[papillon_65]

Many apples and oranges here.
Much comparison of incomparable items.

I can't see how comparing to other kit lenses makes the comparisons "incomparable"

True, the 18-55 doesn't have the pristine optics of much costlier lenses.
Yes, its images can be pumped in PP, for better or worse.
No, not everybody likes (or has a good copy of) the 18-55.
This argument has outlived its usefulness.
Zzzz...

If the thread has outlived its usefulness for you the answer is simple....don't read it.

[papillon_65]

It looks like you had a good experience with E1.
E-1 was not entirely classical DSLR. It had no flipping mirror inside. Instead there was a prism. Its sensor also was quite small and noisy (based on what I saw when I used it). It has no direct relation to 4/3, except being an Oly. product.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here Erika? I think you may be referring to the viewfinder type. The E-1 is definitely a DSLR with a mirror. It is possible to shoot to ISO 800 with the improved noise handling in Lightroom 3. At ISO 100 the E-1 is very clean. The raw files can also take a lot of punishment in PP because of the low pixel density

I had one which I bought second hand. People were very happy about it in Oly. forums (and also about the legendary between the Oly. folk C2100UZ), but 'my copy' of E1 was not so good. I do not know what exactly was wrong with it.
Yes it was heavy and built like a tank, however the pictures from 'my copy' of E-1 were not sharp. I realized this only when I got Canon eos 300D (which was 6mp camera while E1 was 5MP, so there was no big difference in resolution). 300D was producing much sharper pictures with its plastic cheap lens. So I sold E-1. It may well have been my lack of experience with DSLR's or bad hama filter that I used, that cause not sharp pictures with E1, however this does not explain why 300D appeared to be better.

Cheers,
elg (Erika)

The E-1 has quite a heavy AA filter. You need to sharpen up it's output quite a lot in post processing but sharp images are easily obtained. Here are a couple of examples below which demonstrate this. I don't think they could be described as not sharp although I appreciate viewing on the web at smaller sizes is not the best way to demonstrate sharpness, at larger sizes they are still sharp.

The bokeh is a bit ugly on this one but it's not the cameras fault

[paperbag846]

Great shots tony (especially the gator pit).

Onto a more constructive topic - have you played at all with Pentax's old kit lenses of the yesteryear? Those ones really shine .

I am really in love with the K55 f1.8... it does not get as much attention now that I have the DA 40, but the K55 is a really great lens, good FOV on digital, very nice bokeh.

If the 18-55 kit isn't working for you, look at the kit lenses from the yesteryear. They are even less expensive, and wow are they impressive.

Suggestions:

K 55 f1.8
A/M 50 f1.7

These are kit lenses I can get excited about .

How do you find your 16-45 compares to the Panny kit lens?

[papillon_65]

Great shots tony (especially the gator pit).

Thanks Paperbag, they're Asian Crocs but the result is still the same - big teeth and tails!

Onto a more constructive topic - have you played at all with Pentax's old kit lenses of the yesteryear? Those ones really shine .

I am really in love with the K55 f1.8... it does not get as much attention now that I have the DA 40, but the K55 is a really great lens, good FOV on digital, very nice bokeh.

If the 18-55 kit isn't working for you, look at the kit lenses from the yesteryear. They are even less expensive, and wow are they impressive.

Suggestions:

K 55 f1.8
A/M 50 f1.7

These are kit lenses I can get excited about .

I have a Super Takumar 55mm 1.8 in an M42 thread, it's a lovely little lens with beautiful colour rendering, good for portraits wide open and nice and sharp stopped down. I'm just waiting for a K mount infinity focus adaptor for it and I will definitely use it on the K-x.

How do you find your 16-45 compares to the Panny kit lens?

I find the 16-46mm considerably better than the kit lens. You might say it should be but it is only approx £120 more than buying a new 18-55mm DAL from my usual supplier. The performance improvement is greater than the price difference would suggest. It is sharp at F4 and progressively sharper at F5.6 and onwards. It's very well corrected for distortion and CA. I think it is an absolute bargain for what I paid for mine, I'm very happy with it. I shot with properly with it for the first time yesterday and was very pleased with the results. Here are a few of my keepers with it from yesterday.
Oh, and in case anyone thinks I have a beef with Pentax, I have also been mightily impressed with the K-x. A superb little camera for the price, great metering, reliable focusing and awb and excellent high ISO and dynamic range, I'm finding it difficult to fault the camera. Bear in mind that the second shot was handheld at 1/6th of a second and I took several more sharp shots at 1/5th so the shake reduction isn't too shoddy either .

