E-500 vs D50 vs canon rebet xt

[chris_pulvirenti]

I had my heart set on the nikon, the rebel feels like a toy and now

I've discovered the E-500.

I don't know much about olympus but I read the review at dpreview.com

Other than the 2x lens factor it sounds pretty good.

Any thoughts?

[mark u]

So long as you don't need to shoot high ISOs (say 800+), the Olympus kit with 2 lenses offers a great deal and better quality optics than you will get to go with the Canon or Nikon for the same money. If you reckon you'll need other lenses in addition, or expect to be doing a lot of shooting that requires higher ISOs you will be better to go with the Nikon since you prefer its handling - there isn't a great deal of difference in capabilities, although other factors may sway your choice depending on what you like to shoot.

[robert_m3]

Have a look at the lenses available in each family. I think you'll find the selection more

limiting with the Olympus than either the Nikon or Canon. Also, the used market is much

bigger for the big two making it easier to buy used or to sell yours at some point down the

road. I chose the D50 and am pleased with my choice.

[peter_lawrence]

Another advantage of going with either Nikon or Canon is if you live or visit a large

metropolitan area, you should be able to find a camera store with a rental department

where you can rent out large expensive Nikon and Canon telephoto lenses for a day,

weekend, or week at a fraction of their retail cost. This is a great way to try out a lens

before laying out a large amount of cash for it, or do use a lens just for a weekend or

weeklong vacation. I do not know of any camera rental departments that rent out

Olympus equipment or lenses.

[daniel_kreithen1]

The 2x "factor" is a misnomer. In the Olympus system, since it's designed for digital from the ground up, all the lenses are dedicated to the system. So there is no "crop factor", the lenses are designed to project an image circle that is the size of the sensor. It may help you to think of the focal lengths in terms of their 35mm equivalents, which is where the "2x" comes from. All the cameras you mention are good and will produce good results. They all have different strengths (Canon - high ISO performance, Nikon - reasonably well-built, Oly - dust-shaker and reasonably well-built) and weaknesses (Canon - as you noted, toy-like, Nikon - lousy viewfinder, but they all have that, Oly - high ISO performance, but still better than the equivalent ISO film)...it is up to you to set your priorities. As mentioned before, there are fewer lenses available for the Olympus right now, since it is a relatively new system. But if what is available meets your needs, then that is a moot point. All the Olympus lens offerings are good to excellent optically. Most (but not all) are very good value for money. If you decide on Olympus (I did because of the bang for the $$$), you should also look into the E-1, which is selling now for fire-sale prices given the build quality, and the 14-54mm lens, an excellent all-around lens. Don't let 5 MP be a deterrent to you unless you're planning on making prints larger than 12" x 16" routinely.

[basscheffers]

I am an E-1 user and really like the system. Looking at the reviews, the E-500 seems like a great camera too.

 

While Olympus may have less lenses, that doesn't need to mean "limitting". It is a bit short on primes, but if you are like 99% of buyers and just want zooms, they actualy have better and more sensible choice than either Canon or Nikon as all are designed for the single sensor size and complement each other. Even most zoom users end up buying one "portrait" lens and in that respect, Olympus's 50/2 is second to none. Not the cheapest, but the best lens you'll ever own.

 

Plus as others have mentioned, the kit lenses are much better than what Canon and Nikon offer.

 

If I were shopping in that price range, I'd consider the Nikon D50 with upgrade to 18-70DX lens (not the standard kit) but would likely go for the Olympus. But having been burt before by their sorry excuse for a "system", I would run a mile from the Rebel XT/350D and it's (as Scott Eaton calls it) "Capt'n Crunch" kit lens.

[Hector Javkin]

As other threads in photo.net have said, you're buying into a system, not just a camera. In the future, you will probably want additional lenses, and at some time a newer camera body to go with the lenses you have. Will Olympus continue to support its DSLRs? They don't have a good history of doing that with the OM system, their film SLRs. Just something to keep in mind.

[Brian]

<P>I don't really think you can criticize Olympus for canning their film SLRs. Nikon have done the same. And Olympus sells more cameras worldwide than either Canon or Nikon so perhaps you ought to be questioning the long term future of the other brands.</P><P>Personally I think the E-500 is going to be a winner and will cement the future of the 4/3 system.</P>

[Greg M]

Being an owner of a Canon T90 the day Canon announced it was leaving th entire FD system behind literally overnight in the 1980's, Hector's comment seems to be without a whole lot of thought about the past. Canon did announce it would "support" the system for 10 years....uh huh, right. Just goes to show how short-sided some can be about these type things, and you have a problem with Canon today. Assumimg they do make their larger chips affordable enough that the masses can afford them in a DSLR in the near future as some believe, too bad for all those wanting to upgrade who are using EFS and "digital only" third party lenses today that won't cover the image circle of the larger sensor.

