10 Megapixel SLRs Compared (continued)

HIGH ISO NOISE: From brief comparisons the Pentax and Canon XTi are the best at controlling noise at high ISO ("film") speeds. However, they approach noise reduction in very different manners. The Pentax retains edge sharpness, dynamic range and contrast at high ISO but allows the background to become grainier; the Canon reduces edge sharpness, contrast, and dynamic range to make noise less noticeable at high ISO. Since dynamic range - the range from lightest to darkest - is already a problem with all digital photography we prefer noise control that preserves the already limited dynamic range as much as possible, but some will prefer the Canon approach. Both are followed closely by the Nikon, with the Sony exhibiting the most noise at high ISO. All four are all but identical to ISO 400, but at 800 small differences start to appear. It is worth noting that while the Pentax and the Canon sensors/processors control noise well they are not as "noise-free" as the Canon 6 megapixel and 8 megapixel CMOS sensors. This should not really be a surprise since the size of the sensor is the same APS C size in the 6, 8, and 10 megapixel versions. More pixels in the same area therefore translates into a bit more noise.


KIT LENS: While you can always upgrade to a better lens, the kit lenses that are normally packaged with the SLR are normally very good value for your money. The bare entry level lens for the Canon, Nikon, and Pentax SLRs is an 18-55mm, which is equivalent to a 28mm to 80mm lens on a traditional 35mm camera. The Sony normal lens is 18-70mm, adds the same cost to the kit as the others, but is equivalent to a 28-105mm lens for 35mm. Build quality is usually cheap on kit lenses, but the above picture compares the Sony and Pentax kit lenses. It is worth pointing out that the Pentax 18-55mm is the only kit lens with a metal lens mount as normally seen on "better" lenses - the others all have a plastic lens mount. Nikon actually has two other kit lenses in the 18-70mm and 18-135mm lenses, but these "kit" lenses add as much as $300 to the kit total, compared to an average $100 or less for the other kit lenses.

BUILD QUALITY: By far, the Pentax K10D feels the most solid and it is the heaviest of the four cameras. That can be good (build quality) or bad (increased weight) depending on your desires. The Nikon D80 is a very solid piece of equipment and is the easy number 2, followed closely by the also solid Sony A100. The extra sealing for water/dust resistance pays off in the K10D, which is easily the best quality Pentax since the *ist D, which also had a solid build quality. The Nikon and Sony build quality are about the same, except for the Sony's loud slapping mirror and louder focusing. The Canon is far behind the other three in build quality, but it still has the quietest lenses of the group with the integrated lens focusing motors. The damped mirror sound on the Pentax is very reassuring to most ears.

FLASH: Nikon and Sony (inherited from Minolta) both provide excellent distance integration in their flash offering. With Nikon D and Sony/Maxxum ADI lenses, flash photography is accurate and predictable. Pentax and Canon also have good built-in flashes and external flash units, but they are not quite the equal of the D offerings. Nikon has reasonable pricing for flashes, but Sony decided to make their Sony/Minolta flash units very expensive.

LCD(s): All four 10 megapixel cameras offer large 2.5" color preview screens. The Sony and Canon also use the screen for menus, while the Pentax and Nikon have a separate top-deck LCD that provides info on camera settings.

CONTROL: The Pentax Hyperprogram has been around for quite a while, and Pentax did a really great job with the front/rear dials and new sensitivity program line. The Nikon D80 also has both front and rear control dials, while the Sony and Canon have just one control dial. The ability of the Pentax to shift the program aperture with one dial and the shutter speed with the other while the camera is still in program mode makes shooting like you want a lot easier - the creative control of manual while still in program mode.


AUTO ISO: Both the Pentax and Nikon offer user selectable Auto ISO ranges - a really useful feature where the camera automatically selects "speed" based on program conditions you can manually set. Sony also offers Auto ISO, but it is limited to ISO 400 and it is not user programmable. The K10D capabilities with a manual, non-autofocus K-mount lens are icing on the cake - you can even use effective anti-shake with manual lenses after dialing in the focal length. Newer lenses automatically provide the focal length info to the camera.

PRICE: Amazon and Newegg were used to determine online prices. These prices should be available to any online shopper, but you may find even better prices if you are willing to do more searching. Conversely, local photo specialty retailers normally provide better customer support and return options than etailers, and their prices for the same item will generally be higher due to the extra service they provide. Right now the Sony A100 is the best value available with a price with 18-70mm lens of about $720. The Canon XTi is selling for about $800 with an 18-55mm lens. The moisture and dust sealed Pentax K10D with a quality 18-55 lens is $999, and the Nikon D80 with an 18-55 lens is about $1100.

