Olympus E500....

George.

Well I found that my supposedly ordered 350D hadn't been ordered - long story. So I go to re-order and one of my 'photo friends' tell me about the Olympus E500.... has anyone else heard about these?? Any good?? Better/Worse then the Canon??
One thing I was thinking about was glass for the future... If I buy the Olympus and get extra lenses Ill have to stick with the Olympus....

I found some reviews on the camera here

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500speccomp.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500speccomp.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/E500speccomp.HTM

Thanks

marlof

As for the cameras:
I think the Canon 350XT has a slight advantage when it comes to resolution, and for sure when it comes to high ISO images. For every day usage the E500 to my eyes renders more pleasing images, since I really like the out of camera images it produces. That is highly subjective, and you should really make up your mind of your own in that. Anyhow: bodies come and go, and if you're new to DSLRs and are planning to buy into a system, you should look beyond the body as you are doing with your question. And don't forget to hold them both in your hands. I did that with the 350XT, and knew it wasn't for me. It made me compare the 20D (which is a better size to my hands) to other cameras in stead of the 350XT. Others really like to use the 350XT. As for a review, don't overlook the extensive DPReview one, which also compares the E-500 to the 350XT and the Nikon D50.

As for the system:
The 4/3 system is a bit of a gamble. Only Olympus has it, Panasonic is told to be releasing a DSLR using that mount as well, but if this mount will survive in the end is not sure. I think it will, but I am biased, and others think differently. The same goes for the Canon EF-S lenses, and the Nikon DX lenses. They're adapted to the current digital range of cameras, but for instance EF-S lenses can not be used on full frame bodies like the Canon 5D. But if you'd buy EF mount lenses for Canon, you could be using those on anything from 1.6 to 1.3 to full frame bodies, so what you'd buy now would be usable for the foreseeable future.

A for some small, for others bigger advantage of the Olympus system is the SSWF dust buster that is in all Olympus bodies. So far it really works, since I've not had any dust on my sensor in 5 months of using my E-1. And I did go on an African safari, and did change lenses in dusty windy situations.

As for the lenses:
If you buy Canon, you stick with Canon. If you buy Nikon, you stick with Nikon. If you buy Konica Minolta, you stick with Konica Minolta. If you buy Olympus, you stick with Olympus. If you use an adapter, you can use tons of lenses on tons of mounts, but will lose autofocus.

It's not the brand of lenses that is that important, it's not even the range of lenses available that is important, it's the question if the lenses you'd like are available in a system.

I went for the Olympus E-1, since I knew that if I'd get the 14-54, the 50-200 and the 50 macro, I'd have all the lenses I'd need. Some feel the same with the kit lenses that comes with the E-300 or the E-500 (the 14-45 and the 40-150). If I really wanted to do something fast I'd be able (for a price) to go with the 14-35 f2 (not released yet), the 35-200 f2 or the 150 f2. If I'd want to go wider, I'd be able to use the 11-22 or even the 7-14. All these lenses are more expensive than their Canon or Nikon counterparts (not always by a large margin), since Olympus has a smaller market, so can not get their margin from the amount of lenses they sell. The quality of these Digital Zuikos is really good by the way. The quality of the two super expensive lenses (the 300 f2.8 and 90-250 f2.8) is amazing, but they are prices in an atmosphere that I will never reach.

So for me, the Olympus range was good enough. If the same goes for you, I can not tell, without you telling me what it is you'd like to do. If you are a dedicated prime lens user (no zooms), Olympus is probably not for you.

George.

marlof wrote:

If the same goes for you, I can not tell, without you telling me what it is you'd like to do. If you are a dedicated prime lens user (no zooms), Olympus is probably not for you.

Thanks for such a good response mate - stoked on it!!!
What I will be using the camera for is mainly scenery, nature, portrait and a little sports. I really enjoy shooting birds, trees and people - depth of field, shutter blurs and nitetime phots.

Does that help??

George.

marlof

You can do all of what you're planning to do with an E-500 and the two kit lenses. Where I can foresee a bit, I'll go into it in the next post.

As for the lenses: the 14-45 and the 40-150 that come in the two kit lens deal are generally considered to be very nice lenses as kit lenses come. I have no personal experience with them, since I wanted a weatherproof system, and went for the E-1, 14-54 and 50-200. If one thing (reading what you'd like to do): you might want to consider not getting the 40-150, but the 50-200 in stead, since it would give you more speed (a stop faster), a bit faster autofocus, more range, and even weather proofing. The 40-150 on the other hand is smaller, lighter, and might be better usable for low profiled inner city shots. The 14-54 is also faster than the 14-45, and I've seen people upgrade from 14-45 to 14-54. But I've also seen people happily using the 14-45 and adding a 11-22 for wide angle shots in stead (22-44 mm in 35mm equiv terms).

