Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Olympus E-500 or Canon Rebel XT

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
David - 01 Apr 2006 19:05 GMT
A quick question (at least I hope it's quick), would one recommend the
Olympus E-500 dual-lens kit or the Canon Rebel XT.  (Prices in my area
are similar between the two.)  I'm interested in both outdoors and
indoors photography.  I owned a Minolta X300 (Europe) back in the day,
but I'm getting tired to digital point and shoots...(I'd like to move
to DSLR).

Thanks in advance!

David
Stacey - 01 Apr 2006 20:41 GMT
> A quick question (at least I hope it's quick), would one recommend the
> Olympus E-500 dual-lens kit or the Canon Rebel XT.  (Prices in my area
> are similar between the two.)  I'm interested in both outdoors and
> indoors photography.  I owned a Minolta X300 (Europe) back in the day,
> but I'm getting tired to digital point and shoots...(I'd like to move
> to DSLR).

Not enough info..

Do you have the budget to buy good lenses for the rebel?

Do you plan on shooting a lot of available low light stuff?

Is ISO 800 and up important?

What size prints do you expect to make most of the time?

Which overall color output looks better to =YOU=?

Each has it's good points and bad points, you need to look and decide. I
wouldn't even venture a guess which you should buy based on what you
supplied.

Signature


 Stacey

David - 01 Apr 2006 21:18 GMT
a) Nope (budget for more lenses)

b) Yes (low light), I had heard this was the Olympus's achilles heel

c) It could be (ISO), is the Olympus known to be very grainy above
that?

d) 4x6, 8x10

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.

Thanks again
DonB - 01 Apr 2006 21:24 GMT
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
Stacey - 02 Apr 2006 01:52 GMT
> 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
Mr.Bolshoyhuy - 02 Apr 2006 05:23 GMT
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.