 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / September 2007Question...
I am looking to buy a new DSLR, but have some questions. I have drawn up a list of features and basically the cameras that fit the bill are these.... Canon EOS 40D Olympus E-510 The thing is, given that these two cameras seem to have the same features and capabilites, why is there such a huge price difference with the Olympus being half the price of the Canon? Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's strange? Joe. Here's a comparison.... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon _eos40d%2Coly_e510&show=all Both have the Live View btw. Joe. > Here's a comparison.... > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon _eos40d%2Coly_e510&show=all > > Both have the Live View btw. There area quite a few areas that the Canon is better than the Olympus whereas the Olympus has only two or three things that better the Canon. Also, how can $1284 be twice the price of $930. Based on the comparison you suggested, it would be an easy decision for me to go for the Canon. Based on price the Canon is at least 38% better than the Olympus IMO. MC Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so the issue is what fits you the best. S > Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the > increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so > the > issue is what fits you the best. S The Canon would be great, but the price difference is a real pain. Joe. >> Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the >> increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so >> the >> issue is what fits you the best. S > >The Canon would be great, but the price difference is a real pain. I would not suggest spending too much time agonizing over the price tag. First, any way you look at it, this is going to be expensive; but... the camera you buy is actually going to be a system, which you will hopefully use for years, and you will add to the system in the future. Which is to say, whether you invest $1000 now or $3000 now, the fact is that you will almost certainly end up with more than that invested in it eventually! And the *worst* possible thing you could have happen is to start out spending $1000-$2000 and realize that it is the *wrong* system. If it either stops you from doing what you want to do, or forces you to switch to another system, that is disaster at those prices. If you simply do not have enough experience yet to know what direction you might end up going (which is exactly where most of us start from, and often more than once in fact as we grow older and change directions), you might be *much* better off investing in an inexpensive camera (say up to $500-700) that you can later set on the shelf or toss out with the trash and not die of heart failure. And if you can determine enough about what your future needs will be, use those needs (rather than what you expect to do in the next year or two) to decide which *system* to buy into. Either way, in essence you should ignore price tags, decide what it is you *must* have. Then find the camera that *best* matches your need... and save money until you can buy it. That might be a $1000 body, or a $2000 body, or even more. But if it means saving your coins up for several months longer, *and* lets you do everything you'll want to do for years... it's damned cheap entertainment! (So go buy yourself a Nikon and stop bothering with those imitation wannabe cameras! ;-)  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the >>> increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > (So go buy yourself a Nikon and stop bothering with > those imitation wannabe cameras! ;-) Now then....'let me just have a word with my wife about cashflow.....lol. Floyd, you just told me all the things I guess deep-down in my heart I should have known were true, but didn't even notice the importance of.....'until now. I think that maybe we see what looks like a bargain sometimes and get a bit blinkered....'yeah, that must be it. You are of course correct and I am looking to buy the Canon 40D if not the Nikon D300. :) The Olympus looks okay-ish, but there are a few things I didn't think about regarding this camera, many of them commented upon in this group. Cheers. Joe. > >>> Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the > >>> increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > :) The Olympus looks okay-ish, but there are a few things I didn't think > about regarding this camera, many of them commented upon in this group. 'tis strange to me that the discussion about what camera to buy doesn't seem to include going to a shop and holding one. I have small hands and small cameras feel good to me, but for someone with big hands the Olympus might feel too small. In the end, IMHO, it doesn't matter how good it is on paper if it doesn't feel good in the hand and call you to pick it up and use it. And also, IMHO, all of the latest D-SLRs can produce good results - obviously some better than other especially in difficult conditions, but if you hunt through images on Flickr there are great images taken with all sorts of cameras. Really the nut on the end of the shutter is a key component... >>> Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the >>> increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > (So go buy yourself a Nikon and stop bothering with > those imitation wannabe cameras! ;-) I will note that I recommend against the D40 and D40x Nikons for these reasons: 1) Can only use lenses that have the autofocus motor in them - very limiting considering how many lenses already exist that you cannot use. 2) Only 3 autofocus points (the Olympus E510 is this way too). Problem with this is if you do the rule of thirds, you will have to point the camera to the subject you want to focus, push shutter 1/2 way down to focus, hold it half way down and then move camera back to frame it and this may happen alot with this. Not that others with more AF points eliminate this, but it reduces it and allows shooting faster also. 3) Can't use the manual vintage lenses. I have a Canon Rebel XT (and 10D that needs a shutter repair, but haven't got around to it yet) and I have adapters to use Nikon, Olympus OM, Pentax Screw mount (also called M42) lenses (and could even do Pentax K mount). The D40 doesn't allow this - it thinks there is no lens. The Canon will