- Status
E500 high-end? Not now I guess. But it definitely has more megapixels.
If you're planning to do larger prints then Oly E500 has the edge for sure. It has also anti-dust features, which the K100D lacks. Crop factor 2x though. Li-on battery.
k100D has anti-shake, is the newer model, is cheaper, uses AA batteries, crop factor 1.5x. I can safely say that the noise performance is also a lot better. But only has 6 MGP compared to E500's 8.
Both have their pros and cons - it's just whether you can live with the cons in exchange for the pros. Shrug.
If you're planning to do larger prints then Oly E500 has the edge for sure. It has also anti-dust features, which the K100D lacks. Crop factor 2x though. Li-on battery.
k100D has anti-shake, is the newer model, is cheaper, uses AA batteries, crop factor 1.5x. I can safely say that the noise performance is also a lot better. But only has 6 MGP compared to E500's 8.
Both have their pros and cons - it's just whether you can live with the cons in exchange for the pros. Shrug.
here's a link to read up from dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...byside&cameras=oly_e500,pentax_k100d&show=all
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...byside&cameras=oly_e500,pentax_k100d&show=all
Did briefly consider the e500 when I was shopping for a new DSLR late last year. The 8 vs 6 megapixel difference of the K100D isn't so significant. While the e500 is a small camera with good ergonomics, what made me decide not to go with Olympus is the pathetic viewfinder and the 2X crop factor of the sensor. :thumbsd:
apologies. i had already done my research... i can practically name the specs by heart. i wanted a third person perspective on the scenario..
i chose these two because of budget constraints...
sadly. i am leaning towards the E500 since it seems to handle better and has the sswf, but the K100D has in-camera SR.
i chose these two because of budget constraints...
sadly. i am leaning towards the E500 since it seems to handle better and has the sswf, but the K100D has in-camera SR.
apologies. i had already done my research... i can practically name the specs by heart. i wanted a third person perspective on the scenario..
i chose these two because of budget constraints... sadly. i am leaning towards the E500 since it seems to handle better and has the sswf, but the K100D has in-camera SR.
i chose these two because of budget constraints...
sadly. i am leaning towards the E500 since it seems to handle better and has the sswf, but the K100D has in-camera SR.
since you have done your research and know the specs by heart, why do you still want opinion from a 3rd party cos you are the one using the camera? There are pros & cons in each camera and it's just up to yourself if you can accept and work around the shortcomings. As you have already sort of made up your mind, then go ahead with it. More opinions = more confusion.
If I may, it's not so much a crop factor as most people say but more precisely a 35mm effective focal length multiplier for the 4/3 lenses. Since the lenses and the bodies were designed for each other, I don't see the mismatch indicated by a crop factor as there is with putting a 35mm lens on a digital body without a full-frame sensor.
I've seen several people complain about the viewfinder in the E-500 in that it's small and not so bright but that of the E-410 and E-510 have apparently been brightened quite a bit. Considering the body size, could it be bigger?
I've seen several people complain about the viewfinder in the E-500 in that it's small and not so bright but that of the E-410 and E-510 have apparently been brightened quite a bit. Considering the body size, could it be bigger?
The comparision is between K100D and E500 and not E510.
I think pricewise, E500 is better as it comes with 2 kit lens, more megapixels, more user friendly interface and one or two rather sophisticated features, like spot metering and dust reduction/removal.
E500's downside relative to K100D are:
1. noisy above ISO400. But K100D's "better noise" is not due to sensor but algorithms for which you can replicate in off-camera processing too, like Neat Image or Noise Ninja. So evens here.
2. Anti shake. Not an issue for those who have undergone marksmanship in NS. I need antishake only in extreme situations - eg low light, low ISO, high f and it has to be handheld. Otherwise there is always the tripod. so again I say this feature is neutral.
As to the viewfinder its brightness (or darkness) level does not stop you from making good pictures, ie as good as any good photographer.
Crop factor? I think this is less an issue than the lenses: the range, quality and availability. ZD's quality is of course unquestionable.
Actually the more important question is what after you have purchase this or that. You will surely get the buy buy buy virus and buy more. So maybe the most important question is are these more, more or less expensive relatively, and for what you get back in return. For example very shortly you want a flash. Oly have only two models, and one is rather ex but good, and I dunno of any 3rd party ones. And then there are the lens - again Oly are very good but also as ex as any of the other very good lenses for the other camera systems.
