Quote from DeadWolfBones :

No wai!

But yeah, Pentax is undoubtedly the best budget choice due to the extensive range of backward-compatible (and excellent) glass that can be had dirt cheap on the used market. If you're planning on investing megabuxxx on new AF lenses, Canon or Nikon would be a better choice.

Just wanna address this, because I think it's important. Canon DID change their lens mount a few years ago, which made all lenses prior to the new camera range redundant. A LOT of photographers have never (even today) forgiven them.

Conversely, Nikon have never rendered any old lens useless. The oldest lenses made by Nikon go straight on the front of my camera. The oldest need a simple and inexpensive AI to AI-S conversion, simply because of what's generally accepted to be rectifying a poor design decision in early lenses. My favourite lens of all time, and one I still use today, a 105mm F/2.5 was introduced to the world 7 years before I was. I picked it up for about £30 ($45).

Backwards compatibility is a core feature of Nikon's pro and semi-pro series cameras, and there are even M42 mount converters available for the D40 consumer-level camera, so I feel it necessary to defend them.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

The AA batteries are really a plus to me (and I don't think I'm alone in this opinion) because it means you're never far from backup if something happens to your main set. If you're on vacation and you misplace/break your proprietary LiIon battery you're basically screwed. If you have a camera that takes AAs you're never far from Lithiums, rechargeable NiMHs, or (god forbid) alkalines. Just get a set of Sanyo Eneloops and you're good to go.

Of course, AAs do add weight to a camera, which makes the K-m/K2000 kind of heavy for its petite size. Personally I like a heavier camera (better balance w/ heavy glass), so that ain't no thang for me.

As for the bad CA... I assume you mean with the kit (18-55mm DA L)? I've never shot with that lens myself, but I think it's optically identical to my 18-55mm DA II, which I've never particularly had issues with.

Well I just don't like AA-batteries. Don't have really anything that runs on them or a recharger. I did consider the upsides of AA power, but with a set of batteries and recharger it would have been quite the same. But I can't complain, I can take at least 1400 photos with one charge (one bar left).

As for the CA, I'm not sure if it was the lens or just bad jpg they complained on dpreview but you could see it on the pictures.

Ah, how on earth I end up explaining why I didn't buy a Pentax, it's not like it's a crime is it.

Now go label and name your precious old lenses you...you.

<- just to get away with anything

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

The AA batteries are really a plus to me (and I don't think I'm alone in this opinion) because it means you're never far from backup if something happens to your main set.

Full agreement with you here. I don't understand when you can buy a set of 4 AA rechargeable batteries for $5 available everywhere, why one would want to go $20-40 for proprietary batteries. Having a backup set of batteries available just in case every 50 feet when you are in town is a huge plus as well.

I love AA NiMH batteries. It's the one downside to the majority of dSLRs on the market as well as many P&S, the proprietary battery.

Friend at work has a problem with his camera (P&S). He is thinking it is a battery problem. It's fairly new and he'd rather not buy a new camera as he likes this one. His only option is to buy a new camera, or buy a $40 battery to see if that is the problem. With AA, he would be able to steal them from the TV remote just for a test if he wanted to.

AA NiMH batteries ROCK!

I bought 4 batteries for my Nikon.. total cost £18 inc. shipping from Hong Kong (took 2 days!). I numbered them and use them on rotation. Each battery seems to be good for about 600 photos. I never got half of that out of a set of AAs, even in my Fuji S5600

20-40$ for a battery is actually cheap, a new battery (NP-FM500H, 1600 mAh) for my A200 would set me back 80€
€: 1000 photos (half of them with flash) per charge out of that battery.
€²: 80€ for an original Sony InfoLITHIUM battery of course.

What an active thread this is today! (Days like this make life worth living!!)

I thought I'd post the result of a mini-test I did today. I wanted to know if the "VR" on the side of my lens counted for diddly. OMG!

I took the attached photo at 1/15th. One shot. Score!

Don't pay too much attention to the subject matter.. it's me dad in his basement, his hobby is restoring toy trains.. a cleaner sorts the rest of the house out, once a week!

World's greatest daddy.

Yes, VR is brilliant (just realised how good few hours ago) it's usually the subject that doesn't keep still with longer shutter times though.

edit. Also 1/15 shot

going back to my olympus tough 8000 (yes i'm 99% certain i charmed my mum into it), i've seen some reviews saying the picture quality isn't as good as they were expecting. how can this be when it's 12 megapixels? isn't a pixel the same as a pixel or a pixel?

Quote from SamH :

Don't pay too much attention to the subject matter.. it's me dad in his basement, his hobby is restoring toy trains.. a cleaner sorts the rest of the house out, once a week!

Dang and I thought my work desk was bad

Just realised Photoshop's bicubic sharper resizing causes aliasing :-/

Anyway, more random stuff:

Quote from oli17 :

going back to my olympus tough 8000 (yes i'm 99% certain i charmed my mum into it), i've seen some reviews saying the picture quality isn't as good as they were expecting. how can this be when it's 12 megapixels? isn't a pixel the same as a pixel or a pixel?

While you'd think it should be like that it isn't really. With digital photography, there are two considerations.. the sensor and the lens.

The megapixels of the sensor don't translate to moar==bettah. What's important is how the sensor works and how the camera handles the data that it gets from the "photosites" (sensor pixels). And of course the data that it gets is also determined by the quality of the glass (or, worst-case scenario, clear plastic) in the lens.

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

Dang and I thought my work desk was bad

hehe.. I understand how my dad works like this.. though I can't do it, myself. His work area is inches wide and all of the stuff he does at this table is tiny. Everything is within reach, and he's happy. He also has a spraying room, which is immaculate, so I know it's not dementia

Quote from morpha :

Anyway, more random stuff:

Woot! You rock!

