The Olympus E-3 or the Nikon D700?

[robert_miller15]

<p>I'm just trying to get the Opinion of some others on this topic, which do you think is better Overall (taking into considerations Price and everything else).<br>

The Olympus E-3 or the Nikon D700?<br>

Heres a little background to help you with what kind of photographs I take, I'm currently enlisting into the Marine Corps as a Combat Photographer. When in the Marine Corps I'll be traveling a lot and taking pictures of many different cultures and many different types of pictures. When I'm on duty I'll be using the Corps Contracted Camera, which is a Canon (Not sure which model as I'm not in the Corps yet, waiting to go through Boot Camp). But when I'm off duty I'll be using my Camera, I've narrowed my search down to these two to buy, I'm kind of leaning towards the E-3 for price reasons, but I'm not fully sure if I should. I know I can probly get the same results with either of the Cameras, but some make it more convient. I may be shooting sports a lot, and I expect to be shooting a lot of Action. I love taking night photos which is one of the reasons I'm still debating over the D700. Currently I have no camera at all, due to past problems with moving around and theft.<br>

Also if you have any other reccomendations other than the Nikon D700 or the Olympus E-3, I'm always up for ideas and I'll be sure to look into them.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Robert, they are both good camera systems but Nikon had the edge with more lens choices and IMO a better overall lighting system. However, you should also consider something like the 5D in the Canon lineup since you will be shooting with Canon regularly. At the very least, you will have the advantage of already knowing and working wiith the Canon gear but also maybe the possibility of being able to borrow some of their lenses.</p>

 

[richsimmons]

<p>While the E-3 is a great camera, the D700 is full frame, while the E-3 is not. the D700 has low light advantage as well. If you don't want to kick out for the d700, the d300 is more than capable and probably still better in low light than the E-3. For the price of the E-3 you can get a 5D from somewhere. Are you against used equipment? You can find some very good deals from KEH.com. The E-3 is the only one of them that has a built in flash. Not exactly a deal maker, but just a point of fact. In the right conditions, the E-3 is fabbo and weather conditioned.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The good thing about the E-3 is that it is one of the most rugged DSLR's on the market. It also comes with excellent lenses, but they can be costly. The E-3 supports 4/3rd system lenses so you will be getting allot of reach from each lens. A 50mm lens will be the equivalent of a 100mm, a 200mm will be the equivalent of a 400mm. This also means that you can carry more of these lenses in your bag because of their smaller size.<br>

I have a friend who does outdoor sports and he recently switched to the E-3 because you can use it in the mud, rain etc. The downside about the E-3 is that when it comes to low-light situations it is not really "king of the hill", past 800 ISO you quickly start seen degredation in the image. Meanwhile the D700 doesn't even struggle at 1600 ISO and beyond. Again if you are going to be shooting flash then the D700 comes out on top. However, I would try both cameras to see which on best fits your needs. <br>

One thing I like about the Olympus camera is the flip-out live view and the in-camera body stabilization. The D700 also has some great features, but you got to take the price into consideration. </p>

[michaelyoung]

<p>The Nikon's increased ISO capabilities will rival the E3's image stabilization via faster shutter speeds in low light situations.<br>

If you so choose, you can then put an image stabilised Nikon lens on your 300.<br>

Now, you're way ahead with the Nikon.<br>

The E3's weather sealing, where you're going, can't be discounted.<br>

This is a tough one and I don't know.<br>

A bit of off topic unsolicited advice: it's a great big world out there. People steal things--yes they do, it's true. Whatever you purchase needs to be insured for the term of your enlistment before you take it out of the box.<br>

You may also, depending on your budget, want to look at something like Olympus' 1030SW. Despite a array of DSLR equipment, the only photos I've ever had published were taken with a point and shoot, the 1030 SW to be exact.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The E3's biggest shortcoming has to do with the 4/3 system format. Its sensor is even smaller than the frequently bashed and so-called "obsolete" APS-C format... The physical difference in terms of size will make a different when it comes to low light shooting. D700 is also very well built. I once used a similar camera, a D300 w/ a pro-grade Nikkor through 6 hours of heavy rain and mud, and nothing happened to it.</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>Well this is interesting considering I just watched Full Metal Jacket last night.<br /> If the Marines use Canon, get a Canon. That way you can shoot with both cameras if need be, using yours as a backup or something. Also, you're gonna need an EOS 1 series because nothing else is gonna be tough enough (or weather sealed enough). I'd probably recommend an EOS 1d Mk II. They go for ~$1200 used, which gives you leeway for some more expensive lenses - that are as equally weather sealed. It has 8mp, 8.5frames/second, built like a tank. I doubt a 5d would be able to take the abuse (or would even be fast enough)- wedding photography is not as umm.. "hardcore" as combat photos, I'm sure.</p>

