File :-(, x, )
4:3 Anonymous
I was shopping for a DSLR camera. Just weighed in all the options near 700 dollars. Really liked the reviews of the Olympus 510. I get excited all these recommendations and high reviews, great photos, best lens kit....but then I noticed none of the photos in gallery's were "wide" and that's when it hit me...

No one ever points this out in any reviews. I am a newbie, so I did not quite catch that the 4/3 system literally meant 4:3. I don't get the advantage! Great camera, but I have a widescreen monitor? Movies are "wide" my EYEBALL sees things on a horizontal plane or whatever...and magazines are wide right? And if I had the Olympus and I go to get my pictures printed won't the prints be...cropped to fit all the standard dimensions?

I guess should just rule out the Olympus because it is just the wrong aspect ratio right? But then why does it sell? Why does it get these high reviews? Do they not care about that specific part? It is a good camera and full of features. But I really don't fucking get it why the 4:3? I mean no one uses that right?

Explain whats up /p/? This 4:3 ruins it right? Being a complete new guy though. I really do want to know if there is nothing I should worry about, and the resolutions offered by 4:3 are fine and high enough to easily crop to "wide-screen" photos?

I really don't know a god damn thing about it. When I read into it, it was all about how 4:3 is better for digital, and makes lighter/smaller DSLR's. But I don't believe that. In image comparisons it looked good as the competition and worse at higher ISO. I have held the 510 and Xti etc. They were all pretty much in the same size and weight range...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Standard US TV resolution: 640x480 == 4:3
Standard monitor resolutions: 800x600 (4:3), 1024x768 (4:3)

So yeah, you have to crop if printing to 2:3-aspect-ratio paper. But if you're printing to an 8x10 or an 8.5x11, you'll have to crop regardless of whether you're shooting 4:3 or 2:3.

(That being said, I dislike the Four Thirds system for other reasons)
>> Anonymous
You are retarded for wanting something that's not standard. Get some other non DSLR, EVF cameras that has the wide capabilities.

This is the most retarded thing I've seen on /p/ this year.

And a lot of companies are vested in the 4/3rds system, because it means the lenses are smaller, and the sensors are cheaper to produce. And the recent 4/3rds camera (Panasonic I think) launched has a sensor that, when the area is increased to the size of common APS-C sensors, has the resolution of a 12.5 megapixel camera.

Just think about it for a while. The largest four sided polygon you can fit within a circle is is a 4/3rd proportioned rectangle rather than a 16:9 rectangle.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Why do I dislike the Four Thirds system, you ask?

Well, okay, you didn't ask, but I want to procrastinate a bit more before I go to work.

The idea was to make a whole new system specifically for digitals, without the 35mm legacy. They used a sensor that's half the standard 35mm frame (so 2x crop factor), which lets them have smaller bodies and smaller flange-focal distance because they don't use a mount that was designed to accomodate big 35mm-format lenses.

However, once you get to the SLR form factor, you can't really make it all that smaller. So a camera at a given price point will weigh a little less than the competing camera from Canon or Nikon, but not really enough to justify the downsides:
1. Quality of a Four Thirds camera will always be a little worse than the equivalent 1.5x or 1.6x crop camera, because the smaller sensor means smaller pixels means more noise.
2. No upgrade path. If you're shooting Canon, you can go full frame and buy a 5D or a 1Ds if you need better image quality. If you shoot Four Thirds and want full-frame image quality, you get to change systems and buy a full new set of lenses. This'll be especially noticeable if technology increases to the point where it's suddenly reasonably cheap to make full-frame sensors--Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax could then put full-frame sensors in all of their cameras, while the Four Thirds guys will be stuck shooting half frame.

Four Thirds is the APS of digital.
>> Anonymous
Most non-SLR digital cameras - 4:3
Four Thirds DSLRs - 4:3
135 and APS film cameras - 3:2
APS-C DSLRs - 3:2
Half-frame 35mm cameras - 4:3
MF cameras - 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 7:6
Large format cameras - usually 5:4

Did the "wrong" aspect ratio ever stop people from shooting good pictures on any of these? No. So the debate whether 4:3 is better than 3:2 or 5:4 or vice versa is pointless, really.
>> Anonymous
>>104853
>No upgrade path
Well, speaking of your canonfag favorite "upgrade path"...
- Of serious photographers, cropped sensors are pretty popular with wildlife guys and all those others who need long telephotos. These will *never* upgrade to full-frame, even if it's super cheap, just because it will mean hauling much more glass to get the same focal lengths.
- It may as well happen that the technology "suddenly" will allow for 4/3/APS-sized sensors with noise so low it's possible to shoot indoors with the kit lens. This will completely push full-frame cameras into professional field, a la medium format film.
- Half of current Canon/Nikon/Pentax lens lineup consists of lenses made for digital only. So you'll still need to get some new lenses to upgrade unless you purposedly bought only full-frame glass from the very beginning. (Okay, the new D3 allows shooting with DX glass, but at what price?)
>> Anonymous
>>104851
The largest four sided polygon you can fit within a circle is a fucking square.

