Stylus Epic vs. Rebel 2000

[carson_black]

I am an avid backpacker and mountaineer and am currently in the

market for a 35mm camera. The kind of shots I want to take are

basically scenic shots of the vistas that I encounter and as well as

minor dawn/dusk snapshots; basically, stuff that doesn't

necessarilly require a zoom lens. Besides, from what I have heard

the distortion from a zoom lens isn't at all worth the trade off.

 

I have limited my choices to the Olympus Stylus Epic and the Canon

Rebel 2000 (w/ the 50/1.8 lens). What I like about the epic is the

small size, apparent good optics, and of course cheap price. What I

like about the Rebel 2000 however is the lightweight body, the whole

SLR aspect, and the good reviews on the 50/1.8 lens.

 

Now my question. For someone who is VERY concerned with having non-

grainy pictures with clear sharp colors, is splerging for the Rebel

2000 worth the extra 200 or so that it will cost over the epic? In

your opinion, are the shots coming from the Rebel sharper than the

Epic even though they both sport a fixed lens?

 

Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated. My purchase

will probally be made within two weeks.

[gwilburn]

As a Sylus Epic owner, I would recommend you go with the Rebel 2000. I like the Epic for its small size (I carry it everywhere) but there's not enough control over the exposure. It tends to use the widest aperture possible which in turn tends towards shallow DOF. If it offered aperture priority mode, it would be a wonderful little camera. As is, it's a good little camera but you'll do better with the Rebel. My $0.02

[jim_gifford]

Carson, the 50mm f/1.8 is quite sharp, but so is the 35mm f/2.8 lens on the Epic.

 

For backpacking and mountaineering, I could think of three reasons to prefer the Epic strongly over the Rebel (or any comparably priced SLR):

 

1) Fewer cubic inches in your pack

 

2) Fewer grams on your back

 

3) Halfway decent weatherproofing

 

Also, the wider angle prespective of the 35mm lens may be nicer for scenic shots.

 

Consider a tiny tripod for the dawn and dusk shots.

 

Have fun,

[keith_van_hulle1]

Go for the Rebl if for nothing else than to control exposure. Wait till you need to do some exposure compensation. Of course, this is only if weight/size/cost is not an issue.

[tim_watters2]

Take the Epic.

 

Weight, bulk, weather-resistance, decent lens, and spotmetering all give the edge to the Epic, IMHO.

 

Keeping the Rebel dry in two or three days of heavy rain means keeping it packed away taking up valuable real estate in your pack. Straps or holsters are a nuisance. The Epic carries nicely in a zip-lock baggie in you pocket.

 

Good 400 or 800 speed film should yield a high percentage of sharp colorful negs.

 

I used an Epic on a through hike of the John Muir Trail and don't regret the choice. Excellent shots with minimal bother.

[tim_watters2]

Concerning the exposure control...

 

If you familiarize yourself with the spotmetering capability of the Epic (and know a little bit about Zone System exposure) you can get pretty good at controling the exposure on those high contrast days in the mountains.

[jsbc]

As other say: points of consideration include:

1) weight

2) pictures your are going to take. Will you want a 35mm lens, or a 50mm, or even some flexiblity to do macro? Some zooms, like the 28-105 are quite alright. Mind you a polarizer is quite important for colors.

3) Price. Rebel plus lens is more expensive route. Easily US$250-300vs a $80 Rebel.

 

Suggestions include a 2nd hand SLR with lens.

 

Another alternative could be a posh PnS like the Ricoh GR1s or Hexar. More expensive, but would do everything that the Rebel can in a smaller package except for changing lens.

[brian_torio]

Carson - You mention that you want "non-grainy pictures with clear sharp colors." I would have to say that both cameras are capable of producing such results. A large part of this will depend on the type of film you use and the processing you have done on that film. I would recommend you pick up some good film and make sure you find a good lab to do your processing.

 

On another note, the Rebel 2000 with the 50mm F1.8 lens has a much faster maximum appeture. That means you can use slower film, which in turn means less grain in your photos (generally). I would guess that you would be fine with a good 100 ASA film using the Rebel 2000 setup, whereas you would probably be using 400 ASA (or faster) film in the Epic.

 

That said, my vote is for the Rebel 2000 (and good film) for the best photos. I hope that helps. Have fun with whichever camera you choose!

