Topic: Yet another dSLR thread: Canon, Nikon, Pentax, ~$1,200 budget, not for concerts

[Brian Skalinder]

Yes, another dSLR thread.  The "mccabe" thread got me thinking about dSLRs again.  And it's from me, so of course it's (too) long - good luck getting all the way through it!  For a change from these threads, I'm not terribly interested in concert photography.  With my old N80 + Tokina 24-200 f/3.5 - 5.6, I generally shot city / landscapes / scenery, and some people & pets.  I used the Tokina at its shorter end (24-100) a LOT, quite a bit from 100-150, and only occasionally > 150 (in large part due to the f/5.6 resulting in too-slow shutter speeds).  I shoot strictly handheld, and don't plan on moving to a tripod, though I may eventually opt for a monopod.  FWIW, I don't expect my usage to change dramatically, though I may end up doing significantly more family-oriented pics of nieces, pets, grandparents, and such, but...who knows?  Most images will display on a computer monitor, but I do intend to print some at 5x7 / 6x9 / 8x10.

Before I go further, I do have one specific question I don't want to get lost in the details below:

• With my N80 + 24-200 f/3.5 - 5.6, I never played around much with more sensitive film (>= 400 ISO) or pushing ISO.  For moderate low light (definitely not concert low light...think sunset / dusk), will the ability to easily adjust sensitivity to higher ISOs + image stabilization of some kind produce fast enough shutter speeds for hand-held shots when using the full range of a (say, a 16-85 (35mm eq = 24-128)) f/3.5 - 5.6 lens?  I simply don't have the experience to know the answer to this question, so I must ask.  If lenses with a long end down to f/5.6 would work for the kind of shooting I describe above, my lens options open up in a HUGE way.
  
  

And I'm curious about general thoughts on the following:

• sealed body v. not sealed - though a sealed body only really provides value when used with a sealed lens (on which I likely won't spend money), it suggests to me a high overall build quality
• dust reduction v. none - not sure how much of an issue dust might prove;  I had dust challenges on my old N80, but have seen conflicting reports as to whether in-body dust reduction works;  also found a bit of info about how to clean dust oneself, though not sure I'd be brave enough to do it
• in-body shake reduction v. none - seems like a winner, as the reviews / tests I've read indicate it delivers a solid +2 stops
• in-body shake reduction v. in-lens shake reduction - in-lens appears to be the winner, more likely providing +2-3 stops, v. just +2 for in-body;  but it costs more, and one pays for it with every lens;  not sure that extra 1 stop is worth it to me
• MP requirements for 8x10 prints - some people say 6 MP is fine, others 8 MP, 10 MP will obviously suffice, as well as deliver theoretically better resolution when cropping (which I'll likely do a lot of until I better develop my framing skills)
• Photog forums and new / used markets - so far found good forums and associated used markets (dpreview, fredmiranda, dgrin, photo.net, photozone) and the usual new markets (adoroma, b&h, keh)

Moving on...


Budget

Total budget:  $1,200 firm.

I've done a bit of homework here and on the various forums/sites listed above.  The array of available gear is, well...overwhelming.  But I'm slowly sorting through it.  I'm definitely open to used gear, but don't care to wait around more than a week or two for minor (10-20%) savings, and definitely don't have the patience to wait around weeks/months for that "killer" deal.  It's quite likely I'll buy body + 1 lens new, then take my time finding a 2nd lens used.


General Considerations

Bodies

I generally appreciate robust build quality.  I'm figuring 6-10 MP will be fine for my purposes, though I find myself leaning towards the 10MP bodies not so much for the MP, but for the (perceived) higher build quality and in some cases broader feature set.

Canon

I've toyed around very briefly with a Canon XT and found it almost toy-like, though that in itself is not a deal breaker.  The challenge with all the Canon bodies in my price range is the 1.6 FOV crop factor - makes it even more difficult to get to my lens target short end of 24mm (35mm equivalent).  I've also not found any IS lenses in my budget that fit my target lens range of ~24 - ~150 (35mm equivalent, either a single lens, or more likely two lenses spanning that range).

Nikon

My old Nikon N80's the only SLR I've ever owned.  I liked it a lot, but I'm definitely not a diehard Nikoner (or whatever Nikon diehard fans are called).  Seems Nikon's lens ranges suit my desires fairly well.  More on specific lenses below.

Pentax

I'm intrigued by Pentax, even though they're not one of the big 2.  Seems they've packed a lot of value (build quality, hard buttons, sealed, dust reduction, shake reduction) into the K10D, and to a lesser degree the K100D.  I hadn't originally considered Pentax, but my interest is piqued.

Lenses

I don't intend to shoot much, if at all, in very low light (like concerts), but will definitely shoot a fair amount in moderate low light.  For indoor moderate low light, subjects are mainly people, and I'll just pick up an inexpensive, fast prime at some point (likely 50mm).  For outdoor moderate low light, think sunset/dusk & sunrise (hah! not bloody likely).  But much/most of my shooting will be regular daytime hours outside.

Based on challenges I had with the Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 in lowish light, I'm inclined to go for moderate speed glass (in the f/2.8-4.5 range).  Though two big advantages of digital that may offset my lowish light challenges towards the f/5.6:  ability to easily <a> offset the slightly slower lens to some degree by increasing ISO, and <b> push 1-2 f-stops in RAW post-processing.

Ideal target lens range:  35mm equivalent of ~24mm - ~150mm

Considering how much I used my old lens on the short end, I'm pretty firm on 24mm, but remain open to suggestions as to whether I'd miss the 3mm if moving to ~27mm.  Stepping up to 27mm on the short end would <a> bring the Canon option into contention, and <b> open up a handful of additional shorter-end lenses in the Nikon option.  However, spending $250-400 on the shorter end (~24-105, in which I don't foresee as strong a need for VR) makes it very difficult from a budget perspective to to achieve my longer end goal of >= ~150mm (where VR becomes far more important).  I've not found any Canon lenses with IS that match goals anywhere near my budget.  I'm not even sure if the used market will provide IS lenses within my budget (though to be fair I haven't searched long or hard).

All that said, I don't foresee myself becoming a gear junky for photography, and ultimately will probably end up with 1-2 lenses to cover the range above + a fast prime like a 50mm.  So massive lens selection isn't a huge deal for me, though...never know, I'm a pretty thorough junky with recording gear...maybe it'll rub off...