Square format ftw.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>once you get to the SLR form factor, you can't really make it all that smaller.

Are you sure about that, lol?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Color Filter Array Pattern702Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:12:27 17:51:56Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height697RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>104859
>Of serious photographers, cropped sensors are pretty popular with wildlife guys and all those others who need long telephotos. These will *never* upgrade to full-frame, even if it's super cheap, just because it will mean hauling much more glass to get the same focal lengths.

Of course, they could just bring along a full camera with a 1.6x-shorter focal length and crop for exactly the same effect...

> It may as well happen that the technology "suddenly" will allow for 4/3/APS-sized sensors with noise so low it's possible to shoot indoors with the kit lens.
A rising tide floats all boats. Such an increase in sensor technology--which I fully believe we'll eventually see--will mean those of us with bigger pixels are going to be shooting by candlelight with the kit lens.
>> Anonymous
>>104859
There are 6 EF-s lenses out of 60 something listed on the Canon USA site. What's this about half?
>> Anonymous
>>104865
>Of course, they could just bring along a full camera with a 1.6x-shorter focal length and crop for exactly the same effect...
And get 5-megapixel images out of their brand new $5.000 D3? lol.

>those of us with bigger pixels are going to be shooting by candlelight with the kit lens.
Yes, but how many people will want to pay a huge premium just for that?
>> Anonymous
>>104866
...But almost any owner of a Canon DSLR has a couple out of those 6.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>104873
But (assuming you don't count all of the people who live their whole lives with the kit lens) few have *just* EF-S lenses. And it's generally because that's the only way to get really wide angles on an APS-C sensor. For the ability to use a 28mm with a 28mm-equivalent field of view, I'd be happy to lose use of my 18-55IS.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Olympus is a nightmare, don't go near it. I used an E-3something0 and an E-500 and very recently, an E-3, their so-called "pro" camera. It's all crap. The only advantages the 4/3s system has in my mind is a quieter shutter noise and some interesting Leica lenses. The menu system is atrocious, the ergonomics are funky, the noise is lol, and the crop factor stinks. Allan is right on about the lack of an upgrade path, which is a big damn deal as a student.

Did I mention that the viewfinder on the E-3 is noticeably smaller and worse than a D200's, let alone a D300's or, zomg, a D3's?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>104886
Yeah, the only reason I bought an EF-S lens was to get the 16mm equivalent from my EF-S 10-22mm.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>104893
>viewfinder on the E-3 is noticeably smaller and worse than a D200's
lolwut

(image stolen from slrclub.com)
>> Anonymous
>>104893
Speaking of advantages, E-1 and E-3 are more rugged than any other cameras on the market (even 1D series), and they have dust filters that actually work, unlike Canon and Nikon. I know at least one professional rally photographer that shoots Olympus because of that (and light telephotos, as mentioned above).

And for those who like old glass, Olympus wins because you can put almost any manual glass on it, with the exception of Canon FD and a couple obscure mounts.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>104899
That's great, champ, but use one and you'll see what I mean.

>>104902
Now that I'll believe. Underwater shooters like them too because of the live view and quality of enclosures available to the system. But as I am neither of those things, those are pretty pointless advantages.
>> Anonymous
APS was not a bad idea for film formats. Shame digital came along and scuppered it.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
man, this topic caused a shit storm over at dpreview... though i suspect any sort of suggestion that one system may have an advantage over another solicits trolls in the buckload.

My main problem with Olympus is 2 things.

1. If the sensor is smaller, why aren't the cameras smaller and more compact? that would be a great selling point.

2. Wide angle, as someone who essentially has nothing longer than 55mm i don't see how 4:3 benefits me at all. I like as wide as possible since Landscapes and city scapes are what i mainly shoot.
>> Anonymous
OP here;

YES! This is what I was looking for. Some real info. I did want peoples opinions. The ratio just seemed weird to me.

