Is Olympus E-510 a good candidate?

[creampuff]

The main concern is on the lens and not much on the body, I assume.

Many people are unfortunately unfamiliar with Pentax's range of lenses, at least in Singapore.
Not many know that Pentax is backward compatible to just about any K mount or M42 screw mount lens you can find, all enjoying image stabilization with full meter readout.

The kit lens (18-55mm) and kit tele zoom (50-200mm) are pretty good. As is the excellent and affordable 50mm f/1.4 http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4769/lens-test-pentax-smcp-fa-50mm-f14-af.html

The new Pentax DA* 16-50mm and DA* 50-135mm are both excellent f/2.8 zooms as are the DA or FA series prime lenses. Compact in size yet the image and build quality are first rate.

 

[wind30]

mmm.... not really... those pics you linked those are good pictures, probably much better than I would ever get. but are you sure the pictures would not be better with a 20mm?

I have quite a number of books on landscape photography by John Fielder, Charlie Waite, Joe Cornish, etc. Most of their photos are taken with either 20mm or 24mm. In fact I think the most used focal length is the 24mm. John Fielder said a 20-35m 50mm 80-200mm lens is ALL the lens he will EVER NEED on the field for a 35mm system. Almost everyone of the authors I have read recommends that too. Most says 24mm is enough.

I am not just reading about it. I have a 12-24mm or 18-36mm eq. on a s3pro for 1 year and taken it with me to trips to Japan and Korea. Sad to say, when you have 18mm you tend to shoot at a lot at 18mm, whether or not it is good for the composition. I do personally find my pictures better at 22mm after I switched to olympus... they are just more natural without losing the wide effect.

With a 17mm, you get the fake sense of depth which makes a picture looks initially very dramatic, but after a while it sorts of wears off on you. The kind of composition is always the same, some THING that looks unrealistically huge in the foreground. IT captures your attention cuz it isn't NATURAL. This is something I personally don't like. I feel a stunning landscape should capture nature as it is and I have seen MANY MANY good shots of nature without resorting the dramatic distortion of an ultra wide.

Just my two cents.

you are really asking for it, i suppose

let me destroy your personal pov

if you want to say that pictures taken with 5D + 17-40 not necessarily using 17 end.. then there are few where they state it is 17mm (1x crop factor because full frame):
higher ground
these dreams
now and forever
in the twilight

if you can look at adam burton's pictures and tell me that he isn't using wider than 20mm most of the time, then i will have nothing to say
i like shooting at 10mm most of the time (15mm in 35mm after crop factor)

if you want to see local version, imran definitely uses a lot of 10mm with his sigma 10-20mm. check it out.

 

[wind30]

The new Pentax DA* 16-50mm and DA* 50-135mm are both excellent f/2.8 zooms as are the DA or FA series prime lenses. Compact in size yet the image and build quality are first rate.

Those lens looks great but I think Pentax should be releasing new cameras SOON so not a good time to get a Pentax now unless you can get a great deal out of the old models.

 

[night86mare]

mmm.... not really... those pics you linked those are good pictures, probably much better than I would ever get. but are you sure the pictures would not be better with a 20mm?

I have quite a number of books on landscape photography by John Fielder, Charlie Waite, Joe Cornish, etc. Most of their photos are taken with either 20mm or 24mm. In fact I think the most used focal length is the 24mm. John Fielder said a 20-35m 50mm 80-200mm lens is ALL the lens he will EVER NEED on the field for a 35mm system. Almost everyone of the authors I have read recommends that too. Most says 24mm is enough.

I am not just reading about it. I have a 12-24mm or 18-36mm eq. on a s3pro for 1 year and taken it with me to trips to Japan and Korea. Sad to say, when you have 18mm you tend to shoot at a lot at 18mm, whether or not it is good for the composition. I do personally find my pictures better at 22mm after I switched to olympus... they are just more natural without losing the wide effect.

With a 17mm, you get the fake sense of depth which makes a picture looks initially very dramatic, but after a while it sorts of wears off on you. The kind of composition is always the same, some THING that looks unrealistically huge in the foreground. IT captures your attention cuz it isn't NATURAL. This is something I personally don't like. I feel a stunning landscape should capture nature as it is and I have seen MANY MANY good shots of nature without resorting the dramatic distortion of an ultra wide.

