Olympus E500 better than Canon 350D? In what ways?

[student]

When I was making a decision to buy a DSLR, I already had quite a number of lenses for the Canon system. Logic as suggested some would be to get a Canon DSLR, as I would need to buy more lenses.

But I chose to get the Olympus E1.

My reasons? By that time, I already knew the type of photography I would be doing. I am not interested in photography the eyes of insects or flying birds half a kilometer away. I am not interested in sports. And by that time, I realised that I work with the focal lengths between 28mm to 100mm. I also realised that I do not make images larger than 11x14 inches.

I like the ergonomics of the E1. I like the off-the-camera colors of the E1. Most of my images are in B&W, and I convert many of my color images to B&W. Although I had no means to know it, I later found out that I really hated the B&W conversion of Canon color images to B&W. I had seen it again and again. Photogs had "blamed" the bad conversion to bad PS techniques. But my PS techniques are equally primitive, and I can get acceptable B&W images from my E1.

What I do not like about the E1? Sometimes I do wish that the focussing speed is a bit faster. And I do wish for an image stabilisation device.

 

[drakon09]

Olympus is no where near in competition to Canon and Nikon. C&N are the 2 big names in DSLR. When u consider the capability of DSLRs, you must look at more than just functions. It's not true generally that brand A has this which brand B doesn't so brand A is "better". It's how long the company has been doing R&D and in this business, the number of different models they can churn out, the sophistication in the cam, choice of lenses, etc.

If I must choose THE No.1 leader in DSLR technology, it has to be Canon. Disclaimer: That's my very personal opinion, in case Nikon people start to slam me. :sweat: But to be fair, Nikon has their strengths too.

Well, since you posted this in the Oly forum, I guess the Nikon fellas won't be slamming you.

Competition with Canon and Nikon? Oly does not need to compete with them; cameras are not Oly's main business.

Big names in DSLR? Bigger hardly ever means better.

Number of models they can churn out? Take a 20D, tweak it a bit, call it a 30D voila!

Sophistication in the cam? KMs and Pentaxes are what you call sophisticated.

Choice of lenses? Sure, 50mm version I, II, III with USM I, USM II.. and if it ain't L it probably ain't worth looking at (minus the primes).

Ok, I'm done with my rant.

 

[radi9red]

i think those people who has only used 1 system (brand) shouldnt give comments at all. cos in the first place, its like telling me your apple taste better than the orange because the hardware specifications say so.. you havent even tried the orange before.

Here's my take based on my personal experiences on the body used so far personally.
(1) Canon 300D(sold), Nikon D100 (sold) , olympus e-300 (still currently using), minolta 5d (sold) , Sony Alpha A100 ( still currently Using)

I'm not going to have a comprehensive review on which systems is better for you. But i'll elaborate why i decided to switch systems and why i decided to stay with them.. You decide on your own which system you prefer.

Canon 300D with various AF lens + carl zeiss/takumar manual lens >> 300, 350, 400D are the "consumer" series of the canon DSLR. what do i meant by consumer ? , the body is plastiky although its light.. lesser features and functionality. Lesser buffer. User friendly interface, easy-to-learn for beginners. Summary : value for $, no frills, easy to resale, easy to buy 2nd hand lens. However for really quality lens, "L" lens or "IS" lens, you need to pay more. Nice saturated colours, photos produced in good sunlight are "colourful". You either like it or you dont.

Nikon : For the same comparison for example , D70 comparing to 300D, D70s Comparing to Canon 350D, the latest D80 comparing to CaNON 400d. nIKON WILL always be slightly higher priced than canon competitive series. why so ?? Nikon strategy seems to be on building more robust body and handling comparing to canon. Nikon body really has lotsa buttons, especially i used the D100. its amazing, comparing to EOS 20D. Image quality is different, colour tones straight from the nikon, canon are always different. i can't tell you which is better becos its very subjective. Summary : You hold the nikon body, it feel sturdier, robust. However it doesnt meant its better than the canon competitive series, you pay more $$ for a nikon, thats what you deserved. Re-sale value is also high, quality VR lens are a fortune, similar to "L" lens. , 2nd hand lens easy to find and buy.

Minolta 5D , Sony A100 : The main reason for anyone to go into this brand is the Image stablizer. Image stabalizers are useful for beginners cos it has higher tolerance for mistakes .. Meaning in a average day shot, you end up with lesser blur photos due to handshake especially for shots handheld and 50mm and above. And any lousy lens on the body has image stablizing effect. Thus Sony A100 with a kit lens 18-70mm F3.5-5.5 and a canon 350 D /400D 18-55mm kit lens.. i would say after a full day shots, given to a beginner, you will see that shots from Sony are sharper due to some situations the Anti-shake thing kicks in.