>>104854
I am not debating which ratio is better. I just want to know why a new guy would want this camera even given the fact that is 4:3 websites always suggest the 510 to new guys looking for a DLSR.

As for most digital camera non DSLR. You can still choose wide resolutions I thought? I mean. Above 1600x1200 they have some wide options.

Great thread. I need more o/p/inions though.I was seriously looking to buy this camera.
>> Anonymous
>>105094
>>As for most digital camera non DSLR. You can still choose wide resolutions I thought? I mean. Above 1600x1200 they have some wide options.

Choosing resolution in a menu just means it will CROP original 4/3 image to fit some other ratio. It's better to shoot in whatever is the best resolution possible and crop it yourself
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
In during by a sony.

Get the sony A100.

In after Butterfly.
>> Anonymous
>>105094
> why[..] 4:3 websites always suggest the 510 to new guys looking for a DLSR.

Image stabilization, good iq on <= ISO 400, and generally more feature rich than competition at the same price.

There are two areas where the oly's suck compared to other systems, high iso and long exposures. Most other things are available and quite good, and the 510 is generally regarded as the best bang for the buck at the moment - especially with the dual lens kit.

Something also worth considering is the lack of normal primes. Apart from the Leica Summilux, a Sigma 30mm/f1.4, and the oly 50mm/f2 (which isn't that much of a normal), there's not much to choose from.

If you imagine primes being your thing, check out the pentax k10d, which really shines in this department.

To OP again, while I generally think Butterfly is a hueg faggot, he's right that the A100 is pretty decent. Give it a look.

tldr: the e-510, a100 and k10d are awesome.

>>104893
I lol'd.
Then 0/10'd.
>> Anonymous
OP here,

Sony A100 and K10D are just to much money. And I would choose the K10D over the Sony.

So I shouldn't care that the Olympus is 4:3? Even if I were to view these photos on a wide screen monitor? Does my preference of wide/rectangle photos matter? I can get the same out of 4:3? I wish there was some comparison shot of the exact same angle/position of a 3:2 vs. 4:3. Wouldn't the 3:2 be wider and the 4:3 have just more height? I think I would want wide....

Sorry I am a stupid new guy. I just really understood that the 510 was the best for my money. But with 4:3 am I not going to get the same size/type of shots my friends get with their DSLR's? What I have seen their cameras can do and other DSLR's online with all the sample shots...Moving from a point and shoot to 3:2 DSLR like upgrading your full-frame TV to Widescreen? Dumb comparison I know.

Everyone keeps saying the 510 is great. I know that. But I am talking about the 4:3. Why do I want that OVER 3:2? Or 3:2 over 4:3. To me this is the biggest difference. Not the live-view, or anti-dust etc.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>105153
>Why do I want that OVER 3:2? Or 3:2 over 4:3.
The aspect ratio doesn't matter. Ignore the aspect ratio. The Four Thirds guys just went with the 4:3 aspect ratio because it matched closer to monitors, since they were designing the system for a fully digital workflow without any film legacy. The other camera makers use a 2:3 aspect ratio because they're based on camera systems from the 35mm film days.

Also: Image quality of a Four Thirds camera and an APS-C camera (i.e., everything else) is actually going to be pretty much the same.

The difference, and the reason we all argue against Four Thirds here, is because we don't really have any faith in the system as a whole. For example, there are like three manufacturers putting out cameras in the Four Thirds system, and all together they're selling fewer camera models than Canon alone has in its lineup--and they have nothing equivalent to the 1D series or 5D. The lens selection is also pretty small (and expensive!) and you don't have the decades worth of old lenses on the used market to choose from.
>> Anonymous
Lack or wide angle lenses and primes are what kill the 4/3s system, that and the narrow as hell viewfinders on most 4/3s cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>105198
The 7-14mm is about as wide as it gets on any cropped sensor, and the narrow viewfinder is also to be found on canikon's consumer models. The pentaxes are notably better in this respect. The e3 ("prosumer" oly) has about the same viewfinder as the d300.

The lack of non-legacy primes is disappointing, but optically the oly zooms hold a very high quality. And, hey, you do get the Leica Summilux.
>> Anonymous
>>105165
>The aspect ratio doesn't matter. Ignore the aspect ratio.
qft.
Not to mention you can always crop 4:3 to 3:2 and vice versa at a small expense of field of view.