Just my two cents.

to each his own, there is no right and wrong so long as the picture is correct, no? but for me, wider is always better. i would rather have a 10-20 instead of a 17-40 and end up having insufficient space to capture a composition i want.

as for the "same something unrealistically huge in the foreground".. that's just perspective i guess.. and not all pictures shot at wider than 20mm necessarily do it that way to be honest, i wish i could take more pictures like that, because i like that sort of drama.

how do you put it.. when it comes to taking pictures of landscapes, you want to express the great sprawling expense that you feel. and somehow, a less wide perspective just doesn't cut it for some people, including me.

i remember an author who once wrote that he only needed 3 lenses.. iirc, he just wanted a 18mm (in terms of 35mm) prime, 70?mm prime (might have gotten this wrong) and a 200mm prime. anything else, he could walk. but that isn't exactly realistic. for landscapes you might be unable to cross a river because it is too dangerous. you might not be able to leap down to a cliff and be sure that you can go back safely again. for architecture you may have too many buildings around you.. so it is easy to say that we only need one focal length which is more natural and comfortable, but not realistic. i know for sure that if i only had an 18mm, a lot of the shots i wish to make, would be next to impossible. that said, i don't like the distortion of the 10mm wide of my sigma 10-20 either. i always have to make sure that the spirit level is right, ok for horizontal shots but hard for portrait shots until i get one when i next return to singapore. (cheaper) because if it's just a bit off, you cannot correct it easily. i respect your viewpoint though.. but i do hope that i've showed you that yes, good shots can be taken with wider than 20mm cheers

 

[monkeyjopaw]

here's my suggestion:

since you already know the kits you can purchase, go out to the store and actually try them. the "feel" of the camera is important as well.

 

[wind30]

to each his own, there is no right and wrong so long as the picture is correct, no? but for me, wider is always better. i would rather have a 10-20 instead of a 17-40 and end up having insufficient space to capture a composition i want.

The main gripe I have is people keeps thinking wider is always better. Even me included. I have thought about changing system to nikon or canon for their cheap ultra wides a few times.

But I have grown to accept that wider is not always better and it might even be bad for my photography. The reason is when you have an ultra wide, you tend to shoot at the widest most of the time whether or not it is good for the scene.

I am just curious since you own the 10-20mm, I guess most of you pictures are now taken at 10mm, right?

PS: when you get a 10-20mm lens you lose at the tele end. Example, the olympus 11-22mm is 22-44mm lens. compare it to a 15-30mm ultra wide, what you gained in the wide end you lose at the tele end. You no longer have the ability to shoot at the normal focal length of 44mm... All you have is just ultra wide to wide.

 

[night86mare]

The main gripe I have is people keeps thinking wider is always better. Even me included. I have thought about changing system to nikon or canon for their cheap ultra wides a few times.

But I have grown to accept that wider is not always better and it might even be bad for my photography. The reason is when you have an ultra wide, you tend to shoot at the widest most of the time whether or not it is good for the scene.

I am just curious since you own the 10-20mm, I guess most of you pictures are now taken at 10mm, right?

PS: when you get a 10-20mm lens you lose at the tele end. Example, the olympus 11-22mm is 22-44mm lens. compare it to a 15-30mm ultra wide, what you gained in the wide end you lose at the tele end. You no longer have the ability to shoot at the normal focal length of 44mm... All you have is just ultra wide to wide.

nah, i agree with you, wider is not always better. but for most of the time when you're talking about vast scenes, then yes, wider is better, more often than not.. when you want to really capture every detail in your picture. in the case where it is not suitable, then in that case a tele or even a long telephoto to isolate detail will work fine. which is why i'm not sure what sort of tele i should be getting. i also want a macro lens. but not true, i do not always shoot at 10mm, though i agree with you, there is certainly a tendency to do so. which is why you should always tell yourself down pat straight what you want in your picture, and not just look through the camera and take a few snaps.

in any case, i lose the tele end, i know.. but the tele end is so common.. i bring my 50 f/1.4 i get tele already.. :bsmilie: just kidding.

 

[Galdor]

How about the current listed combination in the list? Cost is an issue, but will make adjustments accordingly should there be any better recommendations.

Of course not till the extend that a complete change of models with some costly lenses.

I would suggest that you get a 2nd hand A100 with kit lens and start from there. The kit lens is actually pretty decent and the 18-70mm range is good for daily use. Work from there and see what are the limitations you faced and see if you can work around them before deciding to get other lenses.

The price of the A100 in the B&S now is very, very low. Grab yours now & start shooting.