[carson_black]

Thank you gentlemen for your responses. I think I am leaning towards the epic at the moment, but am probally going to go to the library and check out some photography books before I decide for sure. Although I have a good idea about the importance of exposure/aperture, I want to be able to have a great idea before I throw down any money. Thanks again.

[jsbc]

One thing I left out in my response is control.

 

With the Rebel, you can use manual focus to avoid some fo the problems to which the Epic is prone. You can also control the exposure etc which is important in backlight situations. Later on, you will find that filters are also very important and the Rebel is no doubt mroe versatile.

 

Johnson

[Brian]

<P>This is a good question in spite of the disparity between the two choices. If you are chiefly interested in scenic shots, the 35mm lens of the Epic is more likely to give you the view that you want. Of course, you're not limited to the 50 mm lens on the Rebel (though any other choice is more expensive). If the cost of the Rebel plus 50mm is no problem, there are other fixed-lens compacts around for the price that will give more control than the Epic. The Ricoh GR1 has a wider 28mm lens and is very highly regarded. A used Konica Hexar (35mm lens) is another possibility.</P><P> In your situation, with your budget, I would opt for a fixed-lens compact. I admire the Epic, though I actually use a Konica BigMini (only available used now).</P>

[ccrevasse]

I have a Stylus Epic which I carry with me when cycling because it is so small and light. Personally, I think you'd be better off with a P&S with a 28-XX zoom lens. Here's why: (1) Smaller than a Rebel 2000. (2) Shallow depth of field is not likely to be a goal of many of your pictures. So, you can get by with the slower zoom lens and faster film. (3) You will probably find the 35mm lens to be limiting in the mountains: not wide enough for some shots, and too wide for others -- it diminishes the apparent size of the mountains. Better to be able to zoom from 28mm to 70mm or so. Konica, Yashica, and Leica all make P&S zooms with 28-XX lenses, so I would consider one of those.

[richard_cochran]

I'd say if you're going to USE the Rebel as a P&S, that is,

if you'll leave it on auto all the time (like many people

do), then you're probably better off saving the size and

weight and buying the Epic. It has a very capable, very

sharp lens.

<p>

But if you want full control of shutter speed, aperture,

and focus, the Epic won't give it to you. Any SLR offers

much more control, if you want to take advantage of it.

[peza]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=135831">Epic review</a>.

[peter_langfelder]

FWIW, I used to have a Yashica T4 and never liked the 35mm focal length for scenics. Always either too short or too wide. Now I have a Rebel with 24mm and 50mm primes and have never missed the 35mm compromise. Your taste may be different, but I would definitely suggest either the Rebel with a 24/28mm and 50mm prime (for maximum image quality and for use of slow film), or, if money or space are tight, a decent 28-70 zoom P&S. If you shoot negatives, the issue of precise exposure control is moot anyway. As someone suggested, a small tripod will contribute more towards sharp pictures than anything else, especially during dusk/dawn.

[harry_voutsinas]

You should also consider a Minolta Explorer, Olympus Wide 80 or the brand new Olympus 28-100mm. The Oly's are water resistant,which is a big plus while backpacking. I have an Explorer and have found it to be a wonderful little camera.All three have a a wider angle lens(28mm) the the Stylus Epic,and should be more useful for landscapes. Unfortunetely none have as large an aperture as the Epic,although the Minolta is 3.5.

As with everything in photography,there is always a trade off

[cd thacker]

I have to agree with Richard - who beat me to it, in saying that if you want an auto-everything point-and-shoot - and that's <I>all</I> you want - go with the Epic, on account of its great price/weight/low-maintenance; but if, on the other hand, you want to learn to make better pictures, go with the Rebel - which has the (tremendous) advantage of accepting really good lenses (the 50/1.8 you are considering, being among them); and the additional advantage of accepting slower film (with the 1.8 lens), which means less grain.<P>

 

Someone who knows what they're doing could make pro-level shots with the Rebel and the 50/1.8 lens. That would be more difficult, in my opinion, with the Epic (whose 35mm lens, while good, isn't <I>nearly</I> as good as the Canon, if other people's pictures, tests - and price - are to be believed).

[peza]

Doug, about sharpness. Yes and no. I have 24/2.8 - great lens which I tested with TMAX-100 and it is sharp. I've not done any test with Epic, but this shot: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/531797&size=lg"><img

src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=531797&size=sm"

height=130 width=200 alt="click on for fullsize 2000ppi scan"></a>

on SENSIA 100 is showing, it is very sharp.