>For example, there are like three manufacturers putting out cameras in the Four Thirds system, and all together they're selling fewer camera models than Canon alone has in its lineup
In fact, judging by the numbers I've seen for 2006, Canon and Nikon separately sell more SLRs than all other manufacturers combined (2+ million units sold for Canon, 1.6 million for Nikon, around 300k for each of the lesser three)

>you don't have the decades worth of old lenses on the used market to choose from.
You do have decades worth of old lenses, more than any other camera system, in fact. They just require adapters and won't autofocus, lol.
>> Anonymous
>>105165
You don't have faith in Four thirds?
How about Pentax then? I see K10D and K100D recommended here a lot. But Pentax guys have no pro cameras in the system at all, almost no pro lenses, outdated AF system, no gimmicks like live view and working anti-dust shit, and they're behind Olympus and Sony by sales of both SLRs and compacts. What they have is only a possibility to make a full-frame camera somewhere in the distant future.
>> Anonymous
sales quota always make such good arguments as to why one thing is better than another thing.

going by that logic, an 8 x 10 linhof (or the hasselblad h3whatever) is the absolute worst fucking camera in the world.
>> Anonymous
>>105277
Sales quota does matter when you need a fuckton of money for R&D. Digital photo market is not as hardcore in this regard as, say, CPU market, but still, sales do matter.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>105272
>>105277
>>105281
For the record, I wasn't talking market share. I was talking actual models of camera.
Canon: XT, XTi, 30D, 40D, 5D, 1D II, 1Ds II
Four Thirds: E330, E500, E410, E510, E3, DMC-L1K, DMC-L10K, Digilux 3

Apparently someone added a Four Thirds camera since the last time I checked (or Canon dropped one from its lineup). However, when you keep in mind that the Leica Digilux 3 is basically the same camera as the Panasonic DMC-L1 (plus a shit-ton of money for the Leica name) then you end up with there being exactly the same number of Four Thirds cameras as Canons.

And none of those manufacturers is making a camera that can compete with Canon or Nikon's high end in terms of image quality, because the 1D's 1.3x crop sensor and especially the 5D/1Ds/D3's full frame sensors totally crush the half frame sensors in the highest end Four Thirds models.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>105276
I actually don't even notice Pentax enough to mock them. ;)

Seriously, though, the Pentax system has some things going for it that Four Thirds doesn't:
1. Legacy of lenses. Pentax has been making cameras forever, and they've been using the K-mount for decades. There's a lot of glass out there.
2. Legacy of cameras. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic decided to just give up on Four Thirds some day if it's not providing much of a return on investment. Leica's commitment to Four Thirds is already pretty half-assed--their only camera is a rebadged Panasonic (see above), and they're still selling their R-system SLRs along side with it. Not to mention that their main focus is the rangefinders, and they're a total niche product with that. The only serious vendor in the Four Thirds group right now is Olympus. Olympus who, as far as I know, completely got out of the SLR game during the age of 35mm autofocus. If they don't sell enough Four Thirds cameras, I can see them just giving up to concentrate on their low end P&S business, too.
3. The theoretical possibility of full-frame. It's a long shot, but you never know, Pentax could come out with a full frame system. It was an outside possibility with Nikon until they did it. And there are persistent rumors that Sony's got one in the works as well.
>> Anonymous
Widescreen is wasteful. Lenses project a circular image, so why only take a tiny slice across the middle?
>> Anonymous
>>105276
Pentax just put up a bunch of ads in bus shelters around here today, with a bigass half obscured photo of one of their cameras and "PENTAX: IMAGING REDEFINED" or something like that. I didn't get a good look to see whether the camera was an existing model, so there's a chance it's a teaser for something new and awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>105287
XT, E-330 and E-500 aren't made anymore, and I'm not too sure if 30D and L1 are. So what does this show exactly? Since the basic hardware is pretty much the same in pro and consumer models, every manufacturer can produce a hundred variations, they just choose not to do it mostly for marketing reasons.

And Olympus never intended to compete directly with 1D series, just like the old OM series never tried to compete with Nikon single-digit F-s. They have their own niche: while Olympus doesn't have anything similar to the $8000 1Ds III, Canon doesn't offer a pro-grade body for under $4000 (let alone $1700).

>>105288
1. The same old K-mount glass can be put on an Olympus too...
2. Why can't Hoya close Pentax SLR department just as easily if they deem it non-profitable? 3. That's a very long shot, since they can't even make a pro-grade crop-sensor camera for now. (Last time I heard they were only going to announce a successor to K10D at PMA 2008)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>105317
>XT, E-330 and E-500 aren't made anymore, and I'm not too sure if 30D and L1 are.
I was going by the models listed as current on their website. Dunno if the XT is actually being produced anymore, but it's certainly still being sold new.

