\n\n
\n\nThat second photo is pretty much worst case scenario -- not just ISO 1600 but really low light and underexposed. It looks pretty good at the resolution shown, and frankly it just looks pretty good. If I'd shot that picture with ISO 400 film and pushed it during processing (which is seriously expensive to do if you don't process your own film) it would look a heck of a lot grainier. And you don't need to be afraid of noise. I can take any picture out of my D50 and produce something that looks good and prints well even at large sizes. But if it's an ISO 1600 shot, my choices as to what that something will be are a lot more restrictive than if it's an ISO 200 shot.\n\nAs you can probably guess, my tastes run to candid photography without flash, and so low light sensitivity is crucial, and so the new generation of DSLRs (et al) has really got my mouth watering (as Ken Rockwell points out, all first generation DSLRs (for Nikon, that's D1 through D200) shoot pretty much the same, but the D3/D300 and 5D Mk ii/40D marked a new era in low light sensitivity, where ISO 800 is simply fine, and ISO 3200 is usable -- more usable than ISO 1600 from the first generation -- in a pinch), but so far nearly all of them have design or performance flaws that make me hesitate before committing.\n
A Little Personal History
\n
\n\nPentax: the K7 is probably the single most compelling DSLR announced in the last year or two (assuming that a D3x or 5D Mk ii is simply a pipe-dream for you, as it is for me). 15MP, but with what looks like better low light performance than the T1i, serious weatherproofing, a proper viewfinder (100% coverage and 0.92x magnification), 5fps burst mode (almost as fast as the 50D), and a bunch of intelligent new features, notably in-camera HDR shooting, HD video with external microphone hookup and image stabilization and manual exposure (like the 5D mkii since its latest firmware patch), and It's also attractively designed, has good -- i.e. Nikon-like -- ergonomics, a quiet shutter, and continues to have Pentax's innovative shooting modes (sensitivity priority and shutter/aperture priority -- in the former it does what it can to let you shoot at a given ISO, in the latter it lets you pick a shutter and aperture combination and varies ISO to make it happen). I don't want to give up my 18-200mm Nikkor but if the price on the K-7 becomes more reasonable (than $1299 body only), I might jump ship.\nMore Personal History
\nIt's a funny thing but if it weren't for viewfinders I'd probably have been a Pentax guy from day one. Way back in 1982 when I was determined to replace my Ricoh rangefinder camera (which had served me well for three years) I walked into a camera store, looked at the displays, and decided I'd probably like to buy a Pentax SLR, but couldn't decide between the K-1000 (the classic beginner's SLR) and a more expensive (and compact) aperture-priority automatic. So I asked a store clerk to let me handle them. The K-1000 was big and heavy and solid, and I liked the controls -- but it was manual. The automatic camera was small and light, but I didn't like the push-button shutter speed controls (Pentax went through a phase of putting annoying controls on their SLRs). The clerk said \"look, take a look through this camera's viewfinder -- it's a little more expensive than the Pentax\". It was a Minolta XG-M and its viewfinder was markedly larger and brighter than either Pentax, it was solid but light, and it had sensible controls. I walked out of the store with the XG-M and would have stuck with it until the digital era except that it ended up being lost and replaced with another (very similar) Minolta that was then stolen and replaced by the autofocus maxxum that annoyed the heck out of me and anyone else who used it (I think it's the only camera I've ever owned I never took a single photo I liked with).\nConclusions?
\nUnless you're very well off (or a reviewer), a DSLR (or other interchangeable lens camera) is a serious investment. A good one costs around $500 minimum, and it's not something you want to replace lightly. More importantly, lenses cost a lot (the Nikkor 18-200mm cost me over $800, although if I hadn't been in a hurry I could probably have gotten one online for under $700 -- more serious lenses, like wide zooms and fast primes can easily cost over a thousand) and tie you to a particular manufacturer. Right now, I'm tied to Nikon by a $700 lens I really like -- so picking any other manufacturer increases my cost by the cost of replacing that lens (minus, I suppose, the money I could get by selling my Nikon gear).\n\nThe question is, do I get a D90 -- which is a great still camera with the best low light performance you can get short of full-frame and a half-arsed video mode I won't use and a half-arsed live view mode I won't use and no 14-bit RAW mode that I probably won't miss -- or do I wait for a mythical successor that fixes these issues? My guess is that the K-7 won't match the D90's low light performance, which in the end I'll probably use more than any of its attractive new features. (I live in aperture-priority mode... what do I care about sensitivity priority?) On the other hand I could shoot with the K-7's in-body vibration reduction using a 50mm f1.4 prime (Pentax has a very interesting range of lenses, including a well-regarded and inexpensive 18-250mm zoom).\n\nThe wildcards are Pentax and Olympus. To begin with they offer an ecology where one can potentially use lenses from any manufacturer (since adapters for other mounts can easily be created by Olympus or third parties) and Pentax and Olympus make pretty good lenses themselves. Next, the E-P1, or a successor, promises to serve as a replacement for my TZ cameras (both for shooting stills and video). It won't be a pocket-sized camera with a 10x zoom Leica lens, but I can stick a small lens (perhaps even the 17mm pancake) on it, and potentially swap on lenses from my DSLR in a pinch. Now that's a compelling scenario.\n\n
\n\nOpportunity cost is a funny thing. In strict financial terms if I wait a year the E-P1 or an equivalent will be $400, the K-7 or an equivalent will be $700, and the D90 will be $600 and/or there'll be a D90x with 1080p video and 14-bit RAW for $900 and/or there'll be a full-frame D500 for $1500. But, I have twin daughters who are just over a year old. I won't be able to take amazing photos of my baby girls in 2010 (they'll be evil toddlers by then), so while I wait for the perfect Nikon or Pentax or Olympus, I'm missing shots that I could be getting at ISO 3200. This all seems to argue for the D90, but if I treat the D90 as a \"stopgap\" measure which lets me shoot ISO 3200 while I wait for a camera I'll be happy with for 4-5 years (the way I've been happy with the D50) why not get the D5000 which has equally good low light performance and whose flaws I can probably live with?","$updatedAt":"2024-06-05T09:24:42.592+00:00",path:"canon-nikon-olympus-panasonic-and-pentax-argh-",_created:"2024-07-09T20:32:14.705Z",id:"1343",_modified:"2024-07-09T20:32:14.705Z","$id":"1343",_path:"post/path=canon-nikon-olympus-panasonic-and-pentax-argh-"},"page/path=blog":{path:"blog",css:"",imageUrl:"",prefetch:[{regexp:"^\\/(([\\w\\d]+\\/)*)([\\w-]+)\\/?$",path:"post/path=[3]"}],tags:["public"],source:"",title:"",description:"",_path:"page/path=blog"}}