Todd, on my phone and can't quote properly, but while I don't disagree that a prime lens will offer the best quality/sharpness - because it has fewer actuasl pieces of glass inside. I still disagree with some of your second paragraph. A broad zoom will only compromise in certain lighting conditions at night (or indoors). My dad is a very, very serious hobbiest, goes on many workshops with professional photographers. He does know his stuff. Not to mention he spends hours doing tests at home. The DX 18-200 is not super high end, but it performs very well in all sorts of conditions and produces excellent large prints.

We can continue to disagree though. :)

My old kit lens (18-135) actually blew one of his good lenses out of the water. So much so, that he retired that lens and replaced it.

The D800 focus issue should be resolved with a firmware update.

Half my shots in that trip were taken at night and/or indoors - exactly where you indicate the zoom would be a compromise :D

I know a lot of people like the 18-200 and it is a good lens. But at any given length it will be out-performed by an equivalent length prime. Zooms are always a compromise. One issue though is that Nikon bodies do not have any shake reduction, so that is one place where the 18-200 does pull ahead over the Nikon primes - it has VR. I look at that as a shortcoming of the body frankly, but that is another argument. I much prefer in-body stabilization so that every lens get the benefit rather than the lens-based approach of Canikon/Panasonic. One reason I currently have Oly and Sony cameras in the house and previously shot Pentax.

I end up shooting a lot of low light situations, so a fast lens will always win - and that means a prime unless I'm willing to spend a ton of money. And putting a DX lens on an FX camera just seems crazy to me.

One other thing that somewhat confounds me...why buy a camera with an interchangeable lens if you're going to stick one zoom lens on it all of the time? The whole point is to have flexibility. I've never found a super zoom lens that I liked (and yes, I shot the 18-200 some years back). I do have zooms, but the ones I've liked have always been faster (constant 2.8 or the amazing Canon 70-200/4L) and shorter range (for FF, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, for crop 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8).

But it depends on what you want to shoot and how you shoot. Like I said, I spent a week shooting about 1600 photos and took the OMD with 12-50/3.5-5.6, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8. The setup is small and light and swapping lenses was trivial. I frankly could not have gotten as good results with a super zoom under the conditions.

f1.4, 1/60, iso 1000

http://nostatic.com/photos/BNC-2012-...icture-196.jpg

Depends on the situation (and age ;) ). My dad focus is birds and landscapes. Obviously, birds is a different arena, better suited to a partial frame sensor and on those outings, he uses different and way bigger lenses. He has a 200-400mm for birds and that thing is huge and heavy. We joke that he needs a dedicated Sherpa to lug it around. For his landscape outings he is out in the field and carries as little as he can. We're talking up at 0430, out for a few hours, then back at it in the late afternoon evening. He's got to walk around with a tripod and few other things. Bringing a ton of lenses will only weigh him down. Same goes for walking around a European town all day. He doesn't want to carry multiple lenses - I don't blame him. He can't really do any birding with a walk around lens, short of some birds that get close, but it allows for a wide range of pix to be taken. It does work well at night for street scenes, not indoor intimate dinners. :D

Zooms are a compromise. Kinda. My 14-24 is sharper than any 14mm prime I have ever seen. The newest pro zooms are freekin sharp. That's for sure.

This. If you already have quality lenses, that's the way to go. Canon or Nikon. Pick your poison and stick with it. Camera bodies and features will always be updating. Lenses not as much. If you are serious you will have way more invested in glass than the camera body. Get your hands on each body see how the controls work. If the controls don't become intuitive to you you'll get frustrated and not get the most from the camera.

My wife is a serious amateur photographer. She chose Canon years ago and that's what she still uses. Currently she is using a 7D. My father-in-law's second wife has undertaken a second career as a professional photographer. She chose Nikon. Both are happy with their choice. Both take excelent photos. When they are together they sit around and talk cameras like guys talk cars or guns. When they are done they go back to taking excellent photos with their respective brands.

J

I agree about glass before camera. I have an XTi and a 5d. Both old. Some B+ to A level Canon lenses - L and primes. Both take great pics. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

The fun is in learning what you need.

Good luck.

Larry

You could always rent before you buy. That's what I do. Check out Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica and Pentax

Good to see another OM-D user here! I love mine. I had a old Nikon D-50, and even a Leica M8(!), and flipped them to get the OM-D. Short of being a pro, I can't see why a person would not go this direction.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1343400634.jpg

My micro 4/3 body :)