And the point is that, with Canon and Nikon, you have the choice of an extreme low end body like the XT or D40 for under $500, or you can go whole hog with the top-of-the-line for an order of magnitude more. And if you want to play around with film, there's a bunch of film cameras in the same system too, with (for the most part) lenses swappable all around. There are a lot more choices.

>The same old K-mount glass can be put on an Olympus too...
...with a cumbersome adapter, and no autofocus. The EOS system has a short enough flange focal distance that it can use a lot of other companies' lenses, too, with adapters. I'm talking about lenses actually designed for the system.

>Why can't Hoya close Pentax SLR department just as easily if they deem it non-profitable?
They can. I just think they're a little less likely to do so than Olympus. I certainly could be wrong.

And anyway, I've never recommended a Pentax to anyone but people who already had a bunch of old Pentax glass.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>105289
I did respond to this earlier but 4chan ate my post.

4:3 is becoming outdated anyway with most pcs switching to 16:9(10) making 3:2 better use of screen space. Since the idea of 4:3 was to make it more compatible with the full digital workflow its now become outdated. Also our eyes work in widesreen so having a wider sensor makes the pictures look more natural.

>>105272
Is that the one in which sony came 3rd? :P
>> Anonymous
>>105328
How about ZOMG vertically framed shots?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>105331
Rotate your screen (seriously, i dont rotate them on my laptop i just turn my screen on its side)
>> Anonymous
>>105334
*imagines Butterfly spinning the laptop like crazy after being handed a card full of images*

This reminds me of something from La Fontaine's fables. I just can't point out what scene exactly.
>> Anonymous
>>105325
OP here.

I was seriously going to go for the K10D and started shopping for price. After seeing all the reviews I settled on the D80 and K10D. I thought that the K10D was better and more for my money. The only other cameras I was looking at after the Olympus got knocked out (thx guys!)is the Nikon D40x, Canon Xti, and Pentax K100D Super.

So why do you not suggest Pentax? (I also have no lenses so nothing sways me in that area to choose a brand)
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105724

Do we have many Pentax users here? that's probably why not very many people suggested. I wouldn't exactly recommend Pentax, not because they aren't great cameras, but because i know nothing about their system.
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
>>105729

Essentially this, Canonfags and Nikonfags largely outnumber Pentaxfags, not just in /p/.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>105729
Pentax makes great cameras. They make great lenses. The problem is, they don't make very many of them. However, you've got the very best backwards compatibility of any system in the world. You can literally mount ANY Pentax lens on a K10D, even their medium format lenses (with the proper adapter).

If you have no aspirations of going pro, get a Pentax and be supremely happy with it. They're awesome. Pick up some cool old lenses on the cheap from eBay or KEH.com, like the very cheap 50mm f/1.2 or the even cheaper 50mm f/1.7. Pentax ain't pro, but face it, none of us here can afford pro gear. Except that one asshole with all the great Nikon gear. God I want to be him. :(
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>105813

I think the hope is that we can build up the kit over time.
>> Anonymous
>>105813
>Pentax ain't pro, but face it, none of us here can afford pro gear.
Isn't half of this thread basically "BAAAAWWWWW ONLY CANON/NIKON MAKE REAL PRO GEAR SO OTHER SYSTEMS FAIL"?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>105848
Yeah, it is, which is my point. That attitude is silly.

>>105820
You can definitely build up a Pentax kit. Just not to the same heights as Nikon or Canon. Again, this only matters if you're making a living with your kit.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>105852
Hey, speak for yourself. I'm totally getting myself a 7D or whatever when it comes out. :)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>105854
>I'm totally getting myself a 7D

?
>> Anonymous
>>105854
Uh, bad news: 5D, and probably its successor, aren't classified as "pro" by Canon as they lack shutter life, control layout and ruggedness of the real "pro" models. (Yeah, the 5D costs more than some fully "pro" cameras, but still it's little more than a 30D with a big sensor)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>105857
thats an A700 :P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>105858
I'm okay with that.
>> Anonymous
E-510 is made out of win and god.

You can get the body, and both kit lenses from BroadwayPhoto for $539 shipped:

http://www.bwayphoto.com/ViewProduct.aspx?id=9569089
>> Anonymous
"I mean no one uses that right?"