For experienced photographers with loads of $$, there are of course Nikon VR lens and Canon IS lens to help you with the low shutter speed,"shaking" problem and also Canon and nikon really has better ISO noise control so you can always shoot at higher ISO comparing to the Sony A100. However the A100 for 10 Megapixel, Anti-shake, anti-dust, Dynamic range (althought its not useful unless you have a bag of lens and change lens so often) and selling for $1599 is pretty amazingly cheap. Construction wise, sony a100 is rather plasticky not as good as nikpn, maybe closer to canon 400D. thats about it.. resale value not good, good minolta lens hard to find. I've owned "G" lens that cost $1000 a piece and it produces great results. However, its not easy to find on 2nd hand market and it gonna cost you a bigger bomb than nikon Vr or canon L lens. Only advantage >> Anti-shake on body even with every crap lens mounted.

Olympus >> currently still using the e-300, which main reasons : Zuiko lens and the colour tones the olympus system it produces. I wouldnt go into detail what 4:3 systems is and the advantage or disadvantages. Olympus is a rare and niche group. Its like driving a volkwagon whilst most people will say toyota, mazda and honda are the best. For beginners, good zuiko lens will make you "feel cheated" cos its damn expensive comparing to other brands. However, i've used 4 systems before. I would dare to say, in terms of colours and bokeh, especially coming to skin tones, be it outdoor or studio, olympus is close to my Carl zeiss. The "live-view" feature on the new e-330 or e500 is a feature where you either love it or hate it . Live-view can be useful for beginners whom are switch over from the Point and shoot cameras because you can frame picture on the LCD before you shoot. Thats about it. Some people use live-view to take difficult / constraint positions and angles. I dont think it really appeal to professional, it didnt appeal to me.
Summary : You might not appreciate olympus when you just started photography. The lack of VR/IS/ Anti-shake on olympus might be a drawback and good F2.8 lens costs a bomb. It produces great colours, tonal range and picture quality has a special feel. Body unless its the E-1 , their construction is "so so" better than my sony A100, and canon 300d/400D, but not better than Nikon D100 or D80. Go try the live-view feature, that could be only main reason for beginner to buy it

 

[raycsk]

Maybe a somewhat related topic.

Consider the equipment you have to carry.

Was out shooting with a Friend with Canon system and we brought along similar lenses. It was encouraging to conclude that I needed a smaller bag for my olympus and total equipment weight was lighter. But then his telephoto had an IS function.

 

[ngeowcs]

im using E-500 for 4 months only and im new to photography. my friend bought a 350D a month later than me and also new.

What i dont like about my E-500
1) the noise at high ISO
2) Slow AF
3) large storage was needed

What i dont like about Canon 350D
1) not comfort in holding
2) small screen
3) some features was not in

What i dont like about Olypums
1 hard to get accessories
2 ZD lens cost a bomb

What i dont like about Canon
1) large arrays of lenses which some dont even necessary
like dragon09 said (Choice of lenses? Sure, 50mm version I, II, III with USM I, USM II.. and if it ain't L it probably ain't worth looking at (minus the primes) (no L lens like cant take photo my friend is poison by the L lens coz his lenses dun do him much [kits and 50mm F/1.8])
2) producing new systems with some enhancement in a short period of time

In terms of picture quality E-500 dun fall behind Canon 350D. Oly produce better color and tone while Canon lower noise at high ISO. The rest almost the same.
Lastly why choose 350D??? people are throwing it out as there is 400D

 

[lynxiger]

Lastly why choose 350D??? people are throwing it out as there is 400D

Hahahaha, I'm very earger to catch them as they fall from the sky.

Thanks! You've summarized the bad parts so well. So Nikon is not bad huh? hehe ;p

 

[lynxiger]

i think those people who has only used 1 system (brand) shouldnt give comments at all. cos in the first place, its like telling me your apple taste better than the orange because the hardware specifications say so.. you havent even tried the orange before.

Here's my take based on my personal experiences on the body used so far personally.
(1) Canon 300D(sold), Nikon D100 (sold) , olympus e-300 (still currently using), minolta 5d (sold) , Sony Alpha A100 ( still currently Using)

.....

