Olympus e400 Vs. Canon 400D Vs. Nikon 40D

encosion

I know it's possibly an odd combination to compare (different price ranges), but hear me out: I'm looking for the next level in photography... I used to own a Canon 500N film camera which never got used - I didn't take enough pictures to learn what I was doing wrong and the delay between taking the pictures and developing them was far too long and expensive...

So I eventually got an ultra compact point-and-shoot Casio EX-Z500... After helping everyone else in the extended family to get their first digital camera, it was my turn... On a six month trip to South America, it was superb... GREAT battery life, and great pics... I had a problem with dust getting inside the lens but I won't go into that!

Working through the +6000 shots I took on my travels, I've definitly decided that DSLR is the next level... But I still want the portability! Hence my narrowing the choice down to these three... I'm still open to suggestions of course, but here's what I'm looking for:

Portability -- Yes, for me small is better!

Depth of Field -- I love a shallow depth of field and had to go to extremes to achieve this on a compact, although anything DSLR is a step up I imagine!

Battery life -- Always a good thing... Who doesn't love a long lasting battery? It depends on where my next trip will be to, but if it was anything like South America I'm going to want exceptional battery life

High ISO(?) -- I want to take pictures at night / in low light conditions without much noise... I'll use a Gorilla Tipod for most shots, but at the same time, I'd love to be able to capture some great night time indoor shots without a tripod... A Holy Grail? The lower the ISO the cleaner the image, but the darker the image... Am I looking for a better lens? Higher ISO?

Which of these cameras do you think will fair best? With what lenses? I'm leaning towards the Olympus E400 for it's sheer size and rumoured good quality lens kit (and I live in London, UK)...

Thanks is advance... Feel free to thow links at me if this kinda stuff has been delt with before (I'm relatively new to these forums and I know you guys know them a lot better than I do!)

gus

I can only add my findings here with the canon but if its high ISO you want then it has to be the canon.

Date Taken:2006-11-18 19:56:12Date Digitized:2006-11-18 19:56:12Date Modified:2006-11-21 18:55:17Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 30D Size: 1500x2434 Bytes: 4496977 Aperture: f/2.2 ISO: 1250 Focal Length: 50mm (guess: 130mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0012s (1/800)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode

No noise reduction software used at all...just a bit of contrast adjustment.

Andy

Depth of field is handled by your glass and aperture not the camera body.

As Gus says, if you want high iso performance, Canon is the undisputed king. Undisputed. And I can say this because I own Canon, sure. But I also see every single "Other" camera system's print returns from ISO 800, 1600 shots here at SmugMug.

Andy

encosion wrote:

Feel free to thow links at me

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620

mercphoto

Andy wrote:

Depth of field is handled by your glass and aperture not the camera body.

Given how the cameras in-question have roughly the same sensor size Andy is correct. But sensor size does have an impact on DOF. The guy loves shallow DOF, and moving to a dSLR from a point and shoot will be a help there.

As Gus says, if you want high iso performance, Canon is the undisputed king. Undisputed.

Yup. Get the Canon 400D and a 2.8 zoom, or a small collection of fast primes.

encosion

gus wrote:

I can only add my findings here with the canon but if its high ISO you want then it has to be the canon.

Wow, that is impressive! Great pic... Do you think you'd be able to achieve something similar if you had had the Canon 400D in your hand instead of the Canon 30D?

I'm thinking of getting a body separately, and then getting a more decent lens to go with it... Maybe two... But because I'm a "newbie" to DSLR, I think I'm going to have to resort to a zoom lens... Any ideas which?

mercphoto wrote:

Yup. Get the Canon 400D and a 2.8 zoom, or a small collection of fast primes.

Something like the Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 L USM? Sounds amazing... Can anyone recomend any alternatives though? This one's going to cost a little more than the body itself...

mercphoto

Something like the Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 L USM? Sounds amazing... Can anyone recomend any alternatives though? This one's going to cost a little more than the body itself...

The 24-70/2.8 is a great lens. Optically very nice. Very fast focusing. Weather sealed. The 16-35/2.8 is another nice lens.

And, when it comes to the dSLR world the cost of your camera body is usually a non-issue. The expense is in the glass, not the bodies, so get used to it. The good news is that glass retains its value and it never becomes obsolete. You will use that 24-70/2.8 with you next five or six camera bodies over the next 10-15 years.

encosion

mercphoto wrote:

The good news is that glass retains its value and it never becomes obsolete. You will use that 24-70/2.8 with you next five or six camera bodies over the next 10-15 years.