Ever heard of "Mamiya"?
Or Kino-film? Kino-film was the wide one, NORMAL film was 4:3.
>> Anonymous
>>104853

I see, so that's why Mamiya made 4:3 film cameras in the 70's.
>> Anonymous
>>105906
OP here,

Yeah and with the great reviews I was totally going to buy it. TURNS OUT THOUGH. I DON'T WANT IT ANYMORE. OR IT'S 4:3 SHENANIGANS.

No I don't plan on making a living with digital photography etc. so that means Pentax is alright for me?

Curious then. Nikon D40x, Pentax K100D Super, Pentax K10D, Canon Digital Rebel Xti. Cost matters. But is the K10D the only one I could truly grow into? I think the only downside to that camera is out of the box JPEG performance. Every review seems to point out you will be shooting raw if you want to take good pictures with it at all. Nikon has the best metering or ...er...ability to auto adjust for the best picture? Canon is good across the board as usual just not exceptional.

Oh and I have Q for you guys. What is consumer friendly colors? Reviews of the Nikons like even the D80 when I hadn't crossed that off my list said they were saturated which looked good to me. But yeah consumer friendly? On top of that when comparing to Pentax. Pentax seems to look more like film...*shrug*

Also. Learning more about lenses just really tells me I want better lenses than trying to figure out the best cost/value of bodys in the sub-1000 market. Because of this and this little shoot-out reveiw here:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Canon-EOS-400D---compared-against-rivals

I figured it would be more worth it to get the Pentax K100D Super. Then with the left over a lens or two from Pentax. Maybe one of those newer ones. That the K100D was built to support.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>105813Except that one asshole with all the great Nikon gear. God I want to be him. :(

Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2007-05-28 18:08:02F-Numberf/6.3Exposure Time1/60 secExposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure ModeAutoFlashFlash, Return DetectedFocal Length20.00 mmMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>105938
Did you win the lottery or something?
>> Anonymous
Pentax is definitely underrated

I picked up a K110D with the 18-55mm kit lens for $400. It beats the living shit out of any other digital camera in that price range, mainly because there are no other DSLRs in that price range.

The K10D is a very decent system according to most of the reviews. It can't compete with Canon or Nikon as a sports camera (only 3 fps if I remember correctly) but it has weather sealing, a steel frame, pentaprism viewfinder, integrated shake reduction in body, sensor cleaning system, etc.

Pentax does lack lenses though, and only two lenses so far have in lens motors (called SDM or something, equivalent to Canon's USM system). But I don't really care that much because I am a cheap motherfucker who probably won't buy too many lenses anyway.

Canon and Nikon have great pro systems, but for the more casual shooter who doesn't need 50 AF points, 10 fps and $2000 lenses there are some better deals.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105938

it's a wonderful collection as i have one those lenses currently and two previously...

it's funny when you look at collections like these and just think... i'd only ever use 3 or 4 of those.

Make my wallet feel a bit better :D
>> Anonymous
>>105951

So in other words, when you go Pentax you can't upgrade shit.

Gotcha.
>> Anonymous
>>105955

0/10

Pentax is still scheduled to release new lenses.

and the K20D will be announced on 1/24

and Pentax has partnered with Samsung to help design the cameras, hence the Samsung GX-10 uses the same lens mount.

and Pentax has been picked up by Hoya, a glass company, so there will be no problems with producing the new lenses.

So when you switch to Pentax you can upgrade all of your shit.
>> Anonymous
>>105955

1/10
>> Anonymous
>>105955

Divide by zero
>> Anonymous
>>105951I picked up a K110D with the 18-55mm kit lens for $400. It beats the living shit out of any other digital camera in that price range

Yeah, it's dirt cheap because it fucking sucks.
>> Anonymous
>>105986

Oh yeah?

Well you fucking suck

Now what?
>> Anonymous
>>106090
OH DAMN!
SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ON!

IS IT ON?!
>> Anonymous
>>105729
Very satisfied K10D owner here... hadn't caught the Pentax discussion until reading down a ways.
>> Anonymous
>>106164
I use my K10D to club hobos. Then I take some pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>105966
OP here. What k20D? 1/24?
>> Anonymous
>>106278

I'm assuming he's saying Pentax will come out with a new model in January.

It's still a shit system with no lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>106353

And you're still a piece of shit who fucking sucks

THAT'S RIGHT BITCH
>> Anonymous
>>106353
None whatsoever.