S models)... then I feel very bad for Canon owners.
Pentax's suite is based on Silkypics. Not the fastest software out there (not smp-optimized... why!?) but it is extremely powerful and gives excellent results.... better than Adobe Camera Raw.
What it comes down to is that Pentax DSLRs are right for me.
Everyone I have seen who owns one is completely satisfied also, and there are some wonderfully sharp and contrasty, ancient lenses to be had for cheap.
SR/VR/IS is not a necessity if you know what you're shooting and plan accordingly. But it's a nice feature to have. But to pay 800 bucks per lens that has it seems ludicrous to a hobbyist like me.
What it comes down to is personal preference. Most Pentax owners act like fanboys because of an addiction to their cameras.
I don't know about pro-level, I am not a professional. But at least for the consumer/hobbyist level, Pentax offerings are extremely viable.
What it comes down to is preference. Try each DSLR you're considering and decide what you want and which is right for you. Brand reputation is meaningless nowadays and listening to fanboys in either camp is a sure-fire way to make a bad purchase.
Thank you for commenting. The K110D, K100D, and K10D all three now have 11 point autofocus. The processing engine in the K100D/K110D are now faster in focusing and better in image processing than the earlier models. The K100D and K110D are identical except for the Anti-Shake included in the K100D. When you consider the K110D has 11-point AF, user programmable Auto ISO to 3200, fast autofocusing, and the new processing engine it is an amazing buy at $400 for the kit ($350 body only).
I did point out in the review that all the cameras except Canon use the Sony sensor. Another exception is the smaller 4/3 sensor in the Olympus. But it never hurts to mention it again. I am amazed that many Nikon owners don't even know that Nikon does not make sensors for Digital SLRs.
Makes sense though. Nikon makes good, reliable, top quality bodies pretty consistently, but what they specialize is in the optics. Nikon has never been an electronics company, per say. If you look at their product ranges, it is more about imaging, printing, and all fields of optics from microscopes to binoculars to camera lenses. All still imaging, too.
Sony has long been a general electronics company, so it is not so suprizing that they'd have dedicated lines of component manufacturing. I for one am not suprized Nikon would use the same quality components that Sony uses itself. The Japanese tend to be a bit xenophobic about such things that have their major national labels on them. Canon has a relatively broader range of products than nikon, so I'm not suprized they also have their own line of optic sensors, rather than take them from Sony. Canon competes with Sony in many more areas than Nikon does.
That also explains why Sony always seems to bump up the megapixels a few months before Nikon does..they know the new CCD sensor is coming from their own R&D firm further ahead of time.
LOL, Sony is the pick in the 10mp range? Clearly Anandtech doesn't know squat about DSLR's. The lenses for the Sony are markedly inferior to those available for Canon or Nikon...and everybody should that it's the lenses that are available and their quality that truly matters. The camera body is secondary.
Sony was chosen as the best value, at a current $720 for the body and 18-70mm lens at Amazon. The lens covers a greater range, equivalent to 28-105, and it is optically superior to the kit Canon lens. The Sony lens/body is solidly built and selling for a street price about $80 lower than the tiny, plasticky Canon Rebel XTi.
Minolta has also produced some very well-regarded lenses over the course of many years so you are frankly just misinformed. You probably don't even know that Pentax pioneered autofocus and Minolta made the first successful autofocus camera. Just when the world seemed to be all Canon and Nikon (who buys their sensors from Sony (Minolta) by the way) Pentax and Sony/Minolta have produced very competitive new models. Popular Photography must also be misinformed, since they named the Sony A100 the Camera of the Year 2006. This was before the Pentax K10D was introduced.
Our pick for best 10 megapixel camera is the Pentax K10D. The Nikon D80 follows closely. Those Canon and Nikon fanbois posting comments about our stupidity should also mention whether they have ever even held a Pentax K10D or shot with the 21mm F3.2 pancake or 31mm f1.9 or 77mm f1.9 Pentax lenses. We agree that you buy an SLR for lenses, and some of the most innovative and high-quality lenses for digital in the past year have been produced by Pentax.
To be clear the Sony A100 was the Best Buy or the best price among the 10 megapixel models. The Pentax K10D was named Best Value, as the most 10 mepapixel camera for the money. We stand by both those recommendations.
Didn't Minolta get sued for steeling the auto focus idea from Honeywell? ;-)
And do all Minolta lenses have focusing motors in the lens? Are they silent when focusing? There are lots of lenses available for Nikon and/or Canon that are not available elsewhere. To each his own.
quote: On page 2 the Canon XTI was one GREAT advantage not mentioned is the improved autofocus engine, borrowed from the 30D, which according to many reviewers is better than any camera mentioned in this review, and definitely better than the K10D. It helps to get sharp pictures!
That's just one of the FUD Canon's owners are spreading. Canon is definitely faster, but only accuracy helps you get sharper pictures. It is pretty well known that Canon sacrifices a bit of accuracy for outright speed. Canon is the fastest focusing body and it can mean the difference between taking a shot of a great moment or have it pass you by while you're waiting for the camera to focus, but that's all it is. That's why Canon is so popular with pros shooting sports. I'd venture to say that as long as we're talking about accuracy no system is quantitatively better than another.
Now on topic of optical vs. body based stabilization. It has not been proven either way that one system is better than another. It's been proven that body based system is kind of limited at 1.2 meters (the length tested at dpreview). I have not seen any tests where one system was compared against another, but I have seen examples of 300mm at 1/30th tack sharp on Pentax forums and have taken sharp images hand-held at 1/10th and consistently sharp at 1/20th with my K100D. Optical stabilization is not available on any Canon or Nikon primes. It's not really needed until you get into low light photography where even the fastest primes need to go down to 1/20th or 1/30th of a second. Then you will appreciate having it.
Optical is better at one thing though, it allows for vertical stabilization while you're paning (following a moving object so it's sharp while the background is blurry). Pentax stabilization system can't do it. What it can though is give you stabilization on all your lenses, even 30 year old 50mm primes. I know it can because I've tested it myself using two different manual primes.
What can't be disputed is Canon's lens availability. You can find more lenses at lower prices and you can find great, expensive pro-level quality lenses on the Canon. You can also get USM primes (something not yet available for Nikon unless you consider Sigma.) Canon's bodies leave a lot to be desired as far as control and innovation go, unless you get into $3000+ territory of 5D. 30D pales in features compared to Nikon D200 or Pentax K10D. Then again those features are just a matter of convenience as you can take equally beautiful images with all these cams.
I find it strange that you do not see any pics produced by each camera. Essentially all that the author is doing is comparing specs of camera, which to add insult to injury this is done erroneously. On page 2 the Canon XTI was one GREAT advantage not mentioned is the improved autofocus engine, borrowed from the 30D, which according to many reviewers is better than any camera mentioned in this review, and definitely better than the K10D. It helps to get sharp pictures!
In any case I advise anyone visiting this site to go to some more thorough review sites on photography to SEE what kind of pictures each camera takes and also try in store each one of them. You can’t go wrong with any of them, except that Canon arguably has the best lens lineup for the price and low noise, Nikon have to arguably the most useable cameras, Pentax and Sony have the best bang for the buck, body wise (but not when it comes to lenses, which are more expensive and low availability) Anandtech is good for computer hardware reviews, but for photography, they still have some work to do!
This is a Buying Guide and not a full-blown review. The viewfinder images were mostly shot with the camera they are identified with.
We welcome criticism at AT, unlike some other sites. However, it is frustrating to be criticized for inaccuracy in leaving out info when that info is in the review. On p.1 "All of the 10 megapixel SLRs are faster than their predecessors - borrowing processing engines from higher priced models (Nikon and Canon) or pioneering new high-speed processing circuits (Pentax and Sony)." Then in the Canon XTi section on p.2 "Canon basically increased the resolution of their CMOS sensor used in the 8 megapixel Rebel XT to 10 megapixels, and dubbed the revised camera the Canon Rebel XTi. They did incorporate the improved image processing guts of their semi-PRO 30D and finally added their own dust removal system . . ." Perhaps you should read more closely.
Thanks for the reply. I did read through "fairly" closely and I still don't understand how you can associate "image processing" with auto-focus, to me these are two different things. I think it would be worth mentioning clearly that the Rebel XTI focuses faster and more accurately than its predecessor, seeing it is top of its class in this respect. This is probably the single biggest reason for upgrading from the previous Rebels and I way I hate Canon for dolling out features.
And I still think a few images from each camera would have been nice.
AT is usually very thorough and I would have expected this in their camera reviews/buyers guide as well. Maybe some sort of table comparing features would have been useful.
i've taken one photography class in black and white, and that opened up a whole world of photography for me and the wonders of the camera. I mean both Pentax and Canon and Nikon all pioneered something in their field, and i'm sure they have their strong points and their weaknesses. The truth is, the weakness being digital, and having the dynamic range of film is quite difficult to obtain. Sure we can use Neutral Grey Density filters, but still not quite the right thing. Then we can setup a tripod and do the "Dynamic Range" in photoshop but that's just up to the person.
Personally, I wish i had enough to purchase the Canon 5D just so i can have their full frame image sensor. I hear it's the closest you can get to the reaction of lighton the film emulsion surface vs. film on the sensor surface. I may be wrong again since this is my first class, but then again, i've learned a lot from this class. Besides, I've taken awesome shots with the XTi, and i know for a fact that changing different cameras will only improve it by a little bit.
The bigger sensor on the 5D (and 1Ds) gives you shallower depth of field, which increases your "artistic" control over the image. Also, the fact that the sensor is physically bigger means it can receive more light, and therefore produce an image with less noise. But the size won't really influence the dynamic range of the sensor.
With film, you can sometimes get some detail in an area that was overexposed by 3 or 4 f-stops. With digital, that range is about 2 stops, if you're lucky (and shoot in raw mode, of course).
So yes, in that sense, digital still can't quite match film, but it already has less noise and more detail, so, for correctly exposed images, it already beats (35mm) film, even with smaller sensors. If you need a higher range, then you can use exposure bracketing but, of course, that isn't always possible, so film still has its place.
umm... from what i've learned, Depth of Field is determined by the setting of the apeture (F-stop) the lower the F-Stop (bigger apeture) the less DOF you have. Of course, again the benefit of the 5D and the 1D is not the Depth of Field, but having all lenses "normal". Meaning, a normal lens would be 42-55mm again, standard wide angle is 28mm, and standard telephoto portrait would be 135mm (of course anything above normal would be tele, anything below normal would be wide). And to get more detail, usually we just stop down as much as we can (since 35mm is usually limited to f/22 or f/32 -- most i've seen unless shooting with medium format or greater). Oh well... Detail lies within the size of the film as i have learned, and as far as digital goes, both size and quality of the sensor. The CMOS chip, is quite impressive.
> from what i've learned, Depth of Field is
> determined by the setting of the apeture (F-stop)
For the same sensor / film size, yes. But if the sensor size is different, that will also affect the DOF. A smaller sensor will give you a narrower FOV and a bigger DOF, using the same lens and same aperture. That is why it's virtually impossible to get nice out-of-focus backgrounds with small digicams - the sensor is too small.
For example, if you put a "100mm" lens on a 1.5x crop factor camera (like a Nikon D200), where the sensor isn't the same size as a 35mm frame, you'll actually get an image equivalent to a 150mm lens (on a real 35 mm camera), and also bigger DOF. Which is good for holiday snaps, not so good for "artistic" photography.
Also, most lenses are optimized for f/stops between f/4 and f/16 (f/8 and f/16 for cheap ones). If you close down more than that, quality actually starts to get a little worse at the focus point (you will increase the DOF, so you have more things in focus, but focus is never quite as sharp - it's a tradeoff).
"Detail" is a broad concept. More pixels doesn't necessarily mean more detail, because as you cram more pixels into the same sensor area, each one gets less light, and is therefore less accurate (i.e., you get more noise, and that can actually make a sensor with more pixels produce _less_ detail). A similar thing happens with film: more sensitive film will give you less detail, because it has more grain.
Just to let you know, you made a mistake on Page 5 of your article regarding to the Pentax K100D and Samsung GX-1S. Samsung GX-1S is NOT a rebadged model of K100D, instead it is a rebadged of the Pentax *ist DS2 model. GX-1S *does not* have built-in image stabilization. The digital K-series is a brand new line to Pentax digital SLR line. Although one thing to remember is that both K100D and K110D feature the cheaper type of the pentamirror viewfinder, which covers around 85% of the view (based on normal 50mm lens). On the other hand, the new 10MP K10D and the Samsung GX-1S feature the Pentaprism viewfinders, which have 95% coverage. I know this because I currently own a Samsung GX-1S. But the Samsung is still a good camera for its low price. I got mine for $700 with 18-55mm kit lens, a Pentax F50/1.7 and a Tamron 80-210mm on ebay.
I also found a spelling mistake on Page 2 of your article. Under the Autofocus section, you spelled Canon as Cannon. It's not a big deal tho, but just want to let you know.
You are correct. The Samsung GX-1S does not have IS and is a rebadge of the older *ist DS2. I have corrected those references in the review. The Samsung GX-10 DOES have image stabilization and it is a rebadge of the K10D.
The problem with this article is that it basing the final recommendations on the camera performance alone. Im sorry, but as a photographer i would not shoot anything but nikon or canon period.
When you get into the DSLR world, and the whole reason for taking the plunge into an SLR camera...is that you have an interchangeable lens.
All modern digital camera bodies provide exceptional quality...you literally cant go wrong.
However once you take into account the long term value of your purchase you have to consider a wider picture, literally.
The purchase you make with your camera brand, locks you into the upgrade path with that brand's lenses.
Out of all camera makers, the best quality lenses are from nikon and canon, period, and by a large margin.
If you want pro quality images, that have that "pop" and first impression that blows you away...you'll soon discover it is the lens, not the body you capture it with, that truly makes the difference between a crappy snapshot and pro artistry.
A portrait shot on an 85mm 1.4 prime on a nokon d70, will blow the pants off of the same image shot on the $5000 D2Xs with a p.o.s sigma wannabe $200 zoom lens.
Go canon or nikon, spend as little on the body as possible, and buy the nicest lenses you can afford.
The d40 is actually the best value on the market right now, regardless of what this article says. The image quality is superbm it is extremely compact, affordable, and works with a good majority of the pro level zooms availiable from nikon.
In 5 years you will be shopping for new camera bodies, in 10-15 years these high end lenses from nikon and canon will still be very valuable, holding thier resale value, providing excellent, sharp, amazing images.
And BTW, it has been proven already that "in lens" image stabilization is better than the "in body" sensor stabilization, so you get what you pay for....nikon and canon do it this way for a reason.
Nice article anandtech, but obviously written by computer hardware junkies and missing perhaps some long term vision, and maybe the point of buying an SLR in the first place....
Its not for the body, its the access to the lenses.
so that should be your first consideration before you choose a brand.
quote: And BTW, it has been proven already that "in lens" image stabilization is better than the "in body" sensor stabilization, so you get what you pay for....nikon and canon do it this way for a reason.
I've thought long and hard about this, and while I do not know of any site or text or any other resource that says clearly that one method wins over the other, I personally believe in-lens stabilization is better for the following two (main) reasons -
1.) With an in-lens stabilizer, you are actually seeing a stable image in the viewfinder. I think this is important. SLR photography is all about seeing the image as you are going to record it, and it makes more sense to me to see a stable image in the 'finder rather than guess at something and letting the sensor finally decide exactly what's captured. Also, with a really long telephoto lens, focussing can be tough if your image in the viewfinder is all dancing around.
2.) Current in-sensor stabilization offers only two dimensions of anti-shake - length and height-wise. Actually it was interesting to read in the article that Pentax's K10D delivers shake reduction along diagonals as well. Still, this cannot compete with the virtually unlimited degrees of freedom the gyroscopic lens element in VR/IS lenses has.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists will continue to say that the big two will continue to use VR/IS in their lenses only to get more money out of selling more VR/IS-enabled lenses. I don't think camera manufacturers and photographers are all that naive. Infact, I'm willing to bet my a*** that the likes of Canon and Nikon are now exploring the possibility of sensor-based stabilization techniques that can work in conjunction with VR/IS-enabled lenses if needed. A simple custom setting in the camera body that tells it to automatically use in-lens stabilization when detected will enable photographers to have the best of both worlds. Or I'm probably just being too optimistic. In any case, we haven't seen the end of this debate - but I'll stick to in-lens stabilization for now.
quote: All modern digital camera bodies provide exceptional quality...you literally cant go wrong.
.
.
.
Out of all camera makers, the best quality lenses are from nikon and canon, period, and by a large margin.
I'll agree with the first point and disagree with the second. One of the reasons why Pentax didn't make it big like Canon and Nikon is probably because they didn't have a sturdy enough body pros could bank on. Their lenses were always damned fine.
I'm not saying any this out of fanboyism. I own a Pentax film SLR and a Nikon DSLR - neither of which is a pro model - and I'm perfectly happy with both. The reason I bought a Nikon DSLR over a Pentax DSLR last year was because I wasn't quite impressed with Pentax's DSLR offerings back then and in any case it's difficult to find Pentax models here in India, whereas Nikon and Canon are easily available, and more importantly, easily serviceable if needed.
The fact remains though that any body is fine if you're shopping for one right now. It's the lenses and other accessories (flashes etc.) and support/service backup that matters more, and while Nikon and Canon are a lot better in this aspect, Pentax isn't far behind. They definitely aren't behind by a *huge* margin, and they've already developed some new lenses to go along with their modern DSLR offerings. Presumably these lenses offer the better linear resolution digital sensors require over film to really make the pictures shine. If I were to buy a new DSLR and a bunch of lenses right now (assuming I don't have the cameras I already have) I definitely wouldn't rule out a Pentax K-mount system.
I agree pentax is nice, and you make some very valid points, and obviously have some experience with what you are talking baout. Pentax is definately not "inferior".
But if i got 10 grand to blow, ill be stopping by the canon or nikon shop. And would recommend anyone else in that same position to do the same.
why?
because i KNOW, without a DOUBT, you will have a winning combo either way.
The new pentax sounds great on paper, and is also a great system in reality. In the hands of a competent photographer it will provide all the tools necessary to get the job done, and then some.
However, i just sold my 80-400mm VR on ebay 2 days ago for 1330 dollars CAD. I paid 1530 tax included and shipped brand new (which was 300 dollars off the retail so i got a good deal to start with). I took care of the lens, and it didnt lose value.
thats proof of why it is good to with nikon, as long as you care for you gear you have an excellent chance of getting your money back out of it when you look to sell and upgrade, which every photographer will do at some point.
Nikon and canon gear holds its value extremely well, will have far more potential buyers in the future, and will be more desireable to a resale buyer. This is something that needs to be considered when spending thousands of dollars on anything...be it a car or a camera lens.
I personally own high end nikon gear...tried canon out on many occasions, and have seen extremely impressive results on both systems. I KNOW, without a doubt, that either of these companies provide EXCELLENT upgrade paths, warranties, and image quality...
im not informed enough to make a comment for any other brand, but that said i dont see any reason to ever consider anything else apart from these two brands, and definately cannot be ignored by anyone making a serious venture into photography.
Congratulations on your pentax, and to all other pentax owners out there, and for pentax challenging the envelope to push all camera makers be better and coming out with a very competitive product, im sure your camera will provide you excellent images for years to come!
As the results of this thread are showing however, theres more to the story than anandtech has portrayed and recommended, even though it was a wonderful article made from the point of view of a new DSLR buyer, in the SLR world its not just the inital purchase that can be taken into account, and getting that one or 2 pixels of sharpness or saving yourelf a 100 bucks on the body wont make jack squat of difference when the picture is being printed, or when you mount a nice fast high end prime, stop the lens down, and capture detail that isnt possible with inferior glass.