The autofocus system in the Olympus is less advanced than in the Canon/Nikon range. It is not known to have front/backfocus problems, so that's a big plus. But, it low light it will take some time to focus, where Canon/Nikon would be faster. Also, in sports, Canon auto focus and high ISO for indoor shooting might be more helpful.

That said: for everyday usage (scenery, people, nature etc.) I've not once have to wait for the camera to lock focus. I wouldn't have known it was not an advanced autofocus system, if I didn't read it in forums posted by people who had used both. If you're heavily into birding, and you'd like to capture tons of Bird in Flight, a fast autofocus might help you. But take a look at the weekly Sunday Bird posts in the DPReview Olympus SLR forum. They show what kind of birding shots people take with their Olympus gear.

Depth of Field: the crop factor of 2 in the Olympus range means you'd have to use a 14mm lens to get a 28mm lens in 35mm equivalent terms. This also means that you'd have less depth of field to work with. But since the lenses in general are a bit faster than comparable lenses in other systems (my kit lens was a 2.8-3.5, where the Canon kit lens was a 3.5-5.6), this difference is a bit of a wash in my opinion. But you can't use the 1.8, 1.4 or even 1.2 primes like on the Canon, or you'd have to use an adapter and lose autofocus.

Rereading what I wrote made me realize I tend to stipulate the negative side of the Olympus system. I guess that's because I'm really, really fond of my E-1, but know that people when using an Olympus will always encounter other people who say that they should have bought Canon/Nikon. I wouldn't like you to learn the disadvantages of that Olympus system later on. That's why I'd like to prepare you now. If you can live with those (as I can), you're in for a treat, since the advantages give you a heck of a system.

sandychian

35mm equivalent
Hi,
I have the E500 and using the 50-200mm lens plus 1.4x teleconverter. Is the image I capture with this lens at 200mm has the same as one taken on a Canon with 400mm lens? What woule be an ideal lens for nature and bird photography. I find the 50-200mm lens on my E500 a little short.

Thanks in advance,
sandy

marlof

The 35mm equiv of a Canon 400 mm lens is (for a 20D) 640mm. The 35mm equiv of what you're currently having (an Oly 200mm + 1.4TC) is 560mm.

If you want to go longer, you either have to go bankrupt by getting the (oh so sweet) 300mm f2.8, which would give you a 600mm FOV (and with the 1.4TC a 840mm FOV), or go with a legacy lens by almost any manufacturer, and get an adapter from Cameraquest (among others) to fit that lens to your E-500. Beware that all those legacy lenses would mean manual focussing though.

swintonphoto

I went through the same decision making process not too long ago. I decided on the Olympus E-500. My reasons:
-The body for the Olympus is built better
-The grip on the Canon is too hard to hold
-The kit lens on the olympus is better than the kit lens on the canon. Any time I use the canon kit lens it feels like I am going to break it just by touching it.
-They both have near identical quality for up to 400 ISO.
-While the canon does have slightly better results at 800 to 1600, I have had no problem working up to 1600 ISO. Just don't underexpose, and either use their new ISO Boost + Noise reduction built into the camera, or use a third party noise reduction program.
-The Olympus 2 lens kit can be purchased for the same price as the Canon body only. I hear they are running a $100 rebate righ now too.
-The 4/3 system does have a smaller sensor than the $3000 + Canon cameras, but, this offers does advantages. You need a really high quality lens if you go with larger sensors to avoid softness on the edges. (this will only be an issue if you decide to get a body in the future like Canon's large sensor DSLR's like the 5D). The sensors on the Rebel XT and the E-500 are very comparable in size. And some argue that the future of technological advances won't necessitate huge sensors. You will also always pay more for larger sensors.
-Panasonic did just announce a new 4/3 SLR, adding another company to the lens mount.
-Sigma just announced that they are releasing 5 more 4/3 lenses.
-Olympus is the only company to have built in dust reduction. And it works.

Both cameras are great. Both will give you good quality. The Olympus is more well built, has a better kit lens, and is more affordable. The Canon has slightly better high ISO noise. Take your pick.

jon3k

My only recommendation to you, is don't buy a camera because it has a great kit lens. In fact, don't even get the camera with the kit lens, just buy the body. Because, if you're like me, the kit lens won't last you more than 2 or 3 shoots before you realize you need to buy some quality glass.

