If low light photography is important the Canon is better. If kit lens
quality is more important, the Oly is ahead. Here is an article about
the E-330, but at the bottom a comparison between the 2 kit lenses-
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=417
Don
> a) Nope (budget for more lenses)
Then it's hard to beat the E-500 2 lens kit for the money. Both have good
build and image quality.
> b) Yes (low light), I had heard this was the Olympus's achilles heel
At ISO 800 and up it is.
> c) It could be (ISO), is the Olympus known to be very grainy above
> that?
I guess that's subjective depending on what the end product is. In smaller
prints you'll never see it and it's nothing that a good NR program can't
deal with. If you don't want to do any post processing on high ISO images,
get the canon.
This was shot in REALLY crappy lighting at ISO800 with a light touch of neat
image.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/A_2+.jpg
> d) 4x6, 8x10
Either should do OK.
I'd be worried about using the canon kit lens wide open which isn't a real
problem with the olympus kit lenses. If you can afford to buy the rebel
body and a better lens to go with it, in low light it would have an
advantage. Only you know how important that is.
> Mostly, I'm interested in getting the best overall value, since I won't
> be able to buy other lenses, etc. in the near future. When I say
> value, I'm mostly interested in image quality, and battery life since
> I'm travelling.
The olympus has really good battery life, I've never found a need to buy a
spare battery. No idea on how well the Canon does. I've only used on canon
dSLR and never shot long enough with it to kill the battery in a day
either.
Again go look at some out of camera samples and see which ones output
appeals to you more. I like the color the olympus delivers, some people
like the canon better. Given you are stuck with whatever the sensor
delivers, it's important to look at this. I wish I could have the high ISO
performance of the canon with the great color the Kodak sensor in the
olympus delivers but that's life..

Signature
Stacey
ian lincoln - 02 Apr 2006 02:35 GMT
>> a) Nope (budget for more lenses)
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> performance of the canon with the great color the Kodak sensor in the
> olympus delivers but that's life..
if you do low light on a budget look at the minolta 5D. built in antishake.
Basic Wedge - 02 Apr 2006 06:05 GMT
> if you do low light on a budget look at the minolta 5D. built in
> antishake.
************
Ian. Can we assume you haven't been keeping-up with current events? Minolta
is gone. Until events sort themselves out, it would be unwise for anyone to
invest in that system (frankly, it wasn't a very good system anyway - though
the OS was neat).
Rob
ian lincoln - 02 Apr 2006 23:34 GMT
>> if you do low light on a budget look at the minolta 5D. built in
>> antishake.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> anyone to invest in that system (frankly, it wasn't a very good system
> anyway - though the OS was neat).
I have kept up. warranties will be honoured. Prices should go down on rrp
if they haven't already. sony going to pick up the reigns.
Stacey - 05 Apr 2006 00:17 GMT
> if you do low light on a budget look at the minolta 5D. built in
> antishake.
You can't do what the 2 lens kit does with it at this price.

Signature
Stacey
Robert - 05 Apr 2006 03:08 GMT
> > if you do low light on a budget look at the minolta 5D. built in
> > antishake.
>
> You can't do what the 2 lens kit does with it at this price.
What the hell are you trying to say?
> --
>
> Stacey
ok, so then get the Lumix FZ-30 420mm lens for $450.
Pete D - 02 Apr 2006 08:30 GMT
> ok, so then get the Lumix FZ-30 420mm lens for $450.
Read the original post, this is not a D-SLR and basicly they are pretty
ordinary anyway.
Mr.Bolshoyhuy - 03 Apr 2006 02:14 GMT
ok, the OP said: "Mostly, I'm interested in getting the best overall
value, since I won't
be able to buy other lenses, etc. in the near future."
420mm should be enough.