Bodies & Lenses

So far, my considerations:

Nikon

$650  |  Nikon D80 Refurb

Nikon has a great reputation, obviously.  More than enough pixels (10MP), and the 1.5 FOV crop factor is workable.  I find the D80 appealing because I'm moderately familiar with Nikon (used my N80 a fair amount, though don't know how much of the fit, finish, ergos, etc. translate into the digital realm).  Seems there are lots of lenses from which to choose, and a there's a good used lens market.  If the build quality is anything like the N80, I'll be quite happy.  I'm mildly concerned about the lack of sealing and dust reduction features - dust became an issue on my N80 - but I'm probably being a bit paranoid.

$620  |  Nikon 2178G  |  16-85 (35mm eq = 24-128)  |  f/3.5 - 5.6  |  AF-S DX ED (VR) Vibration Reduction Wide Angle Autofocus Zoom

I think I could probably get by with this single lens for starters - gets the wide angle I want, plus decent zoom capabilities.  I don't mind foregoing the longer reach for now.  VR is a big plus, obviously.  Though I'm a bit concerned about the f/3.5-5.6 based on my experiences with my N80 / Tokina 24-200 f/3.5 - 5.6.  As noted before, though, perhaps that's not an issue in digital due to more flexibility in changing ISO on the fly and opportunity to push 1-2 f-stops in post-processing.

Considered and Dropped

Nikon D40 / D40X.

Final Comment

If I decide to go body + 1 "catch-all" lens, I'm leaning this way.  Tied for 1st choice with the Pentax option below.

Pentax

$650  |  Pentax K10D

I find the K10D really intriguing.  More than enough pixels (10MP), and the 1.5 FOV crop factor is workable.  Build quality is supposed to be -very- good.  I find the weather sealing, dust reduction, and in-body shake reduction features pretty appealing.  I also like some of the usability features:  hard button to toggle between RAW and JPG or RAW and RAW + JPG;  hyper-program which allows easy switching between fully automatic, aperture priority, and shutter priority via a quick turn of the front or rear dials (no need to adjust the mode dial, though the option exists there, too);  user-definable auto-ISO;  digital preview (which I imagine I'll use a lot at first, but then less and less over time), combined aperture and shutter priority mode (though not sure how much I'd use this...might just go straight to full manual mode).  I've found the IS on my Canon SD850IS point & shoot quite useful, and expect the same on the K10D.  I know it's not a panacea by any means, but still a useful feature, I think.  And while apparently slightly less effective (most testing I've seen indicates 2 f-stop improvement for in-body, 3 f-stop improvement for in-lens, it's certainly substantially cheaper than getting IS in every lens.

$440  |  Pentax K100D

Another $$$ saver, even new, to the tune of $200+.  Six MP is probably sufficient for my needs.  Lack of dust reduction feature a minus (as previously noted may not matter), but in-body shake reduction a plus.  FOV crop factor 1.5 okay.  Build quality not as good / robust as the K10D.  AA / CR-V3 batteries not as good as rechargeable lithium (IMO).  No control panel light.  ISO 1/2 step only.  ±2 exposure compensation v. ±5 for the other bodies.  So...quite a few compromises along the way to saving a couple hundred bucks - which won't break me anyway, and may not go all that far towards better lenses.

$330  |  Pentax 21507G  |  16-45 (35mm eq = 24-68)  |  f/4.0  |  ED-AL Autofocus Zoom

Ideally, I'd like a lens with the same wide angle -and- longer reach, like the Nikon 2178.  Haven't found one yet.  But...the price is right, and it performs a bit better on the short end than a lens including a longer reach.

$360  |  Sigma 549109  |  17-70 (35mm eq = 26-105)  |  f/2.8 - 4.5  |  DC Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Zoom

Alternative to the 16-45 above.  Sacrifices a couple mm on the short end, but provides better reach for walkaround shooting.

$210  |  Pentax 27997  |  28-105 (35mm eq = 42-158)  |  f/3.2 - 4.5  |  SMCP-FA AL Standard Auto Focus Zoom

Ewwwww...silver shell.  Not available in black.  I've read almost exclusively rave reviews on this inexpensive lens.  Out of production, so if I get one new, I'll need to do so swiftly.

Final Comment

Tied for 1st choice with the Nikon option above.  Two lens Pentax option will require more frequent lens changes than the single lens Nikon option for general walking around (which represents the bulk of my shooting).  Though adding lenses should prove less expensive since I don't have to pay for VR with every lens, as with the Nikon.  Looks like Pentax plans on a 17-70 (35mm eq = 26-105) f/4 lens for release this summer, which would make for a better walkaround than the 16-45 above.  Finally, while it seems the Pentax lens offering lacks in long reach telephoto and telephoto zoom, I don't foresee plans to need the long reach, so I don't currently consider it a significant deciding factor.  Though preferences change, so...who knows?

Canon

$650  |  Canon 30D Refurb

Like Nikon, Canon has a great reputation.  I find the 30D appealing because I'm certain I'll appreciate the robust metal frame, seems there are lots of lenses from which to choose, and a there's a good used lens market.  With a metal frame, I assume the overall build quality will be very good.  But (again) I'm concerned about the lack of sealing and dust reduction features - but (again) perhaps I'm overly paranoid.  Eight MP should be plenty, but the 1.6 FOV crop factor makes it a bit more difficult to go as wide as I'd like.  Seems like CF is a dying media format for dSLR, but not a big deal to me at this point (unless high-ish capacity / fast CF are hugely more expensive than SD, which I doubt).

$470  |  Canon 400D (Digital Rebel XTi)

Could be a contender.  Plenty of MP.  Same lens options as the 30D, unfortunately including challenges in getting to 24mm on the short end due to the 1.6 FOV crop factor.  Includes a dust reduction feature, which seems like a good idea.  New saves me ~$120-150, used even more, both of which provide extra cash towards better lens(es), though I'm not sure $150 will have a huge impact on my lens availability within my budget.

$420  |  Tamron AF016C700  |  17-50 (35mm eq 27-80)  |  f/2.8  |  XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) Standard Zoom

Smaller zoom range than the Sigma below, but fixed f/2.8 throughout the range.

$360  |  Sigma 669101  |  17-70 (35mm eq = 27-112)  |  f/2.8 - 4.5  |  DC Macro AutoFocus Super Wide Angle Zoom

Pretty good speed, probably a better walking around lens than the Tamron above.

$230  |  Canon 6469A005  |  28-105 (35mm eq = 45-168)  |  f/3.5 - 4.5  |  EF II USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom

Seems like a winner for walking around when not planning to shoot wide angle.

Considered and Dropped

Canon 300D / 350D

Final Comment

Probably my last option at this point, as the 1.6 FOV crop factor presents challenges, and IS lens pricing for my desired range seems out of reach (at least new, perhaps not used).


