Stock shooting with Nikon D5100 and Leica M9

Leica M9 Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar

A couple of times a year I head to the coast to add to my stock of images of British seaside resorts. Due to this years unpredictable summer this second trip has been somewhat delayed. However this late September heatwave has provided an ideal opportunity for some sunlit images.

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

For the first time in a while I left the smaller cameras at home and have just brought the Leica M9 and my two Nikons, the D7000 and D5100.

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

There's still something "reassuring" about a DSLR

I like small cameras. Anyone who has read anything of what I've written here over the last three years or so will realise that. However in all that time there has only been a very short period when I haven't had a DSLR at the same time. Though I have issues about the weight of them, in general, I've never stopped enjoying the feeling of picking one up and shooting pictures with it. Male macho posturing probably, but there is a certain satisfaction in holding a large black DSLR + battery grip + big lens. I will admit to a certain sense of "Look what I got, its big isn't it?"

This "mines bigger than yours" attitude is obviously nothing to do with photographic ability, but are we all immune to it? If we are out with our m4/3 camera or CSC, and we walk past a photographer carrying some huge Nikon or Canon rig, how many of us have that little voice inside saying "I wish I'd bought the DSLR,  he/she looks like a "proper" photographer and I don't." Note I used he/she. The common consensus is that this is a male thing. However recently I've seen a fair number of female photographers using large DSLR outfits. It may have been my imagination, but did I detect the merest hint of "Check out my camera" on their faces?

So what exactly does a DSLR give me? There's certainly a sense of reliability, solidity and the ability to "get the job done". Whether this has any basis in reality, is another matter. Certainly the only cameras I've ever had fail on me have all been DSLR's, so maybe that impression is not that realistic.

There is also the sense that it's saying "I'm a photographer, thats what I do" with the added implications that, "I'm not a snapshooter"  "I'm serious about photography" "I create images I don't take pictures" No matter what we tell ourselves, are those thoughts and the fact that we want to be taken seriously, lurking in our minds?. I'm honest enough to admit that these thoughts do surface with me from time to time.

So why do we need this "reassurance?" Why this constant desire to prevent the pain of "Camera envy?"  Maybe it's something to do with the fact that, in the "developed" world at least, photography and camera ownership is pretty universal. How many people do you know who haven't got some device for taking pictures? Is there then a sense of setting ourselves apart from the crowd, placing ourselves on a higher level from the masses and the snapshooters? And does a DSLR do that better than a smaller camera, no matter how good that may be?

The one on the left has virtually the same sensor as the one on the right. Look at the pictures they create side by side and you won't tell the difference. But which one says "I'm a photographer" ?

I enjoy using my Nikons, I know that the NEX-C3 will give me the same quality for 95% of the picures I take (sorry - images I create!) but I still like using them. I know my Leica M9 will give me sharper, "better" images, but I still like using the D7000. I like the instant feel of the shutter. I like the fact that it feels solid and substantial in my hand. I like the feeling that there's all that speed, power and functionality just waiting for me to unleash it. I like it because it "feels like a camera, godammit!!"

All of this may be completely irrational and yes, its not what photography is about, but if this is what we feel, why not admit it and indeed embrace it. If we feel good about the camera we are using, and the camera we use makes us feel better about ourselves as photographers, then it just might help us to take "better" pictures. Because if we feel like a "real" photographer because of the camera we use, then don't we have to go out and prove it?

Nikon D5100 24mm f/2.8D lens

I've written quite extensively here about how useful the Nikon D5100 is. With its high quality sensor, excellent handling and build quality, combined with its light weight and relatively small size, its getting close to providing all the advantages of a DSLR with those of a Compact System Camera.

It would seem an ideal vehicle to use some of Nikons small prime lenses on. However due to the fact that it has no AF motor in the body, which keeps down the weight and price, lenses like the 24mm f/2.8D pictured above are manual focus only. 

Even if you then choose to go with that option, the camera doesn't make it easy. In common with many Nikons there is a focus confirmation white dot in the viewfinder. Its very small and only shows up when the lens is in focus. Again like many Nikons its a bit unreliable when lenses are used wide open.

The two shots above were fine, and by the time you get to f/4 or so its pretty accurate. I did however get a few shots at f/2.8 that were significantly out. 

