Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Olympus or Canon

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:21:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm planing to bay Olympus E-1 or Canon EOS 300D.
Can anybody suggest what to bay.
Thanks.

More about : olympus canon

Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:21:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"manija" <manijaJJJJJ@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n2nir0th0u10cj4hmkjljqkeghq8sf23ro@4ax.com...
> I'm planing to bay Olympus E-1 or Canon EOS 300D.
> Can anybody suggest what to bay.
> Thanks.

Are you REALLY prepared to follow the advice of what "anybody" says here?
That seems a rather shaky way of deciding, don't you think?

OK.

I think you should buy either the Canon or the Olympus.
:) 

Really...

We know nothing of your needs/desires/requirements, so cannot give you
meaningful input our own personal preferences, which will not really help
you.

Why are you considering those two models?
Perhaps the answer to that question will allow some thoughtful input.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:21:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

manija wrote:
> I'm planing to bay Olympus E-1 or Canon EOS 300D.
> Can anybody suggest what to bay.

Goto dpreview and do a side-by-side comparison of them. The 300D wins
on almost all counts and has a much wider lens choice. With digital P&S
giving more SLR-like manual controls the whole point of getting a dSLR
is to have lens choice.

- Siddhartha
Related resources
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:05:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > manija wrote:
> > > I'm planing to bay Olympus E-1 or Canon EOS 300D.
> > > Can anybody suggest what to bay.
> >
> > Goto dpreview and do a side-by-side comparison of them. The 300D
wins
> > on almost all counts and has a much wider lens choice. With digital
P&S
> > giving more SLR-like manual controls the whole point of getting a
dSLR
> > is to have lens choice.
>
> Until perhaps you need to shoot in the rain, are worried about dust
in the
> sensor, want to use flash compensation, want to shoot more than 4
shots in
> continous mode, shoot wide open with the consumer (ie, cheap) lenses,
etc.
> While having a large lens selection is nice, how many lenses does the
average
> person buy?

Who cares about the average person. I already have four ;-) And two
more to go!!

Btw, even if I shot in the rain, was worried about dust in the sensor,
wanted flash compensation, wanted more than 4 shots continuous etc etc
.... how does the E1 score over the 300D all those counts? Remember, the
OP was trying to make a choice between the E1 and the 300D.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 2:55:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> manija wrote:
> > I'm planing to bay Olympus E-1 or Canon EOS 300D.
> > Can anybody suggest what to bay.
>
> Goto dpreview and do a side-by-side comparison of them. The 300D wins
> on almost all counts and has a much wider lens choice. With digital P&S
> giving more SLR-like manual controls the whole point of getting a dSLR
> is to have lens choice.

Until perhaps you need to shoot in the rain, are worried about dust in the
sensor, want to use flash compensation, want to shoot more than 4 shots in
continous mode, shoot wide open with the consumer (ie, cheap) lenses, etc.
While having a large lens selection is nice, how many lenses does the average
person buy?

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 4:38:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> I don't currently own one, but I'm looking at it for a possible
upgrade. The
> E1 is splash proof and has weather seals in the body and the kit lens
(plus
> some of the other lenses too). However, the new E300/EVOLT (which at
$1,000
> for body + lens is more of a direct competitor to the 300D) will not
have the
> weather seals in the body, and its cheaper kit lens.

Well, for one, the 4/3rd vs APS vs full-frame issues need to be looked
into first. Will you be happy with 4/3rd given its 2x crop factor. The
OP needs to think about that.

> The Olympus cameras provide for flash compensation values from the
menu without
> having to load a non-standard firmware hack. They also provide a
spot meter
> too.

Granted. But before I bought the 300D, I used a Oly-C750 and Canon A75.
I was very impressed with what Canon had done in a small package
whereas the Oly didn't leave me impressed. So I am not confident how
the newer Olympus cameras handle exposure, metering etc.

>
> The E1 can take 12 jpeg pictures at 3fps before the buffer fills up.
I don't
> recall what the E300 can do, but since it is the consumer body (and 8
> megapixels), it presumably is less than that.
>

Its 2.5fps upto a max of 4 images. Again, I can't recall having used
continuous shooting to hit these limits. If the OP does, then
definitely that needs to be considered.

> My point is lens selection is certainly one point that you can
compare cameras,
> but it is not the only point. It doesn't matter to me that there is
a Canon
> 1200mm lens, because it is doubtful I will ever afford it, let alone
want to
> carry it. For example, the D70 has 1/500 flash sync speed, the
Minolta
> anti-shake support built into the body, are other features that one
might want.

True. But the mainstream cameras (Nikon, Canon, Pentax) have lenses
from the manufacturer as well as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and if you
wanted to experiment you could get manual-to-Auto body adapters for
older lenses as well. There is a HUGE choice at almost every price
point. And choice is good. So you might not buy the Canon "L" series
but you might end up buying a cheaper Tamron lens.

>
> Another factor is what the image looks like from the camera, how much
photo
> editing you need to do, what levels of noise are apparent, what the
auto white
> balance looks like, how fast it writes to memory and reviews the
pictures, etc.

