Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (
-   -   olympus e420 or nikon d3000 (

gboa Dec 25, 2009 3:07 PM

olympus e420 or nikon d3000
trying to decide for first time slr. i am a beginner and have no slr
experiance but want a step up from point and shoot.
main uses will be my kids indoor and out. this is a very informative
site and i value all opinions.
d3000 with 18-55mm dx lens
e420 with 17-45mm lens.
the d3000 is about $80 more as i will also have to purchase xd card for the

mtclimber Dec 25, 2009 3:18 PM


Welcome to the Forums. We're glad you dropped by.

The Olympus E-620 is a fairer comparison for the Nikon D-3000, as the D-3000 comes equipped with the 18-55mmVR lens. The Olympus E-420, while a very good camera, does not have any IS capability.

The Olympus E-620 has in body IS and is more comparable to the Nikon D-3000 camera. While the E-620 is a bit more expensive than the E-420, it has a feature set that is better than the E-420 or the D-3000 cameras.

Therefore my recommendation would be for you to consider the Olympus E-620. The E-620 two lens kit is currently very attractively priced. If that price niche is out of your budget range, consider the E-510 or E-520 two lens kits, which are the biggest bargain in the DSLR market place right now.

Merry Christmas!

Sarah Joyce

gboa Dec 25, 2009 3:29 PM

the d3000 is $450 and the e420 is $350 canadian, these are the lowest
prices i currently can find and or want to spend. i did just notice the
canon eos rebel xs for $450 as well. by the way the d300 lens is non vr.

shoturtle Dec 25, 2009 3:31 PM

Hi gboa,

The nikon will have an edge in low light shooting and action shooting over the e420. The D3000 is also the aps-c format which gives it a larger sensor area oppose to the 4/3 format of the e420. The D3000 is a good starter dslr. It is limited to AF-s and AF-i nikon lenses and 3rd party lenses design for nikon AF-s cameras, So if you foresee yourself moving up the camera food chain in the future, you can not use the whole nikon lens lineup. But both tamron and sigma make lenses for. A major plus is the kit lens has IS in them while the e420 does not offer any IS ability.

The olympus e420 is the lightest dslr out there, one reason is the fore mention 4/3 format. I comes with what allot of people would say is the best kit lenses on the market. If you go the route of the e420, I would go with the compact flash card vs. the xd card, as it can take both. All olympus dslr can use the whole olympus dslr lens line up. Sigma and panasonic also has lenses for olympus dslr.

Eventhough both model are their companies base model both will be a big improvement over most p&s camera. But before you buy I recommend you go to a shop that has both camera and hold and play with each camera. You may like one camera ergo set up better then another.

check out this link when you get your dslr, it has some basic youtube workshops to get you started.

shoturtle Dec 25, 2009 3:35 PM


Originally Posted by gboa (Post 1031355)
the d3000 is $450 and the e420 is $350 canadian, these are the lowest
prices i currently can find and or want to spend. i did just notice the
canon eos rebel xs for $450 as well. by the way the d300 lens is non vr.

If the price is a concern, and these are the 3 you are considering it is worth spending the money for the canon xs if it comes with the ef-s 18-55mm IS. The IS is worth the money.


The XS will accept the whole canon lens lineup including 3rd party lenses

shoturtle Dec 25, 2009 3:38 PM

As Sarah mention the e520 is a very good deal, and also the olympus is an easier transition from point and shoot to DSLR, it has more menu and art filter then the canon and nikon.

gboa Dec 25, 2009 3:48 PM

the cheapest i can find here for the e520 is $500 plus shipping.
I think i'm leaning towards the d3000. thanks for the help.

shoturtle Dec 25, 2009 3:52 PM

the D3000 will serve you well, I would look for one that has the Vibration Reduction lens, it is worth the little extra cash over the non VR version. It may save some shoots at night where you may need a bit longer shutter time.

gboa Dec 25, 2009 4:37 PM

I just found the e520 for $15 more than the d3000 plus the cost of
memory card. are these 2 models more comparable to each other?

shoturtle Dec 25, 2009 4:53 PM

Actually they compare very well, in low light the D3000 has an edge. But that does not mean the e520 can not perform in low light, it mean the d3000 a bit better in low light. But the Olympus is also an easier transition from P&S. The body IS means you have that ability no matter which lens you put on it. The crop factor of the 4/3 system mean the realistic focal range of a lens may be mulitply by 2 vs. 1.6 or 1.5 for the asp-c. So the 17-45 lens means it is a 34-90mm in 35mm, and the 18-55mm is 28.8-88mm. So as you can see, both have pretty much the same focal range.

gboa Dec 25, 2009 11:43 PM

After talking to a friend he suggested i look at the sony alpha a230,
price wise it's the same as the d300 but he said it comes with a
image stabalizer in the body. i guess i got more research to do.

