Is Olympus a good choice for me

[bertonsierens]

<p>I'm trying to find a digital camera and assortment of lenses that fits my shooting style and budget. For now, photography is a hobby that I tend to take seriously (perhaps too much sometimes), and I have also learned that the camera body is not what counts, but rather the lenses that you can put on it. My goal is to become as good as I can be at making photographs and in the long run perhaps make perhaps some money by putting my pictures on stock sites or in galleries. With this in mind I am looking for a nice lightweight DSLR and assortment of zoom lenses and primes that would give me a good start set up. I have currently a 400D canon with 18-55 kit lens and 70-200 F4 zoom. So changing to another brand at this time would not be a problem. I like particularly Olympus' small dslrs combined with lightweight zooms that take advantage of the 2x crop factor giving me a full range with very few lenses. I have a tripod but I do not like to use it much. I seem to be more of a spontaneous photographer as opposed to one who sets up the shot with great patience and care. <br>

I have not found yet what my particular type of photography is yet. I tend to a lot of nature pictures and architecture, but street photography is also nice. Taking pictures of faces close ups is also appealing to me. Black and white photography is also one of my goals. I used to take a lot of airplane pictures (that's why I bought the canon and 70-200), but after doing this for months in a row, my interests faded and I realised that this was not my real passion (although I go to airshows and quite enjoy them).<br>

I do not like to be the point of attraction when shooting, rather I prefer the shadows. Small dslrs and lenses are perfect for me there it seems.<br>

There is no doubt in my head that Olympus is equal in quality to its competitors. What would you recommend to me considering I would have a €1500 like budget.<br>

Thanks in advance for reading my post</p>

[machts gut]

<p>With your 400D you have a good camera that plays in the same league with the Olympus E-4xx/5xx. I prefer the handling of the Olympuses but qualitywise there is not much difference. And it's not that much bigger. I would rather invest in better glas than your 18-55 kit lens. Maybe add a 1.8/50. It's a pretty cheap, but excellent lens for portraits. Fast and sharp. Or get a faster lens in the range of your kit lens. If there's still money left you could consider buying a used 40D.<br>

But if you really want it small and unobtrusive, you may want to have a look at the Panasonic G-1 or the new Oly E-P 1.</p>

[vlad_p]

<p>if you like to be 'in shadows' I assume you also would not want to use 'flash'<br>

(unless you have prepared your subjects of interest).<br>

So then I could say that you would prefer 'stealthness' and 'unassuming'<br>

photography to catch your subjects at 'natural' behaviour rather then<br>

the most 'professional'/quality lenses/gear (means big).</p>

<p>Then the new Olympus EP-1 s a perfect fit for you.<br>

Over time the system will grow with more lenses of smallest size available for any DSLR (right now there are two<br>

plus dosens of lenses from the 4/3d system)</p>

<p> </p>

[Brian]

<p>I agree with Stefan. I like the Olympus and prefer it to the Canon, but it's a matter of personal taste and I do not believe there would be any noticeable quality difference in moving from Canon to Olympus body (though I think the Oly kit lens is better than the Canon).<br>

So in economic terms, buying a nice lens or two for the Canon would be your best bet (a couple of small primes maybe?).</p>

[akira]

<p>Berton, your statement seems to be self-contradictory. You say you are trying to find digital cameras and lenses "that fit your shooting style". But you also say "you haven't yet found what your particular type of photography is".</p>

<p>So, maybe you'd better keep shooting with what you have now and wait for your requirment to be more clear. With your current setup, you could do virtually anything.</p>

<p>That said, if you say you are more of a spontaneous photographer, you may need a system whose response is faster. One of the easiest way would be to replace your 18-55 to 17-40/4.0 or something that focuses faster. If you can live with a prime, 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 can be interesting. If you consider changing system, your budged should be large enough to buy one of these. At this moment, moving to Olympus would make little sense.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I would agree with others. Try upgrading a better basic lens over the kit lens. And Canon's 50mm 1.8 would still be a low cost way to see just a little more of the Canon system optics which are very fine. Give yourself a bit more time before you abandon Canon makes sense. I am a fan of Olympus for sure. Still... You have to narrow down what fits you, but you already know that. </p>