I wish I could believe you... I want to believe you... My head is just too far up the "six months and then it's obsolete" track... Which generally goes hand in hand with digital tech... Gotta get myself off that path - even though you've got to be exaggerating about the "never" stuff...

If I can't shake that though: Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens

mercphoto

encosion wrote:

I wish I could believe you... I want to believe you... My head is just too far up the "six months and then it's obsolete" track.

Which is the really bad thing about the rapid progression of digital. Or should I simply say rapid change, because "progression" implies a change for better, not worse. Sometimes stability is better than change. But if you need further proof of the longevity of glass take a look at how infrequent lenses get redesigned. Or how infrequent new ones get introduced (EF-S does not count since that is a new lens mount). Look at the price of used lenses. I recently sold a one-year-old Canon 300/2.8 lens for 85% of what I paid for it. Can you sell a digital body after a year for that? Nope.

Don't fear buying good, quality glass.

mercphoto

encosion wrote:

If I can't shake that though: Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens

A very good choice over the Canon. I chose the Canon simply because I needed a weather-sealed lens with the fastest possible auto-focusing motor. If I did not have those needs then the Tamron would have been my choice.

wolfwoods

I'm the oddball
I shoot a Nikons. (Hold the boos until you read the whole post, thanks ) I started with Nikon film and I have an arsenal of lenses that fit Nikons so I stick with Nikons. In the past, most of my work is done with telephoto lenses attached, so I get the advantage of the 1.5 multiplier of the focal length. I'll give the nod to Canon's high ISO performance, but I do a lot of very satisfactory shots using only field lights and stage lighting. Nikon has some great lenses that produce high quality photos on mid-to-low-end bodies, too.

I agree with all those Canon shooters that investing in the best glass you can afford is just as important as picking the right body.

If I were picking my first DSLR right now I would be asking some of the same questions you are. One of my friends bought a D50, another the Canon 400D (Rebel XTi here in the States). All of these Canon shooters will be disappointed when I say the D50 shooter likes his camera better than the Reble shooter likes hers. They are both satisfied with the photos they get.

But you asked about the D40. The D40 is the smallest, lightest, DSLR Nikon has produced (lends to the portability you want). It is slightly smaller than the 400D. In some ways I like it better than the D50 (2.5" LCD like the D400) but not in others (3 vs. 5 auto-focus areas). To me, the additions to the D40 far outweigh what was taken away from the D50. The price and size drop are big pluses. To me, the big downer is that it is a brand new camera with a a brand new LiH battery with no track record. I can't tell you if you'll get 500 or 1000 shots from it. So from that point alone I'd have to pick the Canon.

Right now, you can go buy a Canon 400D, you'll have trouble finding a Nikon D40. If you wait a while, you may find a D40 is what you want and put the savings into more glass.

Now we need an Oly fan to post!

krisbphoto

mercphoto wrote:

The 24-70/2.8 is a great lens. Optically very nice. Very fast focusing. Weather sealed. The 16-35/2.8 is another nice lens.

And, when it comes to the dSLR world the cost of your camera body is usually a non-issue. The expense is in the glass, not the bodies, so get used to it. The good news is that glass retains its value and it never becomes obsolete. You will use that 24-70/2.8 with you next five or six camera bodies over the next 10-15 years.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 is a great lens at a fraction of the cost. You can find it on Amazon for around $400.

marlinspike

For me, at that level of camera, there are only two to consider: 400D and Pentax K10D. The Pentax is feature loaded while the Canon is the king of high iso noise. The Nikon is about the same feature wise as the Canon and typically they have the same/more noise than their counterpart Pentax with the same sensor so there is no point in getting the Nikon unless you have a bunch of Nikon glass in my opinion. Olympus...well I just don't very much care for them.

gus

encosion wrote:

Wow, that is impressive! Great pic... Do you think you'd be able to achieve something similar if you had had the Canon 400D in your hand instead of the Canon 30D?

Thats just my point...other than the 400 having a larger sensor...it will have the same (if not then very similar) canon internal firmware as the 20D/30D re ISO. I have read several times on reputable sites that its the same sensor actually however i dont know how they can say that with the 400's being larger.