Thanks radi9red, for very indept comparison of them all, it all makes sense, especially coming from your experience.
:thumbsup:

 

[OlyFlyer]

...E500's problem is noise with the ISO800 and ISO1600 settings, here 350D is better thanks to their infamous Digit II processing engine. But surprisingly overall image quality of E500 is pretty good.

The noise is always discussed, but as I always say, with film you did expect grain with higher ISO. So, for me that is OK. But if you expect to take most of your images during very bad light conditions and can not use flash, than it is something to consider. For most situations up to ISO 400 is enough. I don't remember ever using a film with higher ISO, except in some special cases. As for the image quality of E-500, what I hear that is better than the 350D. Especially if you, like me are going to take mostly RAW images. Olympus colors are just amazingly beautiful.

Another bad thing is E500's viewfinder is a bit small, have 3 point AF (as opposed to 7 point AF for 350D, and 9 point AF for 400D), when at playback the zoom does not show actual details of image.

I agree on the viewfinder, it is tiny on the E-500. I have no idea about the VF of 350D but the Nikon generally is bigger and better. As for the zoom, I am not sure I understand what you mean. The E-500 (together with the E330 and the E400) has the best and largest display on the market. No problem to see details even during bright sunlight, especially if you zoom in to the maximum 14x value. Very useful if you want to to see details and to do sharpness check. And for the number of AF points, actually I only need one, so I have two too many. I have no idea how my camera can decide for me what to have in focus and what not. So I switched off two and only use the center AF point. I don't know if that can be done in 350D and if ceter spot metering is possible. With seven AF points it will be even more confusing. How does the camer know where to focus?

But E500 gives a lot of other useful info about image with arrays of histograms.

Does'nt all the other cameras have histogram? In that case I am sure you will miss that if you are planning to do some serious photography. Histogram helps to reduce computer time and I find it very useful, would not buy a camera without that.

The 30D is great too with 5fps continuous shooting, damn good for sports action shots.

I would not worry about that. The E-500 has 3fps, but note: in RAW. If you shoot jpeg there is no fps limit if you use Extreme III CF card. The E-500 had the fastest transfer rate on the market in April this year. I don't know if that is changed now but the 350D is definitely slower. I don't think it is fair to compare 30D with E-500, the 30D is not and entry level camera as far as I know.

Confused? You should not have asked this question. I think we all do our bests to confuse you even more because we all like what we have regardless of the brand and we tend to see the good side more than the bad.

 

[OlyFlyer]

...The "live-view" feature on the new e-330 or e500 is a feature where you either love it or hate it. Live-view can be useful for beginners whom are switch over from the Point and shoot cameras because you can frame picture on the LCD before you shoot. Thats about it. Some people use live-view to take difficult / constraint positions and angles. I dont think it really appeal to professional, it didnt appeal to me.

There is no Liveview on E-500 or the latest E-400, only on the E-330 so far. It is very useful if you are a professional or frequent macro photographer. Other than that, I think it is a vaste of money. Also, the E-330 has less MP, but on the other hand it is said to be better in noise handling. :dunno: Anyway, lynxiger just like me, does not like the shape of the camera.

 

[lifeline]

dear radi9red, thanks for sharing your experience. very useful for someone with no prior dslr usage. may get 1 soon.

 

[OlyFlyer]

Hahahaha, I'm very earger to catch them as they fall from the sky.
;p

I agree, I hope somebody throws a couple of them to me too. I'd love to catch one and add to my collection. Even if I would not buy a 350D, I still don't think it is something people just throwing out of the windows.

 

[OlyFlyer]

Some non-Oly owners say SSWF is not needed because they have never experienced any dust problem. I think there is dust that you admit and dust that you don't. If you regularily change lenses, you will get dust on the sensor. The sensor is like a film, only it sits in the camera forever. While you remove the film and some of the dust in the lens bay with it, you'll never remove the sensor and actually never open behing the curtain (shutter). What's in there stays there. Ocassionally blowing into the mirror bay does not do much good. It blows around the dust and may move the specs to other part of the bay. If the camera has a cleaning mode like the E-500 where you actually can open the shutter to clean the CCD it is still an operation with some risks. You always risk damaging the innards of the camera, especially the CCD if you are not very very careful. Some non-Oly photographers say they always blow the camera clean after each day of shooting. Well, actually I never thought it would be that bad with the dust when I first thougt the SSWF was a very good idea. As for blowing into the E-500 mirror bay or behind the shutter, so far I have not done that because I did not see it necessary yet due to the SSWF.

