Tough camera choice question

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

Right now, I'm slogging along with a prosumer camera.
My buying choices for a DSLR have come down to a handful
but it's a tough decision. I've been an Olympus fan ever
since I traded in a Minolta MD-11 for an Olympus OM-1.
So, I wanted to stick with that brand, despite the incompatibility
of lens sets between the older film and new digitals from them.
However;
The E-Volt 300 seems to have some drawbacks in terms of noise
suppression. But, it does have the vibration mechanism for dust
control. After having used many CCD cameras (scientific) with
windowed CCDs and knowing the dust issues they have, this would seem
to be a major plus. I would really rather not have to rely on
software image manipulation to get rid of "motes."
The E1 IMO, is lacking simply because it only
has 5 megapixels versus cameras in it's price range with 6-8.

Lastly; My best choice would seem to be to deviate from Olympus
or wait for them to release a new version of the E1 with a larger
pixel count. I assume it won't be far off.

My "deviation" camera would be either a Canon 20D or the new 350
and I'm leaning toward the 350 for cost reasons.
-Rich

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

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:fAYZd.10082$oO4.9234@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> RichA wrote:
>> Right now, I'm slogging along with a prosumer camera.
>> My buying choices for a DSLR have come down to a handful
>> but it's a tough decision. I've been an Olympus fan ever
>> since I traded in a Minolta MD-11 for an Olympus OM-1.
>> So, I wanted to stick with that brand, despite the incompatibility
>> of lens sets between the older film and new digitals from them.
>> However;
>> The E-Volt 300 seems to have some drawbacks in terms of noise
>> suppression. But, it does have the vibration mechanism for dust
>> control. After having used many CCD cameras (scientific) with
>> windowed CCDs and knowing the dust issues they have, this would seem
>> to be a major plus. I would really rather not have to rely on
>> software image manipulation to get rid of "motes."
>> The E1 IMO, is lacking simply because it only
>> has 5 megapixels versus cameras in it's price range with 6-8.
>>
>> Lastly; My best choice would seem to be to deviate from Olympus
>> or wait for them to release a new version of the E1 with a larger
>> pixel count. I assume it won't be far off.
>>
>> My "deviation" camera would be either a Canon 20D or the new 350
>> and I'm leaning toward the 350 for cost reasons.
>> -Rich
>
>
> 350D is a good choice. I had used 300D for a year; then 20D for months.
> There is no need to do any software dust clean up for normal photographs.
> I only cleaned the 300D once, using a blower.

I had an E-20 for several years and was impressed with its solid build, so I
bought an E-300 in late December. I've used for several thousand shots in
very adverse winter conditions and been very pleased with the results. I
also got the F2, 50mm macro and the 50-200mm telephoto. Both very good
lenses. A camera definitely worth the money, although a larger buffer would
be nice.

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

"Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0fSbe.1142874$Xk.509433@pd7tw3no...

> Rent or borrow the equipment in which you are interested -- take some of
> the typical images you normally would -- compare the results -- buy
what
> does the best job for you.

This is quite impractical. For amateur equipment, renting is almost never
available. And while a very good friend might lend someone a Canon or Nikon
camera, it'd be very unlikely for the potential buyer actually knew anyone
with one of the less common models, such as those from Olympus, Pentax, or
Konica-Minolta--there just aren't a lot of them out there.

What you do when deciding on a major purchase like this, is to look at
multiple reviews of each product you are considering, and get personal
recommendations (i.e. on Usenet). I created my web site because there was no
central repository of unbiased information that looked at the pros and cons
of each model, in a concise format.

> End of story.

Why is it whenever someone loses a debate, they use "End of Story?" As if
this actually means anything.

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

In article <sASbe.465$7F4.6@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:0fSbe.1142874$Xk.509433@pd7tw3no...
>
>> Rent or borrow the equipment in which you are interested -- take some of
>> the typical images you normally would -- compare the results -- buy
>what
>> does the best job for you.
>
>This is quite impractical. For amateur equipment, renting is almost never
>available.

It's certainly not cost-effective, or convenient, even if you can find a
rental outlet.

>And while a very good friend might lend someone a Canon or Nikon
>camera

Heh. A *Very* good friend let me use his 20D for a few minutes. That
was long enough for me to learn that I had to have this camera :-) The
bastard. (We're still friends.)

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news4p09g$qss$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > I created my web site because there was no
> > central repository of unbiased information that looked at the pros and
cons
> > of each model, in a concise format.
>
> We'll be sure to steer people away from it lest they get the wrong ideas.

Who is we? I understand why you dislike my site, but please speak for
yourself.

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

Res ipsa loquitur.

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

"Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ugWbe.1146479$6l.1045330@pd7tw2no...

> Means about as much as your misguided opinions do Steven, you wouldn't
even
> recognize this is not a debate if it jumped up & attached itself to the
> lower part of your anatomy. I, long ago, realized your input to any of my
> photographic decisions (never mind anyone else's) would be far less than
> useful. I just enjoy pointing it out when you, from time to time, seem to
> fall into some sort of hypnotic state wherein you deem to be the source of
> all knowledge.

I do not claim to be the source of all knowledge, nor do I find it necessary
to attack people that don't agree with me. Whatever your photographic
decisions turn out to be are of no concern to me.

You may want to consider raising your level of discourse out of gutter, as
it does not reflect well on your position.

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

"Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:qc_be.1146136$8l.347780@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:hJXbe.606$pe3.70@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Brace" <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ugWbe.1146479$6l.1045330@pd7tw2no...
>>
>>> Means about as much as your misguided opinions do Steven, you wouldn't
>> even
>>> recognize this is not a debate if it jumped up & attached itself to the
>>> lower part of your anatomy. I, long ago, realized your input to any of
>>> my
>>> photographic decisions (never mind anyone else's) would be far less than
>>> useful. I just enjoy pointing it out when you, from time to time, seem
>>> to
>>> fall into some sort of hypnotic state wherein you deem to be the source
>>> of
>>> all knowledge.
>>
>> I do not claim to be the source of all knowledge,
>
> Finally, something on which we are in complete agreement!!!
>
>
> nor do I find it necessary
>> to attack people that don't agree with me.
>
> I'm disappointed that you consider my comments an attack. My goal is to
> simply remind you that your agenda-driven views are just that.
>
> Whatever your photographic
>> decisions turn out to be are of no concern to me.
>
> Another point of agreement!!
>
>>
>> You may want to consider raising your level of discourse out of gutter.
>
> There you go again: a minute ago it was a debate, now it has assumed a
> "level of discourse" which is not to your liking. Make up your mind and
> stop trying to make up other peoples' for them and the photographic world
> will be a better place for all.
> Bob

Hi Bob,

Has he actually ever taken any photographs one has to wonder?

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news4qq0d$jcn$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
| Larry Horse wrote:
|
| > Res ipsa loquitur.
|
| What is clear is that you are a troll.

What is clear is that I am someone who is tired of topics deteriorating into a
battle of wits between unarmed people.