I guess if you compared all the specs, you would find ever less reason
to go with a newer sensor format and Olympus. You would end up posting
the regular D70 vs 300D question.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 4:56:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> I don't currently own one, but I'm looking at it for a possible
upgrade. The
> E1 is splash proof and has weather seals in the body and the kit lens
(plus
> some of the other lenses too). However, the new E300/EVOLT (which at
$1,000
> for body + lens is more of a direct competitor to the 300D) will not
have the
> weather seals in the body, and its cheaper kit lens.
>

Just looked at the review on dpreview.

What I liked:
- Spot meter
- MLU
- Interchangeable focussing screen
- Good 3fps upto 12 images
- FEC
- Focus-by-wire

What I didn't like:
- No built-in flash
- 3-point AF only

Turn-offs
- 5MP only
- the 4/3rd sensor
- Only five lenses
- Price tag of $1300

For the same price you could get the D70 or a bit more and the Canon
20D.

Btw, the body is weather proof NOT water-proof.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 6:22:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Who cares about the average person. I already have four ;-) And two
> more to go!!
>
> Btw, even if I shot in the rain, was worried about dust in the sensor,
> wanted flash compensation, wanted more than 4 shots continuous etc etc
> ... how does the E1 score over the 300D all those counts? Remember, the
> OP was trying to make a choice between the E1 and the 300D.

I don't currently own one, but I'm looking at it for a possible upgrade. The
E1 is splash proof and has weather seals in the body and the kit lens (plus
some of the other lenses too). However, the new E300/EVOLT (which at $1,000
for body + lens is more of a direct competitor to the 300D) will not have the
weather seals in the body, and its cheaper kit lens.

The dust cleaning sensor is available on both cameras.

The Olympus cameras provide for flash compensation values from the menu without
having to load a non-standard firmware hack. They also provide a spot meter
too.

The E1 can take 12 jpeg pictures at 3fps before the buffer fills up. I don't
recall what the E300 can do, but since it is the consumer body (and 8
megapixels), it presumably is less than that.

My point is lens selection is certainly one point that you can compare cameras,
but it is not the only point. It doesn't matter to me that there is a Canon
1200mm lens, because it is doubtful I will ever afford it, let alone want to
carry it. For example, the D70 has 1/500 flash sync speed, the Minolta
anti-shake support built into the body, are other features that one might want.

Another factor is what the image looks like from the camera, how much photo
editing you need to do, what levels of noise are apparent, what the auto white
balance looks like, how fast it writes to memory and reviews the pictures, etc.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 12:07:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Well, for one, the 4/3rd vs APS vs full-frame issues need to be looked
> into first. Will you be happy with 4/3rd given its 2x crop factor. The
> OP needs to think about that.

Full Frame is in a different universe price wise compared to 4/3. I've seen a
lot posts saying Canon has said the consumer DSLRs will have a 1.6x crop factor
for some time. In some of the low light shots I've done, a 2x crop would give
me more depth of field at wide open apertures (pictures of a group of people
where you want everybody in focus). Sometimes you want increased depth of
field (like you get on prosumer cameras), sometimes you don't.

> > The Olympus cameras provide for flash compensation values from the
> menu without
> > having to load a non-standard firmware hack. They also provide a
> spot meter
> > too.
>
> Granted. But before I bought the 300D, I used a Oly-C750 and Canon A75.
> I was very impressed with what Canon had done in a small package
> whereas the Oly didn't leave me impressed. So I am not confident how
> the newer Olympus cameras handle exposure, metering etc.

I don't know. With my C-2100UZ, I've gotten consistantly good exposures for
both normal shots and flash. I see lots and lots of complaining about Canon's
poor auto whitebalance and inconsistant flash metering.

> >
> > The E1 can take 12 jpeg pictures at 3fps before the buffer fills up.
> I don't
> > recall what the E300 can do, but since it is the consumer body (and 8
> > megapixels), it presumably is less than that.
> >
>
> Its 2.5fps upto a max of 4 images. Again, I can't recall having used
> continuous shooting to hit these limits. If the OP does, then
> definitely that needs to be considered.

I find I wish I had more than 7 shots at 1.7 fps quite a bit, so in action
shots, I can select the best shot.

> > My point is lens selection is certainly one point that you can compare
> > cameras, but it is not the only point. It doesn't matter to me that there
> > is a Canon 1200mm lens, because it is doubtful I will ever afford it, let
> > alone want to carry it. For example, the D70 has 1/500 flash sync speed,
> > the Minolta anti-shake support built into the body, are other features that
> > one might want.
>
> True. But the mainstream cameras (Nikon, Canon, Pentax) have lenses
> from the manufacturer as well as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and if you
> wanted to experiment you could get manual-to-Auto body adapters for
> older lenses as well. There is a HUGE choice at almost every price
> point. And choice is good. So you might not buy the Canon "L" series
> but you might end up buying a cheaper Tamron lens.