"best buy" perhaps, for the first intial purchase.
Then you wonder why the guy with 3 year old d70 shooting through a 70-200mm VR is blowing the socks of what your $1200 brand new camera and lens from sony is able to do.
oh wait i cant get that lens if i dont own a nikon f-mount camera.
Good thing my new alpha has 1 pixel better resolution and cost less than a D80.
anyways like i said.
Research photography in general before you buy.
Think of what you want to do as a photographer, what kind of shots you want.
Look into the cost of additional lenses.
Look into what is availiable form your potential brand.
see how those lenses compare to others.
Plan your purchase path.
If whats avialibale form sony, pentax or any other "off brand" is good enough for you...then congratualtions, and happy shooting.
If you want the best, expect to pay way more than ytou thought and dont waste your time buying the cheap stuff...commit, and buy quality glass from the start...itll be cheaper in the long run, and youll get better pictures.
I don't think this is a good article at all. It's inaccurate in places and gives users a bad recommendation.
First, as some have already pointed out, you don't buy an SLR for the body - you buy it primarily for the lenses. The body is going to be good for a few years, and then be replaced by another body, but you can still use lenses that are 40 years old on Nikon cameras (at least on the more expensive bodies).
Second, the recommendation that people should buy SLRs is misguided. Most people do not need SLRs. SLRs are bulky, heavy, and annoying to use unless you want to fiddle with every setting possible and understand what you're fiddling with. If you just want to pick up a camera and take a photograph, point and shoots are what you need, not an SLR.
Third, cameras need to be easy to use. You need to be able to get to all the right settings quickly and easily. My D70 is very good at this, but there are still times I get annoyed with it due to stupid features. This review never looked at these issues.
Fourth, among other things, the review noted that Nikons use the top LCD to display settings. They do, but they also use the main LCD for menus to control the camera (and certain features). If certain cameras light up the main LCD for settings display, then this is just bad, since it will just blind you at night.
If you want a good camera review, there are much better sites than this for it. The article also seemed a "This is how good Pentax is and how bad all the other cameras are". Maybe the author wasn't thinking this, but I definitely saw the slant.
quote: I don't think this is a good article at all. It's inaccurate in places and gives users a bad recommendation.
Thats your opinion. We all have them, like a few OTHER things . . .
quote: First, as some have already pointed out, you don't buy an SLR for the body - you buy it primarily for the lenses. The body is going to be good for a few years, and then be replaced by another body, but you can still use lenses that are 40 years old on Nikon cameras (at least on the more expensive bodies).
What do you recommend for the first time SLR buyer then ? Go out and buy a bunch, or few lenses, and let the lenses take pictures by themselves ?
quote: Second, the recommendation that people should buy SLRs is misguided. Most people do not need SLRs. SLRs are bulky, heavy, and annoying to use unless you want to fiddle with every setting possible and understand what you're fiddling with. If you just want to pick up a camera and take a photograph, point and shoots are what you need, not an SLR.
See, now buddy, you're stepping into my realm. I've owned a PaS Camera for some years now, and while its fine for other than low light situations, it will NEVER take photos as well as a Nikon D40, or D50. Dont EVER presume to tell people what they should use, you have no idea what they need, or want.
quote: If you want a good camera review, there are much better sites than this for it. The article also seemed a "This is how good Pentax is and how bad all the other cameras are". Maybe the author wasn't thinking this, but I definitely saw the slant.
Let me say this: lets assume you're a photographer, how would you like it, if you were an amateur photographer, and I compared you to a Professional, and told everyone that if they wanted to see a REAL picture, go see the other guy ? I think you, and all the other nay sayers are old, cranky photographers, who are getting pissed off, by someone who is clearly trying to help out those of us who know little about photography. That is, 'we' aren't professionals, and you're pissed, because 'we' aren't paying YOU to take our pictures.
All of you, how about getting off your high horses, and staying at those photography site you seem to love so much (whom I will just about guarantee DO NOT go out and buy their own cameras for reviews). The rest of us, who may need, or want an entry level DSLR may actually be interested in this article.
In simpler terms, stick to the business you claim to know so well, photography. Let the rest of us 'imbeciles' alone. *wave*
There are a LOT of people that would like to have a better-than-PaS (Point and Shoot) camera but don't need a bunch of lenses. A good SLR with 2-3 lenses can be very nice to have around. Talking about size is fine when comparing to many PaS models that take okay pictures, but there are shots you can't take (fast motion stuff) with PaS that you might like.
I myself am very much an amateur photographer. I take pictures of family sometimes, I've attended some sporting events where I wanted to snap some photos, etc. but I am by no means even at the pro-sumer level. And yet, given the choice between some of the more expensive non-SLR cameras and a decent entry-level SLR, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat over a lot of other options... as a second camera.
I'm happy with my Canon Powershot SD400, but it really doesn't take great pictures compared to my Canon Digital Rebel... even when I only have the kit lens and a "portrait" lens on the latter. I doubt I will ever have more than three lenses for my SLR, and I'm not going to buy any of the $300+ offerings. So, in that case, what will be better for me? Another Canon or Nikon, or perhaps the Pentax stuff really isn't as bad as some of you are making out?
Presumably, Wes has personally tested all of the cameras discussed in this article. This isn't a review of cameras, though, merely a guide to what he experienced. Now, if that's correct, have you actually used any of the Pentax stuff or are you bashing it merely on what you've read/heard? (By "you" I mean IronChef, Justin, etc.) Second, when you talk about "whipping out your camera and snapping a shot in five seconds", I could care less, so obviously advice from you isn't really applicable to me. Another pro might agree wholeheartedly with you, but amateurs may not do things the same way. I know I don't!
If Wes has tried all of these cameras and actually finds that the Pentax stuff can really be better in terms of price/performance than the heavyweights, I'm inclined to believe him, at least from an amateur viewpoint. I really DON'T plan on upgrading SLR bodies on a regular basis, and I DON'T plan on investing a lot of money in lenses. I want some good basic SLR stuff for the situations where PaS cameras just fall short. Besides, when you're talking about high-end PaS models that cost $500+ and lower end SLRs that cost $500, doesn't it seem like an SLR is going to be quite handy as a secondary camera for a lot of folks? My dad is interested in getting one as well, because his small Sony PaS isn't really doing everything he wants. Maybe I can give him my Rebel and then I can go out and get a Pentax 100D for kicks?
Again, let me put it this way: my pocketable PaS if fine for a lot of quick pictures and such, stuff I might post on the web, but for example the pictures I took around the Christmas tree yesterday look washed out/blurry/noisy compared to the images I took with the SLR. I have a few using the SLR that I may go out and print because they look very nice. A higher-end PaS might match the quality of my SLR, but considering I bought it used with two lenses (kit plus portrait) and a 2GB CF card for $600 that's not too bad a price I don't think. I'd love to know what I did wrong by picking up this relatively inexpensive SLR package. IMO, an entry level SLR is not something everyone needs, but at the same time it shouldn't be avoided if you've tried several PaS models over the years (I have) and were repeatedly left wanting.
If you buy your first dSLR, spend $50 - $75 on a decent, well-padded camera bag to go with it. I overbought for my first and only Nikon SLR -- a Lowepro Orion AW beltpack/backpack. It was expensive, and it also wasn't easy to use with a single camera body and 1-2 lenses.
Test a bag out with your camera at a local camera store. No -- NOT RITZ CAMERA!!! They don't have decent bags. They sell what your mom would buy for a friggin' point and shoot.
Go to a real camera store showroom with your camera and try out a few bags. The most important thing to look for is accessibility. How quickly can you take the camera out of the bag and shoot a picture? The fancy bag I bought was awful -- took too much effort to pull the camera out and snap a shot.
I just got the Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW, and it's MUCH better for rotating around (it's like a sling-backback) and grabbing the camera and/or a different lens/accessory.
BTW -- the "AW" on a Lowepro bag means that it's got a hidden water repellant pouch that can be pulled out and wrapped over the bag in the event of rain or dirt/mud. VERY handy at a baseball game when the bottom drops out -- I know from experience.
But try to get one that doesn't just scream "steal me". :) I use a custom-modified rock-climbing backpack to carry my lenses. From the outside no one would say it has over $4K of photo equipment inside it. And when I'm in some places (think big street markets in South America), I carry the camera with a single lens inside an ordinary plastic bag. Hold it the right way and you can go from totally undetectable to ready-to-shoot, and back again in less than five seconds.
Here's my 2 cents -- the poster who called Wesley's article "sad" is sort of right. If you want the most comprehensive reviews of digital cameras, those and other websites are the place to go.
Does it mean that Fink's article is "sad?" No -- he probably put some decent work into it. Give the guy a break. I did detect a hint of Pentax love in the piece, but whatever. I'm a Canon convert from Nikon of late, so I'd probably lean Canon if I were writing it. Do I agree with that sort of slant? Absolutely not, but we're not writing the articles, are we?
Honestly -- if you're coming to Anandtech for photography hardware reviews, you need to buy a handheld point and shoot. Otherwise, you're going to get a 5 page review on 4-5 cameras and come away with...a Pentax recommendation (niche product?) with props to a great rebate on the camera (???). That said...
...if you're serious about trying a dSLR, and my Rebel XT is my first, ask someone who already shoots with one, if you're uncomfortable reading the other website reviews (complicated and such). I knew enough to read the articles (with some photography background and instruction) AND ask questions of owners. But you ALWAYS ask questions of owners who know what they're doing with their hardware. If they shoot professionally, they can be a really great resource.
Most folks I asked pointed me to one thing -- lenses. You buy a body as an accessory to lenses that you already own. If you don't have any lenses, then you start from scratch, and the buying process is much more involved. The body may have features this or features that, but all the image stabilization and doodads on the body aren't going to help the operator (a) compose and (b) shoot a better picture. The glass will help paired with good skill.
Read fred-miranda.com (???) for reviews of good lenses by real users. Pick one out that may meet your day-to-day use needs. I selected a pricey Tamron 2.8 28-75mm lens that does well in a lot of lighting/portrait situations, and I couldn't be happier with it. I spent about $200 more than the kit total from B&H, but I also have a lens that I can move to a new body later on.
Finally -- DO NOT BUY FROM THE CHEAPEST SHOP YOU FIND ONLINE! There's a website out there where visitors post photos of the addresses for the Brooklyn and NYC scam shops that sell grey market camera equipment. I can't remember the address, but it's scary -- Russian mafia scary. Think abandoned warehouse from Robocop scary. B&H is your best bet for getting quality service and reasonable pricing. Can you save going other places? Yeah. Can you get your CC # and home address back from the Russian mob after you get your grey market camera? Probably not...
Yes, I completely forgot to mention Fred Miranda's site. Not as thorough as the others, but lots of different opinions, which is always good (also because it gives an idea of how good the quality control of each manufacturer is).
I was a Nikon user for a long time, then I sold my gear and switched to Canon when I went digital. I missed Nikon's wide-angle lenses, but Canon's teles and amazing IS made up for it. Now Nikon has pretty much caught up in terms of image quality (they still don't have any 35mm sensors, though), and Canon also have a couple of good wide lenses (the EF-S 18-55 2.8 IS is amazing, shame it's not an EF). If I was going to start from scratch today I'd probably go for a Nikon D200. All things considered, I think it's the best value for money, at least until Canon releases a successor to the 30D.
If you want to read about cameras, check out DPReview, Steve's Digicams, Imaging Resource, etc.. This article is just sad. It seems that it was written by someone with 6 months' experience in photography and basic "Google skillz".
If you want to just come and post hate and tell people to look elsewhere, please just STFU. Your post is just inflammatory. It seems like it was written by someone with 6 minutes of skimming the article and basic "Asshole skillz".
We all know there are other sites that do digital camera reviews. They often go way overboard on features table and jargon use without just giving the basic information of "why is this particular camera better?" As a quick introduction and BUYER'S GUIDE this gives people a lot of good information. I own a Canon Digital Rebel, and it works fine for me, but I'm sure it is far inferior to the latest models and I frequently think about upgrading.
What I got from this review: Canon and Nikon seem to be resting on their laurels quite a bit, and no doubt they will still sell a crapton of cameras. Bigger doesn't mean better, though - unless you think Dell makes the best PCs? Personally, I'm glad to see people like Pentax challenging the big players with features that are truly useful (builtin stabilization rather than expensive in-lens solutions). That doesn't mean I'm going to buy a Pentax right now, but maybe Canon will finally get off their asses and make something a bit more revolutionary than just a quick regurgitation of last year's model with a higher MP sensor and a few other tweaks.
Canon and Nikon are light years ahead of the competition, as anyone who really understands photography can tell you. Even the original Digital Rebel will wipe the floor with anything Pentax has to offer, simply because it has better colour rendition, better SNR, and (above all) a much, much better lens line-up (which is the whole point of SLRs).
8 MP are more than enough to print at any normal size; beyond 6 MP or so, what matters in a sensor is its physical size. Cramming more pixels into the same space only produces noisier images. A bigger sensor with the same number of pixels will have less noise, and therefore produce better images, especially in low light situations. Not to mention give you more room to play with DOF.
Built-in image stabilisation will never come close to Nikon's VR, let alone Canon's IS (which is in a league of its own). Not unless they start making the cameras much bigger, to acommodate complex optical stabilisation systems. Anyone with a bit of experience with professional equipment knows this. Good optical image stabilisation takes up space.
Your complaints about dedicated camera sites "going overboard with features and jargon" could make some sense if this was a review of pocket digicams (then again, you'll find that the sites I listed above have perfectly accessible reviews of pocket digicams, too). But it is not. This is an article about SLRs. Someone who doesn't know anything about cameras shouldn't even be consideirng an SLR - it's more expensive, it's heavier, and it's harder to use. A dummies' guide to SLRs is like a beginner's course for supersonic fighter pilots. They don't put you in one (and you shouldn't want to be put in one) unless you've had a lot of experience flying simpler, safer aircraft, and understand the concepts involved.
If you have some experience with compact digicams and are considering an SLR, then what you need to read is an article about photography (Dan Rutter has a couple of good ones on dansdata.com, as do the sites I listed above), not a (clueless) review of different models, that seems based on the spec sheets instead of any real experience. And once you do understand how SLRs work, go read a review written by an experienced photographer (or two, or three).
When I want to read about computers, I go to an IT site. When I want to read about photography, especially professional and semi-professional equipment (which is what SLRs are) I go to a site run by photographers. But hey, maybe I've been doing it the wrong way around. I can't wait for the new article on database servers from Luminous Landscape...!
I agree with Justin. I respect Anandtech and have been a regular reader for 5+ years now. I will give credit to Wesley for taking the effort to summarize what's at best a very difficult market but I don't agree with the conclusions he's drawn. Price and in-camera stabilization alone do not make a particular SLR better than another. I tend to think Wesley *knows* his cameras and photography and that this article is probably an effort to make a review more appealing to the IT-centric minds of AT readers. However, I will say that a buying guide for cameras should be decided on different criteria, and much as I appreciate Wesley and AT for making this effort, I'd rather they do not. They would just be doing themselves a great injustice.
Unfortunately for cameras in general and SLRs in particular, digital has made them commodities just like IT components. There was a time when camera bodies really were an investment. Digital SLR bodies however are like computer peripherals - obsolete by the time you decide to get the model you like. The newer ones are always better and are released so soon (upgrade cycles of 12/18/24 months on consumer/prosumer/pro lines) that all the money you spend on your camera body isn't going to get you anything in return when you upgrade. In that sense, an AT review to identify "value" among camera bodies makes sense, because for the average amateur or hobby photographer, it makes more sense going for a slightly less sturdy (but nevertheless rich-featured) camera body and put the hard-earned cash down for some good lenses, because it's the lenses that really make a camera body sing (or draw, whatever) after all. So I'd like AT to - if they continue reviewing digital SLRs, that is - focus (please excuse the pun) on this angle and make it explicit that it's this angle they are focusing on.
What I'm saying is that their articles should probably state at the outset that they're targeted at the casual amateur photographer who is looking for a lot more flexibility over what's offered by pocket-sized digital cameras. The serious photographers (read: those who want to make it a profession or dedicated hobbyists) can obviously go elsewhere.
The Fuji does not have the ability to change lenses, it uses a viwfinder like move cameras rather than true optical viewfinder,like you find in SLRs in this guide. It uses a much smaller sensor such as you will find in point and shoot cameras instead of the APS C size or larger sensors found in SLR cameras. It is "SLR-like" but not an SLR. It is a fine camera for what it is, but it is not in the same category as the cameras metioned in this guide.
Fuji does make a specialized digital SLR, the S3 and recently announced S5, that use Nikon lenses. Prices have recently dropped on the S3, but it has sold in the $2000 price range and is a favorite of some wedding photographers.
I had to take exception to this. Nikon has never made one of their budget scale downs better than the predecessor, though they do sometimes make them almost as good. The D40 lacks an integral autofocus motor, so it relies on the AF lenses to have their own autofocus, and most lenses still don't have that integrated. This means it is somewhat useless for your older Nikon AF lenses unless you enjoy manual focus. The D50 optics and autofocus are also virtually identical to that of the D70, while the D40's are substantially less sophisticated. The D50 is a significantly more capable camera over all, though the D40 is a nice camera in it's own right. New buyers getting new lens kits can go with a D40 and be happy, but anyone that has invested in Nikon lenses previously would be wasting thier money most likely.
quote: If you already own Nikon lenses the new 6MP Nikon D40 is also a good choice
well, not really, unless they are the AF-S models, as the lack of in-body autofocus motor makes all the other nikon lens into manual focus, iirc. better to get the D50.
IMHO, this is a rather important fact that isn't in the article: the Nikon D40 (unlike every other Nikon DSLR) does not have an in-camera autofocus motor. This means that only Nikon AF-S lenses, which have the autofocus motor in the lens and are not nearly as prolific as the rest of the Nikon F-mount AF lens family, fully function on the D40. Older Nikon AF lenses, which are the entire reason that I purchased my D50 six months ago, do not autofocus on the D40.
Except for the 3 point autofocus and the lack of integrated lens autofocus engine, everything is better on the D40. The D40 will in 90% be associated with the kit lens only: this is an entry-level D-SLR and as it, is better than the D50. If you already own a D50, you'll better go for the D80. If you own an argentic SLR <ith many lenses, you'll probably buy new lens since the new generation digital only lenses are much better than the old/classical argentic lenses.
Did anyone else get the feeling that the author was a Pentax fanboy and the conclusion was going to be in favor of the Pentax line? Unfortunately I found the article quite shallow. I would highly recommend going to dpreview.com to get a real in-depth analysis of these cameras.
Personally, I just got the feeling the author is completely clueless. Take this paragraph, for example:
"Sony continued the then-unique in-camera image stabilization pioneered by Minolta, which allowed any lens mounted on the camera to take sharper pictures at slower shutter speeds."
Image stabilization simply helps reduce blur caused by camera vibration. It won't do anything to make pictures "sharper". At slow shutter speeds, if the subject moves, the picture is going to be blurry, no matter what. Image stabilisation makes no difference to that. And if the subject doesn't move, then most of the time you can simply use a tripod (or rest the camera on top of a table, or whatever).
And to mention Sony and Minolta (and Pentax) as examples of image stabilization is ridiculous. Nikon's VR is 10x better than anything those three have ever done and Canon's IS is 5x better than Nikon's VR.
Then there's that amazing paragraph titled "COMPATABILITY" (sic), which basically reads as a love letter to Pentax. They've made 25 million lenses! Whoa! Leica have only made around 2 million, so I guess that makes them crap. Maybe I should sell my Summilux and "invest" in some K-mount glass? Sigh...
