What System to Invest in?

[Marynowicz]

I made my first step into the DSLR world with the purchase of an olympus evolt e-500. For the one lense kit, $330 seemed like a really good investment.

So after playing around with it for 2 weeks, i came to the question...
"Where do I go from here?" I came to a cross-roads.

Stay with Olympus/Four Thirds or

Sell the e-500 when i get enough money, and buy a Canon 40d, or a Nikon 80 and invest either in Nikon or Canon? Well thats what my friends telling me to do.

Should I stay with olympus? or Move on to Nikon or Canon? I want something I can grow with.
Any help, would be greatly appreciated

[fionndruinne]

You're saying you need an upgrade from your first DSLR after two weeks with it?

I would say, unless you have money to burn, stick with your camera until you really know your strengths and the kind of things you like to shoot. Then evaluate the different systems to see which offers you the best for your specific situation.

Don't let your friends talk you into thinking your camera's not good enough; that's state is crippling to your finding artistic expression with what you've got. Unless you are coming up against definite shortcomings with your current camera, of course.

[Marynowicz]

Sorry for the double thread, is there anyone who could delete the other thread? :confused:

Thanks for the help fionndruinne
I think I'm getting too ahead of myself with this one...

For what I'm doing now, Landscape/Night Photography/"General-Purpose Photography" The E-500 hasn't let me down a bit. I think I'll just stay with olympus for a bit.

[DonSchap]

Personally, I made the jump to Canon, when I was at a crossroads, and found myself "wanting". It was an expensive effort ... trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I toughed it out, but eventually went back to Minolta/SONY, when they got their act together. They had a system already in place, but just needed a body to use it properly. The A700 is turning out to be that body and nearly everything I could have hoped for, when I had started "going digital" several years ago.

Personally, I would consider the Olympus E500 an introductory effort at the world of DSLR ... and they are giving out good deals on these cameras, but in the end ... I suspect you will change to something else ... or even upgrade to a E-510, to provide image stability to your lenses. Learn with it or hand it 0ff to someone who will ... and get your bargain out of it, but before you commit to buying more expensive glass for it ... consider that the bodies of these cameras will change. Get a system that offers you exactly what you want and not some one-time, in-store special making your decision for you. There was a reason you got it so cheap ... that may be what you really need to consider, looking forward. :cool:

Good luck :D

[Rhys]

I made my first step into the DSLR world with the purchase of an olympus evolt e-500. For the one lense kit, $330 seemed like a really good investment.

So after playing around with it for 2 weeks, i came to the question...
"Where do I go from here?" I came to a cross-roads.

Stay with Olympus/Four Thirds or

Sell the e-500 when i get enough money, and buy a Canon 40d, or a Nikon 80 and invest either in Nikon or Canon? Well thats what my friends telling me to do.

Should I stay with olympus? or Move on to Nikon or Canon? I want something I can grow with.
Any help, would be greatly appreciated

Stick with the Olympus system. I think their cameras have a lot to offer in a much smaller form factor than any of the other systems. It's also handy that their 250mm lens is actually a 500mm equivalent. I'd say stick with it and concentrate on photography. There's nothing that the Canon/Nikon systems can do that the Olympus cannot.

[fionndruinne]

There's nothing that the Canon/Nikon systems can do that the Olympus cannot.

Well, except for clean high-ISO shots. It's not to say that the OP, will never need to change systems, but the time spent with this inexpensive first DSLR will be valuable in determining what's best for the future.

[fotogmarc]

Knowing how you feel about newer, better systems, I've come up with a few solutions for myself. I too am tempted everytime some new technolgy or "bigger, better" camera comes out. (Nikon D40X, Oly E510, Sony A700)

Back in film days it wasn't so evident, but the digital market is constantly changing and the want of the latest is difficult to overcome. My friends always see my E500 and want to make the jump from their 3MP compact to a 10 mp DSLR. I always suggest to get a Super zoom with all the manual controls first to try out the featues.
With Oly. it's frustrating to see Canon and Nikon equipment on sale with little for my E500. I usually look at the photos I've taken and think "these pics look great, why change?".
Maybe looking into new lenses or better lighting options will help pacify your impulses.
So far I haven't used half of the features on my camera and am constantly trying to perfect the ones I know.
The greatest satisfaction I get is seeing people with the latest DSLR's and they don't know how to use the camera beyond 'auto' mode.

As I was always told when I referred to this forum for purchasing advice: See what you want to use the camera for, what you want in a camera.