Another alternative is to use the live view and the magnification button. However because you have to leave the lens on f/22 for the automation in the camera to work, whenever you move the aperture ring to a wider aperture to help the manual focusing, a large warning notice fills most of the screen, and won't go away, thus making this somewhat difficult.

By now you're beginning to get the impression that Nikon are discouraging you from doing this. "OK, OK I give up. I know my place. I'll go back to the kit zoom!!"

However there is one very useful way of working that can be achieved with this camera and lens.

Like many D lenses, when the lens is set at infinity focus, it is genuine infinity focus. There is no point beyond that, which is normally found in modern lenses to allow the lens to AF quickly. Consequently using the hyperfocal distance, or zone focusing is very accurate. The Olympus 12mm f/2 has made a lot of people aware of this, and how useful it is.

The 24mm f/2.8D only has markings for f/11, f/16 and f/22. I used f/11 yesterday as shown. As you can see everything from just over 3 feet to infinity will be in focus at this setting.

Very useful for landscape and street photography. As you can see it from the above examples it works very well. 

It is a very handy way of creating images with the maximum depth of field for the aperture you are using. It obviously works best with wide-angle lenses and small apertures.

I suspect the above combination would work very well as a "street photography" camera. Though with the current situation on the streets in many UK cities, don't expect to still have it when you return home! 

Like many others I've been sitting watching on TV the appalling scenes of what's been happening in my country. For those of you in other parts of the world, I would like to state quite catergorically that the people who do this are a (very) tiny % of our population and totally untypical. Fortunately, in some twisted attempt at notoriety, they have been filming and photographing themselves and posting the results on the internet, thus making it easier for them to be caught. Its a different and perverted form of street photography and the idea of filming and photographing yourself and your friends engaged in destructive, violent and criminal behaviour is beyond understanding to most of us. Its only advantage is that it will enable many of the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

There's no such thing as bad weather - Nikon D5100

Nikon D5100 35mm f/1.8 lens

After last weeks heat and humidity, low pressure returned with a vengence yesterday with heavy showers alternating with periods of dazzling bright sunshine. Though not the greatest weather for what is the peak of the UK's holiday season it certainly makes for dramatic pictures.

Nikon D5100 85mm f/1.8 lens 

I started off in one place and then saw an enormous black cloud approaching. I drove through it to bright clear sunlight, giving the car a good clean in the process!

Nikon D5100 35mm f/1.8 lens 

Its been a while since I've used the D5100 and 35mm f/1.8 lens and I'd almost forgotten just how light it is. What I hadn't forgotten was just how sharp it is. It is an excellent lens, and Nikon could do with a few more like it. Their APS-C lens range is very short of good quality, light inexpensive primes. Yes I know that you can use all the full-frame primes on cameras like the D7000, but you can't on the D5100, and still keep AF. I took the 85mm f/1.8 with me, which is a wonderful lens, but is only manual focus on that camera. Unlike the D7000 the focus confirmation spot isn't 100% accurate on the D5100 and I ended up with a few misfocused shots when I tried the 85mm at its widest apertures. Not good.

To my mind Nikon should forget about micky mouse micro sensor interchangeable lens cameras (if indeed that is what they are working on) and concentrate on making some decent prime lenses for their small DSLR cameras. The D5100 is a fast well specified yet light and relatively small camera. There are only two small prime lenses that will AF on it. The 35mm and the new 50mm f1.8. There's a real need for something wider and longer. I suppose they think the D5100 will be used by people who just want zooms. However the 35mm f/1.8 is often out of stock and it seems that they have difficulty in making enough of them to satisfy demand so maybe they should learn from that. 

Nikon D5100 35mm f/1.8 lens 

Nikon D5100 35mm f/1.8 lens 

Nikon D5100 35mm f/1.8 lens 

Using the D5100 again reminded me of just how quick it is to use. One thought did occur to me. This is probably a much more useful camera for "street photography" than something like the Fuji X100. Excellent camera though the Fuji is, the D5100 is substantially faster and much more intuitive to use. If for example I was still shooting weddings and needed to be able to react to fast moving situations, I'd use the Nikon fitted with the 35mm f/1.8  in preference to the Fuji any day. The AF is faster, the controls are much more useable and the lens is better suited to how I like to work. But then the D5100 is distinctly lacking in retro chic and maybe thats what being a "street photographer" is all about. Personally I think Cartier-Bresson would have loved it!!