Finally

Phew!  You made it (or perhaps just wisely skipped to the bottom).    Am I waaaaay overthinking this?  Critiques?  Recommendations?

FWIW, the above reflects the best options I've identified to date.  Other lenses / bodies I've considered (again, only new at this point, will continue to start seeking out new gear, though likely not in earnest til I decide which option to pursue):

[Brian Skalinder]

Okay, let's try this again.  Original post re-updated.  Warning:  it's a long one. 

[thegreatgumbino]

Nothing to contribute, Brian.  Just wanted to say you're the man.  I can't wait to show this post to my wife!     She gives me crap about all my research/spreadsheets when I am looking at buying something new.  Glad to know I'm not the only one.   

[Frank in JC]

Holy shit dude! 

I'll can answer the green question, but I don't have time to read the whole thing right now.

Yes, you can get by with f/3.5-5.6 in by boosting the ISO, and VR helps tremendously.  Obviously a larger aperture helps, but for my purposes, the real benefit of a large aperture is in generating background blur (bokeh).  Fast/pro-grade lenses tend to have a much more aesthetically pleasing bokeh, while consumer-grade lenses are rarely anything to get excited about in that regard (although they can be just as sharp).  It can be the difference between a boring photo and one where the subject jumps out at you.

It sounds like a Nikon D80 + the new 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX VR could fit your needs pretty well, however.

[phanophish]

First off What a post.  Very detailed and well researched.  Here's my two cents.....

VR/IS/Shake Reduction or whatever is much less important on short focal length lenses than on longer lenses.  For example, I have a Sigma 17-50/2.8 that is non VR.  I find that the additional speed I can get from a faster lens makes the VR not worthwhile on such a short lens that does not expose minor camera shake as much, plus it allows faster shutter speeds which can stop subject action as well.  You just have more flexibility overall with fast glass.  If you are shooting with ANY crop type sensor you will find the 24-28mm range to not be wide enough particularly if shooting landscapes.  If I'm grabbing my camera and 1 lens it the 17-50/2.8.  It's light, fast, easy to carry and gives me most of what I want for normal walking around.  None of the full frame sensor based bodies are in your budget so I would not worry much about a slight difference in the crop factor.  As you get in to longer glass the VR is nice

Nikon -vs- Canon -vs- Pentax - Here I'd have to say I'm not as big a fan of the Pentax stuff.  Not because it is not good.  Rather Canon and Nikon are so far and away the leaders.  Lenses become your largest investment if you are getting serious about photography.  Canon & Nikon both make great glass, as does Pentax.  However, look at the used market.  See anyone selling Pentax gear?  With such a limited used market finding good deals and potentially selling your used stuff when you decide to upgrade could be difficult.  Nikon and Canon both have very active used markets and there are simply more options.  I also believe that Canon & Nikon both have an edge on the other manufacturers in things such as ISO noise, metering, exposure, etc.  It may be small in some areas, but there is an edge.  Right now in fact Nikon's D3 blows everything else out of the water.  I fully expect the Canon/Nikon war to continue and the bottom line is the technology they develop for their Pro models trickles down and becomes available in their new bodies.  Pentax, Olympus & Sony just don't have the R&D that the big hitters have.

So where does that leave you, With your stated budget I'd probably go with the 30D, maybe a D200.  If you were spending a bit more I'd say consider the D300, my brother just got one and all I can say is WOW.  Canon probably has something like a 50D coming that could leapfrog the D300.  Nikon should have a D80 replacement in the pipeline that I would bet is right in the mix.  The question is when & I have no idea.  For glass I'd reccomend the Sigma 17-50-2.8 I have for either camera.  I love the lens and short of jumping to spending $1000 for a Canon or Nikon version it is probably the best bang for the buck.  Then maybe pick up something longer for casual shooting and plan on upgrading later.

[Frank in JC]

First off What a post.  Very detailed and well researched.  Here's my two cents.....

VR/IS/Shake Reduction or whatever is much less important on short focal length lenses than on longer lenses.  For example, I have a Sigma 17-50/2.8 that is non VR.  I find that the additional speed I can get from a faster lens makes the VR not worthwhile on such a short lens that does not expose minor camera shake as much, plus it allows faster shutter speeds which can stop subject action as well. 

Nikon should have a D80 replacement in the pipeline that I would bet is right in the mix. 

I don't need VR at 50mm either, but I do like it at 85mm!  Some people would like to see VR on the 17-55, but I don't see the need.

Along with the D80, the D200 must also be in for a replacement/discontinuation, but D200 prices haven't dropped much.  For $1,300 it seems like a bad purchase given what the D300 does for $500 more.  The D80 wouldn't have as much "cringe factor" when the new body is announced.

[bluntforcetrauma]

please  explain the crop factor say on the xti 1.6 FOV crop factor?

and 2. what does it mean for everyday shots?

why is it bad?

[eric.B]

Am I waaaaay overthinking this?

yep...

[Brian Skalinder]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

BFT -- the Field of View crop factor isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, and I probably have my terminology wrong.  DPR notes it as Focal Length Multiplier (FLM).  It's explained far better in that link than I could ever do it.

Frank -- Good to know I could "get by" with f/3.5 - 5.6 + VR/IS/SR, if necessary - it may come to that for my longer reach lens.  If possible, of course, I'd like to get out from under "get by" to something a bit better.  I'm pretty confident that's achievable for the shorter end of my focal length requirements, but am uncertain it's achievable for the longer end, also (even buying in the used market).

Phano -- Thanks for the rec on the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8.  I'm not finding a fixed f/2.8 in my searches, though.  Do you mean the f2.8-4.0?  Point well taken regarding the greater availability of Canon/Nikon lenses.  No question this is abundantly clear, and an important consideration.  Not many Pentax-mount lenses FS on dgrin, fm, or keh, but pentaxforums.com has quite a bit of traffic in used gear that has relieved most of my concerns.  Then there's always eBay, but there's a lot of oddball Pentax stuff on there that I'd never use.

The discussion so far has reinforced my realization that it's a stretch to reconcile <a> my focal length requirements and moderate lens speed goals with <b> the hope to achieve "value glass" (best price/performance) within my budget.  I know my budget won't get me into "best glass" (top end), and I'm not terribly interested in "budget" (performance not a concern), though I may end up there, anyway.  I don't foresee spending significant money down the road on upgrading lenses, unless I get bitten hard by the bug - in which case I'll probably sell one of my mic setups (>$3k), which would fund great glass.  Heh.