When someone considers that Pentax beats Canon and Nikon in terms of lens quality and selection, I think it's clearly time to call for the paramedics.
do you have link to the comparison between in body and lens stabilization? as far as i know, there is a slight benefit (.5 stop to maybe 1 stop) to in lens stabilization but that benefit is greatly off set by the price.
buying a full range of lens with built in stabilization i.e. lenses that cover say 28 mm to 300 mm would cost a small fortune (~$2500-$4000 maybe more even). for me, that money saved could be plowed into better accessories like tripod, bag, flashes, heck even a faster computer or wide screen monitor to post process...but that's just my opinion.
No amount of post-processing is going to recover detail that your lens didn't capture in the first place. When you invest in an SLR system, the main element are the lenses. That's the main difference between SLRs and compact cameras, and what some people don't seem to understand.
If you can't afford good lenses, then use a compact camera instead. It's easier to use, cheaper, lighter, etc.., and can also take great pictures. Lots of great photographers use them. In some situations they're not just "as good" as an SLR, they're actually better.
And you don't need a full lens range with image stabilization. In fact, many great photographers managed to go through their entire careers without ever using ONE. But if you're going to use (and possibly rely on) image stabilization, you need it to actually be good, not just a marketing gimmick.
Lots of lenses aren't available in stabilized versions anyway. Lenses above 400mm are usually quite heavy, and used on a tripod, and below 70mm or so, vibration isn't a big problem. So a lot of photographers have only a couple of stabilized lenses, or even none at all (I have one, I might get one more, and I doubt I'll get any after that). Stabilized lenses are useful when you need to "track" subjects a lot, at long distances (ex., wildlife).
The only way you can really see the difference between proper optical image stabilization (ex., Canon IS or Nikon VR) and sensor stabilization (which has been used for a long time in video camcorders, BTW, namely Sony's) is by trying it.
It's not a matter of "how many stops" it gets you (that's just an over-simplification). It won't do anything for subject movement, and if you are using a tripod it won't make any difference. The effect depends on the vibration, and the vibration depends on each situation. If you are shooting a still subject under low light with no tripod, yes, maybe you can talk about gaining 2-3 stops with Canon IS. But that's just one specific situation.
It would be perfectly possible to add great image stabilization to cameras, but:
- It would make the cameras bigger
- It would make the cameras heavier
- It would make the cameras more expensive
And it's more or less useless when shooting at wide angles, and worse than useless when shooting on a tripod. 95% of people would never pay for it, or pick the heavier, bulkier camera. So some brands just use this "sensor stabilization" as a marketing gimmick, to make buyers think that, for an extra $75 or so they're getting image stabilization similar to what they'd get from a $1500 lens. They're not, of course.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's simply on a different league from lens stabilization, just as those MiniDV camcorder "stabilizers" are on a different league from a full SteadyCam harness.
The way the article's author dismisses VR / IS as if they were just an "overpriced version" of the same thing suggests that he never actually used it.
And I found it funny (though not surprising) that this AT article's "demonstration" of sensor stabilization was actually an unrealistic mock-up taken from an ad, not a real test image. In fact, it's funny how a review of four cameras manages to have so few pictures taken with those cameras and such poor pictures of the cameras themselves.
Photographers have a term for people who judge cameras by looking at their specifications (instead of at the images they produce): measurebation.
I have owned many Nikon and Canon film and digital cameras over the years - as well as a current Fuji S3 (Nikon lenses) and a D80. The Fuji S3 is well-suited to our work which is mostly "still-life" where the S3 excels. It would be a horrible camera for action photography. My last Canon Digital was a 20D. I have also owned both VR and IS lenses from Nikon and Canon, and have a fair amount of Nikon glass.
There is definitely a place for lens-based VR/IS, but most of the VR/IS that I see being sold is for $200 Nikon/Canon entry zoom lenses that now cost $400 to $600 with lens integral anti-shake. It is easy to defend pro glass with IS, but most users who read this Buyers Guide will not spend $1500 to $2000 or more on the lenses you talk about, they will buy the $400 to $600 overpriced VR/IS zooms that are f4.0-F5.6 and not that great to start with. For most users, body-integral AS is a much better and cost-effective solution that works with any lens mounted - and yes it is more effective on some lenses than others.
Modern DSLR cameras communicate lens info to the processor, so it is possible for AS to be customized in processing for the lens in use. Under $1000 is still entry-level and this article is not aimed at Pro's. The entry kit lens for both are also pretty awful - both the Pentax kit and Sony kit are actually better lenses. At least Nikon offers a kit lens upgrade option, but it brings the price of the upgrade D80 kit to $1300.
Pentax and Minolta have made some superb AF lenses over the years. If you doubt that compare some lens qulaity ratings at www.photodo.com. Canon learned Pros want more than glass - they want the service and hand-holding that Nikon has provided to Pros for many years. Don't project the Pro orientation of Canon and Nikon into beliefs that their glass is superior, because it isn't. All four companies have some wonderful lenses and some dogs. Sony/Minolta, Pentax/Hoya, Canon and Nikon all have some pretty mediocre low cost lenses these days - aimed at low cost buyers. All four also have some superb glass. If you're a Pro who needs a long super-fast telephoto for a sports assignment - cost be damned - then you will find it at Canon or Nikon. However, for the photo enthusiast or hobbyist that is the intended audience for this guide, Pentax and Sony can give the buyer excellent selection and value.
Since you seem the most vocal in calling me clueless I ask if you can please share your experiences when you tested the Pentax K10D and some of the new lenses like the 31mm f1.8 or 43 f1.9 or the pancake 21mm f3.2. Can you comment on the handling, build-quality, and lens line based on real hands-on experience? Or are your comments based on intuitive knowledge since everyone knows Canon and Nikon are the best?
We tested ALL FOUR cameras in this review and we bought the cameras with kit lenses and 50mm F1.4 lenses. No manufacturer supplied samples for testing. We did borrow some lenses from friends for testing. Opinions are always welcomed, but you have turned your commenst into a personal vendetta. Since you have so much to say please share the basis of YOUR opinions. We would all like to hear you own personal testing experiences with the Pentax K10D.
I've used a K10D for about 20 minutes - enough to see that the image quality seems _worse_ than the K100D (which was actually quite promising). With a 10-MP sensor, it can't quite match the detail of an 8-MP Canon. But, above all, it has a lot more CA. Where a Canon or a Nikon (or even a Sony) will get you crisp neutral edges, the K10D gives you red / cyan fringing. Maybe it's CA from the lens, maybe it's just poor processing of the Bayer-pattern sensor. Either way, it's there and it hurts the image quality.
Add to that the lens selection (which is what SLRs are all about - keep the glass, upgrade the camera), and the K10D only really makes sense to someone who already has a lot of money invested in K-mount lenses.
If you want a longer "article" I'll be happy to write one, but don't expect me to do your job for free.
Anyway, there are already plenty of articles about these cameras. It just seems that almost everyone reached a conclusion different from yours (the K10D is a good camera, just not the best, and Pentax lenses definitely aren't the best). I guess those guys at DPReview, Steve's Digicams, etc, just don't know anything about photography...
I think you, Justin Case, are fairly knowledgeable and have a lot of experience with photography. I also think that you consider Anandtech to have overstepped its bounds by venturing into reviewing photography equipment. Therefore, although I may be wrong, I certainly have to take everything you say with a very large grain of salt since you seem to have ulterior motives that run along the vein of checking this sites "impudence". Also, you seem like a real asshat. My sincere apologies if I am mistaken, but the value of any of your comments are eroded and negated by the contempt.
I have nothing against Anandtech (or any other site) reviewing cameras or writing about photography. In fact, I've mentioned above (or possibly below) that Dan's Data (for example) has several good articles about photography. And there are several brilliant articles about photography on sites like Slashdot, Kuro5hin, etc., not to mention photography websites, of course.
My problem is when someone without any knowledge of a given subject (any subject) decides to hack together an "article" about it, based on very little experience, incomplete information, and a bunch of specifications they don't really understand.
It's like evaluating a sports car performance by looking at the engine specifications. They're not completely irrelevant, but they don't tell the full story (or even the first paragraph) of what it's like to actually drive the car. Anyone can compare manufacturer's PDFs and repost images from the manufacturers' advert^H^H I mean, press kits.
And people who do that are only spreading misinformation, for the sake of their own egos or (more likely) a few thousand ad impressions and sponsored link clicks. And that pisses me off, because, although I can spot the bullshit on subjects that I know (like photography, or computers), I might be (and have been in the past) misled by this kind of approach to "journalism" in other areas.
This is a review of four cameras where the author doesn't even compare or show photos taken with those cameras. Enough said.
Anandtech has been going downhill for some time now. If it wasn't for Johan (and some of Anand's own articles), I think it would make even THG seem respectable.
Why don't you just go the fuck elsewhere then? Every comment you post seems to bitch about the quality of Anandtech in some way - even the offhand compliment to Johan was used as a way to bash the other writers. I guess the video card information, buyers guides, motherboard reviews, etc. just suck ass, don't they? Sort of like your posts.
I for one understand what is meant by BUYER'S GUIDE! It's not a goddamn review of every item mentioned. If they were, this SLR BG would be about 20000 words instead of 5000, and the various computer buyer's guides would probably clock in at something like 50000 words. Obviously, this GUIDE didn't cover every detail of every camera, and most of us aren't - as the above poster so eloquently put it - asshats that like to nitpick.
I read this article and came away with the impression that all of the expensive cameras are good in their own ways, and Sony and Pentax are able to compete with the Canon and Nikon. Does that mean they are universally better? OF COURSE NOT! No one with half a brain would get that from the text, which is clearly intended to be a brief overview rather than covering every facet. Now, having read this BG, people might be more inclined to do a bit more research on the Sony and Pentax models rather than just buying a Canon or Nikon like everyone seems to recommend. Or they might end up sticking with Canon/Nikon for various reasons. There is definitely a market for higher quality SLR cameras without the intention of investing in dozens of lenses, though, which you STILL fail to grasp.
What I've gathered is that you think Canon and Nikon are the shizznit, and you tried a Pentax for 20 minutes and decided it sucked. Obviously, you know way more about photography than I do, but at the same time I wouldn't presume to judge any PC product after only 20 minutes, even though I've been using PCs for almost 30 years now and have a pretty extensive background in the industry.
What's really humorous is that all of your other beloved camera-centric sites that have looked at the K10D seem to rate it as essentially the equal of the Canon and Nikon offerings, and quite a few have been damn impressed by the Sony as well. If you have $10K of lenses for Canon or Nikon, of course you're not going to bail on that just to switch to a new body that might be better in a few areas. For the many people that are now looking at potentially affordable $500-$700 SLR cameras, though - people that very likely don't own a single camera lens yet - it doesn't matter nearly as much.
I'm NEVER EVER going to spend $1000+ on a camera lens, and probably not even more than $150. A decent SLR can still serve a purpose, however, as the best quality point-and-shoots rarely if ever offer all of the features of a moderate SLR. Only the larger SLR-like point-and-shoot cameras can handle lower light situations even remotely effectively, and those typically cost as much or more than entry level SLR.
Again, though, maybe I'm mistaken? What's the best point and shoot out there for the various markets? Specifically, what $500 PaS is going to be better than the $500 SLRs mentioned, or what $750 model will beat the Sony? Don't tell me something like a Canon Powershot either, as I have one and while it's great for stuffing in my pocket there are MANY situations where the images I've captured look very poor (not to mention much slower focusing speed, inability to take fast-motion shots, and a number of other issues).
Anyway, I'd really be quite pleased if you left and spent more time over at Tom's bitching and moaning. They're used to it there and rarely bother responding to criticisms. They are also clearly "bought out" when you read many of their reviews. Just like HardOCP and Kyle's lovefest for anything AMD (or whoever else is willing to buy him a new truck). Your primary ASSumption here has been that Wes knows nothing about photography, and quite clearly that is not the case. He said some stuff you disagree with, and so immediately you label him "clueless" - and yet you haven't actually done ANY testing with several of the products he talks about, so you're basically just shooting from the hip and going with what you've read elsewhere. Talk about doing comparisons based off of "spec sheets" (reviews)....
When you've actually tried a Pentex K10D for a couple months with a variety of lenses, come back and tell us how it really compares and then we might listen. Yeah, that's expensive, and that's precisely why none of us will do it. Until you can actually do so, though (borrow a friend's camera and leave your biases behind), you're basically just telling us what everyone already knows: if you have a major investment in Nikon or Canon equipment and you're happy with it, there's no way in hell you would ever switch to a different brand.
Actually dpreview total scores for the 4 cameras were 53 for the Nikon D80, 52 for the Pentax K10D, 50.5 for the Canon XTi, and 50 for the Sony A100. Since the Sony is now the cheapest 10 MP camera it's value score would likely go up in an updated review, making the Canon the worst of the lot. Dpreview also gave all 4 cameras their "Highly Recommended" rating.
I also found the Pentax K10D and Nikon D80 the closest of the group, but it is my opionion the anti-shake, built-in sensor cleaning, better build quality, and unique creative features tilted the recommendation to the Pentax. It should be mentioned that Pentax includes their excellent RAW editing software with the K10D, while Nikon makes you buy their best RAW software as an add-on to the D80. If you are going to quote other sites as evidence to support your own beliefs you should get your facts right.
BTW, not a single review I read found an issue with red-cyan fringing. I also looked at all the images I shot and did not see any unusual "red-cyan" edge fringing as you describe. Perhaps you looked at a defective sample. Did you find the same issues with RAW images?
It seems you always get accused of being a fanboi if you recommend anything other than the safe - in this case Canon or Nikon. I would suggest you compare a Nikon D40 and Pentax K100D side by side as we did - you might actually be surprised. As for the K110D there is no other camera that sells for $450 with lens, let alone one as full -faeatured as the K110D. The same goes for the 10 megapixel models. As I said in the review the safe choice is Canon or Nikon, and Canon will sell a ton of cameras even if it is the worst of the 10 megapixel models.
Actually I have owned Canon and Nikon for years, and the D80 has been a personal favorite since it came out. It is still the best in autofocusing speed compared to anything, but I was blown away by the quality and features of the K10D. Another AT reviewer, who owns Minolta/Sony recently got a chance to examine and use the K10D on a trip to China and was trying to figure out if it made sense to sell his existing lenses and camera to buy the K10D. The concern, of course, is Pentax is no Canon in size and the best value from smaller players does not always win in the marketplace.
No. If you recommend a Canon, the Nikon fanboys will label you a Canon fanboy. If you recommend a Nikon, then the Canon fanboys will label you a Nikon fanboy.
But when you recommend a Pentax SLR, you're labelling youself "clueless".
I like that you guys tested auto focus speed, but your test is incomplete. All dslr cameras perform well in good light. What sets them apart is their performance as light levels drop to where you need to use fast lenses such as the 50mm f/1.4 and ISO 1600 to achieve shutter speeds fast enough not to have blurry shots due to camera shake. Yes, the Sony and Pentax systems will greatly help with the camera shake, but both have some serious shortcomings.
Sony has very high noise levels. Their noise at ISO 800 is greater than Pentax, Canon or Nikon at ISO 1600. Sony's ISO 1600 is barely usable and limited mainly to small prints.
Pentax controls noise very well, but its autofocus performance in low light indoor photography from my experience with the K100D is very slow. It often takes well over a second to achieve focus lock. In comparison it takes the Nikon, Sony and Canon less than 3/4 of a second. It's a difference that can result in some missed photos.
Your tests address the noise issue, but they do not touch on low light focusing speed and it would be of great interest to see if Pentax improved on the K100D with their K10D.
While my Sony experiences have not been great, for many years I have enjoyed shooting with Minolta Maxxum cameras, from the 7000 to the Alpha 707si (if not for being stolen I would still be using my 7000s). Minolta didn't get too much love in the pro market, but they truly had some wonderful equipment, especially the older lenses. In the last few years manufacturing was not as high quality, but I have used Nikon, Canon and Pentax, and still prefer the Maxxum (though the K1000 was a great cheap SLR that could take a beating).
So it is nice to hear that Sony has apparently made a decent camera with Maxxum lens compatibility. I don't shoot digital, for many reasons, but the anti-shake (I'm horrible in low-light) and reasonable price tempts me. The adjustable diopter might help me with my focus, too, as I use my focusing ring to make up for not wearing corrective eye-wear :).
I have a Sony dsc-p200 P&S 7MP camera, and I have to say, for what it is, its great, however, don't expect to take pictures on the moon, and get surface detail . . . I know a professional photographer that uses this same camera for quick shots, and he loves it(this is how I came about getting mine, got to try it before i bought it ;) ).
Another friend of mine, has a Cannon 20D, it also is an excellent camera, but its getting dated, and the XTi IMO comes from great lines, but just isn't up to the rest in quality.
Personally, I've been interested in the Nikon D80 for some time, but perhaps by the time I get ready to spend, the Pentax will win me over . . .
I like the XTi's ergonomics, but i guess different strokes for different folks. I do like the fact that Pentax actually feels of high quality, and the biggest problem the XTi is the "cheap" plastic build quality... But i do love their CMOS technology and their noise reduction method!
Yes, Canon still has the best sensors (and best telephoto lenses - /me hugs his 70-200 2.8 IS), although Nikon as virtually caught up with the D2X and D200 (and they have the best wide-angle lenses, although Canon's 18-55 2.8 IS EF-S is bloody amazing).
The XT / XTi is fine if you have small hands, but my big paws will almost cover the lens when I grab one. I hope they release a new model soon, with the 30D / 1D / 5D body and the XTi's improvements.
*DROOL* 70-200 2.8 IS, i'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8L, can barely afford that one... anyway, have your tried the XTi with the battery grip? XTi is a good size to me, but bigger wouldn't hurt either.
Speaking of battery grip, that's another thing that annoyed me about the XT (and XTi) - they halved the battery's capacity. Sure, now they can say it's lighter (than the original DRebel), but you have to carry twice as many batteries! Duh. I haven't tried it with the grip, but it feels like a hack. I'd rather wait for the 40D (or whatever the successor to the 30D will be called).
The 70-200 2.8L is great. The non-IS model should be just as good, optically, and a bit smaller and lighter (and cheaper, of course). I bit the bullet and got mine after playing with some similar lenses from other brands, but this one is on a different league. It's actually sharper than some primes on the same range.
Right now I'm pondering on whether to trade my next vacation for an EF-S 18-55 2.8L IS (I've used one briefly, and it's amazing). It's probably the best autofocus lens in that range from _any_ manufacturer. Of course, that would sort of "lock me" into the 1.6x sensors, but that might not be such a bad thing, if future EF-S lenses are going to be this good.
I'd like to point out for those who don't know already, and perhaps you "guys" could include it in your articles, or future articles. There are Web sites out there, that sell Cameras at unheard of prices. For instance, when I was pricing the Nikon D80 about 3 months ago, everyone, except on site was selling them at comparable prices. This one web site was selling them MUCH lower than the rest, and there was a good reason. These web sites (some argue are all owned by the same company, just different sites) are rip offs. They mark the camera down, take things like battery packs, warranty, lenses etc out of the kit, and claim, so basically, all you're buying is the camera, and then try to charge you, the customer unheard of prices for these things that are supposed to be sold in the kit. Not only this, these web sites sell cameras, that were originally supposed to be sold in other countries . . .
Anyhow, if the price is too good, it is, don't fall for the trap. If in doubt, search the web site in question on resellerreviews.com or some such site. Also, I'm not sure why, but google allows these people to advertise with them, and thus, they will likely show at the top of any google search, under featured advertisers . . .
Luckily, being the cautious person I am, I never got duped, but there are MANY people who have been . . .
We have seen the same things in online shopping for cameras. It is a common tactic among unscrupulous sellers who always seem to be located in New York City. That does not mean all NY camera sellers are bad, because there are a number of excellent sellers in the city like B&H. If it seems way too good to be true it probably is.