meter the lenses and the adapters I have even have electronics for focus confirmation. I have a fairly good size lens collection now because I can use these and there is some great glass out there that is going for cheap money in comparison to same optical quality today and AF. I use them almost exclusively. From what I have read, you can use the adapters on the Nikons, but they won't meter (my Canon will meter it in manual or you can use AV and get automatic with old manual lenses and adapters). Dennis >> Either way, in essence you should ignore price tags, >> decide what it is you *must* have. Then find the camera [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I will note that I recommend against the D40 and D40x Nikons for these >reasons: Can't say that I'd disagree with you there. Maybe for slightly different reasons, but that is probably just differences in what we do or don't do. >1) Can only use lenses that have the autofocus motor in them - very >limiting considering how many lenses already exist that you cannot use. For my purposes, I'd agree. For most people, I don't know if that really makes any difference at all. I happen to like playing with all sorts of old lenses just to do that. But when its serious photography I *don't* ever use them... and I suspect that most people wouldn't. >2) Only 3 autofocus points (the Olympus E510 is this way too). Problem >with this is if you do the rule of thirds, you will have to point the camera >to the subject you want to focus, push shutter 1/2 way down to focus, hold >it half way down and then move camera back to frame it and this may happen >alot with this. Not that others with more AF points eliminate this, but it >reduces it and allows shooting faster also. I use both the hold and lock and move the focus point to off center. For one or two shots, I press and hold. If it looks like there will be a series of more than a couple, I go to the extra initial effort to move the focus point to save more effort in the long run. >3) Can't use the manual vintage lenses. I have a Canon Rebel XT (and 10D That's just number 1 again... (Or, from my perspective it is. I don't know if some of the lower priced Nikon models do one without the other or not, but I absolutely want a camera that can do both...) >that needs a shutter repair, but haven't got around to it yet) and I have >adapters to use Nikon, Olympus OM, Pentax Screw mount (also called M42) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >will meter it in manual or you can use AV and get automatic with old manual >lenses and adapters). Can't disagree much with anything there... :-) My recommendation is to buy a used high end model, rather than a new low end model. Particularly now that the D300 and D3 have been announced there are going to be some good prices on a variety of used Nikon models starting about, ohhhh, Christmas time! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > > Right off the get go, the size of the sensor is the main reason for the > > increased cost of the Canon. I've seen beautiful pictures from each so > > the > > issue is what fits you the best. S > > The Canon would be great, but the price difference is a real pain. I am not so sure if you are ready for DSLR yet, because when you get into this then sooner or later you will find that the body isn't the most important and most expensive part. - If you want good IQ then you will need good lens and the lens alone would cost from 1/2 to several times more than the body. - Depending on the camera, the external flash alone would cost around $400 (top notch). And $120-140 if you want the battery pack to go with flash. Your option - If you don't want to go for the more expensive model, then you can always settle for the cheaper model like XTi which seels for around $600-700, and put the extra money on good lens. - When you ready to go for better model then you already have good lens, so you can just buy the BODY only, and use the XTi as backup. This is one of the reasons many people have more than 1 body .. because they just can't get enough of it .. and they just want more and better. And the body becomes pretty cheap after few top_of_the_line_lens and other investments. > Joe. >> Here's a comparison.... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > MC Here's the price of the Olympus.... http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/3441114/Olympus-E-510-10-0-Megapi xel-Digital-SLR-Camera/Product.html And here's the Canon price.... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EOS-Camera-Body-Only/dp/B000VTOWJU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4 /026-1148734-0517250?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190671499&sr=8-4 Not far off half the price now, but the Canon was dearer when it came out. Joe. > I am looking to buy a new DSLR, but have some questions. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's strange? Well, if you only look at the price and few basic things then it could be strange alright. Like the price difference, number of pixel, some sample images etc.. *But* if you look at the whole system, you find many options for your future needs then you may see the whole different world to think about. And just like most if not all reviews, most of them can only be able to provide you with the very general information, and you will need to spend lot of time to research for small detail. And like I have mentioned many time before, depending on your hungry of fun DSLR can be very expensive toy. Sooner or later you will find that $1000-1500 for the body isn't the most expensive toys, and don't settle for cheap lens else you won't be very happy and it may end up being the most expensive waste <bg> Yup! I am looking to add the Canon 40D myself, but will have to wait for the doctor and hospital bill (and I will have a foot surgery next week) see if I will have any $$$ left for another toy. > Joe. What about the older Canons DSLR, Rebel or XT? Or are they that much older?? If I wanted to get one of the older Canons, are they so terrible that its not worth it?? Not4wood >> I am looking to buy a new DSLR, but have some questions. >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >> Joe. > What about the older Canons DSLR, Rebel or XT? Or are they that much > older?? > > If I wanted to get one of the older Canons, are they so terrible that its > not worth it?? Digital