I think pricewise, E500 is better as it comes with 2 kit lens, more megapixels, more user friendly interface and one or two rather sophisticated features, like spot metering and dust reduction/removal.
E500's downside relative to K100D are:
1. noisy above ISO400. But K100D's "better noise" is not due to sensor but algorithms for which you can replicate in off-camera processing too, like Neat Image or Noise Ninja. So evens here.
2. Anti shake. Not an issue for those who have undergone marksmanship in NS. I need antishake only in extreme situations - eg low light, low ISO, high f and it has to be handheld. Otherwise there is always the tripod. so again I say this feature is neutral.
As to the viewfinder its brightness (or darkness) level does not stop you from making good pictures, ie as good as any good photographer.
Crop factor? I think this is less an issue than the lenses: the range, quality and availability. ZD's quality is of course unquestionable.
Actually the more important question is what after you have purchase this or that. You will surely get the buy buy buy virus and buy more. So maybe the most important question is are these more, more or less expensive relatively, and for what you get back in return. For example very shortly you want a flash. Oly have only two models, and one is rather ex but good, and I dunno of any 3rd party ones. And then there are the lens - again Oly are very good but also as ex as any of the other very good lenses for the other camera systems.
But how many people are buying the expensive Sony lenses? Many of the lenses in Sony's lineup were re-badged Minoltas and cost a lot more than the Minolta versions. And if you're gonna be more out of pocket with the Carl Zeiss lenses...
With Pentax, I can and have used lenses as cheap as <S$50 and the image quality is good to say the least!!! (and these are new lenses, if you're looking at used lenses, just search eBay). I don't think one can find digital SLR photography as affordable as with Pentax. :bsmilie:
For the K100D, if you bundle the excellent DA 50-200mm zoom, the price is very close to the E500's 2 lens bundle. The K100D may not have dust reduction, but it has the very useful Shake Reduction. And it does have spot metering too.
With Pentax, I can and have used lenses as cheap as <S$50 and the image quality is good to say the least!!! (and these are new lenses, if you're looking at used lenses, just search eBay). I don't think one can find digital SLR photography as affordable as with Pentax. :bsmilie:
For the K100D, if you bundle the excellent DA 50-200mm zoom, the price is very close to the E500's 2 lens bundle. The K100D may not have dust reduction, but it has the very useful Shake Reduction. And it does have spot metering too.
I did introduce the E-510 to the argument, but not to cause problems. It's just a much nicer body. The price of the body is currently more than the E-500 2 lens kit but, considering the increased function, it's worth it.
The E-500 is a decent camera but the image quality above ISO 400 isn't going to win awards. According to the What Digital Camera review, the K100D doesn't seem to have great image quality, full stop. Both cameras have too much buried in the menus. Lenses are about equal unless you want old, old lenses that aren't designed for digital Pentax bodies.
I wonder how the E-500 performs at ISO 800 at the next to top resolution, as I suspect it will do quite a bit better.
The E-500 is a decent camera but the image quality above ISO 400 isn't going to win awards. According to the What Digital Camera review, the K100D doesn't seem to have great image quality, full stop. Both cameras have too much buried in the menus. Lenses are about equal unless you want old, old lenses that aren't designed for digital Pentax bodies.
I wonder how the E-500 performs at ISO 800 at the next to top resolution, as I suspect it will do quite a bit better.
That's funny. The only reason why I bought the K100D was because it had the second best image quality for the 6 MGP class DSLR, second after D40. According to about 5 or more reviews. D50 and D70 couldn't compare either.
If you're talking about on the large scale, against every other 8 MGP and 10 MGP DSLR.. Then you're not being very fair , are you? Which is why K100D vs E500 is a pretty idiotic and inane argument. It's like comparing an apple with a pear and asking which is nicer to eat.
K100D should be compared with stuff like D40, D50, D70, and some of the other obscure models like Samsung's, if I'm not wrong.
E500 should be compared with stuff like 350D. It just makes more sense.
If you're talking about on the large scale, against every other 8 MGP and 10 MGP DSLR.. Then you're not being very fair , are you? Which is why K100D vs E500 is a pretty idiotic and inane argument. It's like comparing an apple with a pear and asking which is nicer to eat.
K100D should be compared with stuff like D40, D50, D70, and some of the other obscure models like Samsung's, if I'm not wrong.
E500 should be compared with stuff like 350D. It just makes more sense.
- Status