Sigma SD1 - Raw samples - More thoughts

 Leica M9 Zeiss 50mm f/2 T* Planar

The Raw files from the SD1, kindly provided by photographers yesterday, illustrated both the virtues and the problems with this camera. Of course the main problem is the price! It is now available in the UK for a whopping £5,699!! You can buy 6 Nikon D7000's for that price. There's been enough discussion about the wisdom of Sigma's marketing strategy and I'm not going to do that again.

Initially yesterday I was very impressed with what I saw. The files when processed in Sigma Photo Pro looked very good indeed when I tried a few. However, having worked with them more and looked at more samples, there are more than a few problems. The colour is "odd". Considering the Foveon technology, with its 3 colour layers, is supposed to provide colour accuracy, I felt it should be better than it is. Many of the images have a pinky red hue thats quite difficult to get rid of. There's also a fair amount of highlight burn-out on some of the samples. Also there are some samples available that don't actually look that sharp.

When there is something close up in the frame, the camera produces quite breathtaking images, but with middle and far distance subjects, it seems to me that its nowhere near that good. This for example is where the Leica M9 really comes into its own.

Leica M9 Zeiss 50mm f/2 T* Planar

One of the things that strikes me is the question of how much the sharpness and bite of the images has to do with the Foveon sensor(s) or the simple fact that there is no anti-aliasing filter. I said yesterday that the files I initially processed looked sharper and more detailed than Leica M9 files. While for some of them that is true, its a fairly easy process to get the M9 files to that level of sharpness. The M9 files also have a much nicer colour rendition, with deep rich colours.

Nikon D7000 10-24mm

I also experimented with some Nikon D7000 files. By adding some extra sharpening, I was able to get VERY close to the SD1 files. Incidentally, cranking up the sharpening on the SD1 files produced some very nasty results. Lots of sharpening "jaggies". I never got my D7000 files to look quite as crisp as the best of the SD1 files, but it was close. This, of course, takes account of the fact that the D7000 has an anti-aliasing filter.

There is the interesting question of what files from this Sony 16MP sensor would look like without an AA filter. My suspicion would be very good indeed.

Nikon D5100 16-85mm

So after some work, and working with a variety of samples, I'm somewhat less impressed than I initially was. This is of course the great benefit of having raw files rather than jpgs to work with.

The idea that the SD1 gives Medium-Format quality is to my mind quite misleading. Those samples that I worked with, clearly show that the SD1 falls some way short of that. Yes they interpolate very well, but then so do files from a Pentax 645, Leica S2 etc. Indeed so do files from cameras such as the Nikon D3X, Sony a900/850 or Leica M9. So, as far as I'm concerned, the larger sensors in these cameras have significant advantages.

Where it seems the SD1 is comparible with MF digital cameras, is in its speed of operation and functionality. Reports and reviews indicate very slow performance.

Some comments from the Luminous Landscape of the camera at:- http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_sd1_review.shtml

"This brings us to the whole topic of write speed. Just about every other DSLR made over the past five years can walk and chew gum at the same time. The SD1 can't. I've had it explained to me that the problem isn't so much the camera's write speed as it is the in-camera processing that X3 files require. So be it. But, this doesn't change the fact that as a consequence the SD1 becomes a much slower camera to work with than its competitors.

For the amatuer working slowly and patiently, doing landscape work for example, this may not be a big issue. But for someone shooting weddings, fashion, reportage, etc, not having access to the camera's main settings and controls during extended card saves can make the difference between getting the shots, and not.

One other annoyance. The battery indicator is inaccurate. It can be showing two bars, and then 20 frames later flashes red. Even though the SD1's battery life is pretty good, always have a spare on hand."

This wouldn't really be a problem for me, but for others it might be.

The bottom line is would I buy it if it was a reasonable price? Yesterday I would have said yes, but today the answer to that is no. The more files I processed, the less I was impressed. 

For me at least the SD1 has become somewhat of a dead end. Sigmas pricing has of corse been the main contributing factor to that, but looking at a variety of samples by different photographers gives a very clear idea of how a camera performs. Many, if not most, of the samples were representative of what I shoot, so I got a good indication of how it would work for me. I obviously won't be working with one myself, so these impressions are based on the work of others, but I think that I've got a pretty good idea of what it might produce for me. 