Hope this helps Mary

[Rooz]

are your friends gonna pay for the upgrade ? if not tell em to go jump. :p

shoot with what makes you happy. if the oly has you satisfied then i agree with alot of other comments here and say "why change ?"

[Rhys]

Well, except for clean high-ISO shots. It's not to say that the OP, will never need to change systems, but the time spent with this inexpensive first DSLR will be valuable in determining what's best for the future.

To be quite honest, I never use anything other than 100 ISO on my Canons. Looking at high ISO Olympus pictures does not reveal any real problems. I feel the noise "problem" is blown out of proportion. Don't just pixel-peep - print it out and see what I mean.

[fionndruinne]

To be quite honest, I never use anything other than 100 ISO on my Canons.

But... that does put you in a different place compared to many. Especially for those who can't afford a lot of low-light lensing, high ISOs are necessary. I had to take some indoor shots of dogs with imperfect light - ISO 1600 was just a must, and it helped a lot that my camera was capable of that without looking like crap.:cool:

[r3g]

I wish I could say I never used hig ISO but the fact is I pretty much live at ISO800 for a lot of my shots. The need for high ISO really depends on the nature of your photography. But its better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

[DonSchap]

I wish I could say I never used hig ISO but the fact is I pretty much live at ISO800 for a lot of my shots. The need for high ISO really depends on the nature of your photography. But its better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.


If you are shooting ISO-800 on a routine basis ... you need to consider at least f/2.8 or better glass. That will allow you to get back to ISO-400 ... and some noise-free images.

Anyway, you probably know that. F/2.8 glass has never been cheaper.

Good luck :D

[r3g]

If you are shooting ISO-800 on a routine basis ... you need to consider at least f/2.8 or better glass. That will allow you to get back to ISO-400 ... and some noise-free images.

Anyway, you probably know that. F/2.8 glass has never been cheaper.

Good luck :D



Hope on over to the Nikon section and read my "Just my luck" thread. My Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 should be here tuesday :]

[Seafood]

Is there a reason why the Pentax system has not been brought up?

Good cameras, and a great system to learn and grow with...and very affordable as well.

[DonSchap]

When it comes to Olympus and Pentax, you need to look at the "BIGGER PICTURE" ... in other words, options of going to Full Frame photography. If you invest your funds in Olympus E-glass or the Pentax lenses, your travel expenses to Full-frame-Land are going to be a little more expen$ive, than if you go with Nikon, Canon or SONY.

That's just a fact. So, recommending that people go with Pentax or Olympus appears to be a little "short-sighted", for that very solid reason. If a person has no desire, what-so-ever to upgrade to the Full-frame camera in the future ... then APS-C lens recommendations and Pentax/Olympus are viable suggestions. You should remember to preface these suggestions keeping that fact in mind.

Remember: It's not just a camera ... it's a system.

And that's precisely what THIS thread is about. :D

[Seafood]

When it comes to Olympus and Pentax, you need to look at the "BIGGER PICTURE" ... in other words, options of going to Full Frame photography. If you invest your funds in Olympus E-glass or the Pentax lenses, your travel expenses to Full-frame-Land are going to be a little more expen$ive, than if you go with Nikon, Canon or SONY.


:D


I have no idea what you mean. ?? Full Frame Land?

[r3g]

Hes talking about Full Frame cameras which have no crop factor in relation to 35mm film.

[DonSchap]

Yes,

Currently there are roughly four sizes of sensor being used in the 35mm DSLR digital world.


Full Frame (which is the same size image as a 35mm-film image)
APS-C (smaller sized image ... effective a 2/3 crop of a 35mm-film image)
4/3 (Olympus-sized sensor ... effective 1/2 crop of a 35mm-film image)
1.3x DCF (used on higher end DSLR cameras)


Now that you are aware of these sensors ... you need to go read about them to understand anything further.

Good luck ... education is FUN, right? :cool:

[Rhys]

Yes,

Currently there are roughly four sizes of sensor being used in the 35mm DSLR digital world.


Full Frame (which is the same size image as a 35mm-film image)
APS-C (smaller sized image ... effective a 2/3 crop of a 35mm-film image)
4/3 (Olympus-sized sensor ... effective 1/2 crop of a 35mm-film image)
1.3x DCF (used on higher end DSLR cameras)


Now that you are aware of these sensors ... you need to go read about them to understand anything further.