You also get the same 9 point focus system as 20D/30D.

marlinspike

gus wrote:

Thats just my point...other than the 400 having a larger sensor...it will have the same (if not then very similar) canon internal firmware as the 20D/30D re ISO. I have read several times on reputable sites that its the same sensor actually however i dont know how they can say that with the 400's being larger.

You also get the same 9 point focus system as 20D/30D.

It's not the same sensor and it has more noise at high ISO's (and in the interest of accuracy it is not a larger sensor but a sensor of equal size with more pixels on it...which ceteris paribus means more noise). dpreview.com's reviews tend to be the more accurate reviews out there, though they look at noise of jpegs not RAW which is misleading so to really look at noise you have to get people who own the cameras to send you raw files.

gus

marlinspike wrote:

It's not the same sensor and it has more noise at high ISO's (and in the interest of accuracy it is not a larger sensor but a sensor of equal size with more pixels on it...which ceteris paribus means more noise). dpreview.com's reviews tend to be the more accurate reviews out there, though they look at noise of jpegs not RAW which is misleading so to really look at noise you have to get people who own the cameras to send you raw files.

Mate you know me..im not one for dissecting the fine points. If they want to choose a camera that handles high ISO better than its market peers then buy the canon.

SCS_Photo

gus wrote:

I can only add my findings here with the canon but if its high ISO you want then it has to be the canon.

Date Taken:2006-11-18 19:56:12Date Digitized:2006-11-18 19:56:12Date Modified:2006-11-21 18:55:17Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 30D Size: 1500x2434 Bytes: 4496977 Aperture: f/2.2 ISO: 1250 Focal Length: 50mm (guess: 130mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0012s (1/800)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode

No noise reduction software used at all...just a bit of contrast adjustment.

Nice shot, but its not really all that useful for deducing the noise level, as scaling shots - even a little bit - tends to average out the noise.

claudermilk

One thing to keep in mind, a DSLR is not going to be compact or portable like a P&S is. That's one of the prices you pay for the expanded capability.

DOF will be much better, mainly from the larger sensor and lens so anything you pick will achieve that. Also, improved battery life and faster response will be found on any DSLR. I'm not sure how well the competition currently performs, but my 20D goes from off to tripping the shutter seemingly instantaneously--much to the annoyance of P&S users on trips; I blast 4 frames on a sudden photo op, while they are left with a shot of nothing much as the moment passed while waiting for their camera to wake up.

It sounds like you want low light capability, in which case Canon wins, no question.

As has been mentioned already, when you move to the SLR world (digital or film), the lenses become much more important and the cost will quickly outstrip the cost of the body. However, they do last much longer than the digital bodies. Two examples: Canon's 50/1.8 Mk I lens is still much sought-after & demands 2x the price of the current lens; I own one & it works just fine on my 20D. Second example is Canon's legendary 200/1.8 lens, also long discontinued and demands a huge premium when one shows up for sale. Both lenses predate DSLRs, yet are still very capable lenses and work very well on brand-new digital bodies. They have well outlived the film bodies they were originally intended for. An even more extreme example is the group of guys who are adapting old medium format lenses to their DSLRs.

So, while the 24-70/2.8 is more expensive than that body, it's a great choice--I certainly love my copy & will be keeping it long after the 20D wears out. The Sigma is considered a very good budget alternative.

kini62

Yep, it's almost all in the lenses
I tried the low end approach on my first DSLR (E-300 2 lens kit) And while it was a great value and the shots I got considering the cost of the lenses were very good.

I upgraded to a 30D and am spending a small (to me) fortune on just 2 lenses. The 24-105IS L and the 70-200/2.8 L (non IS).

I know that I would likely not be totally satisfied with 3rd party lenses even if they were just as good (all in my head).

I also know that the resale value should I decide to sell will be better as well.

No matter what body you choose, get some decent lenses and all will be well.:D

Gene

marlof

If I'd get an entry level DSLR now, it'd be the Olympus E-400. Then again, I'm used to Olympus cameras (using an E-1), and simply love the quality of their lenses, so yes I'm very biased. The E-400 has some limitations compared to others, but also some advantages. Like size (and image quality) with the kit lenses (going from 28-300 mm equiv in an insanely small package for a DSLR) and the dust buster when travelling and (according to a German magazine I read last week) a better than average dynamic range. It does not have the most advanced AF system, but it is speedier than before in Olympus cameras, high ISO is better than with earlier Olympus cameras, but still not in Canon territory, and there's not much in optical image stabilization around at this time. But as a general get around DSLR, it'd be my (biased) choice. And I'm sure I'd be happy with any of the other ones as well.

tsk1979

I have a 350D and it is excellent for low noise pics.
400D will be even better.
But if you really want to handle low light, K10D from pentax is a good contender. dpreview gave K100D a good rating and rated it equivalent to Canon as far as image quality is concerned. The SR system will give you around 3 stop advantage in wide angle shots.

