DSLR Question

[Brown Bear]

Looking at getting a mid level dslr. Leaning towards the Olympus E620. Anybody have any "time" on one? Way better buy than Nikon or Canon!

[moocow]

Wait, why do you say it's a better buy than Nikon or Canon? The lenses selection alone make Olympus a poor selection. Found a review on DP Review, not a bad site.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse620/

I don't own a DSL myself but do have an advance point & shoot (used manual mode). If you don't want to buy the newest Canon, you can still get an Canon XS which is just refresh of their previous models.

[Brown Bear]

I know that both Nikon and Canon have great lenses. But for my use, there's just more to my $$ with Olympus. I can get an E-620, with 2 lenses for the price of a D90 body, with couple of hundred left over.
My present camera is a G9.

[grimey]

I can get an E-620, with 2 lenses for the price of a D90 body, with couple of hundred left over.

The 620 is in the same class as the D5000, not the D90.

http://vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/2456 ... -vr-d.aspx
http://vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/2426 ... enses.aspx

Same price, similar range and speed on the lenses. Olympus has in-camera image stabilization, both Nikon lenses also have it.

[Brown Bear]

Grimey, I value your input on all things photographic. What do you think of the 620 vs the 520 vs the more or less Canons and Nikons? I've been counsled that I'll get more camera for the $$ with the Olympus. I can't see myself needing the vast array of lenses from the "big two". Thanks in advance


While I'm at it, I've found a 520 with two lenses for 300$ less in the States, than the Canadian price. So I'll be shopping south.

[Inverted2]

All you need:

www.photoprice.ca

[ahramin]

If price is a problem, buy used Canon or Nikon. If you're in the Vancouver area drop me a pm.

[Brown Bear]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/
Check out his reviews, I think his site is one of the best out there for unbiased Camera reviews.

Thanks for the link. He seems to advocate keeping the body light and simple, saving the $$ for lenses etc. Hard to fault mind set.

[sky's the limit]

Spend on glass unless you are selling photos, the bodies really don't matter a whole lot.

stl

[moocow]

On the topic of bodies. How is this penis contest between the mfg actually affect photo quality? Some sites state cramming more pixel onto the sensor actually make things worst. The main issue I have with Olympus is their lens mount. Not a lot of 4/3 lenses out there and you can attach older lenses on it. Even Sony can reuse some Minota lenses and Pentax can still take K-mount from 35mm era. Well look on the bright side, the used camera market is pretty active so you can still sell it later on when you want a better toy.

[BoostedNihilist]

+3 spend on glass get a cheap body.

Im in your position now bear, upgrading to DSLR. I have found that sonys tend to be reasonable, which is nice because minolta lenses happen to be cheaper on ebay than the others. However, I am going to be purchasing either a canon d30 or d40 because they are constructed of metal instead of plastic.

[AirFrame]

If you're just taking holiday snaps, any old camera will do. If you'd like to get beyond the same old photos that everyone takes, you'll need to consider a more professional setup. And by that, I mean you'll need to spend the money and get Nikon or Canon.

Both Nikon and Canon have good bodies and good glass. Nikon traditionally has better bodies, and Canon has better glass. Lately though, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two brands, without a laboratory test.

Olympus, Pentax, and Sony only make consumer-grade hardware, really. You won't find a pro using them who hasn't been paid large sums of money to leave his nikon or canon gear at home instead.

[sky's the limit]

If you're just taking holiday snaps, any old camera will do. If you'd like to get beyond the same old photos that everyone takes, you'll need to consider a more professional setup. And by that, I mean you'll need to spend the money and get Nikon or Canon.

Both Nikon and Canon have good bodies and good glass. Nikon traditionally has better bodies, and Canon has better glass. Lately though, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two brands, without a laboratory test.

Olympus, Pentax, and Sony only make consumer-grade hardware, really. You won't find a pro using them who hasn't been paid large sums of money to leave his nikon or canon gear at home instead.