What you describe is the reason we mentioned in the guide that our prices came from large well-known etailers like Amazon and Newegg. The Amazon price on the entry Pentax K110D kit is currently $452 (or $402 for body only) with a $50 Pentax rebate reducing the price further.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
89 Comments
Back to Article
creidhmeach - Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - link
This article is not up to the usual standard. There are too many instances of phrases in the vein of "from a brief comparison" and "the Pentax image stabilisation is said to improve by four stops..." without any corroborating evidence.Anandtech wouldn't publish a comparison of an nVidia and ATI graphics card with "from a brief comparison" and "the nVidia card is said to have..." without any comprehensive testing, and Anandtech normally never believe published specifications and advertising without proof from testing first.
Anandtech has built a reputation for well balanced, comprehensive reviews; I understand your point in publishing a brief buyers guide for first-time dSLR buyers, but please endeavour to make them a little more comprehensive in the future. In particular, please don't utilise advertised specifications as a recommendation to buy a product without showing us that they actually perform as the manufacturer says.
dsumanik - Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - link
Someone let this thread die, the article was not very thorough, there wasnt any hard testing, and nikon/canon are the best and youll pay for that.pentax is bang for the buck...but not a long term solution if you are really into photography.
the end.
dextro - Monday, January 8, 2007 - link
Thanks for the great guide Wesley. I've been an AT reader for a couple of years for good reason. I used to patronize many more sites including and Tom's Hardware, as well as AT and Tech Report and others. After spending a good amount of time on all of those sites, I generally find myself only visiting AnandTech and The Tech Report for reviews. I'm a young guy and I don't have that much cash, so I especially appreciate the attention to price/performance and value without compromise in quality.I was going to go for the Nikon D40 originally, but after reading this article and doing a bit more research to verify, I picked up the Pentax D100 at B&H, and I love it. Yes, this is my first SLR, but the price and features were right for me. I really enjoy using hardware with high build quality, and the camera fits me very nicely. I like it so much that after having it for only a couple of weeks I'm already about to buy my first new lens, a 50mm f/1.4 pentax prime which I hope will serve me well.
I think most people who go to AT know that its not smart to judge purchases based only on the brand, so ignore the fanboys man. Thanks again for the great article and you should know you've made at least one person very happy and perhaps helped to start a future career in photography.
aljohnso - Saturday, January 6, 2007 - link
Not with the review - with most of these comments.1. You could tell that the author knew what his conclusion was going to be before you reached the end of the article? You mean, you are surprised that the author did his tests, reached his conclusions, and then wrote the article? You were expecting something more stream-of-consciousness style? "I then tried the Canon, went to the bathroom, had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich...."?
2. Ad hominem attacks normally mean that the attacker is compromised, either in his own standing or in the argument he is bringing... shame on you (and you know who you are).
Which brings me to what I expect is the major conflict here - the article is not complementary to Canon products to the level to make people who have spent several thousands (sometimes on a single lens) to feel validated in their life choices.
I have owned both Pentax and Nikon equipment - I found, in my limited way, that the pentax pancake lens was wonderful, but that since I wanted to do a fair amount of macro work the Nikon lens selection was better. I gave my Pentax kit to my brother - who has a much better handle on picture composition than I have.
I studied the resolution of my Nikon lenses in some detail (I do know the difference between a double gauss and a tessar - both in terms of design and in results) and have posted results to usenet in the day.
I have stayed out of the fray in the digital realm since only recently has Nikon had a DSLR that looked like it had hit a sweet spot in terms of moderate price and usability (something between the D80 and the D200), and since Canon changes mounts and such in a way that did not allow me to consider the lenses as general optical elements in the way you can with Nikons (there is good reason why you can get c to T to N mount adapters, and almost no adapters to Canon).
The item I found interesting (and non-obvious) was the problem with sensor dust - I shall have to get more information on that. In verses Out of body camera shake compensation is rather trumped if in keeps the sensor clean and out does not.
The difference in Canon and Nikon lenses in the film days (and here I am primarily speaking prime lenses - zooms are interesting and useful compromise lenses), (other than that derived from Nikons longer back focal distance) can general be said that Canons have better sharpness over the field edge, and somewhat better color rendition. Nikons have better center sharpness and a less "artistic" color balance.
All of that may have shifted - computer design and more exotic glass choices shift the compromise balance, and in particular the smaller field being taken from the lens by the smaller digital sensor (as well as the shift in effective sensor thickness) make the design process and optimization results much less challenging in digital, until perhaps recently where sensor size and pixel size starts to get close to film again.
You have old lenses to mount? I would expect Nikon old stuff to work better than Canon - better center sharpness. Longer back focal distance also means deeper sensor active regions can be accommodated. I may be wrong - I would be interested in finding out.
However, the authors stated purpose/point-of-view was more along the line of "if you were going to spend a few hundred (and not too far back, more than several hundred) on a prosumer TTL fixed lens camera - you know, 10x zoom, slr like body... say, the Canon PowerShot S3 IS... and now consider if you could get similar capabilities from a DSLR with the kit lens or cheap upgrade".
Certainly this guide was not focused on those looking to spend ~$2k+ to get into the business... so for DSLR "newbees" function with kit lens is important, quality of exotic lenses (such a super telephoto or wide or macro) is not important, and brand loyalty is a very low priority.
The author was surprised with the quality of the Pentax product. It did have the examples of the majors to work with before release, it must be mentioned (which he did).
A useful review for me - your mileage will, of course, vary.
It might have been improved with some links to other sites with more detailed reviews, but Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?
Allen
Clones123 - Sunday, December 31, 2006 - link
Wesley,Thanks for an interesting and informative amateur’s buying guide. I'm shocked at how heated and nit-picky the comments have been. I fail to see how a brief DSLR buyer's guide on a computer web site can be faulted for not having been far more detailed and analytical than it was ever intended to be. I have forwarded your buyer's guide to numerous friends who, after seeing my photos, are interested in perhaps buying a DSLR themselves. I strongly suspect that NONE of those friends have either the time or the desire to read a long, complex and detailed comparative analysis of entry level DSLR's had you written such a thing.
You’ve introduced AnandTech to some new people who may not have previously visited AnandTech for it’s computer-related content. So, THANK YOU for your efforts which, I assure you, ARE appreciated by a silent majority of visitors to this web site.
skyyspam - Sunday, December 31, 2006 - link
Overall, your review is unsatisfactory. Your tone is more subjective than objective, and the content you did provide was superficial. You could learn a bit from reading Jeff Keller's reviews over at dcresource.com--he runs one the most objective digicam comparison programs around. Every camera he gets is put through exactly the same rigors, and those tests are designed to make it very easy for a reader to differentiate between a camera's performance in distinct categories.Quite dismayingly, you never show your readers any sample photos of your tests; you only report your own observations. For example, instead of just telling your readers, "From brief comparisons the Pentax and Canon XTi are the best at controlling noise at high ISO ("film") speeds," why not show us actual images from each camera, taken of the same subject at different ISO speeds? Going back to Jeff's reviews at dcresource.com, I've probably seen his Chicago skyline ISO comparison so many times that I can practically draw the city scene freehandedly. When he reviews a new camera, without reading a word, I can go directly to the ISO comparison samples and say, "Damn! That's one hell of a noisy picture, for only being ISO 200!" The same goes for his Mickey Mouse macro subject, which brings me to the question: did you ever compare the macro performance of the cameras? In more areas than I feel like discussing, you seem to have overlooked the importance of providing us with substantial review content.
In conclusion, your review lacks enough content to make it worthwhile, and I'm further annoyed by its overall subjective tone. For digital cameras, proof of performance is most easily shown and comprehended by using test images, and you provide your readers with no such examples.
haplo602 - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
I creted a forum login for just this one post :-)The article is interesting, funny and inacurate at times.
I respect it is a buyers guide, however you cannot do a buyers guide on SLRs by just comparing the specs.
1. SLRs offer GREAT FLEXIBILITY. Macro, landscape, sports, wildlife, architecture etc. Depends mainly on the lens you use, the camera is mostly irrelevant (except some areas, focus speed and sports f.e.). This is nowhere even considered in the whole article.
2. SLRs are all about lenses (as mentioned above). Now I know this may be disputed by many, but you totaly forgot 3rd party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina to name a few). True they may not have the same quality as genuine brands, but are still a consideration. Now most offer Canon, Nikon, Minolta mounts. That's all. Pentax is almost non-existent. This widens the lens selection for the named 3 brands.
3. In some parts you are praising Pentax for lens compatibility with older lenses. So you are buying an AUTOFOCUS camera to use with MANUAL FOCUS lenses? Come on. There are adapters for M42/canon/nikon mounts made by 3rd parties. This is not even a point. Check out ebay for lenses and compare the amount available for each brand. Canon leads by a horse lenght followed by Nikon. This is the true benchmark for lens availability.
4. Metering system comparison? Metering systems are NOT MENTIONED in the whole article IIRC. This is on of the MOST important points of SLRs and make a buy or leave difference.
5. Pentax K100D. A friend bought this camera recently and I got to use it for a couple of indoor shots. Being used to Nikon I was lost with the controls. Focus point selection for example? I can do it blind with Nikon and after a brief look on Canon. I did not figure out on Pentax without consulting the menus.
6. I guess you miss the Nikon viewfinder picture in the review.
7. VR/IS/AS or whatever you want to call it. With lenses you don't loose it when changing bodies. It is the number 1 reason for pentax and sony miserably batery lifetime. VR lenses from Nikon are made cheap these days. Check out the new 70-300 AF-S VR.
8. Image format options ? RAW+JPEG ? Service centers availability ? f.e. you can find Canon gear in almost any village at the end of nowhere. Try that with Sony/Pentax.
All the above points are more or less relevant. However what you realy missed is the 1st point. You can do specs comparison on a P&S small digicam because you can 100% sure say it will be used for snapshots on vacation and parties, so the purpose is very limited. Not so with SLRs which fill many roles.
Just to end my rant, do it in reverse next time. Do extensive reviews of each camera and then make a buyers guide as a summary after all of them. With references to the previous articles. Will be much better.
Justin Case - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
> Now I know this may be disputed by many,> but you totaly forgot 3rd party lens
> manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina to
> name a few). True they may not have the
> same quality as genuine brands, but are
> still a consideration.
And then there's Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander, and I suppose one can say that those don't have the same quality as most Canon or Nikon lenses, either, but they're only a consideration if you robbed a bank recently. ;^)
BTW, compact digicams offer great flexibility, too. The difference, as you point out, is that with a compact, it's the camera that matters. With an SLR, it's the lens selection. So, when you buy an SLR, you should buy the SLR that will take the lenses you want to use, not the other way around.
astroidea - Friday, December 29, 2006 - link
Have you ever even bothered to read about Pentax lenses before you brushed them off as being inferior?It sure doesn't seem like it.
Because if you have, you'd realize that Pentax is legendary in making primes, and their lenses are often considered as poor-man's leicas as the offer nearly the same quality for a fraction of the cost.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05...">They only make the best autofocus lenses in the world
And this link is from luminous landscape, one that you said is credible.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/238813/0">Oh and here is a 40yr old Pentax lens blowing the socks off a modern canon lens
If you want to argue about pro equipment, then yes, a Canon 1DS MK2 or a Nikon D2X with multi-thousand dollar pro zooms that costs more than a car, would blow the socks off anything Pentax has to offer. But we're not talking about pro equipment here. We're talking about sub $1000 prosumer cameras. And that's where Pentax shines.
What you're saying is basically if I argued that Canon and Nikon was junk because Hasseblad's 39MP MF back destroys anything Canon/Nikon has to offer. It's simply comparing apples to oranges.
Justin Case - Friday, December 29, 2006 - link
Pentax has some very good primes in the 35-135 range. Nikon has had better wide angle lenses for a long time, and Canon has had better teles for a long time (Canon's 50 mm MkI is nothing to write home about, BTW - it's not even an "L" -, so that comparison is hardly surprising). And both Canon and Nikon have been improving their "weak ends" recently (ie. Nikon has improved their teles and Canon has improved their wides), and both make much better zoom lenses than Pentax (arguably, even Sigma does).When you go SLR, you're buying the system (unless you plan to replace your camera and all your lenses each time something new comes out). So the fact that Canon's and Nikon's high-end stuff is the best out there (unless you're willing to use manual focus, anyway) should definitely weigh on your decision, no? And should, at the very least, be mentioned in a "buyer's guide".
If I was going to buy something today, on a low budget, know what I'd get? A second-hand Digital Rebel (yes, the prehistoric one), and one good lens (ex., an 18-55 f/2.8). And I bet I could take better pictures with it than I could with a brand new $1000 Pentax (or Canon, or Sony, or Nikon) camera and the kit lens.
The whole point of SLRs is lenses and accessories. Picking a system based on a single camera and a single (cheap, kit) lens is missing the point. People who aren't planning to buy more lenses would be much better served with a compact camera (cheaper, lighter, smaller, easier to use). Unless this is a buyer's guide for posers and masochists, it's a very poor buyer's guide.
In fact, as other people have pointed out before, it seems that the "conclusion" of this "buyer's guide" had been decided long before it was written, and information is selectively omitted or twisted to support that conclusion (i.e., dishonest comparison of Pentax's lens lineup with other manufacturers', dishonest comparison of IS/VR with sensor stabilization, lack of comparative sample images, lack of objective performance measures, etc).
So, no, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that "Pentax sucks". I said this article sucks, and I'm saying it again. Bigtime.
Go read the articles about these cameras on DPReview, for example, and you'll see that they are all very good cameras (each with certain strengths and weaknesses, but all very capable). The issue isn't the cameras; the issue is the article itself, which seems to be a 20-minute job based on a previously decided "conclusion" and marketing leaflets. The K10D can be the best choice, under certain specific circumstances. As can any of the others. But the "blanket" anti-Nikon and anti-Canon statements in this "article" only show the author's lack of experience and understanding of pro photography (and yes, any of the cameras in this review can produce professional results, in the hands of a good photographer - in fact, pretty much any dSLR released in the last 3 years can). There is a reason (several reasons) why 95% of professional photographers pick Canon or Nikon. They are not all completely stupid. And if you're buying an SLR, maybe you should be paying some attention to the choices of the people who use them every day, and depend on them for their work.
P.S. - Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a poor man's Leica. :P
astroidea - Sunday, December 31, 2006 - link
You still don't seem to get it.This article isn't about rating lenses or what is the best DSLR to get if you have $2000 to spend. It's to talk about the latest released bodies in the sub $1000 sector, NOT the professional sector.
Just because Canon/Nikon makes multithousand dollar professional equipment, it doesn't mean their consumer product line is the best too.
And as for the 50mm MK1 not being an L, there has been many canon owners that owned the Canon 50mm F/1.0 L and the Pentax 50mm F/1.4, and just about everyone of them will tell you the latter is better.
Many photography review sites tested the 200mm macros, and have all concluded that the Pentax FA* 200mm F/4 macro is the best they've ever seen.
The Pentax DA 14mm F/2.8 is rated to be better than both Nikon and Canon versions, and costs half the price(due to being APS cropped).
Sigma has many lenses that are better than Canon/Nikon's too. All makers have their gems and their dogs. Don't be silly.
Again, if you don't even have the slightest clue about the pentax lenses you are talking about, don't come up with ignorant assumptions.
And you must have some insane brand loyalty if you found wesley's article to be anti-nikon, when he placed their camera has #2 best choice.
Only Canon's was placed last, and deservedly so with the poor viewfinder and flimsy construction. Now don't tell me you're blind enough to defend Canon's subpar build too?
Justin Case - Sunday, December 31, 2006 - link
No, the article is, according to its own author, "not a review of the cameras", it is "a buyer's guide".A "buyer's guide" for SLR cameras must take into account the fundamental difference between SLRs and compact cameras. When you buy an SLR, you do it for the lenses and accessories. Either that or you're a masochist, because SLRs are more expensive, heavier, bigger and harder to use than compacts (and that's why even pro photographers with a ton of high-end equipment often carry around a small P&S).
The only other reason to use an SLR would be speed (faster power-up, faster shooting, etc., so you don't miss any good shots). But, guess what, the "article" doesn't cover that, either.
As to your claims that certain lenses have been very higly "rated", could you post some links or references? To tests with actual images? That's another thing this "buyer's guide" is missing: comparative photos taken with each camera. I guess that's an insignificant detail when comparing cameras, what really matters is the spec sheets and which one is 10% cheaper... sigh...
As to Sigma, they have a couple of lenses that are indeed better than the equivalent ones made by Canon or Nikon (although, to be honest, that's only because both Canon and Nikon have pretty crappy lenses for some focal lengths)... Anyway, Sigma sells nearly all of them in Canon and Nikon mounts, so if you have a Canon or Nikon camera, you have access to pretty much any Sigma model. And that goes for most manufacturers.
Sigma lenses with EOS mounts are part of Canon users' lens selection. As are Tokina or Tamron (or Leica) lenses with EOS mounts. In fact, you can even put Pentax M42 lenses on an EOS camera (but not the other way around). How's that for lens selection?
I'll be the first to agree that both Canon and Nikon have some real stinkers (as does ever manufacturer). But that's not the point. You don't have to buy the stinkers. The point is that when you pick a Canon or Nikon SLR, you have access to pretty much any lens out there. And that particular point (which is a fundamental one when it comes to SLRs) was completely distorted in this "buyer's guide". Maybe this was "Pentax fanboyism", as some people have suggested above, but personally I think it was just ignorance or lack of experience.
And that is why I suggest that anyone who wants to buy an SLR spend some time reading articles in photography sites, first to understand the difference between SLRs and compact cameras, and then to understand what are the ascpects of SLRs that they should be comparing, depending on what they are planning to do with them.
P.S. - I don't like the Rebel XTi, as I mentioned on another post above, and I'd never buy one, mainly due to ergonomics. But it has the best overall image quality of the four cameras tested here, and by far the best lens selection on the tele end.
astroidea - Monday, January 1, 2007 - link
Ok, so you like to tout your high and mighty canon/nikon lens selection.They do have very amazing lenses for professionals that Pentax lacks and dozens of lenses overlapping the same focal range.
However, as of March 2007, they will come out with their own line of DA* lenses, that will directly compete with Canon/Nikon's professional like. They will have the quick focusing USM motors, weather sealing, very high optical quality, and fast apertures.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092102pentaxda...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092102pentaxda...
This will fulfill pentax's most lacking sector in their lenses.
Now, with the introduction of these lenses, tell me what part of Pentax's lens selection is lacking, that a user will find themselves starving of lens choice?
Pentax may not have a dozen lenses that overlap the same focal range, but they are certainly adequate in covering their bases. Does that make them inferior? Does the lack of dozens of lenses that overlap the same focal range make pentax an unworthy competitor?
I don't see your line of reasoning in that Pentax is inadequate in their lens selection.
But tell me this, does Canon have a high quality 16-45mm F/4 zoom that costs $350? Does Canon have a high quality 14mm F/2.8 prime that costs $600?
Canon has their pro base covered with full frame 17-40mm F/4 L, and a full frame 14mm F/2.8 lens. But what about their semi-pro range for those who don't want to splurge a car worth for a camera? They'd have to pay double for full frame equivalents. How is that a good buy?
That's where Pentax excels in. It may not be the best choice for professionals that depend on their camera system costing five figures that puts food on the table. But for your average consumers, it'll easily give canon/nikon a run for its money.
All in all, each brand has their own strengths and weaknesses. To claim a brand is the end all-be all is just ludicrous. It's up to the consumer to decide what they find is important and to find the brand that best suits their needs.
