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?