Recommendations

All-in-all the Nikon D80 and Pentax K10D are the closest in build quality and depth of features. When you consider the K10D has very effective anti-shake built in, effective moisture sealing, and dust removal - and the Nikon has none of these features - the advantage definitely goes to Pentax. If you are a serious photographer you will be very happy with the Pentax K10D. If you are already committed to the Canon or Nikon lens system, then your choice is easier. However, while Canon pioneered the under $1000 digital camera market, the Canon Rebel XTi is by far the worst offering in the 10 megapixel range. It is cheaply built with poor ergonomics compared to other 10 megapixel offerings.

The Sony A100 is by far the best buy in the 10 megapixel group. Sony has reduced the suggested retail price for the kit to $899 - the same as the Canon Rebel XTi with lens. However, you can actually buy the Sony A100 for a lot less. At $720 the A100 offers a longer 18-70 lens, excellent build quality, anti-shake for any lens, compatibility with new Sony lenses and most any Minolta Maxxum lens, enhanced dynamic range, and fast operation.

10 Megapixel SLRs Compared Entry-Level Digital SLRs
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link

    To be clear the Sony A100 was the Best Buy or the best price among the 10 megapixel models. The Pentax K10D was named Best Value, as the most 10 mepapixel camera for the money. We stand by both those recommendations.
  • spazmedia - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link

    Didn't Minolta get sued for steeling the auto focus idea from Honeywell? ;-)
    And do all Minolta lenses have focusing motors in the lens? Are they silent when focusing? There are lots of lenses available for Nikon and/or Canon that are not available elsewhere. To each his own.
  • gibhunter - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link

    quote:

    On page 2 the Canon XTI was one GREAT advantage not mentioned is the improved autofocus engine, borrowed from the 30D, which according to many reviewers is better than any camera mentioned in this review, and definitely better than the K10D. It helps to get sharp pictures!


    That's just one of the FUD Canon's owners are spreading. Canon is definitely faster, but only accuracy helps you get sharper pictures. It is pretty well known that Canon sacrifices a bit of accuracy for outright speed. Canon is the fastest focusing body and it can mean the difference between taking a shot of a great moment or have it pass you by while you're waiting for the camera to focus, but that's all it is. That's why Canon is so popular with pros shooting sports. I'd venture to say that as long as we're talking about accuracy no system is quantitatively better than another.

    Now on topic of optical vs. body based stabilization. It has not been proven either way that one system is better than another. It's been proven that body based system is kind of limited at 1.2 meters (the length tested at dpreview). I have not seen any tests where one system was compared against another, but I have seen examples of 300mm at 1/30th tack sharp on Pentax forums and have taken sharp images hand-held at 1/10th and consistently sharp at 1/20th with my K100D. Optical stabilization is not available on any Canon or Nikon primes. It's not really needed until you get into low light photography where even the fastest primes need to go down to 1/20th or 1/30th of a second. Then you will appreciate having it.

    Optical is better at one thing though, it allows for vertical stabilization while you're paning (following a moving object so it's sharp while the background is blurry). Pentax stabilization system can't do it. What it can though is give you stabilization on all your lenses, even 30 year old 50mm primes. I know it can because I've tested it myself using two different manual primes.

    What can't be disputed is Canon's lens availability. You can find more lenses at lower prices and you can find great, expensive pro-level quality lenses on the Canon. You can also get USM primes (something not yet available for Nikon unless you consider Sigma.) Canon's bodies leave a lot to be desired as far as control and innovation go, unless you get into $3000+ territory of 5D. 30D pales in features compared to Nikon D200 or Pentax K10D. Then again those features are just a matter of convenience as you can take equally beautiful images with all these cams.
  • spazmedia - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link

    I find it strange that you do not see any pics produced by each camera. Essentially all that the author is doing is comparing specs of camera, which to add insult to injury this is done erroneously. On page 2 the Canon XTI was one GREAT advantage not mentioned is the improved autofocus engine, borrowed from the 30D, which according to many reviewers is better than any camera mentioned in this review, and definitely better than the K10D. It helps to get sharp pictures!

    In any case I advise anyone visiting this site to go to some more thorough review sites on photography to SEE what kind of pictures each camera takes and also try in store each one of them. You can’t go wrong with any of them, except that Canon arguably has the best lens lineup for the price and low noise, Nikon have to arguably the most useable cameras, Pentax and Sony have the best bang for the buck, body wise (but not when it comes to lenses, which are more expensive and low availability) Anandtech is good for computer hardware reviews, but for photography, they still have some work to do!
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link

    This is a Buying Guide and not a full-blown review. The viewfinder images were mostly shot with the camera they are identified with.