Some other unused feautures of my E-500:

1. Red eye reduction for the built in flash. So far only one single image got the red eye. All my other several hundred flash images does not have. So, I consider the flash to be good enough as a matter of fact very good built in flash. GN = 13 which is better than the E-400 which has GN = 10.

2. AF assist light. Never use it, it irritates the environment and found it not necessary unless it is almost completly dark. The E-500 is quite good to AF in low light.

3. Number of AF points is three, which is two too many for my needs.

4. XD card place. I would prefer another CF bay or wire remote contact or at least an IR-eye at the back instead of the XD card.

5. Pixel mapping. Have not done that yet, since it is not yet necessary. As I understand some other brand owners must send their camera to service shops to do that. Oly has build in this to let you do that by yourself, not having to pay for it and be withou camera in the meantime.

I'll add more if I come up with more unused things in my E-500.

 

[ngeowcs]

hahahaha what i mean is not "throwing it away" i mean selling it off to get the 400D

 

[MichaelLee]

I think Olympus as a company is very innovative. It does not trod down the path of others; it speaks of individuality.

Agree...let see what Olympus had created .....

4/3 system – World first Digital only DSLR system
E-1 – World 1st DSLR with Dust Reduction and in camera pixel mapping
E-300 – World First 8MP consumer DSLR (before 350D)
E-330 – World first DSLR with Live preview
E-400 – World Lightest and Smallest DSLR

 

[say123]

Agree...let see what Olympus had created .....

4/3 system – World first Digital only DSLR system
E-1 – World 1st DSLR with Dust Reduction and in camera pixel mapping
E-300 – World First 8MP consumer DSLR (before 350D)
E-330 – World first DSLR with Live preview
E-400 – World Lightest and Smallest DSLR

E- 3 - World first in ? Live view in a pro body? :bsmilie:

 

[wind30]

I;ve been using D200, 20D and 30D for yrs already.. have not experienced dust problems.. i always blow the sensor everytime i change lens..

I used the D70 and Minolta 7D and fujifilm s3pro for like a few months each. And I have dust problems in ALL of them. And blower doesn't really work for me.

Seriously, the dust is there but just not obvious. Shoot the sky and do an auto levels. Once you spot the exact position of the dust spots, you can find them in your everyday photos.

 

[wind30]

BTW, if you want a SUPER wide angle lens wider than the 11-22mm oly lens, it is VERY expensive. That is one of the disadvantage of oly lens system. Canon and nikon have third party lens like the 10-20mm sigma.

The main advantage of olympus I feel is their 14-54mm and 50-200mm lens. Very good quality, not too expensive, and LIGHT easy to carry. With these two lens you can cover from 28-400mm.

Still given a choice I would probably get the 400D if the dust buster in 400D is as good as oly's. One thing to note is that the 400D has the 30D auto-focusing unit which I think is a HUGE plus. Auto focus accuracy for me is one of the most impt factors. No matter how super your lens is, if your focusing is a bit off.... the picture will be soft.

 

[Raptor1]

Still given a choice I would probably get the 400D if the dust buster in 400D is as good as oly's. One thing to note is that the 400D has the 30D auto-focusing unit which I think is a HUGE plus. Auto focus accuracy for me is one of the most impt factors. No matter how super your lens is, if your focusing is a bit off.... the picture will be soft.

Very true regarding the auto focusing unit. For those who read my 11-22mm thread before, it seems that my E-500 backfocused in shady(dim light?) conditions. Thus causing my whole picture to look OOF.

 

[OlyFlyer]

Agree...let see what Olympus had created .....

4/3 system – World first Digital only DSLR system
E-1 – World 1st DSLR with Dust Reduction and in camera pixel mapping
E-300 – World First 8MP consumer DSLR (before 350D)
E-330 – World first DSLR with Live preview
E-400 – World Lightest and Smallest DSLR

Well, that is just some of the things. Here is some more:

TTL flash back in 1979 or 80.
Not only TTL but TTL with multiple (up to nine!) flashes at the same time.
Electronic shutter synchronization.
High speed flash synchronization

I think that list can be very long. All of that is used by all the other camera makers today. So, yes, Olympus is not simply following the path, it shows the way and creates the road for others to follow.

 

[tao]

Very true regarding the auto focusing unit. For those who read my 11-22mm thread before, it seems that my E-500 backfocused in shady(dim light?) conditions. Thus causing my whole picture to look OOF.

that is very strange.. my experience with both the E-500 and 350D is that the E-500's AF might be slower, but it is WAY more accurate than that of the 350D's.