Quote from Blackout :

As for the CA, I'm not sure if it was the lens or just bad jpg they complained on dpreview but you could see it on the pictures.

Ah, how on earth I end up explaining why I didn't buy a Pentax, it's not like it's a crime is it.

Now go label and name your precious old lenses you...you.

<- just to get away with anything

I was just curious, not asking you to defend. That dpreview take on the K2000 is widely viewed in the Pentax community as, well... suspect. But it does raise some good points.

Quote from SamH :

Just wanna address this, because I think it's important. Canon DID change their lens mount a few years ago, which made all lenses prior to the new camera range redundant. A LOT of photographers have never (even today) forgiven them.

Conversely, Nikon have never rendered any old lens useless. The oldest lenses made by Nikon go straight on the front of my camera. The oldest need a simple and inexpensive AI to AI-S conversion, simply because of what's generally accepted to be rectifying a poor design decision in early lenses. My favourite lens of all time, and one I still use today, a 105mm F/2.5 was introduced to the world 7 years before I was. I picked it up for about £30 ($45).

Backwards compatibility is a core feature of Nikon's pro and semi-pro series cameras, and there are even M42 mount converters available for the D40 consumer-level camera, so I feel it necessary to defend them.

You're right... Nikon does an admirable job here, EXCEPT for the fact that they intentionally cripple the lower-end dSLRs, which means they can't use pre-AF lenses with metering (or, in the case of the D40/D40x/D60, pre-AF-S lenses with metering OR autofocus). This is particularly nasty since they're the budget cameras, which people who would be shopping for cheap old glass would most likely be using.

Your buddy Ken Rockwell on the matter. ;]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm#dslr

p.s., yes, VR is incredibly useful, though I will maintain that in-body stabilization is superior!

I don't know Sam, looks like quite a bit of workspace to me, hehehe.

Reminds me very much of my workbench in the garage.

That is one very old mug, or are you still buying "World's Greatest Daddy" stuff for Father's Day in your 40's?

I do take your point (and I did say pro/semi-pro). Perhaps I see it slightly differently, maybe even rose-tinted (possibly as bad as IR-filtered!? ) but there have to be cost-constraints in producing budget-price cameras and one of the areas where the D40, for example, saves cost-weight is the absence of a lens motordrive in the body.

I think the D40 is targeted at the "new-daddy" consumer that isn't interested in old kit at all. They want (and get) a very capable camera with a really good kit lens and a range of relatively inexpensive other new lenses to pick from, that they can use without having to apply grey matter.

I do think the consumer that's looking for the ability to use a more full range of older glass is probably at the D90 end of the consumer spectrum, where I think they're handsomely catered for.

Quote from mrodgers :

That is one very old mug, or are you still buying "World's Greatest Daddy" stuff for Father's Day in your 40's?

Either my sister bought that for him or the old goat bought it himself!! The only thing I buy my dad is coffee.. maybe the occasional computer hardware upgrade

Quote from SamH :

Don't pay too much attention to the subject matter.. it's me dad in his basement, his hobby is restoring toy trains.. a cleaner sorts the rest of the house out, once a week!

Well thats rather strange, for someone who has an entire desk cluttered with stuff to do with restoring toy trains, i acctually cant find one train on that desk..... besides the ones on the books.

he's holding two carriages though!

Quote from SamH :

I do take your point (and I did say pro/semi-pro). Perhaps I see it slightly differently, maybe even rose-tinted (possibly as bad as IR-filtered!? ) but there have to be cost-constraints in producing budget-price cameras and one of the areas where the D40, for example, saves cost-weight is the absence of a lens motordrive in the body.

I think the D40 is targeted at the "new-daddy" consumer that isn't interested in old kit at all. They want (and get) a very capable camera with a really good kit lens and a range of relatively inexpensive other new lenses to pick from, that they can use without having to apply grey matter.

I do think the consumer that's looking for the ability to use a more full range of older glass is probably at the D90 end of the consumer spectrum, where I think they're handsomely catered for.

...except for the not being able to meter part...

I take your point. I just think that, as a savvy consumer, I'd buy the cheapest possible camera that has the build/quality features that I want, and one of those features would be the best reverse lens compatibility possible. Best reverse lens compatibility + cheap != Nikon, unfortunately. But it does give Pentax something nice to advertise, so I guess I won't push Nikon to fix it too hard.

Here are a few shots by me. And yes, the default JPG settings really do suck. As for the AA batterys, have taken 600 shots with them so far, and the battery bar on the camera hasn't moved yet.

Taavi, those are quite nice for your first images from the camera. Very natural colors. Congrats on the purchase!

btw, I just got an Olympus Tough 8000 to review, so we'll see how that goes.

Quote from oli17 :

he's holding two carriages though!

DAMNIT!
I hadnt noticed those i retract my previous statement

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

btw, I just got an Olympus Tough 8000 to review, so we'll see how that goes.

what, you bought one especially? man, you must be loaded!

p.s. if it's really bad, please can you not say so in so many words, it being a very expensive present which my mum can barely afford. be honest but not crushing

Quote from oli17 :

what, you bought one especially? man, you must be loaded!

p.s. if it's really bad, please can you not say so in so many words, it being a very expensive present which my mum can barely afford. be honest but not crushing

No, I work for a camera review site, and the manufacturers send me units to review, which I then send back (all at their cost). It's lots of fun, most of the time (when I'm not reviewing Kodak products).

what's wrong with Kodak's?

p.s. look forward to reading your [watered down] review of the Tough 8000