[Internetpilot]

I'm sorry, but this logic is really out there. Why buy into an interchangable lens system if you are only going to use one lens? There's not much point in owning an SLR if you only plan on using the kit lens (although there are still some advantages, such as greater manual control etc.) In general, I would strongly disagree that the kit lens is the most important lens Pentax makes, and it is clearly not for you. They made the 16-45 for people like you.

I fail to see the issue here.It's the cheapest zoom they make, so how good does it need to be?

Most DSLR owners these days are hobbyists with little to no (justifiable) lens budget. This is especially true for a rather economical kit like the Pentax KX. In my sector of photography (hobbyist), for every one person who owns more than just the one or two kit lenses that came with their camera, I know 20 people who are just using the kit lens(es) that came with their cameras, and the majority (if not all) of those 20 typically leave one lens on the camera as if it was glued in place. I would venture a guess that if all entry level DSLRs were sold with an 18-250mm kit lens option, that no 2-lens kits would ever sell again and very few people would buy any lenses above and beyond the "superzoom" kit lens.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't ever say, "Hey, I'm going to buy a DSLR so I can change the lenses all the time." I would like nothing better than if I could get an 18-250mm with f/2.8 throughout the range. I'd solder the lens on the camera body and forget that it could ever be removed. Unfortunately, that's not available to me, so to get the range that I require I need two lenses. But I don't "need" any more than those two lenses for my photography requirements, and currently the 18-50mm f/2.8 is rarely off the camera body.

Most people these days go for DSLRs because of the significant IQ improvement (even with "just" kit lenses) -- not because they're eager to start an expensive and/or cumbersome lens collection.

[Pentaxor]

in short, kitlens = lay man's lens.

but anyways, the term kitlens should be more than a clue for what it is. let's not make miracles out of it.

[Clarkey]

Most DSLR owners these days are hobbyists with little to no (justifiable) lens budget. This is especially true for a rather economical kit like the Pentax KX. In my sector of photography (hobbyist), for every one person who owns more than just the one or two kit lenses that came with their camera, I know 20 people who are just using the kit lens(es) that came with their cameras, and the majority (if not all) of those 20 typically leave one lens on the camera as if it was glued in place. I would venture a guess that if all entry level DSLRs were sold with an 18-250mm kit lens option, that no 2-lens kits would ever sell again and very few people would buy any lenses above and beyond the "superzoom" kit lens.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't ever say, "Hey, I'm going to buy a DSLR so I can change the lenses all the time." I would like nothing better than if I could get an 18-250mm with f/2.8 throughout the range. I'd solder the lens on the camera body and forget that it could ever be removed. Unfortunately, that's not available to me, so to get the range that I require I need two lenses. But I don't "need" any more than those two lenses for my photography requirements, and currently the 18-50mm f/2.8 is rarely off the camera body.

Most people these days go for DSLRs because of the significant IQ improvement (even with "just" kit lenses) -- not because they're eager to start an expensive and/or cumbersome lens collection.

Well, I guess that is how the creeping menace of LBA starts....

[paperbag846]

I used the k20d with that exact attitude, with only the kit lens. It was a great experience. IQ was great, I learned a lot about photography, and for the longest time I had no idea what I would even need to buy next.

Then, I bought a 28mm prime, f2.8. I was struggling with the kit in lower light (exacerbated by the k20d's sub-par ISO 3200). The increase in IQ was huge... and the price was not exactly crippling considering the cost of the camera itself!

Flash forward about 1.5 years later, and I have a pretty good case of LBA. I temper my LBA in 2 ways... I buy AND sell, and do so with used items, so the lenses work out to be "free". It does not always work... I do have some issues offloading some of them (have not played with EBAY yet). Overall, though, I do not think I have sunk an exorbitant amount of money into products, because they all have reasonable or equal resale value. I really think that a DSLR owner is missing the point of an SLR without playing with different lenses. The camera itself is a disposable thing, but the lenses last forever (hopefully), and are the source of the image quality. It was never so obvious to me, as to when I bought a cheap 80-200 f4.5 Takumar Bayonet zoom. It's a good lens, for 30 bucks. But overall it just had none of the qualities of my 50's or 28, or my kit lens. The glass really matters.

Pentax is a fun system (I imagine Nikon, Oly, and Panasonic are as well) due to the long heritage of very affordable lenses with great image quality. Owning many lenses does not need to be expensive.

Some notable examples:

K55 1.8 - 60 dollars.
A50 1.7 - 50 dollars.
A28 2.8 - 100 dollars.
F70-210 - 50 dollars.

Those 4 lenses come out to the price of a used FA 50... and give one all sorts of fun tools to play with, learn about, and cherish.