You originally implied that large lens selection was the reason to go with the
Canon approach, and I was pointing out that there is more to DSLR selection
than just lenses (and if I have a limited budget, it really doesn't matter if
there are $7,000 lenses, since I doubt I would ever buy one).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 12:58:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> Full Frame is in a different universe price wise compared to 4/3.
I've seen a
> lot posts saying Canon has said the consumer DSLRs will have a 1.6x
crop factor
> for some time. In some of the low light shots I've done, a 2x crop
would give
> me more depth of field at wide open apertures (pictures of a group of
people
> where you want everybody in focus). Sometimes you want increased
depth of
> field (like you get on prosumer cameras), sometimes you don't.

Well, take 3x crop then and you get more DOF :)  I can't dispute your
need for 4/3. All I am saying is that when the OP chooses between
Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Others vs the 4/3 camp, he needs to aware of the
sensor issues.


> I find I wish I had more than 7 shots at 1.7 fps quite a bit, so in
action
> shots, I can select the best shot.

As i said, if that is what you need then you should definitely look for
a faster camera.

> You originally implied that large lens selection was the reason to go
with the
> Canon approach,

A small correction. I was pointing out that taking the mainstream dSLR
approach (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) gives you a wide range of
lenses to choose from. Now thats not an inherent flaw of the 4/3rd
system but just the way markets are.

>and I was pointing out that there is more to DSLR selection
> than just lenses (and if I have a limited budget, it really doesn't
matter if
> there are $7,000 lenses, since I doubt I would ever buy one).

Choice isn't only about $7000 lenses. Ok, lets see what Olympus's
choice offers:
150mm f/2.0 - $2500
300mm f/2.8 - $7000
50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 - $1000
50mm f/2.0 - $500
11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 - $800
14-45mm - $249
14-54mm - $500

Now if you picked lenses with similar specs for Canon, I am sure they
will cost you the same perhaps (a Oly 50mm costs $500, what the hell
for??). But as you say, what if I am on a budget (as I actually am).
Then I sacrifice quality of these pro lenses and look for cheaper
lenses. Reality check, for Olympus there are none except for three
Sigma lenses. For Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta there are cheaper lenses
from the manufacturer themselves and there are cheaper alternatives
from Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, Vivitar.

As an example, for my Canon 300D, I can go and buy, on a budget -
- a canon 50mm f/1.8 for $70
- a Tamron 75-300mm for $120 - at almost a similar price I have lenses
from Sigma/Canon/Tokina. I can choose 55-200mm, 70-300mm at around the
same price.
- a 18-55mm costs about $100.

Anyways, the OP seems to have disappeared (which I consider rude), so
I'll disappear too from this thread :)  If you want to discuss OlyE-1 vs
Canon 300D, I suggest start a different thread - will definitely get
more posts than this thread.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 3:05:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1102831124.114365.193430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Well, take 3x crop then and you get more DOF :)  I can't dispute your
> need for 4/3. All I am saying is that when the OP chooses between
> Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Others vs the 4/3 camp, he needs to aware of the
> sensor issues.

small sensor actually *decreases* dof. it's the shorter focal lengths
that increase it. overall, dof only gets larger very slightly.

Sensor issues?? I know that CCD offers more image quality than CMOS,
which is chosen *only* for it's low cost. A CMOS image needs lots of
processing to make it acceptable. That is also one of the reasons
Olympus chose a small size, where a real CCD is still affordable.

> A small correction. I was pointing out that taking the mainstream dSLR
> approach (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) gives you a wide range of
> lenses to choose from. Now thats not an inherent flaw of the 4/3rd
> system but just the way markets are.

A small correction: they give you a wide range of *telephoto* lenses to
choose from, and a range of slow normal lenses that used to be
wideangles.

> 150mm f/2.0 - $2500
> 300mm f/2.8 - $7000
> 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 - $1000
> 50mm f/2.0 - $500
> 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 - $800
> 14-45mm - $249
> 14-54mm - $500
>
> Now if you picked lenses with similar specs for Canon, I am sure they
> will cost you the same perhaps (a Oly 50mm costs $500, what the hell
> for??). But as you say, what if I am on a budget (as I actually am).
> Then I sacrifice quality of these pro lenses and look for cheaper
> lenses. Reality check, for Olympus there are none except for three
> Sigma lenses. For Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta there are cheaper lenses
> from the manufacturer themselves and there are cheaper alternatives
> from Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, Vivitar.

The 14-45 will probably also be $100 when bought together with the body.
And you forgot the 40-150mm, costs only $249 or so. It's a new system so
for a while it will have fewer lenses, obviously. If they don't offer
the lens you "need", buy a Canon. Fast (short) primes are missing in the
zuiko lineup for now, for example.

> As an example, for my Canon 300D, I can go and buy, on a budget -
> - a canon 50mm f/1.8 for $70
> - a Tamron 75-300mm for $120 - at almost a similar price I have lenses
> from Sigma/Canon/Tokina. I can choose 55-200mm, 70-300mm at around the
> same price.
> - a 18-55mm costs about $100.

Funny you didn't compare prices on the 14mm side, it's always the
plastic EF 50mm that is mentioned; not really a comparison for a
pro-grade macro lens. I'll tell you something else: I own a 50mm F4 that
cost over $3000. (Rollei Distagon). I must be an idiot...

Lourens
!