Good luck ... education is FUN, right? :cool:

Canon has
1x crop
1.3x crop
1.6x crop

Nikon has
1x crop
1.5x crop

Sony, Fuji and Pentax have 1.5x crop

Olympus has 2x crop

Nobody has brought up Fuji, Sony or Pentax because very few people seem to use them.

Ok. Let's have a quick look at features:

Anti-dust
Canon and Olympus (possibly Sony too)

Anti-shake (in body)
Sony, Pentax

Anti-shake (in lens)
Canon, Nikon.

Infra Red
Fuji, Canon

Ultraviolet
Fuji

[erichlund]

I have no idea what you mean. ?? Full Frame Land?

Don, Don, Don. Be nice.

Anyway, I'm sure you are aware that traditional film photography in the form factor that we all are using was called 35mm, and full frame refers to this form factor. Larger sensors with the same number of pixels are able to receive more light per pixel, resulting in lower overall noise values in the image.

This is the #1 criticism of the 4/3 format, because the 4/3 consortium specifies sensor size along with format. Of course, there is an advantage to specifying sensor size: You can then design a mount common to all 4/3 cameras and create standards, and create smaller, lighter lenses. The disadvantage is that you are stuck with the smaller sensor size, which leads back to that #1 criticism.

While Olympus and Pentax (and Leica) have improved image noise results, they remain behind the larger formats in this area, and their position relative to those formats in terms of noise handling remains fairly consistent.

I will make a prediction. On the day that one of the Big Two* introduces a cheap, entry level, full frame camera, 4/3 will die an horrible, ignominous death. Either that, or Olympus/Pentax/Leica will see the writing on the wall and introduce a larger format of 4/3, close in size to the 35mm full frame. This latter path, of course, is entirely incompatible with the current 4/3 format, however, they could take a hint from Nikon and have their version of the DX crop mode.

*I diss Sony for so many reasons, not the least of which is they don't have the market share to get into my Big list.

[fotogmarc]

I understand the big attraction for full size sensors, but the jump from 4/3's, 1.6X and so on is like the jump from 35 mm film to medium format film (Hasselblad, Mamiya), it's out of the price range for most people. Hopefully prices will drop to something more reasonable, in the mean time us hobbyist photographers will make do with what's available in the smaller format.
I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but the the thread started off with Mary feeling pressure from her friends to change systems. Let's hope if she follows their advice it isn't a very expensive change, expensive enough to turn her off to the wonderful world we like to share.
Many members here have quotes after their signature, belaying the art and passion of photography. I'd like to think if I meet any of you on the street taking shots I won't get snubbed because of the camera I'm carrying. :)

[Seafood]

. I'd like to think if I meet any of you on the street taking shots I won't get snubbed because of the camera I'm carrying. :)

That is beautiful...well put. I couldnt agree more.

I suppose it is just like any other hobby...always a few who think their stuff is better than others. No biggie. Just looking for those who want to help the beginners along.

[erichlund]

I understand the big attraction for full size sensors, but the jump from 4/3's, 1.6X and so on is like the jump from 35 mm film to medium format film (Hasselblad, Mamiya), it's out of the price range for most people. Hopefully prices will drop to something more reasonable, in the mean time us hobbyist photographers will make do with what's available in the smaller format.
I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, but the the thread started off with Mary feeling pressure from her friends to change systems. Let's hope if she follows their advice it isn't a very expensive change, expensive enough to turn her off to the wonderful world we like to share.
Many members here have quotes after their signature, belaying the art and passion of photography. I'd like to think if I meet any of you on the street taking shots I won't get snubbed because of the camera I'm carrying. :)

Oh, I agree. Personally, I think she should stick with what she has until she has a real need to change. If her camera is meeting her needs then there is no reason to change.

I think perhaps you misunderstood my post, which, I realize now, had little to do with the OPs issue. I was trying to give, in a nice, congenial manner, a better discussion of why larger formats have an advantage in certain aspects.

As far as my last prediction, an affordable full (35mm) frame dSLR is still a long way off, but when it does happen, the smaller formats are truly in trouble. All you have to do is look at the results being achieved by the D3 to see the writing on the wall. The D3 and D300 have similar processing electronics, but the far superior sensor on the D3 sets it head and shoulders above the D300 in terms of high ISO noise, and by all appearances, dynamic range. When this technology trickles down to the consumer level, I don't see how smaller sensors will compete. But, in the end, that's just an opinion.

If anything, this simply supports the idea that the OP should keep her system until it either cannot do what she needs it to do, or until she wants to change, for whatever her personal reason is. But, that's her choice, and not for me to tell her.