Given my past usage, I'm leaning towards a faster, shorter lens (16-45 / 17-50 / 17-70), and a slower, longer lens with vibration reduction (VR, Nikon, in-lens) / image stabilization (IS, Canon, in-lens) / shake reduction (SR, Pentax, in-body).  And that's where the Pentax becomes a significant advantage at my budget.  If I have to compromise and buy a more "budget"-oriented lens with slower speed, at least I can still get the benefit of the K10D's shake reduction (SR).  While the "budget" Pentax lens would, of course, suffer from the typical negative attributes of "budget" lenses, at least the SR would improve one of those attributes - and arguably the most important attribute, i.e. the ability to achieve a sharp enough image to be usable.  After all, if the image isn't sharp enough, the other negative attributes of "budget" glass - vignetting, pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion - don't matter.

Thanks for helping me think through it all, everyone.  I'm definitely still open to more feedback, but must admit that at this point I'm leaning towards the Pentax.  I'm going to watch used Nikon / Canon gear prices for a few days or week to see if they'll give me significantly better options than available to me new.

Which leads to another question:  what's a reasonablly "safe" number of actuations when buying a used body?  Is there some ballpark threshold of actuations beyond which it's just not worth the risk to buy a used body?

Am I waaaaay overthinking this?

yep...

It's a sickness.   

[Corporate hack]

Brian- drop me a line tonight on aim, let's discuss.  I've also got a few manual focus lenses and some gear you can use to try out for the canon line.

[phanophish]

 To address a few questions/ comments....

Like Brian said Crop factor is not Good or Bad, just something to be considered.  In shorter focal lengths it is sometimes a negative since it effectively reduces the actual field of view.  For example a 20mm lens on crop sensor will give you roughly the same field of view as a 30mm lens would on a full frame sensor or 35mm film SLR  For wide angle photography this is a disadvantage.  For telephoto shooting however suddenly your 200mm lens seems like a 300mm lens so it can be a plus.  There are also some arguments to be made that a full frame sensor can have better low light performance since the actual photo receptor can be slightly larger.  So buy a full frame DSLR right?  Sure, got an extra $1500 or more.  Canon (5d) & Nikon (D3) both make full frame bodies but since the actual sensor chip is larger it costs much more to manufacture and the cameras tend to the pro end of the price spectrum.

Brian.  This is the lens I have.  I think I said 17-50 but it is a 18-50.  Great lens for the $$.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-9559742-6393416?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sigma+2.8&x=0&y=0

I'd just say again that 2 stops can come from VR/IS/SR, higher ISO, or faster glass.  Obviously the best is all 3 and getting 5-6 extra stops.  The advantage to fast glass or good ISO performance is they also help to stop subject motion and it really gets to be difficult in lower light situations to stop subject movement.  I was just shooting my niece tonight with my 70-200/2.8VR and had to bump the ISO to get a shutter speed to stop her motion while she was running around the living room.  VR does not help address this.  I guess I'm just saying don't put too much stock in the value of VR over camera ISO performance and faster glass.  One of the main areas that Canon & Nikon are beating the other manufacturers is in high ISO performance.  Ken Rockwell is a story in his own right but this article has a decent comparison of the ISO performance of the models we are talking about...  http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comparisons/2007-10/index.htm#3200

Also have a look at this review, it details some of the image processing/ISO noise differences between the Pentax and other DSLR's.  DPReview has very good reviews of nearly all the major DSLRs on the market.  http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK10D/page20.asp


On shutter actuations is varies by camera model.  Typically the Pro & Semi Pro (D200, D300, 30D, 40D) bodies have a much more durable shutter than the consumer bodies(D70, D80, XT, XTi).  I think for example my D200 is rated at 200k actuations compared to numbers around 50k I've heard for my D70.  it is one of the things that makes my recommend the higher end models particularly when talking about used gear. I'd probably avoid a body beyond half it's rated shutter life.

[stirinthesauce]

I'm not even going to try and read that thread, Brian.  Waaaaaaay to long for my short attention.   

Good luck in your search     

[Jamos]

I don't have a ton to contribute since my knowledge of Canon & Nikon is really limited.  I was taught, and shot exclusively, on old Pentax bodies, including the ME/ ME Super, which I love.  I amassed a small collection of old K-mount lenses as well.  I mostly shot B&W, as that was my passion for years.

Anyway, about 6 months ago I decided to move into DSLR land...
I thought it stupid to not be able to utilize all my old glass, so the new Pentax'es were my first instinct.

Ended up going with a K100D kit.  The price point was what really sold me.  I was skeptical of having only 6MP, but it's never been an issue for me.  If I were a pro, it may have been a bigger issue, but I am an artist/hobbyist.

I still have a ton to learn about the camera to really "master" it, but I am 100% happy with my purchase.  The build quality is impressive...it is solid...and the ability to use old glass (though I haven't figured out if it's possible to use the AF with them yet) is huge.

I know they don't have as wide an audience as Canon & Nikon, but that's not really a concern for me. 

Brian, hopefully this helps somehow in your decision-making process.
 

[Brian Skalinder]

Thanks for the additional comments, Phano.  Point well taken about the advantages of gaining extra stops through a combination of VR/IS/SR, higher ISO, and faster glass.  I'd also not focused as much on the action-stopping advantages of faster glass and better ISO performance, as it hasn't really been an issue for me in the past, but it's definitely something I need to consider - especially since I plan to shoot my nieces running around the living room (like you did last night).    I guess I keep coming back to VR/IS/SR based on the assumption that all else being equal - i.e. the glass I can afford across all three options is basically the same speed¹, ISO performance is quite close², and RAW performance is also quite close³ - the extra couple stops from VR/IS/SR is a winner.

¹ I'm leaning towards moderately fast glass and a single lens for the moment, and worrying about longer reach later.  For now, until I get settled into the new gear, I'll "reach" with my feet.    The good news:  looks like Sigma makes my top 2 lens choices (17-70 2.8-4.5 DC and 18-50 2.8 EX DC) across all three mounts (Nikon, Pentax, Canon).  Right now, I'm leaning towards the 17/70 for its broader coverage, even though it's a bit slower - gets very good reviews from what I've read so far.  (I'll have to keep my eye out on the used market, since this lens is discontinued.)  But I may yet end up with the 18-50 (which gets universally excellent reviews and is still in production, or at least available retail).