[robert_m3]

> I don't really think you can criticize Olympus for canning their film SLRs. Nikon have done

the same.

 

?

 

Nikon hasn't canned their film SLR's. The F mount has been around for over 40 years and is

still going strong. Nikon currently sells 30+ lens for film (and digital). The F6 just came out,

and they sell 5 other film bodies including a full manual.

[andrew robertson]

Olympus makes nice cameras and stunning lenses, but the E system can't compete with

the Canon in lens availability or price point, it lacks stabilized lenses completely, and the

miniature sensor size places a crippling upper limit on high ISO / low noise sensor

performance that I wouldn't saddle myself with.

 

If you are looking to buy a camera that you won't really use in low light settings, and are

fairly sure that you won't need exotic lenses like long telephotos, perspective control, or a

faster than f/2 normal lens (is that considered exotic?), and wouldn't mind spending

$7000 on a 300 f/2.8 when Nikon and Canon offer their 300 f/2.8 lenses (stabilized, mind

you) for half the price, then go for it. The E-800 with two lens kit is quite a bargain for

less than $1000. But if you are looking to buy into a versatile camera system then I could

hardly recommend it.

[GerrySiegel]

I would go either with the Nikon D50 or the E 500. Mainly on a value standpoint. Frank Ryper in Washington Post "camera works" section recently spoke highly of he D 50. Get a lens where the viewing is bright. If you love wide angle,avoid the E models because of the lens factor. It is actually not a tough decision chris. You know you want a Nikon... Best,Gerry

[GerrySiegel]

Here for your convenience is that review link on the Nikon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900437.html

[basscheffers]

Wow, it took longer than I thought before "the 300/2.8 is too expensive" remark came.

 

On the other hand, Olympus will sell you a top notch 28-108/2.8-3.5 (equivalent) for half

the price of Canon's 24-105/4, which only has that focal length on a 5D. If you are an APS

sensor user, the best they can come up with is a 27-64/4 (17-40/4); half the reach and up

to a stop slower for the priviledge of paying one and a half time as much. (Even more

when you consider that lens is included in an $1130 E-1 kit)

 

It all depends on what lenses you are interested in that makes one brand cheaper than the

other.

 

Most people will NEVER buy a 300mm prime (a more expensive 400 or 600mm required to

get the same angle of view on Canon, by the way) everyone wants a good standard zoom.

[andrew robertson]

You're right, Bas.

 

My new remark will be "Where the hell is the fast normal lens"?

[Hector Javkin]

Nikon changed its 35mm system incrementally, Canon abruptly, but only Olympus (of these three) completely stopped making 35mm SLRs, forcing users to go elsewhere, long before DSLRs became available. Even with the current DSLRs, the limited number of Olympus lenses (noted earlier) puts limits on what you can do with an Olympus system. If, at some time in the future, Chris needs to shoot hand-held in low light, Olympus offers no bodies capable of high ISO, no vast array of fast lenses and no image stabilization.

 

Canon shooters were understandably upset when they were forced to change to EOS or to another brand. Olympus shooters were simply abandoned. We can't predict what companies will survive, but Canon and Nikon have made a bigger commitment to DSLRs than Olympus has, and seem much less likely to decide to stop producing them.

[basscheffers]

I have yet to come acros anyone in the wild shooting a consumer grade DSLR with any

prime on it. I am sure they are out there, but the only thing I ever see are DRebels with kit

zooms.

 

And just look at the top rated photos on this very website; the overwhelming majority is

taken with zoom lenses, proving that even most of the serious amateurs don't care about

primes.

 

Sure, it is worth noting that there aren't many available (and I know I'd buy a 25/2 or

preferably faster) but dissing an entire system over it is losing perspective.

 

Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it won't work for anyone else.

[basscheffers]

I don't see how dropping your system and then forcing your loyal customers to buy

everything all over again from you is any different from dropping your system and forcing

people to buy another brand.

 

You may feel all warm and fuzzy that "your brand" offered you something else, but for all

intents and purposes, there is no difference in the effect it has on your business or hobby.

[awindsor]

Chris,

 

You haven't said what you want to photograph. There are excellent reviews, without noticable bias at http://www.dpreview.com

 

You should definitely go to a store any handle the cameras. You have already noted that you found the XT to be a toy. One of the (major IMHO) advantages of the Olympus system is its compactness. The E-500 is lighter than the XT and almost identical in size.

 

If high ISO capture is important for you then I would avoid the 4/3 system. As you can see from my portfolio I shoot as ISO 3200 in a jazz club using f1.8 and f2 primes wide open. These shots would not be possible on an E-500. The 50/1.8 lens used for many of these shots is $70. For everyday shooting I use zooms (17-40/4 and 70-200/4) though I have my heart set on a 300/4 IS for bird shots (a photographic subject I always swore to avoid - bugger).