    We welcome criticism at AT, unlike some other sites. However, it is frustrating to be criticized for inaccuracy in leaving out info when that info is in the review. On p.1 "All of the 10 megapixel SLRs are faster than their predecessors - borrowing processing engines from higher priced models (Nikon and Canon) or pioneering new high-speed processing circuits (Pentax and Sony)." Then in the Canon XTi section on p.2 "Canon basically increased the resolution of their CMOS sensor used in the 8 megapixel Rebel XT to 10 megapixels, and dubbed the revised camera the Canon Rebel XTi. They did incorporate the improved image processing guts of their semi-PRO 30D and finally added their own dust removal system . . ." Perhaps you should read more closely.

  • spazmedia - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the reply. I did read through "fairly" closely and I still don't understand how you can associate "image processing" with auto-focus, to me these are two different things. I think it would be worth mentioning clearly that the Rebel XTI focuses faster and more accurately than its predecessor, seeing it is top of its class in this respect. This is probably the single biggest reason for upgrading from the previous Rebels and I way I hate Canon for dolling out features.

    And I still think a few images from each camera would have been nice.
    AT is usually very thorough and I would have expected this in their camera reviews/buyers guide as well. Maybe some sort of table comparing features would have been useful.
  • finbarqs - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link

    i've taken one photography class in black and white, and that opened up a whole world of photography for me and the wonders of the camera. I mean both Pentax and Canon and Nikon all pioneered something in their field, and i'm sure they have their strong points and their weaknesses. The truth is, the weakness being digital, and having the dynamic range of film is quite difficult to obtain. Sure we can use Neutral Grey Density filters, but still not quite the right thing. Then we can setup a tripod and do the "Dynamic Range" in photoshop but that's just up to the person.

    Personally, I wish i had enough to purchase the Canon 5D just so i can have their full frame image sensor. I hear it's the closest you can get to the reaction of lighton the film emulsion surface vs. film on the sensor surface. I may be wrong again since this is my first class, but then again, i've learned a lot from this class. Besides, I've taken awesome shots with the XTi, and i know for a fact that changing different cameras will only improve it by a little bit.

    *sigh* might as well go back to film :D
  • Justin Case - Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - link

    The bigger sensor on the 5D (and 1Ds) gives you shallower depth of field, which increases your "artistic" control over the image. Also, the fact that the sensor is physically bigger means it can receive more light, and therefore produce an image with less noise. But the size won't really influence the dynamic range of the sensor.

    With film, you can sometimes get some detail in an area that was overexposed by 3 or 4 f-stops. With digital, that range is about 2 stops, if you're lucky (and shoot in raw mode, of course).

    So yes, in that sense, digital still can't quite match film, but it already has less noise and more detail, so, for correctly exposed images, it already beats (35mm) film, even with smaller sensors. If you need a higher range, then you can use exposure bracketing but, of course, that isn't always possible, so film still has its place.

  • finbarqs - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link

    umm... from what i've learned, Depth of Field is determined by the setting of the apeture (F-stop) the lower the F-Stop (bigger apeture) the less DOF you have. Of course, again the benefit of the 5D and the 1D is not the Depth of Field, but having all lenses "normal". Meaning, a normal lens would be 42-55mm again, standard wide angle is 28mm, and standard telephoto portrait would be 135mm (of course anything above normal would be tele, anything below normal would be wide). And to get more detail, usually we just stop down as much as we can (since 35mm is usually limited to f/22 or f/32 -- most i've seen unless shooting with medium format or greater). Oh well... Detail lies within the size of the film as i have learned, and as far as digital goes, both size and quality of the sensor. The CMOS chip, is quite impressive.
  • Justin Case - Friday, December 29, 2006 - link

    > from what i've learned, Depth of Field is
    > determined by the setting of the apeture (F-stop)


    For the same sensor / film size, yes. But if the sensor size is different, that will also affect the DOF. A smaller sensor will give you a narrower FOV and a bigger DOF, using the same lens and same aperture. That is why it's virtually impossible to get nice out-of-focus backgrounds with small digicams - the sensor is too small.

    For example, if you put a "100mm" lens on a 1.5x crop factor camera (like a Nikon D200), where the sensor isn't the same size as a 35mm frame, you'll actually get an image equivalent to a 150mm lens (on a real 35 mm camera), and also bigger DOF. Which is good for holiday snaps, not so good for "artistic" photography.

    Also, most lenses are optimized for f/stops between f/4 and f/16 (f/8 and f/16 for cheap ones). If you close down more than that, quality actually starts to get a little worse at the focus point (you will increase the DOF, so you have more things in focus, but focus is never quite as sharp - it's a tradeoff).

    "Detail" is a broad concept. More pixels doesn't necessarily mean more detail, because as you cram more pixels into the same sensor area, each one gets less light, and is therefore less accurate (i.e., you get more noise, and that can actually make a sensor with more pixels produce _less_ detail). A similar thing happens with film: more sensitive film will give you less detail, because it has more grain.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now