² I've been over the DPReview comparison of the K10D, 30D, and N80 a couple times, and need to do so again another time or two to make sure I don't miss anything (wow...what a great resource).  In the ISO comparison crops, the 30D provides noticeably better performance at ISO 800, and again (though to a lesser degree to my eye) at 1600 ISO.  I'm not quite sure how to quantify the ISO differences, though, given the crops are very, very small:  only ~240 x ~180 out of a total image size of 3500-3800 x 2300-2600.  I'm having trouble visualizing how big a deal the ISO differences are at an actual full image size.  I wish DPReview provided full-size images at ISO 800/1600 (as if they don't already do enough!).  May have to search around to see if I can find another ISO comparison that shows full size images. 

³ Also helpful from DPReview was the comparison of in-camera processed JPGs and RAW performance.  The 30D is the clear winner for in-camera processed JPGs.  But I'm not too concerned about the in-camera image processing, since I intend to shoot RAW for better archiving / greater control in post, and the K10D stacks up very nicely in RAW.  I figure I'll batch convert to JPG with generic settings, and then identify any images I want to tweak further and deal with them individually.

All that said, based on your comments, Phano, I definitely have a better perspective on the broader performance options and focusing less intently on the VR/IS/SR.  Thanks also for the guidelines on actuations - that's totally new to me and not something I'd considered, yet.

(Ken Rockwell...the man isn't afraid to share his opinions, is he?  He makes some good points, but his style's a bit grating at times.)

Jamos -- thanks for your input.  Glad to hear there are users who went Pentax and didn't regret it.    Plenty of those types over on pentaxforums.com (not surprisingly) and a smallish group on dgrin and fredmiranda.

Must...sleep...

[Frank in JC]

Well Brian, nobody can accuse you of trying to satisfy the urge for instant gratification.  I think you've already put more thought into this decision than I have cumulatively for everything I've purchased in my life 

It's a Catch-22, but the only foolproof way to know what equipment best suits your needs within a certain budget is to buy a camera and start shooting again.  (Gee Frank, that's really not helpful.)  Seriously though, the only way to know is to... uh... know.

Since you're willing to use 3rd party lenses, go with Phano's recommendation of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.  It takes you out of the territory where IS/VR would be useful, making it a non-issue, plus you'll get the advantages of a large aperture.  You won't get the build quality of the Nikon and Canon equivalents but you'll be able to take nearly the same quality pictures. 

As far as the body goes... if you use a Mac, get a Canon.  If you use a PC, Nikon.  See how easy? 

[phanophish]

I may get hung up more on ISO performance that I should. I shoot weddings and concerts, both situations have very challenging low levels of light and particularity with weddings the quality at higher ISO setting is important. I just know it is frustrating to be in a situation where I'd like to bump the ISO up but I'm worried about noise.  When I only had a couple of D70s it was a constant trade off, with the D200 I just go right to 1600 for concerts and non flash wedding stuff if I need to. If I had a D3 I'd probably be at 3200 or 6400, that camera is simply amazing.  I'm lusting after a D3 so bad right now, and after seeing the improvement from my D200s to the D300 my brother just got it is not helping any. 

The bottom line is you can get great images with any of the modern DSLRs they are all to the point they are better than film and digital gives you the flexibility to experiment and use tools like Photoshop to do some amazing things in post processing.  One other suggestion, Noiseware.  It's like Magic for Photoshop.  Check out this thread...  http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,88485.0.html  It also give a good example of ISO noise in a low light situation, almost a worst case scenario.  Low light, lots of shadow areas, dark clothing, moving subjects and so on.

[Brian Skalinder]

Frank -- Actually, the point about not knowing until I, well...try / know, is spot on, and far more helpful than you think.  I need to pull the trigger, otherwise I'll remain in my current state:  options paralysis.  Hmmmm...Mac = Canon, PC = Nikon.  I guess Pentax = Linux, then? 

Another thing I need to remember - Phano, you mention it in your response, and Ken Rockwell's site makes this point ad nauseum, in his own blunt way:  until / unless I get a LOT better in my shooting, I will be the single most limiting factor in the quality of my pictures - not the gear.  Even so, I have a strong appreciation for quality gear, and trying to get the best value for my money.  This would all be much easier if I simply allocated another $1k or so. 

Phano -- interesting note on Noiseware.  The sample crop of Les provided a stunning improvement.  Gonna have to check out Noiseware, for sure.

I'm going to poke around a bit more, but at this point, I feel like I pretty fully understand my options and just need to mull it over before pulling the trigger.  Thanks again for the good responses, everyone. 

[Frank in JC]

Hmmmm...Mac = Canon, PC = Nikon.  I guess Pentax = Linux, then? 

Linux = Lomo!

http://shop.lomography.com/shop/

[sunjan]

I shoot strictly handheld, and don't plan on moving to a tripod, though I may eventually opt for a monopod.  FWIW, I don't expect my usage to change dramatically, though I may end up doing significantly more family-oriented pics of nieces, pets, grandparents, and such, but...who knows? 

Hey Bri!

You didn't mention much about your flash usage habits. Do you tend to make use of the pop-up flash for fill-ins, or do you intend to go for an external flash? I didn't see it in your budget. Or are you a purist who do existing/ambient light only, no matter what the situation?

The flash habit would influence my choice of lense, that's why I'm asking...

/J

[Brian Skalinder]

You didn't mention much about your flash usage habits. Do you tend to make use of the pop-up flash for fill-ins, or do you intend to go for an external flash? I didn't see it in your budget. Or are you a purist who do existing/ambient light only, no matter what the situation?

Not sure what I'll do about flash.  It's an area in which I have zero experience.  Not necessarily a purist.  I can see using a flash for fill-ins, but don't know whether pop-up or external makes more sense.  It's not something I'm terribly concerned about at this point, which is one of the reasons I didn't mention it.  I guess my assumption is that a moderately fast wide angle zoom + a very fast prime will preclude me from needing to use flash all that often.  But...I won't know til I get out there and start shooting again.

For the sake of (my) education:  do you have a flash you'd recommend for the three bodies under consideration?  And what lens recommendations would you make based on using flash (either pop-up or external) for fill-in?

[Frank in JC]

For the sake of (my) education:  do you have a flash you'd recommend for the three bodies under consideration?  And what lens recommendations would you make based on using flash (either pop-up or external) for fill-in?

The Nikon's built-in flash has a feature called "commander mode," that allows you to cordlessly use an SB-800 or SB-600 flash unit off-camera.  The pop-up flash works as the commander and uses pulses of light to communicate with the flash.  It's not a slave mode either, it's very smart.  Just as if they were attached, the data encoded in the flash pulses tell the remote flash when to fire, at what power level, and for how long. 