TCav Dec 26, 2009 3:37 AM

The Sony A230 is a better choice than any of the others mentioned here. It has sensor shift image stabilization in the camera body, and it can use all the older Minolta autofocus lenses on the used market. That's something that can't be said for either the Olympus or Nikon dSLRs mentioned here. Olympus changed the lens mount when it went to digital so all their older lenses don't fit, and Nikon relies on optical image stabilization int he lens and there are few stabilized lenses in the used market.

shoturtle Dec 26, 2009 7:07 AM

The sony a230 and the olympus e520 are both better camera then the original three you mention. The IS is really worth the bit extra you pay. Research is good, if you get a chance go to a shop and check out both and see which one feels better in your hand. It is worth the effort.

gboa Dec 27, 2009 6:40 PM

after researching different cameras i think i've got a big headache trying
to match budget to needs. i've narrowed it down to the a230-i held it for all
of a couple of minutes but it's pretty crazy in the stores right now. i
also like the price of the e-420 but wonder if the no stabalization will
greatly effect my shots (i'm a pretty basic auto or scene selector on my
point and shoot cannon) or stepp up a little more and get the e520.
the e520 will be about $50-60 more than the sony and no stores had it
in stock for me to handle. I really like the e520 sample pics i've seen on the internet.

mtclimber Dec 27, 2009 7:30 PM


You see that is the problem. The price on the Olympus E-510 or E-520 two lens kit is so low that dealers cannot keep them in stock. It is that great an opportunity.

Sarah Joyce

gboa Dec 29, 2009 12:45 PM

i've got it down to 2 cameras
1. sony a230 $480 taxes in. feels decent in my hand, a little akward as i
have bigger hands but not as bad as i've read. then again i only held it for a few minutes.
2. canon xs $400 taxes in. felt much better in my hands and cheaper but this price does not include vr in the lens, also smaller screen. 2.5in

the main concern i have is that i have not been overly impressed with the
sample pictures of the a230 or else it would be a no-brainer.
what do you guys think?

shoturtle Dec 29, 2009 1:15 PM

If you can the XSi is a better choice then the xs, It may be worth the extra cash. But if you are sticking with basic, the xs will do the job. If you do not like the sample shot of the A230, then it may not be the right camera for you. I have recommended to people bring a sd card with them to the stores, and take photos of the same thing with the different camera they are interested in and go home and see which one takes the imagine they like better, every camera is different and everyones eye is different. So that is kinda of an important thing to check out.

As and example when I was researching for my dslr. I went through 8 cameras it came down to the 2 after I looked at the photos I took with them at home, after factoring out major ergo issues. They way the canon t1i and the olympus e620 photo appear was the most appealing to me.

Good luck with your decision.

mtclimber Dec 29, 2009 1:16 PM

1 Attachment(s)

Actually I have really enjoyed the Sony A-230 alot and have been very impressed with the A-230's image quality. here is a photo taken in a theater without flash at ISO 1600.

Sarah Joyce

Mark1616 Dec 29, 2009 1:24 PM

Sarah, as we are talking image quality can you please post a 100% crop?

For anyone wanting to know more about this please see the below.

Why a resized photo is no use in showing camera quality

mtclimber Dec 29, 2009 2:19 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here you go, Mark-

Here is a 100% crop of the above image.

Sarah Joyce

gboa Dec 29, 2009 8:58 PM

well i finally made my decision and ordered the a-230 online tonight.
while i liked the cannon, more and more people told me to start off with
image stabalization of some sort and the cannon at that price did not
provide it. while i also liked the e-520 sample pics, i could not find one
to handle anywhere, plus the extra cost and sub-sequent extra cost of
xd or compact flash cards ruled it out as i have plenty sd cards still new.
thank you to all who helped provide insight, there is a lot of valuable info
given on this site and valuable members who are willing to help. i also
found a bunch of different sample pics from the net that i found more
impressive. hopefully i won't suffer from all the complaints of bad
ergonomic design as i actually put the camera to use. thanks everyone.

shoturtle Dec 29, 2009 9:02 PM

your welcome

lyzsatsus Dec 29, 2009 9:11 PM

I would personally look at the Canon SX20 or the Panasonic FZ35. Photo quality is probably slightly better from the Panasonic but the Canon has a little more reach and the ability to add an external flash if you desire later in live to give the possibility of more creative shooting.

littlejohn Dec 30, 2009 2:32 AM

For what its worth...I've tried the A230 and enjoyed the pic it took. I also tried the E620 and while I didn't see any huge improvement in the pic I took, I didn't like the low lite focusing issue with the E620. But in many other ways its was a nice camera.

But for the money..the A230 wins. And I also found that the 55-250 sony lens produced sharper images then the 18-55 lens. The 55-250 was part of a 2 lens bundle, and I'd recommend getting that.

The menu on the 230 is quite helpful to us newbys...

Good luck...

TCav Dec 30, 2009 8:19 AM


Originally Posted by littlejohn (Post 1032829)
... And I also found that the 55-250 sony lens produced sharper images then the 18-55 lens. The 55-250 was part of a 2 lens bundle, and I'd recommend getting that. ...

(Emphasis mine.)

That should be the Sony 55-200, which, I agree, is a good lens. The 55-250 is a Canon lens, which won't fit on the A230.

JimC Dec 30, 2009 8:21 AM


Originally Posted by gboa (Post 1032735)
well i finally made my decision and ordered the a-230 online tonight.


Note that the A230 can also use any Minolta Autofocus Lens ever made (and they'd all be stabilized on your A230, thanks to the in body stabilization system). Make sure to visit the Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR Forum for tips and suggestions on lenses and accessories; and please share some photos from it in one of the Post Your Photos Forums when you get a chance.

littlejohn Dec 30, 2009 11:16 AM


Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1032862)
(Emphasis mine.)

That should be the Sony 55-200, which, I agree, is a good lens. The 55-250 is a Canon lens, which won't fit on the A230.


but whats 50 mm between friends eh? :p

mtclimber Jan 9, 2010 9:30 AM

This is a duplicate post. It is also the subject in a separate thread that has already been answered. Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:23 PM.