[erichlund]

I made my first step into the DSLR world with the purchase of an olympus evolt e-500. For the one lense kit, $330 seemed like a really good investment.

So after playing around with it for 2 weeks, i came to the question...
"Where do I go from here?" I came to a cross-roads.

Stay with Olympus/Four Thirds or

Sell the e-500 when i get enough money, and buy a Canon 40d, or a Nikon 80 and invest either in Nikon or Canon? Well thats what my friends telling me to do.

Should I stay with olympus? or Move on to Nikon or Canon? I want something I can grow with.
Any help, would be greatly appreciated

I came into this thread late, and did not directly address your questions. Really, the question is a good one, but only if you are truly at a crossroad. Are you thinking of expanding your system? If you are really just using what you have, then if it meets your needs, that is what you should stick with. However, if you have need of the capabilities of one of the other systems, and Olympus 4/3 system doesn't meet that need, then you should consider changing before you get even more heavily invested.

What you have to ask yourself is, do I need more stuff? Do I need additional capability? Will what I have expand to meet that capability? If not, what will?

I suspect the reason your friends are trying to move you toward Canon or Nikon are the advantages of the bigger sensor, already discussed here, or the advantages of a more mature system (Canon and Nikon are building on systems that have existed for years, 4/3 systems have only been around for a few years now). These are valid reasons, but only if you really have the need to move in that direction. If you objectively answer the questions I've listed above, I think you will have your answer, and it will be your answer, not your friends answer, and not my answer.

[Rhys]

What everybody forgets is that Olympus has a long pedigree of making fine cameras. Who can forget the OM10, the OM4ti etc? They only stopped making them when AF came in so hard. They always had Zuiko lenses which bar Leica were the best glass on the market.

[Marynowicz]

Thanks for all your opinions

To clear something up
I am a guy;)
Coincidentally Mary was my nickname going through highschool though. No one could really pronounce my last name... So they pronounced the only thing that they could which was "Mary"
I'm sure it probably caused some confusion too!

The one thing I like about olympus about, is that they got a pretty decent selection of weathersealed lenses. I tend to like trekking the backcountry, taking the road less taken as you would say. :D
Bringing back some nice pictures wouldnt be bad either!
The added depth of field is alright I guess. Good for landscape shots, not so good when your trying to blur the background.

The only thing i'm worried about is the longevity of the 4/3's system. If full-frame does become an industry standard... Will olympus probably scrap the 4/3's in favour of full frame? Then what will happen with my lenses? I dont want to be like one of those Canon owners back in the day who invested heavily in the FD mount, just to realize it got replaced by the new EOS mount.

Probably the last thing on my mind, is Olympus's pro level DSLR. Right now, theres only the E-1, but the E-3 is coming october/novemberish. I want to know that there will be the option to upgrade when I gain experience, and the funds of course! If the E-3 gets pretty good reviews, i guess thats one less thing I have to worry about. I'm pretty sure it will be weathersealed too, so yet another thing off of mind.

[fionndruinne]

Sorry!:eek:

I'd say the E-500's main strong point is its price, and the fact that even the kit lenses are very good. If you start to develop a desire for specialized lenses, though, they get very costly in 4/3 format.

I would wait a while; see which way the wind is blowing with Olympus' new offering (plus get some good reviews of the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300). You could start in on some less expensive Olympus glass, then perhaps sell them for a decent return if you choose to switch, and are Ebay-savvy.

[Rhys]

FD lenses are plentiful secondhand.

As regards the 4:3 system going away, nothing is set in stone. Nobody imagined film would ever be replaced. I did say though that when APS came out, storing data on a magnetic strip, that I suspected they could store the image on a tape too and that APS was just a step on the way to further development that was really pointless to buy.

They brought out the Canon Pronea APS camera. That died and vanished.

So... I'd say yes, 4:3 could vanish and probably will but not overnight.

Use the 4:3 camera - get your fun out of it. Then if you feel the urge later, get whatever system is best. Until Nikon's D3 came out, Canon's 1Dmk3 was the best.

[fotogmarc]

Sorry about the gender confusion. The first time I used your name in a post I thought about it.
Hope you enjoy the gear.

[Razr]

(SNIP)
Ok. Let's have a quick look at features:

Anti-dust
Canon and Olympus (possibly Sony too)

Anti-shake (in body)
Sony, Pentax,

Anti-shake (in lens)
Canon, Nikon.