<p>Thanks for choosing to serve.</p>

[bernie moore]

Robert, wait until you are a Marine photographer. By then you will have learned a lot and know what you need far more than we can guess at this point,and the camera you buy today will probably be 3 generations out of date by then.

[napper]

<p>Hi if low light and high iso performance is the key issue then the Nikon has it. If the key issue is a rugged and weatherproofed camera and lens then definitely the E3. There is a lot of "talk" out in camera land about how much greater and better Canon or Nikon are than the Olympus but in all honesty the differences are minimal in real photo taking terms. Yes each make and model of camera have certain Best Operating Conditions, but they also have their weaknesses. One such criticism is the availability of lenses and whilst it is true that both Canon and Nikon have a larger number of lenses available the Zuiko range is more than sufficient to meet most needs and the fact that all the lenses are effectively stabilised because of in body stabilisation is a big bonus. Not only this but quality of the Zuiko lenses is generally speaking higher than the standard lenses of the others. I think what I'm trying to say is don't believe the market hype and go out and try for yourself the two models you have mentioned and perhaps one of the Canon range 5D perhaps bearing in mind your budget, your available carrying space and weight limits. As Bernie points out unless you really need to purchase a camera now or wish to buy one so as to practise and become familiar with a modern DSLR then wait until your are trained because technology marches on and in two to three years time there may well be other contenders for the type of camera available to do the job you need. Also I agree that a good rugged point and shoot camera is sometimes a better option than a DSLR and if budget can be found for both then do it. Here the same answers apply as with the DSLR the 830 or 1030 sw Olympus cameras are about as tough and as rugged as they come with generally good quality pics but other makes have slightly higher quality pics but not the rugged construction. Hope this helps.</p>

[markko]

<p>I have a D700 and the weather sealing is first rate. I use it in the rain without a cover all the time. Nikon doesn't advertise it as being able to be "run under a tap" like Olympus, but like the D200 I had previously, the D700 is weather sealed and I have never had any moisture problems (unlike the Canon 5d II according to Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape site). I honestly would avoid the Olympus series, unless you have already made a substantial investment in their "4/3" lenses already. The cost of a decent Olympus system is not cheap and it's a myth that it is (and that the system is smaller for that matter). Check out the prices of their decent lenses and you will see you are going to be in the hole for thousands. (The 35-100mm F2.0 for example is almost $2300 at B&H right now) As well, Olympus' RAW processing software is a joke and I have read complaints about the way 3rd party software handles ORF files (apparently it's because Olympus has less than 6% market share and 3rd party RAW processors can't be bothered to spend much time tweaking it, for this reason).</p>

[raffay]

<p>Hey Robert,<br>

I own a E-3 and i must say that it is a great camera. One thing that you will have to understand and live by is that you will not get everything in one camera. The biggest advantage of olympus is its true colour output especially in print. I was shooting this wedding and another guy was shooting with a Nikon D90. We compared the results the color of the fabrics from the D90 were way off and with the E-3 they were spot on. I have not used a Nikon myself as i am new into photography but I can honestly tell you where the problem is, low light is one, high ISO performance is not great. I am quite happy with the results and want to add that i dont have any SWD lens right now still it is quite good. <br>

I am about to sell my equipment if you are interested in buying a used one do let me know. I am not a pro so it is not used a lot only at home. It is in mint condition. I have the body one 14-42 and another 70-300mm.<br>

cheers</p>

[robwilson]

<p>I shoot an E3 and whilst the camera does have its limitations, especially at high ISO, it is still a very fine camera for the money. The biggest upside is the Zuiko lenses. I use the SWD 12-60 for my main lens and it is superb. The quality of image that I get is, I think, better than what my fiance gets with her D300 using the best lenses that Sigma have to offer. <br>

It is also built like a tank.<br>

Having said that, there is stuff I envy about her D300, so if I had a pot of money to spend then I'd probably get the D700.<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>