At a recent camera exhibition(Photoimaging Asia) I tried out the K10D. I was impressed with SR. 1/6ish shutter speed at 20mm, and razor sharp!
For low lighting SR is great if you cant afford an IS lens.

encosion

Thanks for all your input... I think I probably will go for the Canon 400D... And as far as lenses are concerned, I'm leaning towards the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO if for nothing else than the extra 4mm on the wide end over the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)... Although this could be swung back towards the Tamron, in real life testing down at the shop, if I think that 28mm is adequate enough until I'm able to spring for a proper wide angle lens...

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM is still on the table as an option, but I think it warrants a little too much cash at this stage in my development as an amateur photographer - and quiet frankly, after reading a lot of reviews and opinions I'm not sure I'll even notice the difference - apart from the size and weather-proofing!

Any thoughts on a good wide angle lens for the 400D? I'm thinking something just above the "fish eye" factor - which is what? 10-15mm? I know the 1.6 crop factor is an issue on the 400D, but I don't really know what to look for...

marlinspike

Word to the wise, if you have a laptop bring it with you and do a focus test with the Sigma. I have tried 4 different Sigma lenses, not only did none of them focus properly (slight front focus up close, serious back focus far away), but none of them were correctable by Sigma either. And for wide angle I would just get the kit lens unless you wanted to shell out for a 17-40L.

tsk1979

marlinspike wrote:

Word to the wise, if you have a laptop bring it with you and do a focus test with the Sigma. I have tried 4 different Sigma lenses, not only did none of them focus properly (slight front focus up close, serious back focus far away), but none of them were correctable by Sigma either. And for wide angle I would just get the kit lens unless you wanted to shell out for a 17-40L.

A friend recently got Sigma 30mm 1.4 at "Photoimaging Asia" in Delhi.
We did not have a laptop, so to test focus accuracy we put a sigma lens box at 45 degrees angle and then focussed on a letter.
Used maximum zoom in 20D body to test focus accuracy.
Other thing which we used was to focus on eyelashes and then zoom to 100% to see accuracy.

swintonphoto

I am an Olympus E-500 user and am very pleased with my camera. The lenses are excellent, the price is excellent, and the size is excellent. Admittedly the ISO over 800 will require noise reduction if you plan on blowing up the images over 8x10, but if you shoot raw and expose correctly I have found it to be manageable. The Oly's are very good at long exposures - they handle hot spots and long exposure noise reduction very well. So, if you have a tripod then noise is not an issue.
I have not used the E-400 - looks really nice - you won't find anything more compact than that. Olympus even designed new ultra-compact lenses for the E-400. The Olympus lenses are great by the way. There is a great site that reviews olympus products:
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/index.html
That can give you some insight into the E-400. I am unsure of how it handles noise compared to the E-500. But all in all - I shot with film for years and never considered shooting above 400 ISO because quality was a joke. The E-500 is miles above where film was in that category. Canon is the king in the noise category no question, but their decent lenses and better built bodies will cost you a bit more money and the sensor size difference makes their cameras a bit larger as well.
All the major companies are producing good things though so you wont go wrong.

encosion

Thanks all... Really appreciate all the input... I very nearly swung for the Olympus E-400... However after handling it in real life - and I thought I'd never say this but - I think it's perhaps TOO small? I'm really into small compact tech, but there's not really much space for your hands on this... The lugs for the strap are just in the wrong place too - right where you want to put your fingers / knuckles... Get rid of them / move them and I think it's probably be fine... It was also a tad more expensive...

So I've gone for the Canon 400D (£420) with the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (£200) lens for now... The Canon lens was great... Just too big and expensive for my liking and after reading some really indepth reviews on the Tamron I figured I can't lose... I was going to try the Sigma out too, but they didn't have any in stock at the time... I'm happy with my decision!

