Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 15, 2006, 9:35 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

As most of you know, I was struggling with which camera to get. I bought the e500 on a whim and then lamented that I should have got the D50. I have settled on the E500. My main concern was the so-called noise "issue". After renting a D50 and playing with it, I have decided on the E500 for the following reasons (among others):

-the noise above ISO 400 was not enough to make this a deal-breaker (for me). Yes, the D50 (and 350D) have (some)lower noise at ISO 800 and 1600. But, you know what? The review sites and various posters make it seems like the D50 (and 350D)is aGod-send and the E500 just won't cut it. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE TRUTH. To my eye, there is still plenty objectionable about the D50s photos at ISO 800 and 1600 (less so at 800). Granted, the E500 is not great, but it retains good detail and if you meter and expose correctly it is not really bad at all. I tried the DEMO of NeatImage and found it was really easy to use and very helpful. All in all, I am going to invest in a faster lens for my walkabout lens (going to buy a used 14mm-54mm) and use it mostly at ISO 400 an 800 where I need to. I went to a night baseball game last night and found the E500 did pretty good. In the end, if your shooting in JPEG, the differences don't seem to be huge. (ANY NON-BIAS person disagree with me?I know there are people out therewho aren't just trying to plug the four-thirds or plug Canon/Nikon......I love Nikon and am very willing to buy their products).

-I like the 4:3 ratio for the camera. I have heard that 8MP in 4:3 isn't such a big advantage to 6MP at 3:2. I agree....but it don't hurt.

-I really LOVE the colours and tones of the Olympus in the daytime shots. I think that out of the camera they look better than the Nikon. That is MY PERSONAL preference.

-I am just getting into the dSLR game and want a camera to grow with. Seems like there are a lot more features on the E500 than the D50. In the meantime, I get to find out what is really important to me without dropping a ton of cash!!!! Seems good. This way, I won't have invested a ton of cash in lenses. Hopefully by the next time I am ready to buy there will be even better cameras out (Olympus or otherwise).



Thoughts anyone?????????????????????
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 15, 2006, 9:55 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

One more point: is it just me, or, can a little grain sometimes look good?


stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 11:42 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

I consider myself about as unbiased as any camera guy can possibly be.

Yeah, I have the Olympus E-500 which should naturally cause my opinion to be suspicious. But I wasn't BORN with an Olympus. I'm 48 years old. I started doing my own darkroom work when I was 12 years old and scraped up enough money for my first SLR when I was in high school (1975)

I got a Mamiya/Sekor 500 TL. Then, I got an Olympus OM-1. And...a Pentax, Yashica, Minolta. Eventually, I got a Bronica ETR medium format SLR and I sold my Olympus stuff to get Nikon F3 equipment.

When I went digital, I started with a Minolta, moved to a Kodak, two Canons and finally a Panasonic before moving up to the E-500. Nobody can accuse me of being tunnel-visioned cheerleader for one brand.

"The review sites and various posters make it seems like the D50 (and 350D)is aGod-send and the E500 just won't cut it. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE TRUTH."

I take web comments with a HUGE grain of salt. And I mean HUGE. Check my post about the 14-45 "trash" lens. The criticisms of the E-500 are almost always from the "other guys". Frankly, I think some of them have a hard time justifying the fact that they spent a bit more money and got a camera with a cheezy plastic lens mount .

The 4:3 ratio works for me. The 8x10 image prints beautifully on 8.5 x 11" paper with tiny borders and minimal wastage.

The Olympus reputation for color is well earned.

One really great feature of the E-500 is the SSWF for cleaning the sensor. I change lenses A LOT. I'm amused by people who buy extra camera bodies because they hate to change lenses (wish I had that much money). I feel a lot more confident that I can change a lens in the field without nasty stuff permanently depositing itself on the sensor.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2006, 12:11 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

I'm not too sure what getsasked more on Canon forums, whether it's "should I buy a Tamron/Sigma/Tokina/Canon lens" or "what do you use to clean your sensor".
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2006, 1:04 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

I saw this reply in the newbie forum in response to changing lenses without getting dust on the sensor:

"Planning what you are going to shoot & the best lens is the best way to avoid changing lenses in poor conditions.

In a clean room, get the lens ready you want to put on your camera. Make sure you camera is off & battery removed. Take the old lens off with the camera facing downwards. Immediatly attach the new lens & cap off the old lens.

If you are caught outdoors in a situation you need to change lenses, do so in an area with very little wind (following the above steps). Don't get in your car to change the lens...sitting on the seat will send dust into the air plus cause you (& your camera) to create a static charge."

While I don't doubt that the advice is good...I find the entire concept to be almost laughable.

Perhaps I'm too old school but ifI can't change the lens where ever and when ever I want, then I have to find a new hobby or a simpler camera. Most of my lens changes have occurred with me sitting in the tall grass with the lenses balanced on my lap and the camera between my knees. I try to be very careful and I've always treated my equipment with great respect. However, I'm not going to have my shooting style dictated by an inanimate object.

Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2006, 10:33 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 134
Default

Get a rain cape for the E-500. The 14-54 and 50-200 lenses are splash proof. The E-500 body and kit lensesare not. Post Processing with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Noise Ninja Plugin can take care of most of the noise. Get the better f/2.8-f/2.5 for low light shooting. The kit lenses are good for daylight.
mckennma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2006, 9:07 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default

I'm with Brent on this one. Your photographic "history" closely mirrors mine (I'm 49, started in the darkroom at age 12 also, etc.). I was a Nikon man in the film days, the old Nikon F series with the bayonet lenses...remember those? I'm using an E-1 (only 5 MP) and like the Olympus "feel" whenever I pick it up. Closely resembles my E-10 which is almost 6 years old and still going strong.I looked at the Nikon and Canon digiatls as well, but agree with many others that the kit lenses felt cheap. "stripperdave's" intent to pick up a used 14-54 is a good move (although the 14-45 is better than the basic kit Nikon/Canon lenses I've handled). And yes, the SSWF is the deal-maker. Why spend all that $$$ onANY system to go poking around it's most sensitive part with a Pec-Pad (i.e., glorified Q-tip) every month? I like the skin tones on my Oly, too.
stowaway7 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:37 PM.