I'd be inclined to agree with most of this.

I've shot/shoot both Canon's and Nikon's top end gear, and while there' been a perception for years that Nikkor produces the better glass (you got it backwards) I've seen zero evidence of this with direct comparison of my own stuff.

Nikon was lagging behind Canon in the digital body world until two years ago when they launched the D3 body which is still streets ahead, and they've made the software and colour programming available to lower price point models now like the D5000. Canon's 5D is a great camera too, but lacks in a few areas for my purposes. As I say, the top glass from both is VERY good.

All that said, you are talking north of $10,000 to get set up with top end stuff, but Airframe is right on with the last paragraph.

stl

[Brown Bear]

After many years spent schleping F3s and the like, through jungles, swaps, over mountains etc., a nice light weight "consumer" rig looks pretty good to me. Perhaps a D60, XTi or the like will just fine. Not everybody wants/needs a pro rig.

[grimey]

Some sites state cramming more pixel onto the sensor actually make things worst.

Pixel count matters on the higher end cameras. Canon and Nikon arn't going to sell enough of their higher end cameras to idiots who don't know what they're buying to make up for lost sales to pros who do, so they make damn sure the quality is there to match any increase in pixel count. But ultimately, using a smaller sensor pitch on the same size die, with the same sensor technology, will lead to more noise (as the individual pixel sensors won't gather as much light), and worse purple fringing (which is typically only a problem on the consumer P&S cameras, which have VERY small dies). And an increase in pixel count won't help if the glass isn't up to par. A soft image at 8MP will be softer at 16MP, especially if you crop it to mimic using a longer lens.

This is why the original 5D from Canon had such a great reputation, even years after it was introduced, and the newer consumer level cameras passed it in pixel count: it didn't have a much higher pixel count than the lower end cameras in Canon's line, but it did have a full 35mm sensor, rather that the 1.6 crop factor (22mm sensor?) on all of the consumer level cameras, and the resulting increased size of the individual pixel sensors alone was worth the upgrade due to improvements in image quality, especially in low light.

[Doc]

Just a thought, but with the CDN dollar the way it is, now is a good time to take advantage of the US prices. You can always ship the camera to the original point of sale for warrantee work. I've done just this in the past.

[AirFrame]

I've shot/shoot both Canon's and Nikon's top end gear, and while there' been a perception for years that Nikkor produces the better glass (you got it backwards) I've seen zero evidence of this with direct comparison of my own stuff.

The overwhelming majority of Pro photographers would disagree with you, even those who shoot Nikon grudgingly admit that Canon makes better lenses. But at this point Nikon's lenses aren't *that* far behind, the quality is close enough that the differences don't matter. And the superiority of Nikon's bodies more than makes up for any shortfalls. I'd love to have Nikon's 200-point metering and AF on my Canon, but Canon lags in putting nice features like that into their bodies. That means I have to be a better photographer to get the same shot that an amateur could take with a Nikon. And you can be sure that's had an effect on the Photography business in the last 5 years... At least i'm feeling it.

[AirFrame]

After many years spent schleping F3s and the like, through jungles, swaps, over mountains etc., a nice light weight "consumer" rig looks pretty good to me. Perhaps a D60, XTi or the like will just fine. Not everybody wants/needs a pro rig.

Very true. I can't speak for the D60, i'm not famililar with it, but as far as the XTi goes, it's every bit as good as the comparable Pro-line camera. When I had a 20D, I think the RebelXT was the equivalent consumer body. It had the same sensor, same number of pixels, and same software running on it. The only difference was that the Rebel had an all-plastic body and the 20D had a metal body. And I bought my 20D just before the XT was announced, or I may have saved the $$$ and gone for the XT. I'm now up to a 50D, but I don't know what the equivalent Rebel is. The XTi may match with it, or with the 40D.