Personally, I went with Canon, because once you buy a DSLR, you're pretty much going to be buying their gear for ever, because of the interchangeable lenses. I just think that when you compare Canon's entire product line to Olympus, Canon offers a lot more, so I went with the 350D.

Camera feels great in my hands, but I never did understand people who complained about light plastic lenses. Everyone always says "oh it feels like I'll break it just by touching it" - but I have yet to read a single story about someone breaking a lens. Just something to consider

marlof

Although the original question was posted quite a while ago (see the dates), I'll still give my take on the "Canon range" and the "Olympus range". Don't get too excited by all options that are out there. Just look at what you need. You might find that all brands cater for those options. I couldn't care less that Olympus currently doesn't offer TS lenses. I never used one, and will never buy one. My wishes can all be found in the (limited) Olympus Digital Zuiko line-up. That Canon or Nikon has more, means nothing to me. With Panasonic and Leica onboard, that 4/3 range will be expanded even, and the future is brighter now than when I first wrote my answers in this thread. And on kit lenses: many people I know never use anything else than the 18-55 Canon kit lens that came with their digital Rebel. I don't know if these people can be found on boards like these, but a good kit lens might be something to consider in your equation.

Bob&Glennie

My primary reason for going with the E500 was because I've had two other Olympus film cameras, my wife has an Olympus compact zoom and we've been extremely happy with the quality and performance of all our Olympus cameras. Price was another factor. The "dust buster" is a big plus and it works well. You are not limited to Olympus/Zuiko lenses. Sigma makes a good lens for your dollar and they are expanding their offerings in the 4/3 system. The Olympus 1.4x teleconverter is excellent as are all the Zuiko lenses ( Olympus is, after all a maker of optics for the medical profession ). I'm not going to be fool enough to say that this camera is any better than anything else because we all know it isn't. But it's good and if you know what you're doing you'll make great photos.

The 8mp resolution is nice but you'll find that your depth of field is longer than you sometimes want because the CCD is 1/2 the size of a 35mm frame. In spite of this, noise is well controled and I can shoot without worries at ISO800 and just need to introduce some noise reduction at 1600. The 2x lens factor is a plus for longer reach as a 200mm for example becomes the equivillent of a 400mm.

One thing I really like about the image characteristics on this camera and Glennie's little zoom is the fact that they are not super contrasty, a problem with a lot of digital sensors and in camera rendering. Color saturation is nice and natural and if you need more contrast it really easy on the computer.

All in all I'm very happy with the E500 and if you decide in that direction you won't go wrong

Bob

pathfinder

I am a Canon shooter for the past several years, but I once owned several bodies and lenses in the OM-system of manual focus 35mm cameras and found them very nice.

The smaller sensor of the Olympus 4/3 DSLRs should not be looked at as a liability or a feature. It is both. As mentioned above in this thread, for a wide angle shooter, it takes a very wide angle lens and still does not have the shallow DOF of a larger format camera. On the other hand, the smaller sensor WILL offer MORE DOF to the macro shooter. And the thought of a 600mm 35mm equivalent focal length at f2.8 aperature sure sounds appealing. Nature shooters will absolutely love f2.8 in the early morning light.

Needing only two lenses for an entire system is also very appealing.

The Sonic dust removal system is very welcome.

Michael Reichman wrote about the 4/3 system in the past and felt that it might never satisy professional shooters due to the smaller sensor, but I wonder if he may not turn out to be incorrect. The new lenses announced by Sigma are going to give the 4/3 system a real boost in the market place as more shooters become convinced that the system will survive and prosper in the future. I will keep my eye on the 4/3 system - it looks very interesting to me.

The real time LCD display, in addition to the optical viewfinder is something many of us have desired for quite a while that we learned to appreciate on our point and shoot cameras.

marlof

pathfinder wrote:

Michael Reichman wrote about the 4/3 system in the past and felt that it might never satisy professional shooters due to the smaller sensor, but I wonder if he may not turn out to be incorrect.

After the most recent Sigma/Panasonic/Leica announcement he's taken back his words himself: "So in the end 4/3rds isn't going away, and neither will 1.5x and 1.6X APS C sized sensors, nor will full frame. There's room for all. So, yes I was wrong. Won't be the last time either." That's what I like about Michael Reichman: he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he's also not afraid to readjust his assumptions.

I'm really looking forward to see the first review of production units of the Olympus E-330 and the Panasonic L-1. The first hands on reports by end users show that the new sensor is pretty good in high ISO, and that the sensor should be able to capture a wide dynamic range. Add live review, the dust buster and other cool aspects, and these might be real winners.