There's nothing there that means I'm in any hurry to dispense with my M9 or indeed my Nikons. Indeed the more I see of results from other cameras the more I think that the D7000 and D5100 are absolute bargains.

Nikon D5100 16-85mm

Review of Nikon D5100 by Thom Hogan

http://bythom.com/nikond5100review.htm

Time to "rationalise" my cameras again? - or not?

I get this idea about cutting my cameras back to "what I really need" on a regular basis, but they keep on coming,  as well as going.

At the moment however I've very happy with what I've got. Despite my comments about the Nikons making me think about what to do with my Leicas, I would be very loathe to part with them.



I was briefly DSLR-free for a very short time earlier this year but the Nikon D5100 and D7000 have proved to be great cameras and I'm enjoying both using them and the results I'm getting from them.



I also briefly was without a m4/3 camera for a while. However that didn't last long either. In fact I've just ordered a pair of non-polarised sunglasses to be able to use my Olympus E-PL1 without the screen and EVF blacking out on me. I'm also very much looking forward to the Olympus E-P3 and the 12mm f/2, 45mm f/1.8 and Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lenses I have on order.



Unlike when I had lots of cheaper cameras, this has amounted to a substantial finanacial investment. So do I need all of these? No of course I don't. They are however, in their different ways, giving me great enjoyment in what is both my job and my passion, and even though I might feel guilty about keeping them all occasionally, the pleasure I get from using them outweighs any other considerations.

The wonders of Rawker

 

Rawker is freeware raw conversion software for the Mac. 

Website -  http://raifra.fh-friedberg.de/Mac/index-en.html

I've mentioned it before, and I make no apologies for mentioning it again. Its really useful for Mac users because of its dcraw option which lets you have a look at raw files before Photoshop etc. support them.

I was having a look at some G3 raw files yesterday with it and thought I would have a look at how it converted the files from my Nikons.

The answer was, very well indeed. Incredible sharpness, in fact very similar to what I get from the Leica M9 and Photoshop. (I did try some M9 files with it & they weren't so good)

Here are three examples shot with a Nikon D5100 and 16-85mm lens, with 100% blowups.

Very impressive indeed.

It is pretty basic software, and it uses none of the Nikon "corrections" that Photoshop will have. It does struggle with poorly exposed images and is not as good at "rescuing" files.

However as a basic raw converter its very good indeed. I do use it a lot for Olympus m4/3 cameras I use as it converts them very well, but I didn't realise how good it would be for the Nikons. So good in fact that I'm now considering the future of my Leicas!!

If you own a Mac, have a look.

Nikon D5100 and Olympus E-PL1 image quality comparison

A comparison of files from a Nikon D5100 plus 55-300mm zoom and an Olympus E-PL1 plus Zeiss 50mm f/2 T* Planar.

The lenses were chosen to see how 12MP m4/3 with a very good lens would compare to 16MP APS-C with a good, but not great lens.

The shots were taken on a tripod, all identically processed in Adobe Camera Raw. I chose f/11 as an aperture which would do both lenses justice, and shot the samples at ISO 100, 200, 400 & 800.

Click on the results to go to flickr, choose Actions > view all sizes and the full-resolution files are available.

ISO 100

ISO 200

ISO 400

ISO 800

As you can see the Olympus shots are warmer. In terms of sharpness they are very similar. I was surprised at how well the Olympus shots compared at ISO 800. I was expecting the Nikon shots to look much better. 

Overall it shows once again just how good m4/3 is, if a good lens is used. A top-quality Nikon prime up against the Olympus kit zoom would probably show different results and I may give that a try at some point.

So, an "entry-level" DSLR (with the obvious qualification that this is the same sensor as much higher specified cameras) compared to a m/43 camera with what is now probably the old m4/3 sensor.

My point here is that, with very few exceptions, many cameras now give similar results. Its pretty much a given now that the majority of the cameras we use from 12MP > are all capable of of excellent results, and the choices we make are probably determined by other factors.

Nikon jpgs - Workflow - "Death of the DSLR"

Nikon D5100 16-85mm

Having been editing the images from my Devon trip over the past few days, I've been noticing just how good the out of camera jpgs. are from both the D5100 and D7000.  In terms of sharpness I can still get a better result from a raw file conversion, but the Nikon jpgs. are completely free of any Chomatic Abberation and fringing, indicating that this is being removed in camera.