Off-camera flash looks a lot nicer than on-camera, which tends to make everything look flat.  Nikon gives you this feature for "free," but I think you need additional accessories in order to do it with Canon.

[phanophish]

For the sake of (my) education:  do you have a flash you'd recommend for the three bodies under consideration?  And what lens recommendations would you make based on using flash (either pop-up or external) for fill-in?

The Nikon's built-in flash has a feature called "commander mode," that allows you to cordlessly use an SB-800 or SB-600 flash unit off-camera.  The pop-up flash works as the commander and uses pulses of light to communicate with the flash.  It's not a slave mode either, it's very smart.  Just as if they were attached, the data encoded in the flash pulses tell the remote flash when to fire, at what power level, and for how long. 

Off-camera flash looks a lot nicer than on-camera, which tends to make everything look flat.  Nikon gives you this feature for "free," but I think you need additional accessories in order to do it with Canon.

This is going to me the mother of all verbose threads.  For Nikon or Canon go with the Nikon or Canon Flashes.  They integrate much better with the metering systems and provide some additional features that most other flashes do not offer.  For Nikon if you have any body D70 or above (D80, D200, etc) the built in flash can remotely control a SB-600 or SB-800 flash.  Canon has a similar feature on their higher end external flashes but since I'm more a Nikon shooter I'm not familiar enough with the details to provide good information.  It looks like Pentax has a similar function but again I'm not the expert.  I have used the Nikon Wireless TTL flash to do some cool stuff but it takes some practice to really get the swing of.  Here's an example though.  I moved the flash off camera to get a more creative lighting placement.  I was shooting with a Sigma 10-20 Wide Angle, basically holding the camera over the group dancing while I was on the outside of basically a huddle, the sort of thing you see after a sports event all the time.  It was a totally automated exposure, focus, everything.  The TTL flash and built in meter nailed the exposure and getting the camera in a location where I could not even see in the viewfinder made the image.  I would not have been able to get this shot without the wireless off camera flash.  There are other ways to do the same thing manually and it can be a really fun way to get creative with photography.  The best online resource for flash photography is http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/  It is a great site and is all about the DIY ethic & low budget flash photography.

 

[gearscout]

Yes, very thorough...agonizing even.  But I admire the effort!   

There are all kinds of 'Nikonians' who have upgraded from the D200 to the D300 for added ISO performance.  They are now selling their D200's for half the price they paid (or less, in some cases.)  Many of them only have a few thousand 'clicks' on them (actuations is the official term, I believe.)  That would translate to somewhere between $600 and $800 for the body.

By using a free software program called Opanda Power Exif, you can tell how many shutter releases the D200 has.  Just shoot a photo, view it in Opanda, and it's one of the data entries returned.  Don't worry, the guy who owns it doesn't care that he's only taken a couple thousand shots and is basically selling a brand new camera.

It is characteristic of an entire class of photographers who research and enjoy owning the latest high-quality photographic equipment much more than they actually enjoy photography.    Well, at least we can say they enjoy buying new equipment even though they don't really use it much.

I focus on the D200 because it is capable of being used with nearly every lens made by Nikon since the early 1970's. 

These AI/AIS lenses don't have autofocus features, but meter nicely on the D200, so you can shoot on aperture priority and simply focus manually.  These can be purchased for bargain prices on eBay and other outlets because most of these same people want auto-focus lenses.  I have a 20mm/f4 made in 1973 that takes stunning images.  $125.   In fact, I would argue that Nikkor's "old glass" is as good, or better, than what you can buy today.  I am not a fan of Sigma etc.  I would certainly consider the Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF lens brand new.  It's cheap and it's performance is excellent.

So, if I had a budget of $1200 and wanted to find a bargain in a DSLR, I would marry my best-featured-for-the-money DX camera to its ability to use the greatest numbers of high-quality, low-priced lenses. 

Make sense?

Certainly it makes more sense than paying $1600 for a camera, using it like the price of digital images was tied to the price of gas and then selling it 12 months later for half what you paid.

Try Nikonians.org to buy a used D200.  They have had some problems with internet sellers of late, so be sure to get, and be ready to furnish, references.  Use PayPal. 
 

[Brian Skalinder]

Thanks for the input, Gearscout.  Gear sluts in the camera community?  Noooooo...say it ain't so!  I appreciate the feedback, and the tip on the Nikonian site - looks like yet another cool resource.

Thanks for the flash feedback, Phano.  Gonna have to give that one more thought, as it's spurred consideration of an issue I'd not thought of before.

[phanophish]

And you thought you were over thinking this.  Get some camera geeks together and we'll make you think you missed everything.   

[Frank in JC]

There are more than a few guys who constantly upgrade "just because," even though they are unskilled photographers.  (Just like the "audiophiles" who constantly buy and sell equipment, but really aren't into music.)  However, the D300 really is a significant improvement over the D200.  My photos look nicer, there's no question.

I use an old manual focus Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 on my D300 that takes amazing photos, but I want to use manual focus for macro shots anyway.  Manual focus would be a hassle for most of the stuff I do, especially given the small image in the viewfinder produced by a cropped-sensor DSLR, and the absence of a split-prism.  (I'm not a fan of the green dot indicator.)  Plus, the D300's AF system is really, really good.

You'll see

Yes, very thorough...agonizing even.  But I admire the effort!   

There are all kinds of 'Nikonians' who have upgraded from the D200 to the D300 for added ISO performance.  They are now selling their D200's for half the price they paid (or less, in some cases.)  Many of them only have a few thousand 'clicks' on them (actuations is the official term, I believe.)  That would translate to somewhere between $600 and $800 for the body.

By using a free software program called Opanda Power Exif, you can tell how many shutter releases the D200 has.  Just shoot a photo, view it in Opanda, and it's one of the data entries returned.  Don't worry, the guy who owns it doesn't care that he's only taken a couple thousand shots and is basically selling a brand new camera.

It is characteristic of an entire class of photographers who research and enjoy owning the latest high-quality photographic equipment much more than they actually enjoy photography.    Well, at least we can say they enjoy buying new equipment even though they don't really use it much.

I focus on the D200 because it is capable of being used with nearly every lens made by Nikon since the early 1970's. 

These AI/AIS lenses don't have autofocus features, but meter nicely on the D200, so you can shoot on aperture priority and simply focus manually.  These can be purchased for bargain prices on eBay and other outlets because most of these same people want auto-focus lenses.  I have a 20mm/f4 made in 1973 that takes stunning images.  $125.   In fact, I would argue that Nikkor's "old glass" is as good, or better, than what you can buy today.  I am not a fan of Sigma etc.  I would certainly consider the Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF lens brand new.  It's cheap and it's performance is excellent.