The nice thing about either of them is that they take the same lenses. If you're buying good lenses anyway, you can always upgrade the body later if there are extra features you need, or find that the plastic consumer units aren't strong enough for the abuse you give them. Personally i've never had a problem with the plastic bodies, but my experience with them is limited to the older film cameras... T70 and Elan. Both were workhorses for me while I was learning photography and took a lot of abuse without a hiccup.

Another good option is to buy used. I haven't owned a new camera since I got back into SLR's when I went digital. Pros are always upgrading their gear, and looking to sell equipment that is in great shape, well cared for, and written off through depreciation. Keep an eye on Craigslist and you can find excellent deals, both on bodies and lenses.

[rightseatwonder]

go to craigslist. wait until a new model is announced. with the new models out every 18 months (recently released 50d 7d d5000 etc ) people dump the bodies and keep the glass and the bodies end up on craigslist.

I got a Canon 40D with 17-85 mm kit lens (not the best lens but ok for walk around shooting) (came with orig receipt and warrantee card ) and the body had 300 actuations on it .. in other words the orig owner had taken less than 50 shots( leaves the factory with about 250-300 ive been told) , for $500.00 can. its still $1300-$1800 in the stores.

spend the money on the glass. lots of glass on craislist too

while most bodies in the current generations have somewhat comparable results all things being equal, some do more than others in some areas depending on what you are shooting. Fast paced sports? birds in flight, etc etc. do you need full frame? for instance the 40D does 7.5 frames per second and the auto focus can keep up, great for sports. Others have better noise, in camera vs in lens stabilization etc.

happy shopping.

p.s there is a script you can download to run on a mac that'll tell you the actuations when you plug in the camera, the camera itself will not , and maybe not the owner either! i brought my laptop, and confirmed the count (canon bodies are generally good for 150,000 actuations so not too much of a concern for the regular enthusiast).

[sky's the limit]

I've shot/shoot both Canon's and Nikon's top end gear, and while there' been a perception for years that Nikkor produces the better glass (you got it backwards) I've seen zero evidence of this with direct comparison of my own stuff.

The overwhelming majority of Pro photographers would disagree with you, even those who shoot Nikon grudgingly admit that Canon makes better lenses. But at this point Nikon's lenses aren't *that* far behind, the quality is close enough that the differences don't matter.

I'm not sure where you guys get that from.

I shoot for part of my living, and to a person all of my associates who shoot full-time feel that Nikkor produces the better glass - I've had both top end Canon and Nikkor glass and don't see any real difference in everyday use. In fact, the difference between my D3 and my old 1D MKIII is so huge I could bolt a kit lens to it an feel happy... Even the once Canon dominated sports photography is starting to see Nikon making serious inroads, albeit with much better bodies as you say.

I personally am not brand loyal, whoever makes the best gear I'm happy to use. The quality of the person using it is always going to determine how good/poor the results are. A friend of mine who has shot for a living for 25yrs packs a D40x around for his personal use and takes some of the best shot's you'll see... just goes to show.

From Mr. Rockwell among others.

Nikon and Canon are as good as each other. Each are multi-billion dollar optical companies who have been making some of the world's best optics for numerous consumer, military and industrial applications for decades and decades.

Each makes lenses as parts of multi-million-dollar steppers used in making electronic chips with more precision anything needed for photography, and each make other optics that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars in other applications. They each make our cameras and lenses out of the same stuff from which they create these other products.

I don't extend this same awe towards discount lensmakers, but I do have this respect for Nikon and Canon and Pentax and Leica and Fuji and Zeiss who've been making much more than cameras for longer than I've been alive. I do have a hat off to Tokina, who are related to Hoya, who are as far as I know the biggest maker of optical glass on the planet, and whose glass is found in parts of everyone's lenses.

They are different, but just as good. Anyone who tries to tell you that one or the other are garbage isn't paying attention, and most likely doesn't have the other to sell you. Nikon and Canon compete so heavily against each other that if one really were better or worse they would have gone out of business long ago.

I would agree.
stl