Justin Case - Monday, January 1, 2007 - link
> However, as of March 2007, they will come out> with their own line of DA* lenses, that will
> directly compete with Canon/Nikon's professional like.
Yes, I'm sure that in March 2007 they'll magically be able to match the line-up that Canon and Nikon (and Sigma, etc.) have put together over the last decades... sigh...
Are you seriously saying that people should pick an SLR system based on some vague marketing promises for the future...?!?
And, as I've written above, what matters isn't the lenses that Canon (or Nikon) makes, it's the lenses and accessories that can be used with their cameras. And virtually every good lens out there comes in Canon and Nikon mounts, if only for economic reasons.
Calling the DA 16-45 a "good quality lens" is stretching it a bit. If that's your idea of good quality, I guess we're playing on different leagues. I've seen Mini DV cameras with less chromatic aberration and better corner sharpenss.
http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/26868740">http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/26868740
http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/26883592">http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/26883592
http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/26883311">http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/26883311
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_...">http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_...
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_...">http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_...
etc.
The only "good" (meaning sharp, balanced, CA-free) images I've seen from a DA 16-45 were scaled down to 640x480 and so post-processed that I felt sorry for the original photons.
It's not exactly up to the level of a Canon 17-55 2.8 or even a 10-22 (which isn't even considered very sharp). Yes, I know those are more expensive, but there are also cheaper alternatives for Canon / Nikon cameras (from the original manufacturers as well as from Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc.). Canon's 18-55 kit lens costs $100 and if it's not sharper than the DA 16-45, then at least it's very, very close (for 1/3rd of the cost!). Pentax makes a few great lenses, but that ain't one of 'em. In fact, can't say I remember any Pentax zoom that I'd rate as "good" (they do have some good primes).
Anyway, my point is that if you want a good lens, and you have a camera with a Canon / Nikon mount, you can get it. Reading this AT "article", one would get the impression that K-mount cameras not only have the best of the best lenses, but also the widest lens selection, which is simply not true.
If you read my posts above, I've written that every camera body in this test is a good one, and they can all be "the right choice" in some circumstances. My issue is with the way the article is written, and how it distorts or selectively omits facts to support its conclusions (ex., the comparison of lens lineup or the comparison of IS/VR with sensor stabilization).
Either the author did that deliberately, or he's written an "SLR buyer's guide" without understanding the point of SLRs (as compared to lighter, cheaper, smaller, and easier to use compact cameras). Either way, it's not a very good service to readers (as isn't the complete absence of comparative sample photos, but I see that more as a symptom than the cause).
gibhunter - Monday, January 1, 2007 - link
You're right about lens selection. Canon and Nikon win hands down. Though once Pentax comes out with those three DA* gems they will match the former at those focal lengths.Having said that, Canon and Nikon will still have the fast ultra zooms (600mm) and they will still have much faster AF speeds in low light. Lets face it, all dslrs have good speed with adequate light but as light levels fall, Canon, Nikon (from D80 and up) and Sony have fast AF speed. Pentax? They refuse to even acknowledge that they have a problem!
Sony's low light images are too noisy though and Canon XTI has less detail in their ISO 1600 images than the XT had which tells me that they are applying too much noise reduction.
No camera system is perfect. Pentax is good in just about everything but lens selection in pro-level glass and AF speed. Sony has noise issues in high ISO. Canon and Nikon do not have built in SR like Pentax or Sony. Pick what deficiency you can live with and base your decision on that.
For me I get irritated with AF speed on my K100D, but the more indoor shots I take, the more I realize that I could not get by without SR and clean high-ISO images I get, so for me the Sony, Canon and Nikon are out.
Yes, I could get IS or VR in Canon or Nikon lenses, but I would have to pay through the nose for it. 18-50 f/2.8 IS or VR are in the $1500 range, 3 times the cost of my camera and nearly four times the cost of Sigma's brand new 18-50 f/2.8 Macro which will be stabilized on my K100D.
So yeah, go ahead, buy Canon or Nikon, but be prepared to pay extra for it.
Justin Case - Monday, January 1, 2007 - link
I wouldn't describe lenses I've never seen as "gems", especially considering the quality of Pentax zooms I've used (ie, not very good).Sony actually has pretty good noise reduction in their compact cameras, borrowed from their camcorders. I haven't used the Alpha, but the sensor is supposed to be the same as in the D200, and the D200 is pretty good. Still not as good as Canon's, noise-wise, but close enough to be competitive (which, for a long time, Nikon really wasn't). So if the Alpha is noisy my guess is the D200 does good post-processing. It preserves detail very nicely.
The XTi has a higher pixel count than the XT with the same physical sensor size. Less light per photosite means more noise. Overall, you probably have the same detail for the whole image, but less detail "per pixel". I think the XTi also comes with different image processing defaults (i.e. "0" sharpness on the XTi is actually the equivalent to "2" on the XT). But I think you can turn NR off, anyway. My real problem with the XT and XTi is the ergonomics. The menus and buttons are ok, but the viewfinder and the grip are just terrible. Don't know what they were thinking. The sensor is still the best out there, unless you go for (physically) bigger ones (1D, 5D, 1Ds).
Unless you have Parkinson's, image stabilization at 18mm is pretty much useless (even "proper" optical stabilization, which is better than sensor stabilization, and fine-tuned for each lens). Using a faster lens (ex., f/2.8 instead of f/4) will give you much more noticeable improvements than stabilization. Stabilization is only really useful above 50mm or so. Below that, in 99% of cases, blur is caused by subject motion, not camera shake, and a stabilizer won't do anything about that; what you need is a faster lens, good low-light AF and low noise.
People can put the Sigma 18-50 on their Canon or Nikon cameras, and it costs exactly the same as the Pentax mount version, so no, you don't have to be "prepared to pay extra" (for the same). The difference is that if you're willing (and able) to pay extra, you can get something better.
The Sigma 18-50 is pretty good at f/5.6 and above, but if I'm going to pay for an f/2.8 lens, I want it to be good at f/2.8, and at that aperture the Sigma doesn't really come close to Canon's 17-55, for example.
Yes, that extra quality has a price (+200%, in this case). But if you're not going to buy good lenses for your SLR, then chances are you're better off with a compact P&S (some have image stabilization, too, and pretty decent lenses).
A "budget SLR" seems like the worst of both worlds. I don't mean the camera itself; newer, better and cheaper cameras are released every 6 months (and you can pick up last year's model for peanuts, in 2nd hand). I mean the lenses. A top-quality lens doesn't devalue, and will give you better results with future cameras. A so-so lens will only look worse as sensor quality increases, and effectively limits your image quality, crippling your fancy new camera.
mongrelchild - Saturday, December 30, 2006 - link
Yes, you did in an above post, completely without explaining your reasoning and labeling the author as clueless for prefering one.
As for primes, one of the best ever pentax lenses is the 28 f/3.5 and is regarded as being massively better than even the 50mm
Here is what you are: A nikon fan who thinks there are no other viable options and who disseminates misinformation, a la ken rockwell to convince newbies to think like you.
Maybe for you there aren't any other viable options. But I could never choose the oversharened messes Canon outputs to the film-like output of a Pentax. I just don't like the way the Canon pictures look. Having never used Nikon (except for a few minutes), Olympus or Minolta , I can't judge their products.
But to imply that anyone who chooses pentax is a clueless fool is ludicrous. Ask ANY current pentax owner is they're satisfied, they'll say yes. Pentax has up until recently been THE standard SLR, whether you like it or not.
Their lenses are exceptional for ludicrously low prices, and their DSLRs are very capable products.
I didn't like the article even though I mostly agreed with it. But it's important to remember it's not a review. Just the author's opinion and weighting of different specifications.
I maintain that if you are not Ken Rockwell, then you are his child molesting twin brother.
Justin Case - Saturday, December 30, 2006 - link
I see you have me all figured out... except... I don't own a single piece of Nikon equipment, I had no idea who Ken Rockwell was until I searched for it, and no, I never said that "Pentax sucks". So either you got me mixed up with someone else, or you live inside a reality distortion field, or you're the article's author posting under a different name... either way, not really worth the time to read, let alone reply.Wesley Fink - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
Thanks for taking the time to post detailed comments.1 - I certainly agree SLRs are about lenses and I talked about this in depth in my earlier article "Digital Photography from 20,000 Feet". I did not feel it needed to be repeated in a Buyers Guide, but your point is well taken.
2 - Sigma makes almost all their lenses in Pentax AF mount. It is true they are not available everywhere for Pentax, but you can find the popular and unusual ones like the 10-20mm on eBay, at Amamzon, and some large etailers. THere are MANY more Pentax KAF mount lenses available from 3rd parties than 4/3 mount lenses for example - if that matters to you. It is true Tamron has fewer Pentax mount lenses available, particularly in their newest designs, where the newest Sigma designs are almost all available in Pentax/Samsung.
3 - Compatability does not mean just older MF lenses. THere are many Pentax AF lenses available that are fully functional on the new K10D, K100D, K110D. There are also many KA lenses that do all metering functions on the new Pentax - everything except AF and there is focus assist built-in for that. Older K-mount lenses from Pentax and many other makers also will meter but they do not provide complete lens info to the body - you need to tell the cmera the focal length for AS with the early K lenses. Any lens you can mount - directly or by adapter can meter manually, focus with viewfinder aids, and utilize AS after providing the camera with focal length. This is certainly more than basic compatibility and is worth praising in my opinion.
4 - I agree metering systems are critically important, and should have been covered in the Guide. The K10D offers accurate 16-segment metering and the ability to select multi-zone, center-weighted, and spot metering. You can also turn on (or off) the linking of the active AF point to metering. I did mention the unique exposure programs like the Sensitivity Value program and Hyperprogram with user adjustable aperture and/or shuter speed.
5 - The Nikon D80 and Pentax K10D both provide the most extensive options in the guide. If you are familiar with Nikon menu logic, as you are, the D80 makes perfect sense. However, many have complained that the D80 has everything buried in mensus and is very complex. I find the K10D very easy to use and particularly like the Fn dial with the most commonly used menu items and the RAW button for when you want to shoot a few RAW shots spontaneously. I find the D80 equally satisfying, with great options.
The rest of your points have been addressed in other comments here. In general we are back to the question of what role AT can play in Digital Camera reviews. While you may not agree with my picks based on your personal situation, I think most people will find my expressing an opinion and rational for that opinion more useful than 4 reviews that all end with the same buying rating.
Computer parts are becoming cookie-cutter similar in some categories, while Digital SLRs still have unique personalities and unique lens capabilities in each lineup of new lenses and in the very active used market for lenses. We hope we can provide information so our readers can better navigate that landscape.
haplo602 - Friday, December 29, 2006 - link
after 3 tries with always an error when posting the reply:I agree for most part. Of course my comment was biased with my own experiences :-)
Anyway since my previous reply to you was lost (probably login timeout), I'll keep this short.
Looking from a lens point of view, Canon and Nikon are the clear winners.
Looking from a body features point of view, the Pentax followed by Sony.
Looking on the price, Sony wins (IIRC).
There are many points to argue in between (like weight and bulk of the Pentax body vs the weather sealing). And many people will come down to price (Sony) and accessory options (Nikon and Canon win here).
If you want a faster P&S and you'll never use any other than the kit lens, you missed 80% of what the SLR can do for you. Image stabilisation is available in fixed lense cameras, you don't have to worry about dust on sensor, they offer larger zoom range than any kit lens (up to 12x). Sure they are slower, there's always a negative point somewhere.
As AT is not a photo site, I'd expect a buyers guide to reflect the PC guides. In those you start with a budget and draw out a picture of the capabilities you expect from the PC in the respective price ranges. Than you start to assemble them to meet the stated minimum functionality. I'd expect something like that also from this SLR BG.
Anyway the article is not that bad, has some nice information.
mostlyprudent - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
WOW! I had a difficult time deciding where to put this post so I gave up and added a new thread.I agree with some of the criticism, but think much of it would have been of more value if put in constructive terms instead of insults to the author. What bothers me about the article is that over 3 months ago we were promised "reviews" of several 10MP DSLRs, but this reads like something that was thrown together in a hurry. Are those reviews still coming?
I have been shopping for a DSLR body for many months and have read just about every review I can find. I only own a couple PAS digicmas (1 Canon, 1 Fuji) so I really don't have any bias (or expertise). But as a well accomplished overshopper...DSLR's are all about the lenses!
A casual shooter who is going to stick to the kit lens and maybe 1 other lens probably cannot go wrong with any of these cameras. For example, most review sites agree that the Olympus E-500 is outclassed by the competition. But if you read user reviews of casual shooters at various retail sites, they all are thrilled with their purchase. For casual users, spending an extra $200-400 for 2 more MP or spot metering is probably not worth it.
If you are looking to become a hobbyist photographer (or more) it's all about lenses.
In the case of the D40, if all you plan on using is the kit, go for it. If you plan on building a system, think twice. Your first Nikon lens upgrade is going to cost you over $1,000 (unless you don't mind manual focus only). But why limit yourself when Nikon has a great line of affordable AF lenses that will autofocus on their other DSLRs?
Personally, I like the entry price into the Pentax K searies, but having spent so much time reading lens reviews, Canon offers the most comprehensive line of lenses that fit my anticipated uses - with Nikon as a close second. For me it's a long term investment I cannot quite find satisfaction in the Pentax line of lenses - at least not comparatively speaking.
As for the Rebel XTi build quality, it feels plenty sturdy to me. Is it built like a tank? No, but I don't think any of the other DSLRs will survive a fall from the second story balcony. CAlling it the lowest quality camera is not accurate. So, I like the compromise of material in favor of portability (although that 30D is so tempting).
I have been an Anandtech reader for at least 6 years. I recently spent 2 hours at a Christmas party having an electrical engineering PHD candidate help me start to understand (on some level) all the information I have stored in my head about processor pipelines, FSBs, digital vs. analog signals, etc. (many of the other guests, including my wife, were giving me the "what are you talking about" look). But that is what I appreciate about Anandtech articles. Eventhough I cannot always fully understand AT's processor and video card achitechure articles, I always enjoy making the attempt. The attention to detail and methodology are almost always impressive. I have come to trust AT conclusions more than any other tech site.
If you're going to do digital camera reviews, I think you have to go all the way. Take them apart...help me understand why camera's with the same sensor perform differently, etc.
Swampthing - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
This comparison is frankly ridiculous. The sony over the nikon and the canon? Please people do yourselves a favor and read a real site that knows something about camera's. The sony has been shown on tons of pro camera sites to be a noise laden monster and doesn't hold a candle to the XTI or the nikon offerings even though the nikon uses the same sensor as the sony it still takes a better picture. Plus you have a ton more lens choices with the nikon and canon. And on top of that once you outgrow that body if you upgrade your canon or nikon to the next level you still are able to use your lenses. What's sony got for a higher level offering that compares with the canon 5d, or any of the higher level nikons. There's also a bit of misinformation about the XTI in this article, i would think the reviewer would do better to do his homework a little more. Next time just save your review and post a link to dpreview or somewhere else that does more exhaustive and accurate reviews.mongrelchild - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
A ton?Really?
So Minolta's history of excellent lensmaking, much of which is compatible with the sony DSLR is to be conveniently forgotten?
Rick72 - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
There are a number of areas within the article that I feel should be revised. If not, it should at least be understood that they are not accurate. For example, everything i've read states that more than 6mp makes no difference unless your prints are huge. Anything larger than 12x24 and you're not going to see a difference."In practical terms it is very difficult to tell any difference between 6 and 8 megapixel images, or between 8 megapixel and 10. However, there is a discernable improvement in moving from 6 to 10 megapixels."
This really makes no sense. If you can't see a difference between 6 and 8mp images and you can't see any difference between 8 and 10mp, then doesn't this mean that you can't see a difference between 6 and 10? It's exactly what it means. Again, you're not going to see a difference in day to day use.
Another statement that concerned me:
"The Nikon D40 is a significant upgrade to the D50 it replaced, with a larger LCD and faster operation."
Completely subjective, yet stated as fact. These cameras are given their names for a reason. Nikon had originally planned to give it the D60 name, yet it was dropped and rebadged as D40. Why? Well...when compared to the D50, the D40:
- loses 2 AF Sensors (has only 3 AF points)
- AF-S (internal motor) lenses only. Won't focus with older (or current, brand-new non-AF-S) AF lenses
- No top LCD (those who have been using this for years will miss it)
The D40 does have a bigger/nicer LDC. Not sure i'd trade it for the above missing items, though.
mongrelchild - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Previous SLR was an old Minolta SRT-201 with a wonderful - and cheap! - 43mm prime. It is about that time that Sony bought Minolta, and I wanted nothing to do with them as a result.I got my first DSLR back in July. After mych deliberation, i had narrowed it down to 3 choices.
Canon Rebel XT, Nikon D50, or Pentax *ist DL. All had similar kit lenses.
After using the Canon for about 20 minutes, i rejected it ouright. It felt cheap, it was way too small for my hands, and the viewfinder was atrocious. I didn't like the menus either. Another problem I had was that the images looked oversharpened and overprocessed... Coming from film, this was not something I wanted, but I can see how it would appeal to others.
Nikon vs Pentax now:
What is never mentionned is that for the 6mp class, Nikon D50 and ALL the Pentax cameras of the time had the exact same (sony) ccd. Differences were in the processing.
I liked the Nikon picture quality. I liked its heft. I liked its multipoint autofocus.
I hated the menus though. The li-ion battery didn't appeal to me either but it was not a dealbreaker.
Pentax DL
The viewfinder was AMAZING, and this is just the crappier pentamirror, not that much better than the Nikon's, but lighteyars ahead than the awful Canon.
The image quality was excellent, easily on par with the Nikon.
Nice, quick menus.
So I bought it. It was around the same price at the time, maybe 50 bucks less or so.
After using it for a while..
Pentax has a collection of TOP-NOTCH, cheap primes, every last one of which works flawlessly on the DL.... All the way from the 1940s-era M42 mount to the latest, greatest digital-only AF bayonet mounts.
Good high-iso performance.
very intuitive control
The faults?
"Soft" JPEG images means careful attention for pics on the wide end. It's a very film-like softness but pics are somewhat sharper in RAW. This may not bother some though.
Lame, 3-point autofocus.
Ugly, Canada-only silver body... irrelevant.
All the above faults were fixed on the k100/110d and later cameras.
So, 2000 pictures and 2 'new' lenses later?
50mm f/1.4 (circa 1975)
DA 50-20mm zoom (brand new)
and of course, the 18-55 kit lens...
I am completely satisfied with the camera. Picture quality blows me away time after time, and completely destroys my P&S Canon SD600.
The 3-point autofocus wasn't really a limitation, as I find that I use spot-focus almost exclusively.
AA-NIMH batteries are widely available and cheap.
All I wish was that I had waited 4 months for the k100d! I despise flash and when it's dark, you have to be real careful about camera shake, but the 50mm made this much easier. I have a decently steady hand... But SR in any form would take some of the pressure off....
BTW, for software:
I don't know what Nikon's software us like.
If the Canon software for DSLRs is their Zoombrowser suite (also included with their P&S models)... then I feel very bad for Canon owners.
Pentax's suite is based on Silkypics. Not the fastest software out there (not smp-optimized... why!?) but it is extremely powerful and gives excellent results.... better than Adobe Camera Raw.
What it comes down to is that Pentax DSLRs are right for me.
Everyone I have seen who owns one is completely satisfied also, and there are some wonderfully sharp and contrasty, ancient lenses to be had for cheap.
SR/VR/IS is not a necessity if you know what you're shooting and plan accordingly. But it's a nice feature to have. But to pay 800 bucks per lens that has it seems ludicrous to a hobbyist like me.
What it comes down to is personal preference. Most Pentax owners act like fanboys because of an addiction to their cameras.
