Help me!!

[shoot_me]

sorry to be a pain guys but i just seen these offers in Currys!!
Sony a230 with a 18-55mm lens
Olypus E-520 with a 17.5-45 lens
Pentax Km Twin with a 18-55 & 50-200mm lens

which is my best option??

[chris-p]

There isn't a right answer to that...

You need to handle the cameras to see which you like the most.

Personally I don't like the Sony a230, it's plasticy and feels cheap.

The Olympus is a better camera but the 17.5-45 is an odd lens. It is only available through Currys/Dixons companies. You'd normally get the 14-42 which is better.

Edit: The 17.5-45 was the kit lens sold with the E-500. It's not a bad lens per se but it's old now. When Olympus introduced the E-410 and E-510 they also introduced the 14-42 and the 40-150 to go with them. There are a few back to back reviews of the 17.5-45 and 14-42 and the 14-42 is generally better. Links to the Olympus website with info on each lens are here for the 17.5-45 and here for the 14-42

The Pentax doesn't do as well as the Olympus in most reviews (but the differences are minimal). You are looking at a twin lens kit with the Pentax which could be a bonus.

It really depends on what you want to shoot. The Olympus will has an advantage in the telephoto lengths because of it's 2x FOV multiplier rather than the 1.6x of the Pentax and Sony.

I can't tell you which is "best" but if it were my money I would avoid the Sony (unless you can find a used a200 rather than the a230) and I would be torn between the Pentax kit (which is better simply because it has the extra lens) and the Olympus (which I personally think is the better camera).

And I'd be thinking this all the time while I was buying the Olympus with it's proper kit lens (the 14-42) from Bristol Cameras for £335

[shoot_me]

Sony a230 with a 18-55mm lens £349
Olypus E-520 with a 17.5-45 lens £319.97
Pentax Km Twin with a 18-55 & 50-200mm lens £359.97 (takes AA batteries)

whats wrong with 17.5-45 lens? will i need to buy a 18-55 instead plus im going to buy a telephoto lens if i buy the Olypus. im like the Pentax but in not sure about the AA batteries it could cost loads in the end!! i really like the E-520 would it make much difference to me if im just starting off with the lens it comes with???

[chris-p]

With the Olympus spend a tenner more and get the 14-42. It's newer, sharper, shows less chromatic aberration, it's lighter and prettier. As I said, Bristol Cameras have the camera with the 14-42 for £335 HERE.
They also have the twin lens kit (14-42 and 40-150) for £450 HERE.

As I said above there is nothing wrong with the 17.5-45 per se, its just old and obsolete. Why not get the better one if you can?

I didn't know the Pentax ran on AAs. You can use rechargeables in it so you wouldn't have to buy loads of batteries. Some people would consider it an advantage because if all goes wrong and all your batteries are flat at least you can buy AAs in a shop!

[ianpinion]

I have an Olympus E410 with the 14-42 and 40 -150 and for kit lenses they perform pretty well. I will say though that when you're using the telephoto lens it's best to use it with a tripod unless the light is very bright with a camera with no image stabilisation as its all to easy for your shots to be spoilt by camera shake. If you go with the E520 though this shouldn't be such an issue. I now use an E620 with these lenses and I've found the results slightly better, but the secret to great shots isn't necessarily all down to the standard of your equipment. You've got to know how to use it properly and that makes all the difference.

[shoot_me]

Originally Posted by ianpinion

I have an Olympus E410 with the 14-42 and 40 -150 and for kit lenses they perform pretty well. I will say though that when you're using the telephoto lens it's best to use it with a tripod unless the light is very bright with a camera with no image stabilisation as its all to easy for your shots to be spoilt by camera shake. If you go with the E520 though this shouldn't be such an issue. I now use an E620 with these lenses and I've found the results slightly better, but the secret to great shots isn't necessarily all down to the standard of your equipment. You've got to know how to use it properly and that makes all the difference.

i totally agree with you, in the past i have always tried to get the best but it doesnt always work that way!!

[chris-p]

Hi Ian, long time no see!

Ian is right, of course. I was always impressed with both the 14-42 and 40-150. They are considerably better than the Sony 18-55 and 55-200 and the 14-42 knock the socks off the Canon 18-55 which was around when it was released.

As an ex-Olympus user I am always full of praise for their cameras and their system as a whole. I certainly would recommend them to anyone. Cue a barrage of questions as to why I now shoot Nikon!

[shank_ali]

Just buy a canon 400D/xti.Even the kit lens now has image stabliser.Your going to spend £300 and in a few months you will want better as your hobby' takes a grip'.
Imagine yourself taking a photo of your friend putting a ball towards the cup.Your camera could capture the balls journey from putter to hole (motion blur).A fast train stopped in time or blurred to a streak.
The creative options of a basic DSLR far outweigh any Powdershot camera.Come play with the professionals !

[chris-p]

Firstly an EOS 400D doesn't make you a pro. No camera makes you a pro.

Also, the scenarios you mention would all be achievable with the SX120 IS as it offers full manual control.

On top of that, the 400D is pretty old these days (in the fast moving entry level sector) and is certainly not the best value camera on the market.

[shoot_me]

hi lads
im getting the Olypus E-520!! cheers Chris-p u gave me loads of help