technology seems to move so fast, both price-wise and quality/ feature wise. The optics don't seem to be changing so fast, but then lenses have been under development for many, many years whereas image sensors and processors are comparatively new stuff. If you think that a budget-price older Canon might be the thing for you, go read about them on the review websites - www.dpreview.com and www.steves-reviews.com are both good. Hopefully you can find sample images from the diffferent cameras, compare them by eye. You can read the text, but that is always written from the viewpoint of technology at that time, not now, so you might find that a sensor that was raved about 3 years ago would be considered an also-ran now. Also consider if you actually need a D-SLR - lots of fine images are taken on all sorts of digital cameras as a hunt round Flickr proves. It also proves that plenty of awful ones are taken with great cameras... I've posted a blog to help with some of the fundamentals of buying a new DSLR. But for the most part, your price difference will be a direct result of the processors and optics used within the camera. Anyhow, see this if you need any further advice: http://gatley.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-buy-your-first-digital-slr.html Hope that helps, -David > I've posted a blog to help with some of the fundamentals of buying a > new DSLR. But for the most part, your price difference will be a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hope that helps, > -David Thanks for the link, it's very interesting reading. One thing though.... Could you substantiate this extract from your website? "Nikon consistently produces better optics and sensors, and while canon seems to be turning this trend, Nikon will give you the best value for your dollar at the present time." Where is the evidence to show that Nikon produce better optics and sensors?....'in the same price range? Joe. Thanks for your answers everybody. I started to look at the Pentex K10 and everything looked good till I got to the Batteries. It takes AA batteries, kinda of a small setback. No Lithium or major charger. Seems kind of amateurish and reminds me of the small first Digital I had bought a lot of years ago. Saving a few pennies on a not to good power source?? Also, the Lenses available dont seem to be that many choices or worth the effort. I dont see anything in the assorted Lens sections that I would be interested in. I'm talking about a baby Wide to a baby Telephoto within the 28-135 range. I do see this range in other manufacturers but not in Pentex. Any comments?? Not4wood >> What about the older Canons DSLR, Rebel or XT? Or are they that much >> older?? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It also proves that plenty of awful ones are taken with great > cameras... > Thanks for your answers everybody. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > baby Telephoto within the 28-135 range. I do see this range in other > manufacturers but not in Pentex. Any comments?? AA batteries have advantages - they are easy to get anywhere, and you can get rechargeable ones. It will also take D-LI50 batteries according to this page (this is assuming the K10D is the same as the K10 and not a version not available where you live - sorry about the double negative): http://www.pentax.co.uk/_uk/photo/products/index.php?cameras&gruppe=digital%20sl r&produkt=19095&id=technische_details As to lenses, you can use almost any Pentax fix lens on it, including the old M42 thread mounts with an adapter. There are a lot of excellent Pentax-fix lenses around from various makers, I suspect you can get something to suit on Ebay. Also, some of the 3rd party lenses are excellent - don't discount them just because they don't have 'Pentax' on the outside. >Thanks for your answers everybody. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Not4wood My pentax K10 won't do AA's.... Rechargeable battery only >>> What about the older Canons DSLR, Rebel or XT? Or are they that much >>> older?? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> It also proves that plenty of awful ones are taken with great >> cameras... Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow. John Wayne 1907-1979 Chuck (in SC) Thank you gentlemen; Hmmm, I'll have to look around and see if I can pick it up locally. I guess my last question to you all (Pentax Owners) is since the price is a lot cheaper then both the Canon's or Nikon's if you knew then what you know now, would you buy your Pentax again or go for something else??? Or even a different Pentax Model?? I'm also talking about Menu Options and things that are offered to be able to make the great pictures you have in your minds eye into reality??? All around my little P&S Canon is a good, very capable camera. My problem is with the Zoom, once you over extend it into the higher levels I get a lot of distortion pixels or grain. I think you've called this "Noise" in other threads. Also, I have a problem trying to get the camera to make longer exposures. Seems the camera can't really do what I like nor are the choices listed as an option. Thank you again for all your input, I've learned a lot from just this past week. Mark G Not4wood >>Thanks for your answers everybody. >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Chuck (in SC) > What about the older Canons DSLR, Rebel or XT? Or are they that much > older?? > > If I wanted to get one of the older Canons, are they so terrible that its > not worth it?? They are OK but there are new features which are tempting like larger LCD panels, more megapixels and better noise performance. Also, the entry level models aren't designed to last forever so a heavily used copy is not a great idea. >>>I am looking to buy a new DSLR, but have some questions. >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >>>Joe. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com I never even thought of that btw, but it's certainly a good thing to consider. Joe. > What about the older Canons DSLR, Rebel or XT? Or are they that much > older?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not4wood >> I am looking to buy a new DSLR, but have some questions. >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >> Joe. You've raised some great points here, and I'm learning already. Thanks. Joe. |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.