I don't know about pro-level, I am not a professional. But at least for the consumer/hobbyist level, Pentax offerings are extremely viable.
What it comes down to is preference. Try each DSLR you're considering and decide what you want and which is right for you. Brand reputation is meaningless nowadays and listening to fanboys in either camp is a sure-fire way to make a bad purchase.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Thank you for commenting. The K110D, K100D, and K10D all three now have 11 point autofocus. The processing engine in the K100D/K110D are now faster in focusing and better in image processing than the earlier models. The K100D and K110D are identical except for the Anti-Shake included in the K100D. When you consider the K110D has 11-point AF, user programmable Auto ISO to 3200, fast autofocusing, and the new processing engine it is an amazing buy at $400 for the kit ($350 body only).I did point out in the review that all the cameras except Canon use the Sony sensor. Another exception is the smaller 4/3 sensor in the Olympus. But it never hurts to mention it again. I am amazed that many Nikon owners don't even know that Nikon does not make sensors for Digital SLRs.
spazmedia - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
But Nikon does make the equipment necessary to fabricate sensors, which Sony uses.AxemanFU - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Makes sense though. Nikon makes good, reliable, top quality bodies pretty consistently, but what they specialize is in the optics. Nikon has never been an electronics company, per say. If you look at their product ranges, it is more about imaging, printing, and all fields of optics from microscopes to binoculars to camera lenses. All still imaging, too.Sony has long been a general electronics company, so it is not so suprizing that they'd have dedicated lines of component manufacturing. I for one am not suprized Nikon would use the same quality components that Sony uses itself. The Japanese tend to be a bit xenophobic about such things that have their major national labels on them. Canon has a relatively broader range of products than nikon, so I'm not suprized they also have their own line of optic sensors, rather than take them from Sony. Canon competes with Sony in many more areas than Nikon does.
That also explains why Sony always seems to bump up the megapixels a few months before Nikon does..they know the new CCD sensor is coming from their own R&D firm further ahead of time.
dlxmax - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
LOL, Sony is the pick in the 10mp range? Clearly Anandtech doesn't know squat about DSLR's. The lenses for the Sony are markedly inferior to those available for Canon or Nikon...and everybody should that it's the lenses that are available and their quality that truly matters. The camera body is secondary.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Sony was chosen as the best value, at a current $720 for the body and 18-70mm lens at Amazon. The lens covers a greater range, equivalent to 28-105, and it is optically superior to the kit Canon lens. The Sony lens/body is solidly built and selling for a street price about $80 lower than the tiny, plasticky Canon Rebel XTi.Minolta has also produced some very well-regarded lenses over the course of many years so you are frankly just misinformed. You probably don't even know that Pentax pioneered autofocus and Minolta made the first successful autofocus camera. Just when the world seemed to be all Canon and Nikon (who buys their sensors from Sony (Minolta) by the way) Pentax and Sony/Minolta have produced very competitive new models. Popular Photography must also be misinformed, since they named the Sony A100 the Camera of the Year 2006. This was before the Pentax K10D was introduced.
Our pick for best 10 megapixel camera is the Pentax K10D. The Nikon D80 follows closely. Those Canon and Nikon fanbois posting comments about our stupidity should also mention whether they have ever even held a Pentax K10D or shot with the 21mm F3.2 pancake or 31mm f1.9 or 77mm f1.9 Pentax lenses. We agree that you buy an SLR for lenses, and some of the most innovative and high-quality lenses for digital in the past year have been produced by Pentax.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
To be clear the Sony A100 was the Best Buy or the best price among the 10 megapixel models. The Pentax K10D was named Best Value, as the most 10 mepapixel camera for the money. We stand by both those recommendations.spazmedia - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
Didn't Minolta get sued for steeling the auto focus idea from Honeywell? ;-)And do all Minolta lenses have focusing motors in the lens? Are they silent when focusing? There are lots of lenses available for Nikon and/or Canon that are not available elsewhere. To each his own.
gibhunter - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
That's just one of the FUD Canon's owners are spreading. Canon is definitely faster, but only accuracy helps you get sharper pictures. It is pretty well known that Canon sacrifices a bit of accuracy for outright speed. Canon is the fastest focusing body and it can mean the difference between taking a shot of a great moment or have it pass you by while you're waiting for the camera to focus, but that's all it is. That's why Canon is so popular with pros shooting sports. I'd venture to say that as long as we're talking about accuracy no system is quantitatively better than another.
Now on topic of optical vs. body based stabilization. It has not been proven either way that one system is better than another. It's been proven that body based system is kind of limited at 1.2 meters (the length tested at dpreview). I have not seen any tests where one system was compared against another, but I have seen examples of 300mm at 1/30th tack sharp on Pentax forums and have taken sharp images hand-held at 1/10th and consistently sharp at 1/20th with my K100D. Optical stabilization is not available on any Canon or Nikon primes. It's not really needed until you get into low light photography where even the fastest primes need to go down to 1/20th or 1/30th of a second. Then you will appreciate having it.
Optical is better at one thing though, it allows for vertical stabilization while you're paning (following a moving object so it's sharp while the background is blurry). Pentax stabilization system can't do it. What it can though is give you stabilization on all your lenses, even 30 year old 50mm primes. I know it can because I've tested it myself using two different manual primes.
What can't be disputed is Canon's lens availability. You can find more lenses at lower prices and you can find great, expensive pro-level quality lenses on the Canon. You can also get USM primes (something not yet available for Nikon unless you consider Sigma.) Canon's bodies leave a lot to be desired as far as control and innovation go, unless you get into $3000+ territory of 5D. 30D pales in features compared to Nikon D200 or Pentax K10D. Then again those features are just a matter of convenience as you can take equally beautiful images with all these cams.
spazmedia - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
I find it strange that you do not see any pics produced by each camera. Essentially all that the author is doing is comparing specs of camera, which to add insult to injury this is done erroneously. On page 2 the Canon XTI was one GREAT advantage not mentioned is the improved autofocus engine, borrowed from the 30D, which according to many reviewers is better than any camera mentioned in this review, and definitely better than the K10D. It helps to get sharp pictures!In any case I advise anyone visiting this site to go to some more thorough review sites on photography to SEE what kind of pictures each camera takes and also try in store each one of them. You can’t go wrong with any of them, except that Canon arguably has the best lens lineup for the price and low noise, Nikon have to arguably the most useable cameras, Pentax and Sony have the best bang for the buck, body wise (but not when it comes to lenses, which are more expensive and low availability) Anandtech is good for computer hardware reviews, but for photography, they still have some work to do!
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
This is a Buying Guide and not a full-blown review. The viewfinder images were mostly shot with the camera they are identified with.We welcome criticism at AT, unlike some other sites. However, it is frustrating to be criticized for inaccuracy in leaving out info when that info is in the review. On p.1 "All of the 10 megapixel SLRs are faster than their predecessors - borrowing processing engines from higher priced models (Nikon and Canon) or pioneering new high-speed processing circuits (Pentax and Sony)." Then in the Canon XTi section on p.2 "Canon basically increased the resolution of their CMOS sensor used in the 8 megapixel Rebel XT to 10 megapixels, and dubbed the revised camera the Canon Rebel XTi. They did incorporate the improved image processing guts of their semi-PRO 30D and finally added their own dust removal system . . ." Perhaps you should read more closely.
spazmedia - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
Thanks for the reply. I did read through "fairly" closely and I still don't understand how you can associate "image processing" with auto-focus, to me these are two different things. I think it would be worth mentioning clearly that the Rebel XTI focuses faster and more accurately than its predecessor, seeing it is top of its class in this respect. This is probably the single biggest reason for upgrading from the previous Rebels and I way I hate Canon for dolling out features.And I still think a few images from each camera would have been nice.
AT is usually very thorough and I would have expected this in their camera reviews/buyers guide as well. Maybe some sort of table comparing features would have been useful.
finbarqs - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
i've taken one photography class in black and white, and that opened up a whole world of photography for me and the wonders of the camera. I mean both Pentax and Canon and Nikon all pioneered something in their field, and i'm sure they have their strong points and their weaknesses. The truth is, the weakness being digital, and having the dynamic range of film is quite difficult to obtain. Sure we can use Neutral Grey Density filters, but still not quite the right thing. Then we can setup a tripod and do the "Dynamic Range" in photoshop but that's just up to the person.Personally, I wish i had enough to purchase the Canon 5D just so i can have their full frame image sensor. I hear it's the closest you can get to the reaction of lighton the film emulsion surface vs. film on the sensor surface. I may be wrong again since this is my first class, but then again, i've learned a lot from this class. Besides, I've taken awesome shots with the XTi, and i know for a fact that changing different cameras will only improve it by a little bit.
*sigh* might as well go back to film :D
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
The bigger sensor on the 5D (and 1Ds) gives you shallower depth of field, which increases your "artistic" control over the image. Also, the fact that the sensor is physically bigger means it can receive more light, and therefore produce an image with less noise. But the size won't really influence the dynamic range of the sensor.With film, you can sometimes get some detail in an area that was overexposed by 3 or 4 f-stops. With digital, that range is about 2 stops, if you're lucky (and shoot in raw mode, of course).
So yes, in that sense, digital still can't quite match film, but it already has less noise and more detail, so, for correctly exposed images, it already beats (35mm) film, even with smaller sensors. If you need a higher range, then you can use exposure bracketing but, of course, that isn't always possible, so film still has its place.
finbarqs - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
umm... from what i've learned, Depth of Field is determined by the setting of the apeture (F-stop) the lower the F-Stop (bigger apeture) the less DOF you have. Of course, again the benefit of the 5D and the 1D is not the Depth of Field, but having all lenses "normal". Meaning, a normal lens would be 42-55mm again, standard wide angle is 28mm, and standard telephoto portrait would be 135mm (of course anything above normal would be tele, anything below normal would be wide). And to get more detail, usually we just stop down as much as we can (since 35mm is usually limited to f/22 or f/32 -- most i've seen unless shooting with medium format or greater). Oh well... Detail lies within the size of the film as i have learned, and as far as digital goes, both size and quality of the sensor. The CMOS chip, is quite impressive.Justin Case - Friday, December 29, 2006 - link
> from what i've learned, Depth of Field is> determined by the setting of the apeture (F-stop)
For the same sensor / film size, yes. But if the sensor size is different, that will also affect the DOF. A smaller sensor will give you a narrower FOV and a bigger DOF, using the same lens and same aperture. That is why it's virtually impossible to get nice out-of-focus backgrounds with small digicams - the sensor is too small.
For example, if you put a "100mm" lens on a 1.5x crop factor camera (like a Nikon D200), where the sensor isn't the same size as a 35mm frame, you'll actually get an image equivalent to a 150mm lens (on a real 35 mm camera), and also bigger DOF. Which is good for holiday snaps, not so good for "artistic" photography.
Also, most lenses are optimized for f/stops between f/4 and f/16 (f/8 and f/16 for cheap ones). If you close down more than that, quality actually starts to get a little worse at the focus point (you will increase the DOF, so you have more things in focus, but focus is never quite as sharp - it's a tradeoff).
"Detail" is a broad concept. More pixels doesn't necessarily mean more detail, because as you cram more pixels into the same sensor area, each one gets less light, and is therefore less accurate (i.e., you get more noise, and that can actually make a sensor with more pixels produce _less_ detail). A similar thing happens with film: more sensitive film will give you less detail, because it has more grain.
Seasonpraises - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Just to let you know, you made a mistake on Page 5 of your article regarding to the Pentax K100D and Samsung GX-1S. Samsung GX-1S is NOT a rebadged model of K100D, instead it is a rebadged of the Pentax *ist DS2 model. GX-1S *does not* have built-in image stabilization. The digital K-series is a brand new line to Pentax digital SLR line. Although one thing to remember is that both K100D and K110D feature the cheaper type of the pentamirror viewfinder, which covers around 85% of the view (based on normal 50mm lens). On the other hand, the new 10MP K10D and the Samsung GX-1S feature the Pentaprism viewfinders, which have 95% coverage. I know this because I currently own a Samsung GX-1S. But the Samsung is still a good camera for its low price. I got mine for $700 with 18-55mm kit lens, a Pentax F50/1.7 and a Tamron 80-210mm on ebay.I also found a spelling mistake on Page 2 of your article. Under the Autofocus section, you spelled Canon as Cannon. It's not a big deal tho, but just want to let you know.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
You are correct. The Samsung GX-1S does not have IS and is a rebadge of the older *ist DS2. I have corrected those references in the review. The Samsung GX-10 DOES have image stabilization and it is a rebadge of the K10D.dsumanik - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
The problem with this article is that it basing the final recommendations on the camera performance alone. Im sorry, but as a photographer i would not shoot anything but nikon or canon period.When you get into the DSLR world, and the whole reason for taking the plunge into an SLR camera...is that you have an interchangeable lens.
All modern digital camera bodies provide exceptional quality...you literally cant go wrong.
However once you take into account the long term value of your purchase you have to consider a wider picture, literally.
The purchase you make with your camera brand, locks you into the upgrade path with that brand's lenses.
Out of all camera makers, the best quality lenses are from nikon and canon, period, and by a large margin.
If you want pro quality images, that have that "pop" and first impression that blows you away...you'll soon discover it is the lens, not the body you capture it with, that truly makes the difference between a crappy snapshot and pro artistry.
A portrait shot on an 85mm 1.4 prime on a nokon d70, will blow the pants off of the same image shot on the $5000 D2Xs with a p.o.s sigma wannabe $200 zoom lens.
Go canon or nikon, spend as little on the body as possible, and buy the nicest lenses you can afford.
The d40 is actually the best value on the market right now, regardless of what this article says. The image quality is superbm it is extremely compact, affordable, and works with a good majority of the pro level zooms availiable from nikon.
In 5 years you will be shopping for new camera bodies, in 10-15 years these high end lenses from nikon and canon will still be very valuable, holding thier resale value, providing excellent, sharp, amazing images.
And BTW, it has been proven already that "in lens" image stabilization is better than the "in body" sensor stabilization, so you get what you pay for....nikon and canon do it this way for a reason.
Nice article anandtech, but obviously written by computer hardware junkies and missing perhaps some long term vision, and maybe the point of buying an SLR in the first place....
Its not for the body, its the access to the lenses.
so that should be your first consideration before you choose a brand.
appu - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
I've thought long and hard about this, and while I do not know of any site or text or any other resource that says clearly that one method wins over the other, I personally believe in-lens stabilization is better for the following two (main) reasons -
1.) With an in-lens stabilizer, you are actually seeing a stable image in the viewfinder. I think this is important. SLR photography is all about seeing the image as you are going to record it, and it makes more sense to me to see a stable image in the 'finder rather than guess at something and letting the sensor finally decide exactly what's captured. Also, with a really long telephoto lens, focussing can be tough if your image in the viewfinder is all dancing around.
2.) Current in-sensor stabilization offers only two dimensions of anti-shake - length and height-wise. Actually it was interesting to read in the article that Pentax's K10D delivers shake reduction along diagonals as well. Still, this cannot compete with the virtually unlimited degrees of freedom the gyroscopic lens element in VR/IS lenses has.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists will continue to say that the big two will continue to use VR/IS in their lenses only to get more money out of selling more VR/IS-enabled lenses. I don't think camera manufacturers and photographers are all that naive. Infact, I'm willing to bet my a*** that the likes of Canon and Nikon are now exploring the possibility of sensor-based stabilization techniques that can work in conjunction with VR/IS-enabled lenses if needed. A simple custom setting in the camera body that tells it to automatically use in-lens stabilization when detected will enable photographers to have the best of both worlds. Or I'm probably just being too optimistic. In any case, we haven't seen the end of this debate - but I'll stick to in-lens stabilization for now.
I'll agree with the first point and disagree with the second. One of the reasons why Pentax didn't make it big like Canon and Nikon is probably because they didn't have a sturdy enough body pros could bank on. Their lenses were always damned fine.
I'm not saying any this out of fanboyism. I own a Pentax film SLR and a Nikon DSLR - neither of which is a pro model - and I'm perfectly happy with both. The reason I bought a Nikon DSLR over a Pentax DSLR last year was because I wasn't quite impressed with Pentax's DSLR offerings back then and in any case it's difficult to find Pentax models here in India, whereas Nikon and Canon are easily available, and more importantly, easily serviceable if needed.
The fact remains though that any body is fine if you're shopping for one right now. It's the lenses and other accessories (flashes etc.) and support/service backup that matters more, and while Nikon and Canon are a lot better in this aspect, Pentax isn't far behind. They definitely aren't behind by a *huge* margin, and they've already developed some new lenses to go along with their modern DSLR offerings. Presumably these lenses offer the better linear resolution digital sensors require over film to really make the pictures shine. If I were to buy a new DSLR and a bunch of lenses right now (assuming I don't have the cameras I already have) I definitely wouldn't rule out a Pentax K-mount system.
dsumanik - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
I agree pentax is nice, and you make some very valid points, and obviously have some experience with what you are talking baout. Pentax is definately not "inferior".But if i got 10 grand to blow, ill be stopping by the canon or nikon shop. And would recommend anyone else in that same position to do the same.
why?
because i KNOW, without a DOUBT, you will have a winning combo either way.
The new pentax sounds great on paper, and is also a great system in reality. In the hands of a competent photographer it will provide all the tools necessary to get the job done, and then some.
However, i just sold my 80-400mm VR on ebay 2 days ago for 1330 dollars CAD. I paid 1530 tax included and shipped brand new (which was 300 dollars off the retail so i got a good deal to start with). I took care of the lens, and it didnt lose value.
here is a link ot my auction:
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&i...">http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...mp;item=...
thats proof of why it is good to with nikon, as long as you care for you gear you have an excellent chance of getting your money back out of it when you look to sell and upgrade, which every photographer will do at some point.
Nikon and canon gear holds its value extremely well, will have far more potential buyers in the future, and will be more desireable to a resale buyer. This is something that needs to be considered when spending thousands of dollars on anything...be it a car or a camera lens.
I personally own high end nikon gear...tried canon out on many occasions, and have seen extremely impressive results on both systems. I KNOW, without a doubt, that either of these companies provide EXCELLENT upgrade paths, warranties, and image quality...
im not informed enough to make a comment for any other brand, but that said i dont see any reason to ever consider anything else apart from these two brands, and definately cannot be ignored by anyone making a serious venture into photography.
Congratulations on your pentax, and to all other pentax owners out there, and for pentax challenging the envelope to push all camera makers be better and coming out with a very competitive product, im sure your camera will provide you excellent images for years to come!
As the results of this thread are showing however, theres more to the story than anandtech has portrayed and recommended, even though it was a wonderful article made from the point of view of a new DSLR buyer, in the SLR world its not just the inital purchase that can be taken into account, and getting that one or 2 pixels of sharpness or saving yourelf a 100 bucks on the body wont make jack squat of difference when the picture is being printed, or when you mount a nice fast high end prime, stop the lens down, and capture detail that isnt possible with inferior glass.
"best buy" perhaps, for the first intial purchase.
Then you wonder why the guy with 3 year old d70 shooting through a 70-200mm VR is blowing the socks of what your $1200 brand new camera and lens from sony is able to do.
oh wait i cant get that lens if i dont own a nikon f-mount camera.
Good thing my new alpha has 1 pixel better resolution and cost less than a D80.
anyways like i said.
Research photography in general before you buy.
Think of what you want to do as a photographer, what kind of shots you want.
Look into the cost of additional lenses.
Look into what is availiable form your potential brand.
see how those lenses compare to others.
Plan your purchase path.
If whats avialibale form sony, pentax or any other "off brand" is good enough for you...then congratualtions, and happy shooting.