 

There is little doubt that the Olympus lens choices are currently limited. Since third party manufacturers are now moving into the 4/3 system this may change. The existing zooms are very very attractive. Olympus currently holds the record for the fastest zoom currently available.

 

I thinks Bas' comparison is a little disingenuous. A fairer comparison would be with the 17-85 IS (still not cheap). This features IS and you can increase ISO to compensate for the relative slowness.

[awindsor]

Incidentally Photozone.de has some Olympus lens reviews posted, so far they only have figures for the mere mortal lenses. The LWPH figures are almost directly comparable with the Canon lenses also reviewed. They are normalized with respect to picture height so the difference in format makes a slight difference.

 

Frankly all the systems will take superb photographs. Canon and Nikon have better high ISO (which I would not be without) and many many more lens and accessory options. I do find the lack of fast AF normal primes a problem. These lenses are within a mere mortal budget and very useful for available light photography. Since the ISO performance of the smaller Olympus sensor is not as good they need faster lenses.

[Hector Javkin]

<i>I don't see how dropping your system and then forcing your loyal customers to buy everything all over again from you is any different from dropping your system and forcing people to buy another brand.</i>

<p>

Olympus took a superb metering system out of the market. Canon and Nikon continued to make, and improve on, wonderful lenses. Even when changing to a new system, certain characteristics remain. The handling of the OMs was unsual, with focus, aperture and shutter speed at the lens barrel. Not everyone liked it, but I did, and it helped my photography for many years. That's not a warm fuzzy feeling, it is practical matter. Changing the direction of rotation for mounting and focusing lenses is a small annoyance, but I had to get used to it when I switched to Nikon. Olympus probably would have kept the direction the same. If Olympus had changed to a new system that fit my needs, I would have grumbled in the same way that Canon users did, and then bought it, just like many Canon users grumbled and then bought their new system.

<p>

I didn't intend to start a debate here. I believe that Olympus is a riskier choice than Nikon or Canon for someone who conceivably might want to add to a system later on. Others don't. Chris now has both views.

[Greg M]

The one thing you have to keep in mind regarding Canon's 17-85 IS lens mentioned above is the three letters left off that lens designation....EFS. As long as you stick with Canon's consumer APS cameras then yes, but if you should decide to go to a 5D-like body, especially if the larger frame sensors do become more affordable, an EFS lens will do you no good.

[peter_lawrence]

I think the biggest problem with the current lenses available for the Olympus D-SLR's is

not a lack of single focal-length lenses, but a complete lack of image-stabilization lenses

(or in the case of Konica-Minolta, a camera body with image-stabilization).

 

Unless you plan to shoot always from a tripod, image-stabilization is a VERY worthwhile

feature to have on your primary lens or camera body. I think it's probably one of the most

significant advancement in lens technology in the past ten years. It really makes you

hand-held shots sharper.

 

But of course, if you planning to shoot just still life, macro, or landscapes with your

camera always mounted on a tripod, then you won't miss the advantage that a image-

stabilized lens would give you.

[GerrySiegel]

It is still funny,Bas after what 3 yrs or so. The dialogue I mean. " Olympus announces new ultra fast zoom lenses" " Well,of course, because they have such a small sensor,so how else can one shoot in low light. They had to." " Olympus just increased megapixels,kept dust precipitator and added four more lenses to their line." " Their system is so like smaller than others,--- always will be---, and their lenses are too damn costly mm for mm. Look at the super telephotos most of us users will eventually want. And the tilt and shift things,when do I get one, and them stabilized elements. Plus they are UNRELIABLE,abandoned the best little camera ever made just cause it was OBE. Your move." " Well, the OM lenses and cameras are still in use and there seem to be a large selection of lenses they made. Just checked KEH.Still operating" " So why did the dirty rats stop making the OM system after 25 years and leave us hanging with just an overpriced titanium thing. We hate being obsoleted. Hate it I tell you" " I concede. You gotta be right,because contradiction sours conversation Ben Franklin said.<p> Hey, Bas, a happy 2006. Le plus ce changer,le plus ce la meme,(correct me on that one do) Aloha, a happy (albeit unstablized) E system user with but two lenses. System loyalty,hmm,I dont know.. Although, dont let this get spread around- the Canon Off Camera Shoe works better on the Olympus flash shoe than the Oly one...strange but true.

[omer_ipekci]

I think you should also look into Konica Minolta 5d.

It's great. High ISO performance + better viewfinder + good build + excellent old lenses for great prices and famous Anti Shake.

 

Maybe you would like to check it out.