Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:30 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:31 pm 
Hello all!

For a while I am checking this great site for information on DSLRs as I am about to buy on within the next month or two.

At first I aimed at the FZ18 due to its huge zoom range and attractive pricing but then I decided to go for a DSLR instead for better low light picture results. It was actually the noisiness of the FZ18 that made me think twice.

However, I set a budget (somewhere within the 400€ range) and boiled it all down to either the Sony A200 or the Nikon D40.
Now I came across the Pentax K100D Super - what about this one? 11-points AF, anti shake, dust remover, 6MP.. sounds like a great alternative to the D40, which is rather basically equipped and the A200, which means to generate less good fotos.

What do you think?

The D40 and K100D Super is already quite "old" and starts at ISO 200 (how much is that a problem BTW?) although offering great pictures. Sony on the other hand offers just (a bit) more for only 50€, around £40 more, is younger and has a greater zoom range albeit a somewhat dull lens quality.

Prices today:
D40 - 350€ (280£) / 300€ (236£) body only
A200 - 400€ (315£) / 330€ (260£) body only
K100D - 390€ (307£)

Body-only prices is somewhat disproportional IMO.

How does the D40 perform in comparison to the A200 and other 2008 DSLRs?
How do the lens qualities differ?

Thanks for your input,

PS: I know about alternative lenses and such but I will wait until I am more experienced. The purpose of the camera to be purchased are everything between portraits, holidays, city trips, artistic pictures, landscapes. So, everything and nothing ;)

Last edited by philip on Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:05 pm 
since nobody seems to have an idea I will throw in another player, the E-410.

Sold either with a 17.5-45 or 14-42 kit lens. Downsite of the four-thirds system is the limited amount of suitable lenses, e.g. a 18-200 Sigma. Still I think these will be featured somewhen. I will however stay with the kit lens anyways for the first month or year. Therefore its quality is important to me as well.

Gordon's reviews are probably time bound and don't put the cameras in an overall ranking, does it?

What does deliver better images (quality wise) with its kit lens, the A200 or the E-410?


 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:57 pm 
hi Phillip, sorry to have you wait that long,

for comparison of A200, D40 and other entry level camera,
I have developed a comparison chart here:

and for the question whether Sony kit lens or Olympus kit lens is better,
here's my conclusion:

Olympus is more well-rounded, light and performed above average
but the focal lenght is medium 28-82mm (because of 2 crop factor).

while Sony has a longer range in telephoto end and also performed well
But Sony prone to with chromatic abberration in 50mm or below.

Personally, I will say Olympus kit lens are more favorable, especially
if you value light weight and hate the Chromatic abberation which is
color fringing in contrast edge.

both kits lens are off course not sharp as more expensive lens.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:45 pm 
Hi Enche

thanks for your reply! :)

I read your post and it has been one of a few during the last weeks. ;)
Until know I feel most confident about the A200. The large grip pad felt good although the cam tended to nod to the left when I held it. As a comparison I had the D40 which is quite lightweight and small.

From the reviews I think the Sony is a sure shot, somewhat mediocre but a decent start.
I will probably upgrade the lens within one year - again a point for the Sony which has a wide (third party) lens-range to choose from. I am thinking about a Sigma 18-200 for the beginning.

In this comparison the Olympus E-510 underexposed the images - do you have similar experiences?
What do you think about the validity of this test?


(I accidentally deleted my initial post before I could send it and I know I mentioned some things more - maybe they pop up later.)

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:08 pm 
yes If we talk only about the camera, A200 is better buy than tiny E-410.

about the link you gave me, I think it is just about right exposure, we can read the text more clearly than the right one.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:21 pm 
Your are probably right about the exposure. But then (at least in this review) the E-400 and E-510 and probably the E-410 are underexposed by default or by the lacking skills of the photographer.

I did not expect the decision on a DSLR to be that difficult to make. :roll:

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group