Nikon D5100 16-85mm

Panasonic, for example, have always been criticised for making in-camera "corrections" to their lenses, but as I've written time and time again, they are not the only camera manufacturer to do this.

I've never thought that there's anything wrong with this, the end result being the most important thing.

In terms of saving me time, and making my workflow go quicker, this is very useful. As I said the jpgs. aren't quite as sharp as the raw conversions I can get with ACR, but this can be dealt with in Photoshop. 

One thing I've been noticing lately is the very high acceptance rate I've been getting, from the picture libraries that I submit to, with both the D5100 and D7000 files. Its very much the case that CA and fringing are the main reasons for picture library rejection of images. Being able to submit files without either of those is obviously an advantage to me. While I prefer to work with raw files, I am prepared to take advantage of this time saving.

In terms of sharpness, picture library assessors aren't looking for biting sharpness, in fact Getty Images ask for files that are unsharpened and in the past have recommended that images when viewed at 100% should be "slightly soft". This is to allow sharpening to be added for reproduction. As I've indicated before I do sharpen all the images I send out, but the point is that libraries and stock agencies are more concerned with other things than the sharpness of a file.

Nikon D5100 16-85mm

All of this is making me warm towards the Nikons even more. While I love looking at the images I create with the Leica M9, they are harder to get "right" for the libraries I submit to. I've written a lot about the need to remove the dust spots (again the Nikon images are refreshingly free of this) and in addition to this each file has to be checked for moire, CA and fringing. There is a myth that M-mount lenses and Leica lenses in particular don't exhibit CA and fringing. Well, its just that, a myth!

So both these Nikon cameras are not only fast in operation, but are proving to produce files that are very easy and quick to process. Add in the results I got with my D7000 > Leica M9 test the other day - http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/07/just-how-good-is-nikon-d7000-image.html - and they are proving to be a good investment.

Nikon D7000 10-22mm lens

All of this is making the predictions of the death of the DSLR somewhat premature. I've always thought that the idea they would "disappear" has no real basis in fact or reality. As long as they deliver the goods, people will buy them. Manufacturers now seem to have got the message that the smaller and lighter they are the more many of us will like them, so many of the criticisms I have had about big chunky DSLR's are being adressed. 

The D5100 is very small and light and I can see this trend continuing. 

Lenses are trickier. In order to cover an APS-C sensor, the size advantages of m4/3 are more difficult to achieve, though in terms of primes its perfectly possible to make very small lenses such as the Pentax limited series. Zooms are more difficult. Indeed some m4/3 examples aren't exactly small.

You only have to look at the Sony NEX system with its large lenses on small bodies, to see that there are some problems to be solved yet. Modern construction methods will give us lighter lenses but the small superzoom is probably still some way off. 

Wile mirrorless and compact system cameras have their advantages, they are not as yet the complete answer. Also as far as I'm concerned, the quest for ever more miniturisation is pushing me away from them rather than drawing me in more. There is a limit to how small a camera can be made to make it useable, and as far as I'm concerned that limit has been reached already with cameras such as the GF3. 

To be honest I can see people still predicting the "Death of the DSLR" in 20 years time. True it probably won't look the same as it does now but things move much slower than is often predicted. There continues to be a very strong market for DSLR's and the major players in that market, Nikon and Canon, aren't going to sit on their hands. They will be looking at the success of the CSC's and incorporating those ideas into their future cameras, of that I have no doubt.

Finally two anecdotes. They prove nothing but I thought I'd include them anyway.

I was buying a laptop from the Apple Store and having told the assistant I was a photographer, then got into a discussion about photography and cameras. He told me that he and many of his colleagues in the store, average age about 21-22 I would guess, were keen photographers. He said they all used DSLR's, mostly Canons. "What about the iPhone? Do you use that? I asked" "No, we're serious about photography" he replied.

On my last visit to Jessops, the largest photographic retail group in the UK,  I was served by an even younger assistant, around 17 or 18 I guess. Jessops sometimes employ people whose photographic knowledge is a little basic, to say the least, but not so in this case. I was looking at a Panasonic G3 at the time, and while chatting away the assistant told me that he was a keen photographer, but again used a DSLR as he thought the CSC's were too small and he had trouble using them. He also liked his DSLR's (a Sony) speed and overall performance. He also admitted that he liked using a DSLR because he thought it looked much more like a "proper" camera.