So, if I had a budget of $1200 and wanted to find a bargain in a DSLR, I would marry my best-featured-for-the-money DX camera to its ability to use the greatest numbers of high-quality, low-priced lenses. 

Make sense?

Certainly it makes more sense than paying $1600 for a camera, using it like the price of digital images was tied to the price of gas and then selling it 12 months later for half what you paid.

Try Nikonians.org to buy a used D200.  They have had some problems with internet sellers of late, so be sure to get, and be ready to furnish, references.  Use PayPal. 
 

[gearscout]

Just saw 2 D200's go on sale on Nikonians.org  They're picked up very quickly.

These are really good deals, IMHO.
-----------------------------              
Selling my Nikon D200 in MINT condition...
Comes with After-Market 1700 Mah battery and original charger.
Has about 10K clicks on it
Camera well kept and comes w/ box, manual and its accessories
Asking: $725.00 shipped
-----------------------------

The other one was $1050, including verticle grip that allows you to use 2 batteries at once with portrait orientation buttons etc., dual battery charger and extended warranty.  Even buying this and the new f1.8 50mm would only put you $50 over budget.  The photos that accompanied this sale were great.  The camera, all it's original boxes, and, to all appearances, absolutely pristine!  I can't even remember my camera looking like this!

D200 Body with original box
2 years Nikon’s extended warranty
MB-D200 Battery Grip with AA Battery Holder with original box (Edit: $160 @ B&H)
Two EN-EL3e Rechargeable Li-ion Battery (Edit: Around $70)
MH-18A Battery Charger with AC Cord (Edit: $47 @ B&H)
MH-19 charger plus PW-EC1 cigarette-lighter adapter (Edit: About $25-100 total)

(Edit: Standard Accessories)

USB Cable
Video Cable
Black Body Cap
DK-21 Rubber Eyecup
Neck Strap
Software CD-ROM
Instruction Booklets
-------------------------------------

Insane Eddie has LOTS of cousins!   

As Frank might note, the D300 has lots of great features and is a logical upgrade for performance in the Nikon lineup.  Thank goodness.  It's creating real bargains for photographers who can take advantage of "Nikon Acquisition Syndrome" (NAS) among others.   

[bluntforcetrauma]

Why Nikon and not Canon? I am just wondering.

This is what i am considering purchasing. I am not a professional photographer at all, but I want to upgrade from where i am at, BUT I dont think i need to go too far up the upgrade ladder right now.  I imagine you can always upgrade. I am going use the camera for a multi-purpose for concert photos and portraits, in which I photo individuals with neurological disorders which is hard for them to " hold" a pose. So i need quick glass to get the keep the quick movements to a minimum as far as blur.

so I am thinking this is my path

CAnon rebel xti

With the lenses

70-200L IS f2.8 zoom

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM  wide angle

Please advise--I dont want to purchase something that would not meet my situations listed above.

Again i can always upgrade in the future, but for now will what i listed produce good resuslts?

thanks

[sunjan]

For the sake of (my) education:  do you have a flash you'd recommend for the three bodies under consideration?  And what lens recommendations would you make based on using flash (either pop-up or external) for fill-in?

The Nikon's built-in flash has a feature called "commander mode," that allows you to cordlessly use an SB-800 or SB-600 flash unit off-camera.

QFT. After 20 years of flash use, my mindset is still stuck in the old world, and I'm just beginning to explore my SB-800. But it opens up a lot of new possibilities.

Bri, my concern was that you rely on the pop-up flash and select a wide angle that obstructs the path of light when zoomed out full. That's the case with my Nikkor 18-70, which means that any shot taken with a diameter under 30mm or so will be spoiled by a black crescent at the bottom of the picture. This is when you need a standalone flash that can you can bounce into the ceiling, preferably with an opaque plastic "bouncer" add-on. Once you've mastered the technique, you'll never have to worry about harsh light flash portraits again.

bluntforcetrauma, this one's for you as well. Use a fill-in flash too for your portraits. The money you pour into a super-fast lense will give you more returns if you put aside a few $100's for a decent flash, and you won't need to squeeze out that last aperture step anymore.
The Nikon SB series has a big selling point here against the Canons, but then I'm biased. Let an experienced Canon flash user speak, and he'll prove you can still get great results.

[gearscout]

Why Nikon and not Canon? I am just wondering.

There isn't much difference in terms of the final results.  After all, the photographer and the technique have much, much more to do with a good photo than the camera.  The "feel," menu systems and layout are probably a bigger difference.  I don't subscribe to the notion that one of these brands is better than the other.   Like the Nikon D80, the Rebel XTi is plastic.  The D200 is a metal body, weather/dust sealed...and much higher priced.  I was recommending that camera as one of the better ones you can buy today at a great price point.

Your questions about freezing the action in dimly lit concerts and for portraits raises a sticky issue for most digital cameras: low light performance.  You camera and lens selection looks pretty well balanced...I might opt to throw in a 35mm or 50mm prime capable of faster performance than f/2.8   

What sunjan writes is true, only an external flash will lock in your results in many situations.  The on-board flash in a lot of these cameras is either too much at short range or too little at longer focal lengths.  I have and use an SB800 and utilize bounce or a Lightsphere diffuser, even in daylight.  I don't think anything matches natural lighting with a fast lens, but having said that, there are situations where it simply doesn't work.  They now make a little diffuser for Nikon or Canon that goes over the onboard flash. (One is called the "Puffer Pop-Up" and is sold for less than $10 on eBay.)  I've not tried it.  I just wonder whether spending $300 on a full-blown flash can find room in the budget.  Maybe it should.

[bluntforcetrauma]

Why Nikon and not Canon? I am just wondering.

There isn't much difference in terms of the final results.  After all, the photographer and the technique have much, much more to do with a good photo than the camera.  The "feel," menu systems and layout are probably a bigger difference.  I don't subscribe to the notion that one of these brands is better than the other.   Like the Nikon D80, the Rebel XTi is plastic.  The D200 is a metal body, weather/dust sealed...and much higher priced.  I was recommending that camera as one of the better ones you can buy today at a great price point.