If you want the best, expect to pay way more than ytou thought and dont waste your time buying the cheap stuff...commit, and buy quality glass from the start...itll be cheaper in the long run, and youll get better pictures.
dblevitan - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I don't think this is a good article at all. It's inaccurate in places and gives users a bad recommendation.First, as some have already pointed out, you don't buy an SLR for the body - you buy it primarily for the lenses. The body is going to be good for a few years, and then be replaced by another body, but you can still use lenses that are 40 years old on Nikon cameras (at least on the more expensive bodies).
Second, the recommendation that people should buy SLRs is misguided. Most people do not need SLRs. SLRs are bulky, heavy, and annoying to use unless you want to fiddle with every setting possible and understand what you're fiddling with. If you just want to pick up a camera and take a photograph, point and shoots are what you need, not an SLR.
Third, cameras need to be easy to use. You need to be able to get to all the right settings quickly and easily. My D70 is very good at this, but there are still times I get annoyed with it due to stupid features. This review never looked at these issues.
Fourth, among other things, the review noted that Nikons use the top LCD to display settings. They do, but they also use the main LCD for menus to control the camera (and certain features). If certain cameras light up the main LCD for settings display, then this is just bad, since it will just blind you at night.
If you want a good camera review, there are much better sites than this for it. The article also seemed a "This is how good Pentax is and how bad all the other cameras are". Maybe the author wasn't thinking this, but I definitely saw the slant.
yyrkoon - Tuesday, January 9, 2007 - link
Thats your opinion. We all have them, like a few OTHER things . . .
What do you recommend for the first time SLR buyer then ? Go out and buy a bunch, or few lenses, and let the lenses take pictures by themselves ?
See, now buddy, you're stepping into my realm. I've owned a PaS Camera for some years now, and while its fine for other than low light situations, it will NEVER take photos as well as a Nikon D40, or D50. Dont EVER presume to tell people what they should use, you have no idea what they need, or want.
Let me say this: lets assume you're a photographer, how would you like it, if you were an amateur photographer, and I compared you to a Professional, and told everyone that if they wanted to see a REAL picture, go see the other guy ? I think you, and all the other nay sayers are old, cranky photographers, who are getting pissed off, by someone who is clearly trying to help out those of us who know little about photography. That is, 'we' aren't professionals, and you're pissed, because 'we' aren't paying YOU to take our pictures.
All of you, how about getting off your high horses, and staying at those photography site you seem to love so much (whom I will just about guarantee DO NOT go out and buy their own cameras for reviews). The rest of us, who may need, or want an entry level DSLR may actually be interested in this article.
In simpler terms, stick to the business you claim to know so well, photography. Let the rest of us 'imbeciles' alone. *wave*
Frumious1 - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
There are a LOT of people that would like to have a better-than-PaS (Point and Shoot) camera but don't need a bunch of lenses. A good SLR with 2-3 lenses can be very nice to have around. Talking about size is fine when comparing to many PaS models that take okay pictures, but there are shots you can't take (fast motion stuff) with PaS that you might like.I myself am very much an amateur photographer. I take pictures of family sometimes, I've attended some sporting events where I wanted to snap some photos, etc. but I am by no means even at the pro-sumer level. And yet, given the choice between some of the more expensive non-SLR cameras and a decent entry-level SLR, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat over a lot of other options... as a second camera.
I'm happy with my Canon Powershot SD400, but it really doesn't take great pictures compared to my Canon Digital Rebel... even when I only have the kit lens and a "portrait" lens on the latter. I doubt I will ever have more than three lenses for my SLR, and I'm not going to buy any of the $300+ offerings. So, in that case, what will be better for me? Another Canon or Nikon, or perhaps the Pentax stuff really isn't as bad as some of you are making out?
Presumably, Wes has personally tested all of the cameras discussed in this article. This isn't a review of cameras, though, merely a guide to what he experienced. Now, if that's correct, have you actually used any of the Pentax stuff or are you bashing it merely on what you've read/heard? (By "you" I mean IronChef, Justin, etc.) Second, when you talk about "whipping out your camera and snapping a shot in five seconds", I could care less, so obviously advice from you isn't really applicable to me. Another pro might agree wholeheartedly with you, but amateurs may not do things the same way. I know I don't!
If Wes has tried all of these cameras and actually finds that the Pentax stuff can really be better in terms of price/performance than the heavyweights, I'm inclined to believe him, at least from an amateur viewpoint. I really DON'T plan on upgrading SLR bodies on a regular basis, and I DON'T plan on investing a lot of money in lenses. I want some good basic SLR stuff for the situations where PaS cameras just fall short. Besides, when you're talking about high-end PaS models that cost $500+ and lower end SLRs that cost $500, doesn't it seem like an SLR is going to be quite handy as a secondary camera for a lot of folks? My dad is interested in getting one as well, because his small Sony PaS isn't really doing everything he wants. Maybe I can give him my Rebel and then I can go out and get a Pentax 100D for kicks?
Again, let me put it this way: my pocketable PaS if fine for a lot of quick pictures and such, stuff I might post on the web, but for example the pictures I took around the Christmas tree yesterday look washed out/blurry/noisy compared to the images I took with the SLR. I have a few using the SLR that I may go out and print because they look very nice. A higher-end PaS might match the quality of my SLR, but considering I bought it used with two lenses (kit plus portrait) and a 2GB CF card for $600 that's not too bad a price I don't think. I'd love to know what I did wrong by picking up this relatively inexpensive SLR package. IMO, an entry level SLR is not something everyone needs, but at the same time it shouldn't be avoided if you've tried several PaS models over the years (I have) and were repeatedly left wanting.
IronChefMoto - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
If you buy your first dSLR, spend $50 - $75 on a decent, well-padded camera bag to go with it. I overbought for my first and only Nikon SLR -- a Lowepro Orion AW beltpack/backpack. It was expensive, and it also wasn't easy to use with a single camera body and 1-2 lenses.Test a bag out with your camera at a local camera store. No -- NOT RITZ CAMERA!!! They don't have decent bags. They sell what your mom would buy for a friggin' point and shoot.
Go to a real camera store showroom with your camera and try out a few bags. The most important thing to look for is accessibility. How quickly can you take the camera out of the bag and shoot a picture? The fancy bag I bought was awful -- took too much effort to pull the camera out and snap a shot.
I just got the Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW, and it's MUCH better for rotating around (it's like a sling-backback) and grabbing the camera and/or a different lens/accessory.
BTW -- the "AW" on a Lowepro bag means that it's got a hidden water repellant pouch that can be pulled out and wrapped over the bag in the event of rain or dirt/mud. VERY handy at a baseball game when the bottom drops out -- I know from experience.
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
But try to get one that doesn't just scream "steal me". :) I use a custom-modified rock-climbing backpack to carry my lenses. From the outside no one would say it has over $4K of photo equipment inside it. And when I'm in some places (think big street markets in South America), I carry the camera with a single lens inside an ordinary plastic bag. Hold it the right way and you can go from totally undetectable to ready-to-shoot, and back again in less than five seconds.IronChefMoto - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
Here's my 2 cents -- the poster who called Wesley's article "sad" is sort of right. If you want the most comprehensive reviews of digital cameras, those and other websites are the place to go.Does it mean that Fink's article is "sad?" No -- he probably put some decent work into it. Give the guy a break. I did detect a hint of Pentax love in the piece, but whatever. I'm a Canon convert from Nikon of late, so I'd probably lean Canon if I were writing it. Do I agree with that sort of slant? Absolutely not, but we're not writing the articles, are we?
Honestly -- if you're coming to Anandtech for photography hardware reviews, you need to buy a handheld point and shoot. Otherwise, you're going to get a 5 page review on 4-5 cameras and come away with...a Pentax recommendation (niche product?) with props to a great rebate on the camera (???). That said...
...if you're serious about trying a dSLR, and my Rebel XT is my first, ask someone who already shoots with one, if you're uncomfortable reading the other website reviews (complicated and such). I knew enough to read the articles (with some photography background and instruction) AND ask questions of owners. But you ALWAYS ask questions of owners who know what they're doing with their hardware. If they shoot professionally, they can be a really great resource.
Most folks I asked pointed me to one thing -- lenses. You buy a body as an accessory to lenses that you already own. If you don't have any lenses, then you start from scratch, and the buying process is much more involved. The body may have features this or features that, but all the image stabilization and doodads on the body aren't going to help the operator (a) compose and (b) shoot a better picture. The glass will help paired with good skill.
Read fred-miranda.com (???) for reviews of good lenses by real users. Pick one out that may meet your day-to-day use needs. I selected a pricey Tamron 2.8 28-75mm lens that does well in a lot of lighting/portrait situations, and I couldn't be happier with it. I spent about $200 more than the kit total from B&H, but I also have a lens that I can move to a new body later on.
Finally -- DO NOT BUY FROM THE CHEAPEST SHOP YOU FIND ONLINE! There's a website out there where visitors post photos of the addresses for the Brooklyn and NYC scam shops that sell grey market camera equipment. I can't remember the address, but it's scary -- Russian mafia scary. Think abandoned warehouse from Robocop scary. B&H is your best bet for getting quality service and reasonable pricing. Can you save going other places? Yeah. Can you get your CC # and home address back from the Russian mob after you get your grey market camera? Probably not...
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Yes, I completely forgot to mention Fred Miranda's site. Not as thorough as the others, but lots of different opinions, which is always good (also because it gives an idea of how good the quality control of each manufacturer is).I was a Nikon user for a long time, then I sold my gear and switched to Canon when I went digital. I missed Nikon's wide-angle lenses, but Canon's teles and amazing IS made up for it. Now Nikon has pretty much caught up in terms of image quality (they still don't have any 35mm sensors, though), and Canon also have a couple of good wide lenses (the EF-S 18-55 2.8 IS is amazing, shame it's not an EF). If I was going to start from scratch today I'd probably go for a Nikon D200. All things considered, I think it's the best value for money, at least until Canon releases a successor to the 30D.
Justin Case - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
If you want to read about cameras, check out DPReview, Steve's Digicams, Imaging Resource, etc.. This article is just sad. It seems that it was written by someone with 6 months' experience in photography and basic "Google skillz".http://dpreview.com/">http://dpreview.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/">http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/">http://www.imaging-resource.com/
etc.
Frumious1 - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
If you want to just come and post hate and tell people to look elsewhere, please just STFU. Your post is just inflammatory. It seems like it was written by someone with 6 minutes of skimming the article and basic "Asshole skillz".We all know there are other sites that do digital camera reviews. They often go way overboard on features table and jargon use without just giving the basic information of "why is this particular camera better?" As a quick introduction and BUYER'S GUIDE this gives people a lot of good information. I own a Canon Digital Rebel, and it works fine for me, but I'm sure it is far inferior to the latest models and I frequently think about upgrading.
What I got from this review: Canon and Nikon seem to be resting on their laurels quite a bit, and no doubt they will still sell a crapton of cameras. Bigger doesn't mean better, though - unless you think Dell makes the best PCs? Personally, I'm glad to see people like Pentax challenging the big players with features that are truly useful (builtin stabilization rather than expensive in-lens solutions). That doesn't mean I'm going to buy a Pentax right now, but maybe Canon will finally get off their asses and make something a bit more revolutionary than just a quick regurgitation of last year's model with a higher MP sensor and a few other tweaks.
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Canon and Nikon are light years ahead of the competition, as anyone who really understands photography can tell you. Even the original Digital Rebel will wipe the floor with anything Pentax has to offer, simply because it has better colour rendition, better SNR, and (above all) a much, much better lens line-up (which is the whole point of SLRs).8 MP are more than enough to print at any normal size; beyond 6 MP or so, what matters in a sensor is its physical size. Cramming more pixels into the same space only produces noisier images. A bigger sensor with the same number of pixels will have less noise, and therefore produce better images, especially in low light situations. Not to mention give you more room to play with DOF.
Built-in image stabilisation will never come close to Nikon's VR, let alone Canon's IS (which is in a league of its own). Not unless they start making the cameras much bigger, to acommodate complex optical stabilisation systems. Anyone with a bit of experience with professional equipment knows this. Good optical image stabilisation takes up space.
Your complaints about dedicated camera sites "going overboard with features and jargon" could make some sense if this was a review of pocket digicams (then again, you'll find that the sites I listed above have perfectly accessible reviews of pocket digicams, too). But it is not. This is an article about SLRs. Someone who doesn't know anything about cameras shouldn't even be consideirng an SLR - it's more expensive, it's heavier, and it's harder to use. A dummies' guide to SLRs is like a beginner's course for supersonic fighter pilots. They don't put you in one (and you shouldn't want to be put in one) unless you've had a lot of experience flying simpler, safer aircraft, and understand the concepts involved.
If you have some experience with compact digicams and are considering an SLR, then what you need to read is an article about photography (Dan Rutter has a couple of good ones on dansdata.com, as do the sites I listed above), not a (clueless) review of different models, that seems based on the spec sheets instead of any real experience. And once you do understand how SLRs work, go read a review written by an experienced photographer (or two, or three).
When I want to read about computers, I go to an IT site. When I want to read about photography, especially professional and semi-professional equipment (which is what SLRs are) I go to a site run by photographers. But hey, maybe I've been doing it the wrong way around. I can't wait for the new article on database servers from Luminous Landscape...!
appu - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
I agree with Justin. I respect Anandtech and have been a regular reader for 5+ years now. I will give credit to Wesley for taking the effort to summarize what's at best a very difficult market but I don't agree with the conclusions he's drawn. Price and in-camera stabilization alone do not make a particular SLR better than another. I tend to think Wesley *knows* his cameras and photography and that this article is probably an effort to make a review more appealing to the IT-centric minds of AT readers. However, I will say that a buying guide for cameras should be decided on different criteria, and much as I appreciate Wesley and AT for making this effort, I'd rather they do not. They would just be doing themselves a great injustice.Unfortunately for cameras in general and SLRs in particular, digital has made them commodities just like IT components. There was a time when camera bodies really were an investment. Digital SLR bodies however are like computer peripherals - obsolete by the time you decide to get the model you like. The newer ones are always better and are released so soon (upgrade cycles of 12/18/24 months on consumer/prosumer/pro lines) that all the money you spend on your camera body isn't going to get you anything in return when you upgrade. In that sense, an AT review to identify "value" among camera bodies makes sense, because for the average amateur or hobby photographer, it makes more sense going for a slightly less sturdy (but nevertheless rich-featured) camera body and put the hard-earned cash down for some good lenses, because it's the lenses that really make a camera body sing (or draw, whatever) after all. So I'd like AT to - if they continue reviewing digital SLRs, that is - focus (please excuse the pun) on this angle and make it explicit that it's this angle they are focusing on.
What I'm saying is that their articles should probably state at the outset that they're targeted at the casual amateur photographer who is looking for a lot more flexibility over what's offered by pocket-sized digital cameras. The serious photographers (read: those who want to make it a profession or dedicated hobbyists) can obviously go elsewhere.
vailr - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
Did you overlook Fuji D-SLR's?Example: FUJI FILM FinePix S9100 9.0 MP Digital SLR $444.89
http://www.abesofmaine.com/viewproduct.asp?id=fjfp...">http://www.abesofmaine.com/viewproduct.asp?id=fjfp...
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
The Fuji does not have the ability to change lenses, it uses a viwfinder like move cameras rather than true optical viewfinder,like you find in SLRs in this guide. It uses a much smaller sensor such as you will find in point and shoot cameras instead of the APS C size or larger sensors found in SLR cameras. It is "SLR-like" but not an SLR. It is a fine camera for what it is, but it is not in the same category as the cameras metioned in this guide.Fuji does make a specialized digital SLR, the S3 and recently announced S5, that use Nikon lenses. Prices have recently dropped on the S3, but it has sold in the $2000 price range and is a favorite of some wedding photographers.
AxemanFU - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I had to take exception to this. Nikon has never made one of their budget scale downs better than the predecessor, though they do sometimes make them almost as good. The D40 lacks an integral autofocus motor, so it relies on the AF lenses to have their own autofocus, and most lenses still don't have that integrated. This means it is somewhat useless for your older Nikon AF lenses unless you enjoy manual focus. The D50 optics and autofocus are also virtually identical to that of the D70, while the D40's are substantially less sophisticated. The D50 is a significantly more capable camera over all, though the D40 is a nice camera in it's own right. New buyers getting new lens kits can go with a D40 and be happy, but anyone that has invested in Nikon lenses previously would be wasting thier money most likely.ElFenix - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
well, not really, unless they are the AF-S models, as the lack of in-body autofocus motor makes all the other nikon lens into manual focus, iirc. better to get the D50.soydios - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
IMHO, this is a rather important fact that isn't in the article: the Nikon D40 (unlike every other Nikon DSLR) does not have an in-camera autofocus motor. This means that only Nikon AF-S lenses, which have the autofocus motor in the lens and are not nearly as prolific as the rest of the Nikon F-mount AF lens family, fully function on the D40. Older Nikon AF lenses, which are the entire reason that I purchased my D50 six months ago, do not autofocus on the D40.Awax - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
Except for the 3 point autofocus and the lack of integrated lens autofocus engine, everything is better on the D40. The D40 will in 90% be associated with the kit lens only: this is an entry-level D-SLR and as it, is better than the D50. If you already own a D50, you'll better go for the D80. If you own an argentic SLR <ith many lenses, you'll probably buy new lens since the new generation digital only lenses are much better than the old/classical argentic lenses.PCHPlayer - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
Did anyone else get the feeling that the author was a Pentax fanboy and the conclusion was going to be in favor of the Pentax line? Unfortunately I found the article quite shallow. I would highly recommend going to dpreview.com to get a real in-depth analysis of these cameras.Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Personally, I just got the feeling the author is completely clueless. Take this paragraph, for example:"Sony continued the then-unique in-camera image stabilization pioneered by Minolta, which allowed any lens mounted on the camera to take sharper pictures at slower shutter speeds."
Image stabilization simply helps reduce blur caused by camera vibration. It won't do anything to make pictures "sharper". At slow shutter speeds, if the subject moves, the picture is going to be blurry, no matter what. Image stabilisation makes no difference to that. And if the subject doesn't move, then most of the time you can simply use a tripod (or rest the camera on top of a table, or whatever).
And to mention Sony and Minolta (and Pentax) as examples of image stabilization is ridiculous. Nikon's VR is 10x better than anything those three have ever done and Canon's IS is 5x better than Nikon's VR.
Then there's that amazing paragraph titled "COMPATABILITY" (sic), which basically reads as a love letter to Pentax. They've made 25 million lenses! Whoa! Leica have only made around 2 million, so I guess that makes them crap. Maybe I should sell my Summilux and "invest" in some K-mount glass? Sigh...
When someone considers that Pentax beats Canon and Nikon in terms of lens quality and selection, I think it's clearly time to call for the paramedics.
fass mut - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
do you have link to the comparison between in body and lens stabilization? as far as i know, there is a slight benefit (.5 stop to maybe 1 stop) to in lens stabilization but that benefit is greatly off set by the price.buying a full range of lens with built in stabilization i.e. lenses that cover say 28 mm to 300 mm would cost a small fortune (~$2500-$4000 maybe more even). for me, that money saved could be plowed into better accessories like tripod, bag, flashes, heck even a faster computer or wide screen monitor to post process...but that's just my opinion.
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
No amount of post-processing is going to recover detail that your lens didn't capture in the first place. When you invest in an SLR system, the main element are the lenses. That's the main difference between SLRs and compact cameras, and what some people don't seem to understand.If you can't afford good lenses, then use a compact camera instead. It's easier to use, cheaper, lighter, etc.., and can also take great pictures. Lots of great photographers use them. In some situations they're not just "as good" as an SLR, they're actually better.
And you don't need a full lens range with image stabilization. In fact, many great photographers managed to go through their entire careers without ever using ONE. But if you're going to use (and possibly rely on) image stabilization, you need it to actually be good, not just a marketing gimmick.