The other nice thing about this strategy is that you can sell off individuals that do not work for you. If I every decided that the A 50 1.7 was not getting much use, I would be able to sell it for what I paid (easily) and dedicate that money to some other aspect of my life.

The DA*s and FA ltds. are out of reach for many... but by the same token, I would think that the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 are very affordable to someone wiling to spend 600-700 on a camera body, and they will really take your photography to new places .

PS: Tony, I love that shot of the clock!

[Jewelltrail]

Internet Pilot: Most DSLR owners these days are hobbyists with little to no (justifiable) lens budget.

Yes, this hobby can get mighty expensive. But, if you make a plan, much in line with what Paperbag846 outlines above, you can try out many different lenses, offsetting the cost of each as you sell and buy.

Also, if you are willing to invest time in acquring good manual focus technique, you can open a relatively inexpensive door to high IQ with the overflowing abundance of excellent IQ MF lenses which will mount on Pentax. Heck, even non-Ai Nikkor glass will mount in K-mount, some lenses even lock.

The greatness of the DSLR experience truly is in sampling all the various glass out there. Much like wine tasting if you ask me. Good Luck to you!

[Jewelltrail]

Paperbag846: A50 1.7 - 50 dollars.

That was a steal! Mine cost me $100.

[stevebrot]

That was a steal! Mine cost me $100.

Same here! Of course, I bought mine at the height of the K10D lens buying mania a few years ago.

OTOH, I only paid $40 for my Ex+ K 55/1.8, so I don't feel too bad


Steve

[stevebrot]

...To get a general sense of the better results one gets from higher end glass, compare the following two panoramas of Discovery Point at Crater Lake...

I spent a fair amount of time with both of your photos and agree that the 12-24 shot is generally more pleasing, though I suspect that the images would have been more similar if done at the same time. Quality of light varies according to the amount of cloud cover. There is also the matter that the 12-24 shot is technically overexposed by at least 1.5 stops. That gives a greater sense of luminosity to the lake surface and brighter and more vibrant color there, but at the expense of foreground detail in the snow.

That being said, there is no disputing that color rendition can vary greatly between lenses and forms a huge aspect of why a person would have a strong preference for one lens over another for the type of photography that they do. There are certain subjects where my Russian Jupiter-9 truly sings due to its color rendition, so much so that I will use it over my FA 77 limited for that type of subject.

BTW...My comments regarding the Crater Lake shots should not be taken as criticism. The lighting is difficult in both scenes and both photos are totally great and easily stand on their own outside the comparison. Crater Lake is one of the most difficult places I have ever shot due to the dramatic nature of the light and the limited time on any given day when the light is good for a particular feature.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I want to thank you people for the excellent Olympus photos. If I were not shooting Pentax and were not somewhat put off by the 4/3 format, I would definitely give that system a serious consideration.

There is an Olympus shooter that lives near me and shoots many of the same subjects. Interestingly, her results seldom resemble mine. Part is due to a different philosophy in regards to PP, grads and such, and part is due, I think, to the Olympus image processor. BTW...I consider her work to be pretty incredible. For a look-see:

Flickr: Konejita's Photostream

She shoots primarily with the Zuiko 9-18/4-5.6.


Steve

[Jewelltrail]

stevebrot: OTOH, I only paid $40 for my Ex+ K 55/1.8, so I don't feel too bad.

Gloating will get you nowhere. Seriously though, these things do tend to equal out over the long run.

Stevebrot: I spent a fair amount of time with both of your photos and agree that the 12-24 shot is generally more pleasing, though I suspect that the images would have been more similar if done at the same time. Quality of light varies according to the amount of cloud cover. There is also the matter that the 12-24 shot is technically overexposed by at least 1.5 stops. That gives a greater sense of luminosity to the lake surface and brighter and more vibrant color there, but at the expense of foreground detail in the snow.

I spent a fair amount of time with them as well & you make some excellent observations. I have never shot Crater Lake, but do a lot in the snow and realize how difficult lighting is when it dominates a composition. I just think, examining the histogram for both shots, that the Kit exposure is much better for overall IQ effect, than the 12-24 exposure is--the 12-24, for my tastes, is much too far to the right in this example.

Also, what we really need to see, especially in a Pano shot, are larger-sized examples.

[Jewelltrail]

Stevebrot:Flickr: Konejita's Photostream
She shoots primarily with the Zuiko 9-18/4-5.6.

Yes, a "different philosophy in regards to PP" for sure. Her work is heavy on the PP, but usually to beautiful ends. She too is very talented, and has that Olypus system shining. Thanks for the link.

JT