Your questions about freezing the action in dimly lit concerts and for portraits raises a sticky issue for most digital cameras: low light performance.  You camera and lens selection looks pretty well balanced...I might opt to throw in a 35mm or 50mm prime capable of faster performance than f/2.8   

What sunjan writes is true, only an external flash will lock in your results in many situations.  The on-board flash in a lot of these cameras is either too much at short range or too little at longer focal lengths.  I have and use an SB800 and utilize bounce or a Lightsphere diffuser, even in daylight.  I don't think anything matches natural lighting with a fast lens, but having said that, there are situations where it simply doesn't work.  They now make a little diffuser for Nikon or Canon that goes over the onboard flash. (One is called the "Puffer Pop-Up" and is sold for less than $10 on eBay.)  I've not tried it.  I just wonder whether spending $300 on a full-blown flash can find room in the budget.  Maybe it should.

great stuff, thanks.  I was looking at the canon D40 ( i htink that is it) its up there around 1,000 or so and the XIT is half that, I just thought for what i was doing right now that the xti is worth the price since it seemed to be mroe than half than the other and i thought the performance wasnt bad. But agin tht low light situations do arise.  I love natural light, i was shooting some yesterday in natural light versus flash and natural light looks great.  And again i will need indoor low light capabilities, so i will look for a better flash which can cover the distance. 

what  specefic 25 or 50 mm would you recommend with a faster performance tha f2.8?

[phanophish]

what  specefic 25 or 50 mm would you recommend with a faster performance tha f2.8?

Canon & Nikon Both make a 50/1.8.  They are around $100 and the best value for fast glass on either platform.  If you are feeling spendy both also make a 1.4 and while you get 2/3 of a stop faster glass, you start getting in to razor thin depth of field that makes getting good images a challenge.

I will add that (and I may be a bit biased here) I also think Nikon has Canon beat in their flash performance.  Particularly when you talk about off camera wireless flash.  Nikon's CLS system is superior.

[Brian Skalinder]

Just a reminder to everyone to be cautious with internet purchase:  ~$12k worth of scamming at Nikonians.org

Not a reflection on Nikonians.org, necessarily, just a reminder to be careful!

[cgrooves]

Brian-
Don't know if you pulled the trigger yet, but I just completed research on DSLR gear with the same budget you referenced and came up with this:

Canon 30D (refurbished)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8

All of that ran right at your budget.  I found that the Tamron is getting better reviews than the Sigma (18-50mm), and the reviews on the Tamron are not too far off from the canon lens reviews for a substatially cheaper price (The Tamron is much noisier, but I can deal with that for the savings).  The fixed lens should be great for the really low light concert stuff and provide super sharp images in regular lighting at that focal range.  With such a great reputation vs. the low cost, I thought that fixed lens purchase was a no-brainer.  If funds can be secured in the future, adding the 17-200mm to the above gear would be perfect for my needs.   

[Brian Skalinder]

Well, I went against nearly all the advice provided:  Pentax.     For ~$100 under my budget (tack on a couple filters and I've reached my budget):

• Pentax K10D  |  very lightly used;  solid, durable body, rated for > 100,000 actuations (more than I'll ever use)
  
• Pentax D-BG2 vertical grip / battery holder  |  really liked the vertical grip on my old Nikon N80, glad I found this at a reasonable price
  
• Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5  |  decided I wanted the extra reach of the 70mm v. the 18-50 f/2.8;  I may regret losing a bit of speed in return for longer reach, in which case I'll switch to the 18-50 with very little, if any, additional cost
  
• Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4  |  must-have for indoors, low light, etc.
  
  

High ISO performance was a consideration, with the 30D edging out the K10D and N80 in pixel-peeper tests.  But unless cropped significantly, I had a tough time telling the difference in high ISO handling between the D80, 30D, and K10D.  Given I'm not doing large prints, I'm not terribly concered about it.  (The K10D in-body shake reduction also played a role in this consideration, as it provides a ~2 stop edge over the D80 / 30D, given I simply don't foresee shelling out the $$$ for IS/VR lenses.)

As the above parenthetical comment suggests, I ultimately weighted the in-body shake reduction more heavily than the slightly better Canon ISO performance.  Even if I decide to splurge on a fast ~70-200 f/2.8 tele zoom (simply can't see myself needing anything longer), which costs about the same - without IS/VR - regardless of mount, the added benefit of in-body shake reduction tipped me towards the K10D.  To get IS/VR in a 70-200 Canon or Nikon would cost nearly double, and I just don't see myself spending that kind of cash.

Outside of a 70-200 f/2.8, I just don't see myself going hog-wild with additional lenses, so the far broader lens options for Canon and Nikon don't particularly resonate with me.  And as for availability, I've found plenty of used Pentax gear in various places - enough, at least, to satisfy my limited needs and desires.

Other thoughts:

• D80 grip felt best in my hands (perhaps because it's similar to the N80 to which I'm accusomted?), K10D grip next, 30D last.
• Liked the K10D / D80 front & rear dials;  didn't like at all the 30D dial on top of and behind the shutter release button
• Liked the K10D thumb-accessible AE-Lock, exposure compensation, and AF buttons; disliked the 30D / N80 top button / finger access to the same buttons
• Preferred the easy access of the N80 / 30D ISO setting hard-button, despite the top / finger button location;  no ISO hard-button a downside to the K10D until I learned I may map ISO setting access to the rear thumb-accessible OK button
• Really liked K10D's easy access to DOF preview by rotating the On/Off button with the index finger; felt like a much more natural motion than the DOF preview button on the front/left side of the D80 / 30D
• Liked the K10D swift menu access (Fn hard-button + single directional pad push) to detailed White Balance, ISO Sensitivity, Drive Mode, and Flash Mode settings;  didn't play around enough with the D80 / 30D to get a feel for whether the hard-buttons provided same level of detail access to settings (if left to menu access, the D80 / 30D required more scrolling / button pushing to access these detailed settings)

So...there it is.  It's clear from the LOADS of really great pictures from all the cameras I considered that the real challenge will be developing my technical and artistic skills (a loooong stretch, mind you, especially the latter).  Anyway, just wanted to provide an update.  I really appreciate everyone's feedback - thanks! 

[gearscout]

Congratulations!

Now, force yourself to get out there and take at least one "keeper" a day!   

[phanophish]

Enjoy the new camera!  For all we agonize over equipment the reality is most of it is very capable of outstanding results.  It seems to me you went in really having a good grasp of what the features/benefits of the various options are.  So now that you are a member of the DSLR club we want to see some images.....

[Frank in JC]

Yeah Brain, enjoy it. 

When I bought a compact digital camera last spring I didn't predict that less than a year later, I'd have a DSLR, a handful nice lenses, and significantly improved skills.  Considering the thought you've obviously put into this decision, it wouldn't be hard to imagine you becoming more enthusiastic as time goes on. 

Now join Flickr!