<p>Reminds me of a little bit of comic but sane advice . Goes like this ." Don't just DO something. STAND THERE!" Sometimes that makes sense. It is win-win either way. Some people do get a boost when they try different models if they can afford that approach. Which Olympus camera and lens were you looking at, by the way?</p>

[bertonsierens]

<p>Thanks for all the input everybody<br>

@Akira and Gerry: I have learnt that I cannot restrict myself to one type of photography and that I like a little bit of everything. For this reason, I had thought that Olympus could be the ideal solution for me: lightweight, small, 2 small and light fast zooms to cover my needs (high quality at that). I don't find these qualities in Canon unless I pay lots of euros for the zooms. I was thinking perhaps of a 620 or E30 or even a E3, I would need to use them first in the shop to see which I like most.</p>

[bertonsierens]

<p>And as a lens I would take the 12-60, which almost covers all my needs at first</p>

[akira]

<p>If you are thinking about "lightweight", E620 would be the only choice. E30 and E3 are heavier than Canon 400D. Also, 12-60 is heavy and bulky for a 4/3 lens. E3 or E30/12-60 combo is quite bulky although it may feel more solid.</p>

<p>FWIW, I find that the noise performance of DX size cameras have, roughly speaking, 1-2 stops of advantage over 4/3 cameras, so, the advantage of the speed of 12-60/2.8-4.0 would disappear the moment you set the ISO value of 400D just a stop higher to compensate for the slower speed of the equivalent like EF-S 17-85/4.0-5.6 IS USM. I bet 400D/17-85 combo would feel almost the same as E620/12-60 combo (the Olympus combo may focus a little faster, but I'm not sure if there is a decisive difference).</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Berton, you are correct in the two lens solution if that will fit your needs. I find the 14-54 mm still works well enough, though I can see the merits of the 12-60 were I to start from scratch. The 50-200 mm is reportedly wonderful but is not exactly a lightweight. Trade offs, trade offs. I went for a 50 mm and EC 14 for portraiture and macro and slide duping. And for the occasional long shot, I felt the standard grade 70-300 mm seems to be good enough. the body is such a personal thing, as you say,try and see if the 'shoe fits.' Viewing is the big trouble. I want bright, crisp and clear field and data all along the bottom. I am still persnickety on that score for a basic setup. I have zero regrets choosing Olympus as my first digital camera. This is from a Canon guy who has owned six top drawer Canon FD bodies and 8 lenses before digitalizing.... I just got drawn in to the 4/3 thing...<br>

I say this---<strong>Just Do It</strong> !.. (a la Nike. Nike does not say what <strong>DO</strong> is, maybe they urge like 'off your hock and grab a sock '... It is for sure an investment of real money and there are alternatives that have merit. Yet brings me much pleasure and family fun for years. (Beats the heck off gold ornaments they sell to Acuras buyers ) I say why not Olympus DSLR.</p>

[andreasb]

<p>Try a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens for your Canon camera. It is cheaper and just as good as the Canon offering in the same range and is significantly better than your kit lens. It would compliment your 70-200mm f/4 very nicely. The Tamron lens may have you rethinking wanting to change to another complete camera setup. Maybe you can rent a Tamron or the Canon equivalent 17-55mm f/2.8 for a few days to try them out.</p>

<p>The single biggest reason why I suggest sticking with Canon is the higher ISO performance. Another person suggested trying a used Canon 40D above. I have two of these and just love them. A used one is still within your budget, including the Tamron lens, and maybe interesting for you to try. While a smaller Olympus E-P1 sounds very interesting to me, the lack of high ISO performance makes it impractical. Much of my shooting is wildlife with a 100-400mm tele lens, in the evening or early mornings, when the wildlife is most active. Additionally, I do a lot of action photography where I have to increase the ISO to freeze the motion in less than ideal lighting conditions. For many of these I end up using ISO800 or higher and still end up with great photos that I can print in 16"x20" (40.5cm x 50.5cm). As far as I understand from reading the micro four thirds forum, this isn't possible or practical with any of the four thirds manufacturers.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision!</p>