Lots of lenses aren't available in stabilized versions anyway. Lenses above 400mm are usually quite heavy, and used on a tripod, and below 70mm or so, vibration isn't a big problem. So a lot of photographers have only a couple of stabilized lenses, or even none at all (I have one, I might get one more, and I doubt I'll get any after that). Stabilized lenses are useful when you need to "track" subjects a lot, at long distances (ex., wildlife).
The only way you can really see the difference between proper optical image stabilization (ex., Canon IS or Nikon VR) and sensor stabilization (which has been used for a long time in video camcorders, BTW, namely Sony's) is by trying it.
It's not a matter of "how many stops" it gets you (that's just an over-simplification). It won't do anything for subject movement, and if you are using a tripod it won't make any difference. The effect depends on the vibration, and the vibration depends on each situation. If you are shooting a still subject under low light with no tripod, yes, maybe you can talk about gaining 2-3 stops with Canon IS. But that's just one specific situation.
It would be perfectly possible to add great image stabilization to cameras, but:
- It would make the cameras bigger
- It would make the cameras heavier
- It would make the cameras more expensive
And it's more or less useless when shooting at wide angles, and worse than useless when shooting on a tripod. 95% of people would never pay for it, or pick the heavier, bulkier camera. So some brands just use this "sensor stabilization" as a marketing gimmick, to make buyers think that, for an extra $75 or so they're getting image stabilization similar to what they'd get from a $1500 lens. They're not, of course.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's simply on a different league from lens stabilization, just as those MiniDV camcorder "stabilizers" are on a different league from a full SteadyCam harness.
The way the article's author dismisses VR / IS as if they were just an "overpriced version" of the same thing suggests that he never actually used it.
And I found it funny (though not surprising) that this AT article's "demonstration" of sensor stabilization was actually an unrealistic mock-up taken from an ad, not a real test image. In fact, it's funny how a review of four cameras manages to have so few pictures taken with those cameras and such poor pictures of the cameras themselves.
Photographers have a term for people who judge cameras by looking at their specifications (instead of at the images they produce): measurebation.
mongrelchild - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Get the hell out of here, Ken Rockwell.No one cares for your misinformation.
mongrelchild - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
That was a reply for Justin Case, who by his preferring the K100's PQ to the K10s demonstrates that he has used neither of the products.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
I have owned many Nikon and Canon film and digital cameras over the years - as well as a current Fuji S3 (Nikon lenses) and a D80. The Fuji S3 is well-suited to our work which is mostly "still-life" where the S3 excels. It would be a horrible camera for action photography. My last Canon Digital was a 20D. I have also owned both VR and IS lenses from Nikon and Canon, and have a fair amount of Nikon glass.There is definitely a place for lens-based VR/IS, but most of the VR/IS that I see being sold is for $200 Nikon/Canon entry zoom lenses that now cost $400 to $600 with lens integral anti-shake. It is easy to defend pro glass with IS, but most users who read this Buyers Guide will not spend $1500 to $2000 or more on the lenses you talk about, they will buy the $400 to $600 overpriced VR/IS zooms that are f4.0-F5.6 and not that great to start with. For most users, body-integral AS is a much better and cost-effective solution that works with any lens mounted - and yes it is more effective on some lenses than others.
Modern DSLR cameras communicate lens info to the processor, so it is possible for AS to be customized in processing for the lens in use. Under $1000 is still entry-level and this article is not aimed at Pro's. The entry kit lens for both are also pretty awful - both the Pentax kit and Sony kit are actually better lenses. At least Nikon offers a kit lens upgrade option, but it brings the price of the upgrade D80 kit to $1300.
Pentax and Minolta have made some superb AF lenses over the years. If you doubt that compare some lens qulaity ratings at www.photodo.com. Canon learned Pros want more than glass - they want the service and hand-holding that Nikon has provided to Pros for many years. Don't project the Pro orientation of Canon and Nikon into beliefs that their glass is superior, because it isn't. All four companies have some wonderful lenses and some dogs. Sony/Minolta, Pentax/Hoya, Canon and Nikon all have some pretty mediocre low cost lenses these days - aimed at low cost buyers. All four also have some superb glass. If you're a Pro who needs a long super-fast telephoto for a sports assignment - cost be damned - then you will find it at Canon or Nikon. However, for the photo enthusiast or hobbyist that is the intended audience for this guide, Pentax and Sony can give the buyer excellent selection and value.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Since you seem the most vocal in calling me clueless I ask if you can please share your experiences when you tested the Pentax K10D and some of the new lenses like the 31mm f1.8 or 43 f1.9 or the pancake 21mm f3.2. Can you comment on the handling, build-quality, and lens line based on real hands-on experience? Or are your comments based on intuitive knowledge since everyone knows Canon and Nikon are the best?We tested ALL FOUR cameras in this review and we bought the cameras with kit lenses and 50mm F1.4 lenses. No manufacturer supplied samples for testing. We did borrow some lenses from friends for testing. Opinions are always welcomed, but you have turned your commenst into a personal vendetta. Since you have so much to say please share the basis of YOUR opinions. We would all like to hear you own personal testing experiences with the Pentax K10D.
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
I've used a K10D for about 20 minutes - enough to see that the image quality seems _worse_ than the K100D (which was actually quite promising). With a 10-MP sensor, it can't quite match the detail of an 8-MP Canon. But, above all, it has a lot more CA. Where a Canon or a Nikon (or even a Sony) will get you crisp neutral edges, the K10D gives you red / cyan fringing. Maybe it's CA from the lens, maybe it's just poor processing of the Bayer-pattern sensor. Either way, it's there and it hurts the image quality.Add to that the lens selection (which is what SLRs are all about - keep the glass, upgrade the camera), and the K10D only really makes sense to someone who already has a lot of money invested in K-mount lenses.
If you want a longer "article" I'll be happy to write one, but don't expect me to do your job for free.
Anyway, there are already plenty of articles about these cameras. It just seems that almost everyone reached a conclusion different from yours (the K10D is a good camera, just not the best, and Pentax lenses definitely aren't the best). I guess those guys at DPReview, Steve's Digicams, etc, just don't know anything about photography...
feraltoad - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
I think you, Justin Case, are fairly knowledgeable and have a lot of experience with photography. I also think that you consider Anandtech to have overstepped its bounds by venturing into reviewing photography equipment. Therefore, although I may be wrong, I certainly have to take everything you say with a very large grain of salt since you seem to have ulterior motives that run along the vein of checking this sites "impudence". Also, you seem like a real asshat. My sincere apologies if I am mistaken, but the value of any of your comments are eroded and negated by the contempt.Justin Case - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
I have nothing against Anandtech (or any other site) reviewing cameras or writing about photography. In fact, I've mentioned above (or possibly below) that Dan's Data (for example) has several good articles about photography. And there are several brilliant articles about photography on sites like Slashdot, Kuro5hin, etc., not to mention photography websites, of course.My problem is when someone without any knowledge of a given subject (any subject) decides to hack together an "article" about it, based on very little experience, incomplete information, and a bunch of specifications they don't really understand.
It's like evaluating a sports car performance by looking at the engine specifications. They're not completely irrelevant, but they don't tell the full story (or even the first paragraph) of what it's like to actually drive the car. Anyone can compare manufacturer's PDFs and repost images from the manufacturers' advert^H^H I mean, press kits.
And people who do that are only spreading misinformation, for the sake of their own egos or (more likely) a few thousand ad impressions and sponsored link clicks. And that pisses me off, because, although I can spot the bullshit on subjects that I know (like photography, or computers), I might be (and have been in the past) misled by this kind of approach to "journalism" in other areas.
This is a review of four cameras where the author doesn't even compare or show photos taken with those cameras. Enough said.
Anandtech has been going downhill for some time now. If it wasn't for Johan (and some of Anand's own articles), I think it would make even THG seem respectable.
Frumious1 - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
Why don't you just go the fuck elsewhere then? Every comment you post seems to bitch about the quality of Anandtech in some way - even the offhand compliment to Johan was used as a way to bash the other writers. I guess the video card information, buyers guides, motherboard reviews, etc. just suck ass, don't they? Sort of like your posts.I for one understand what is meant by BUYER'S GUIDE! It's not a goddamn review of every item mentioned. If they were, this SLR BG would be about 20000 words instead of 5000, and the various computer buyer's guides would probably clock in at something like 50000 words. Obviously, this GUIDE didn't cover every detail of every camera, and most of us aren't - as the above poster so eloquently put it - asshats that like to nitpick.
I read this article and came away with the impression that all of the expensive cameras are good in their own ways, and Sony and Pentax are able to compete with the Canon and Nikon. Does that mean they are universally better? OF COURSE NOT! No one with half a brain would get that from the text, which is clearly intended to be a brief overview rather than covering every facet. Now, having read this BG, people might be more inclined to do a bit more research on the Sony and Pentax models rather than just buying a Canon or Nikon like everyone seems to recommend. Or they might end up sticking with Canon/Nikon for various reasons. There is definitely a market for higher quality SLR cameras without the intention of investing in dozens of lenses, though, which you STILL fail to grasp.
What I've gathered is that you think Canon and Nikon are the shizznit, and you tried a Pentax for 20 minutes and decided it sucked. Obviously, you know way more about photography than I do, but at the same time I wouldn't presume to judge any PC product after only 20 minutes, even though I've been using PCs for almost 30 years now and have a pretty extensive background in the industry.
What's really humorous is that all of your other beloved camera-centric sites that have looked at the K10D seem to rate it as essentially the equal of the Canon and Nikon offerings, and quite a few have been damn impressed by the Sony as well. If you have $10K of lenses for Canon or Nikon, of course you're not going to bail on that just to switch to a new body that might be better in a few areas. For the many people that are now looking at potentially affordable $500-$700 SLR cameras, though - people that very likely don't own a single camera lens yet - it doesn't matter nearly as much.
I'm NEVER EVER going to spend $1000+ on a camera lens, and probably not even more than $150. A decent SLR can still serve a purpose, however, as the best quality point-and-shoots rarely if ever offer all of the features of a moderate SLR. Only the larger SLR-like point-and-shoot cameras can handle lower light situations even remotely effectively, and those typically cost as much or more than entry level SLR.
Again, though, maybe I'm mistaken? What's the best point and shoot out there for the various markets? Specifically, what $500 PaS is going to be better than the $500 SLRs mentioned, or what $750 model will beat the Sony? Don't tell me something like a Canon Powershot either, as I have one and while it's great for stuffing in my pocket there are MANY situations where the images I've captured look very poor (not to mention much slower focusing speed, inability to take fast-motion shots, and a number of other issues).
Anyway, I'd really be quite pleased if you left and spent more time over at Tom's bitching and moaning. They're used to it there and rarely bother responding to criticisms. They are also clearly "bought out" when you read many of their reviews. Just like HardOCP and Kyle's lovefest for anything AMD (or whoever else is willing to buy him a new truck). Your primary ASSumption here has been that Wes knows nothing about photography, and quite clearly that is not the case. He said some stuff you disagree with, and so immediately you label him "clueless" - and yet you haven't actually done ANY testing with several of the products he talks about, so you're basically just shooting from the hip and going with what you've read elsewhere. Talk about doing comparisons based off of "spec sheets" (reviews)....
When you've actually tried a Pentex K10D for a couple months with a variety of lenses, come back and tell us how it really compares and then we might listen. Yeah, that's expensive, and that's precisely why none of us will do it. Until you can actually do so, though (borrow a friend's camera and leave your biases behind), you're basically just telling us what everyone already knows: if you have a major investment in Nikon or Canon equipment and you're happy with it, there's no way in hell you would ever switch to a different brand.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Actually dpreview total scores for the 4 cameras were 53 for the Nikon D80, 52 for the Pentax K10D, 50.5 for the Canon XTi, and 50 for the Sony A100. Since the Sony is now the cheapest 10 MP camera it's value score would likely go up in an updated review, making the Canon the worst of the lot. Dpreview also gave all 4 cameras their "Highly Recommended" rating.I also found the Pentax K10D and Nikon D80 the closest of the group, but it is my opionion the anti-shake, built-in sensor cleaning, better build quality, and unique creative features tilted the recommendation to the Pentax. It should be mentioned that Pentax includes their excellent RAW editing software with the K10D, while Nikon makes you buy their best RAW software as an add-on to the D80. If you are going to quote other sites as evidence to support your own beliefs you should get your facts right.
BTW, not a single review I read found an issue with red-cyan fringing. I also looked at all the images I shot and did not see any unusual "red-cyan" edge fringing as you describe. Perhaps you looked at a defective sample. Did you find the same issues with RAW images?
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
It seems you always get accused of being a fanboi if you recommend anything other than the safe - in this case Canon or Nikon. I would suggest you compare a Nikon D40 and Pentax K100D side by side as we did - you might actually be surprised. As for the K110D there is no other camera that sells for $450 with lens, let alone one as full -faeatured as the K110D. The same goes for the 10 megapixel models. As I said in the review the safe choice is Canon or Nikon, and Canon will sell a ton of cameras even if it is the worst of the 10 megapixel models.Actually I have owned Canon and Nikon for years, and the D80 has been a personal favorite since it came out. It is still the best in autofocusing speed compared to anything, but I was blown away by the quality and features of the K10D. Another AT reviewer, who owns Minolta/Sony recently got a chance to examine and use the K10D on a trip to China and was trying to figure out if it made sense to sell his existing lenses and camera to buy the K10D. The concern, of course, is Pentax is no Canon in size and the best value from smaller players does not always win in the marketplace.
Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
No. If you recommend a Canon, the Nikon fanboys will label you a Canon fanboy. If you recommend a Nikon, then the Canon fanboys will label you a Nikon fanboy.But when you recommend a Pentax SLR, you're labelling youself "clueless".
gibhunter - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I like that you guys tested auto focus speed, but your test is incomplete. All dslr cameras perform well in good light. What sets them apart is their performance as light levels drop to where you need to use fast lenses such as the 50mm f/1.4 and ISO 1600 to achieve shutter speeds fast enough not to have blurry shots due to camera shake. Yes, the Sony and Pentax systems will greatly help with the camera shake, but both have some serious shortcomings.Sony has very high noise levels. Their noise at ISO 800 is greater than Pentax, Canon or Nikon at ISO 1600. Sony's ISO 1600 is barely usable and limited mainly to small prints.
Pentax controls noise very well, but its autofocus performance in low light indoor photography from my experience with the K100D is very slow. It often takes well over a second to achieve focus lock. In comparison it takes the Nikon, Sony and Canon less than 3/4 of a second. It's a difference that can result in some missed photos.
Your tests address the noise issue, but they do not touch on low light focusing speed and it would be of great interest to see if Pentax improved on the K100D with their K10D.
takumsawsherman - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
While my Sony experiences have not been great, for many years I have enjoyed shooting with Minolta Maxxum cameras, from the 7000 to the Alpha 707si (if not for being stolen I would still be using my 7000s). Minolta didn't get too much love in the pro market, but they truly had some wonderful equipment, especially the older lenses. In the last few years manufacturing was not as high quality, but I have used Nikon, Canon and Pentax, and still prefer the Maxxum (though the K1000 was a great cheap SLR that could take a beating).So it is nice to hear that Sony has apparently made a decent camera with Maxxum lens compatibility. I don't shoot digital, for many reasons, but the anti-shake (I'm horrible in low-light) and reasonable price tempts me. The adjustable diopter might help me with my focus, too, as I use my focusing ring to make up for not wearing corrective eye-wear :).
yyrkoon - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I have a Sony dsc-p200 P&S 7MP camera, and I have to say, for what it is, its great, however, don't expect to take pictures on the moon, and get surface detail . . . I know a professional photographer that uses this same camera for quick shots, and he loves it(this is how I came about getting mine, got to try it before i bought it ;) ).Another friend of mine, has a Cannon 20D, it also is an excellent camera, but its getting dated, and the XTi IMO comes from great lines, but just isn't up to the rest in quality.
Personally, I've been interested in the Nikon D80 for some time, but perhaps by the time I get ready to spend, the Pentax will win me over . . .
finbarqs - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I like the XTi's ergonomics, but i guess different strokes for different folks. I do like the fact that Pentax actually feels of high quality, and the biggest problem the XTi is the "cheap" plastic build quality... But i do love their CMOS technology and their noise reduction method!Justin Case - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
Yes, Canon still has the best sensors (and best telephoto lenses - /me hugs his 70-200 2.8 IS), although Nikon as virtually caught up with the D2X and D200 (and they have the best wide-angle lenses, although Canon's 18-55 2.8 IS EF-S is bloody amazing).The XT / XTi is fine if you have small hands, but my big paws will almost cover the lens when I grab one. I hope they release a new model soon, with the 30D / 1D / 5D body and the XTi's improvements.
noxipoo - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
*DROOL* 70-200 2.8 IS, i'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8L, can barely afford that one... anyway, have your tried the XTi with the battery grip? XTi is a good size to me, but bigger wouldn't hurt either.Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
Speaking of battery grip, that's another thing that annoyed me about the XT (and XTi) - they halved the battery's capacity. Sure, now they can say it's lighter (than the original DRebel), but you have to carry twice as many batteries! Duh. I haven't tried it with the grip, but it feels like a hack. I'd rather wait for the 40D (or whatever the successor to the 30D will be called).The 70-200 2.8L is great. The non-IS model should be just as good, optically, and a bit smaller and lighter (and cheaper, of course). I bit the bullet and got mine after playing with some similar lenses from other brands, but this one is on a different league. It's actually sharper than some primes on the same range.
Right now I'm pondering on whether to trade my next vacation for an EF-S 18-55 2.8L IS (I've used one briefly, and it's amazing). It's probably the best autofocus lens in that range from _any_ manufacturer. Of course, that would sort of "lock me" into the 1.6x sensors, but that might not be such a bad thing, if future EF-S lenses are going to be this good.
Justin Case - Tuesday, January 2, 2007 - link
Correction: I mean EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, of course. The EF-S 18-55 is not f/2.8.noxipoo - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link
has canon said how long they are committed to the EF-S mount? last i heard canon hasn't said a thing.noxipoo - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
the canon cameras will outsell everyone else by a lot i think, as usual.yyrkoon - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I'd like to point out for those who don't know already, and perhaps you "guys" could include it in your articles, or future articles. There are Web sites out there, that sell Cameras at unheard of prices. For instance, when I was pricing the Nikon D80 about 3 months ago, everyone, except on site was selling them at comparable prices. This one web site was selling them MUCH lower than the rest, and there was a good reason. These web sites (some argue are all owned by the same company, just different sites) are rip offs. They mark the camera down, take things like battery packs, warranty, lenses etc out of the kit, and claim, so basically, all you're buying is the camera, and then try to charge you, the customer unheard of prices for these things that are supposed to be sold in the kit. Not only this, these web sites sell cameras, that were originally supposed to be sold in other countries . . .Anyhow, if the price is too good, it is, don't fall for the trap. If in doubt, search the web site in question on resellerreviews.com or some such site. Also, I'm not sure why, but google allows these people to advertise with them, and thus, they will likely show at the top of any google search, under featured advertisers . . .
Luckily, being the cautious person I am, I never got duped, but there are MANY people who have been . . .
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
We have seen the same things in online shopping for cameras. It is a common tactic among unscrupulous sellers who always seem to be located in New York City. That does not mean all NY camera sellers are bad, because there are a number of excellent sellers in the city like B&H. If it seems way too good to be true it probably is.What you describe is the reason we mentioned in the guide that our prices came from large well-known etailers like Amazon and Newegg. The Amazon price on the entry Pentax K110D kit is currently $452 (or $402 for body only) with a $50 Pentax rebate reducing the price further.