Infra Red
Fuji, Canon

Ultraviolet
Fuji

Anti-shake (in body)
Sony, Pentax, OLYMPUS: E-510, E-3

[Rhys]

I just played with the Olympus 410 dSLR with the 40-150 f4-5.6 lens.

My conclusion?

The 40-150 is a very nice lens with a range of about 70-300 and about the same darkness.

The body is small - I had to curl my little finger underneath the grip. No problem though.

The lens was small. The focussing ring seems not to engage with anything mechanical though - it just rotated.

It's a damned nice camera. If I were not already into Canon then I would be seriously looking at one for two reasons:

1. Lightweight.
2. Compact - excellent for travel.

[fionndruinne]

The E-410 seems nice and solid build-wise, but man! There is no grip at all on that thing. I wouldn't buy it, simply because I'd want a better hold on my $600+ investment.

[Rhys]

The E-410 seems nice and solid build-wise, but man! There is no grip at all on that thing. I wouldn't buy it, simply because I'd want a better hold on my $600+ investment.

As with everything, it's just a case of getting used to using it. I really liked it, personally. If I were looking for a new system then that's probably the one.

[kgosden]

Sure, the E-410 lacks a modern grip, but it really is similar to the film SLR's from the 70's and early 80's in form, and certainly very true to the Olympus OM roots. The preferred grip then was left hand under the lens on the focus ring, and right hand on the shutter and controls. In that mode most of the camera support was through the left hand. With your elbow near the waist it makes for a pretty stable platform. Of course, back then there was none of this autofocus magic and fast film was ASA400 (unless you cared about 'megapixels and stuck to 125 or slower).

[fionndruinne]

Sure, the E-410 lacks a modern grip, but it really is similar to the film SLR's from the 70's and early 80's in form

Yes, that's true, I noted that myself - but the 35mm SLRs were never as costly as DSLRs, even given inflation (variable of course depending on what glass was stuck on the end).

I don't think I could ever get used to the E-410's lack of grip. Spatially, there's just no positive control. With other DSLRs, the forwards-curving front of the grip plus the back indentation for the thumb provides some solid staying power. Heh - you could almost put a wrist strap on that little E-410, that'd solve the fear of losing it in one fell swoop, but who could live with the fixed-lens-looking shame of it?:rolleyes:

[erichlund]

Sure, the E-410 lacks a modern grip, but it really is similar to the film SLR's from the 70's and early 80's in form, and certainly very true to the Olympus OM roots. The preferred grip then was left hand under the lens on the focus ring, and right hand on the shutter and controls. In that mode most of the camera support was through the left hand. With your elbow near the waist it makes for a pretty stable platform. Of course, back then there was none of this autofocus magic and fast film was ASA400 (unless you cared about 'megapixels and stuck to 125 or slower).

The only difference now is your left hand is on the zoom rather than the focus ring. Proper stance still applies to getting good results.

[Rhys]

The only difference now is your left hand is on the zoom rather than the focus ring. Proper stance still applies to getting good results.

Yup. just don't get these complaints about small bodies. Many times when using 35mm SLRs my little finger has been curled under the camera. My standard stance was to hold the lens with my left hand, supporting the camera and lens. My right hand just steadied the camera. Would you seriously trust a camera bayonet mount to support a heavy glass lens when the mount is screwed on by 4 tiny screws? This is why the bigger lenses have tripod mounts.

[TheWengler]

I need a good hand grip. I wouldn't even consider a camera without a grip that fits my hand well.

[TheObiJuan]

Gotta love Nikon bodies, but the Nikkor glass takes a 20% premium over similar Canon glass.
That was my major deterrent from swapping when I had no body.

[Rhys]

Gotta love Nikon bodies, but the Nikkor glass takes a 20% premium over similar Canon glass.
That was my major deterrent from swapping when I had no body.

On the other hand, the D3 is $5K while the 1D is $8k. That difference will pay for some very nice glass.

[erichlund]

On the other hand, the D3 is $5K while the 1D is $8k. That difference will pay for some very nice glass.

Rhys, I suspect that by next springtime (northern hemisphere), Nikon will have an $8000 camera as well. You should really compare the D3 to the 1DMkIII, not the 1DsMkIII. That's what it's designed to compete with. Admittedly, some will buy it as the top resolution camera, but I think they will be disappointed when the D3x (or whatever) comes out, probably in the 18-24MP range.

Of course, it's just an educated guess, and the D3 may turn out to be the whole story.