As I said, this proves nothing, but it goes along with the fact that in all the time I've been photographing in recent years, often in holiday and tourist spots, I have only ever seen one other person using a m4/3 camera. Compacts and camera phones by the thousands and lots and lots of DSLR's. The last photo show I went to was virtually 100% DSLR users with just me carrying a GF1. The Nikon stand was 5 deep, and virtually no-one was on the Panasonic stand. The latest model in the Canon 550D / 600D series usually outsells the entire CSC range, just by itself, so the DSLR probably has some mileage left in it yet. If they keep on making them as well as the D7000 and D5100 then I'm certainly not going to complain.

From m4/3 to Nikon DSLR's

It seems that m4/3 and I aren't compatible any more. After my experiences photographing the lavender farm with the E-PL1 and the difficulties that caused, it may be that I have to give up using it, and probably all CSC's.

I've always been very sensitive to sunlight and have always worn sunglasses outdoors. Add in the fact that working with EVF's and live view screens seems to trigger my visual migraines and CSC's are a problem for me. Since working with optical viewfinders and polarised sunglasses the situation has been much improved. However using the E-PL1 for a couple of days has proved to me that, for my outdoor work at least, there are difficulties caused by these type of cameras.

Consequently, I'm going to be working much more with both the Leicas and Nikons.

Nikon D7000 10-24mm zoom

My comments yesterday - http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/07/cotswold-lavender.html  included "What I really want, and have always wanted, is a small, light rangefinder styled camera, but with AF, decent sized sensor, good lenses and an optical viewfinder. " But that isn't going to be possible, so I'm going to be using - Smallish, not that heavy SLR styled cameras, with AF, decent sized sensor, good lenses and optical viewfinders. The Nikon D7000 and D5100.

When I first got the D5100 I wasn't looking to change my system because of the eye problems, as I hadn't worked out fully what was causing them. I was interested in trying what seemed to be a small light DSLR. That I liked using it so much, and consequently went on to buy the D7000, is the result of the excellent handling, design and image quality of both those cameras. Though I've always liked m4/3, I have always, apart from a very short period of time, had a DSLR as well. The Sony a850 and Pentax K-5 were recent cameras I used. 

However these two APS-C Nikons are the nicest SLR cameras I've used since film days. The combination of reduced weight, high specification, top quality build and a really impressive sensor has convinced me that the DSLR is far from dead. 

Nikon D5100 16-85mm zoom lens

It has seemed until recently that top quality DSLR's were just getting bigger and heavier. This in contrast to the developments in m4/3 and the other CSC's. I know that Nikon, Canon and particularly Pentax have been producing smaller lighter DSLR's for some time, but the D5100 struck me as the first budget DSLR I've used that both looks and feels like a "professional" tool. Yes there are compromises, but for its price point, it has a reassuring solid build, excellent performance and of course produces great images. While the Canon 550D / 600D cameras deliver the goods in terms of stills and video, I don't think anyone would claim their build quality is that great.

Nikon D7000 10-24mm zoom lens

Like the Pentax K-5 the D7000 illustrates that "professional" performance and reduced size and weight aren't incompatible. The more I use it, the more I'm impressed with it. I've already stated I think its the best Nikon DSLR I've ever used and indeed the best DSLR. In terms of ease of use, handling, construction and image quality I've not used anything better.

Nikon D7000 10-24mm zoom lens - multi image panoramic stitch

The Pentax K-5 was very close to being the right camera for me, but I find the D7000 faster, more intuitive for me, better laid out and it doesn't have its mirror rolling around in the body which was always somewhat disconcerting for me in the Pentax.

In terms of image quality there is virtually nothing in it, but the range of Nikon lenses is probably the final deciding factor me. Pentax lenses are (mostly) very good but there aren't that many of them. Something that Sony need to work on. They probably don't have more bodies than lenses but it often seems they do. Certainly the lens choice for my a850 was much more limited than for the Nikons.

So its a case of needs must, but not something I'm unhappy about. The E-P3 and 12mm and 45mm lenses are VERY tempting, and I will find them very hard to resist when they are released, but for the moment I'm happy to work with the Nikons.

Nikon D7000 10-24mm zoom lens