I'm thinking of getting a couple of little extras like:
Hoya 67mm Pro-1 Super HMC Multi-Coated UV Filter
Hoya 67mm Circular Polarizer
Seagull 1-2X Angle Finder
Lensbaby 2.0

Once when I've got more money and experience under my belt I'll start investigating some wider lenses..

claudermilk

encosion wrote:

Thanks all... Really appreciate all the input... I very nearly swung for the Olympus E-400... However after handling it in real life - and I thought I'd never say this but - I think it's perhaps TOO small? I'm really into small compact tech, but there's not really much space for your hands on this... The lugs for the strap are just in the wrong place too - right where you want to put your fingers / knuckles... Get rid of them / move them and I think it's probably be fine... It was also a tad more expensive...

So I've gone for the Canon 400D (£420) with the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (£200) lens for now... The Canon lens was great... Just too big and expensive for my liking and after reading some really indepth reviews on the Tamron I figured I can't lose... I was going to try the Sigma out too, but they didn't have any in stock at the time... I'm happy with my decision!

I'm thinking of getting a couple of little extras like:
Hoya 67mm Pro-1 Super HMC Multi-Coated UV Filter
Hoya 67mm Circular Polarizer
Seagull 1-2X Angle Finder
Lensbaby 2.0

Once when I've got more money and experience under my belt I'll start investigating some wider lenses..

Small isn't everything. I happen to think a grip-less 20D is too small. I can't even imagine trying to hold a Rebel, much less the 3/4 scale almost-DSLRs.

I'd wait on the angle finder & lensbaby at least until you get some experience with the camera. Make sure you really need to spend the money on them. Both happen to be on my to-get list, but are still there after 2 years with the 20D--I have more important bits to add first.

limbik

encosion wrote:

So I've gone for the Canon 400D (£420) with the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (£200)
Hoya 67mm Pro-1 Super HMC Multi-Coated UV Filter
Once when I've got more money and experience under my belt I'll start investigating some wider lenses..

Congrats, that Tamron is a fantastic lens for the price, I use the same one on my 30D. You probably don't need the extra thin pro-1 series for the 28-75mm, I use a standard Hoya SHMC on mine without any problems. Save the pro-1 for whatever size your wide lens might be (77mm perhaps) because vignetting is a greater possibility on an ultra-wide. On that note, Canon's own 10-22mm is one of the best.

encosion

claudermilk wrote:

Small isn't everything. I happen to think a grip-less 20D is too small. I can't even imagine trying to hold a Rebel, much less the 3/4 scale almost-DSLRs.

I personally prefer to be inconspicuous!

claudermilk wrote:

I'd wait on the angle finder & lensbaby at least until you get some experience with the camera. Make sure you really need to spend the money on them.

Yeah, I'll probably hold on the lensbaby for now - although I can imagine it provides instant gratification for the price... The angle finder however is a little more important to me - you draw a lot less attention to yourself with some sort of angle finder than looking at the subject directly! Although perhaps the Zigview S2 (or something similar) is the way to go...

limbik wrote:

You probably don't need the extra thin pro-1 series for the 28-75mm, I use a standard Hoya SHMC on mine without any problems. Save the pro-1 for whatever size your wide lens might be (77mm perhaps) because vignetting is a greater possibility on an ultra-wide. On that note, Canon's own 10-22mm is one of the best.

Excellent, thanks for the advice!

encosion

Months later... I'm loving the Canon 400D and the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm lens... However I also picked up the f/2.8 17-50mm just before I hit Tokyo and have decided that it's a much more versatile starter lens - I really appreciate and use the wider angles - so if I were to buy again, I'd leave out the 28-75 till I really needed it, and even then, I might opt for something more powerful on the zoom end...

And a few gripes: It's a LOT heavier than my old film SLR, the Canon 500N...

And the next gripe pertains to pretty much all DSLRs in existance - although I've heard rumours that Olympus has started offering this now: Using the LCD as a viewfinder... I know it's not exactly seen as a 'pro' feature by many, but coming from compacts into the world of DSLR, you definitly notice how useful the LCD as a viewfinder can be when you no longer have it! It's a great way to disarm your subject and capture them in a more natural state... I really miss it...

I've also noticed that the lenses don't frame very well on the Canon 400D... I like to do as little post processing as possible, but I've found that the images aren't framing as I planned - so what I think is the best composition, ends up a little off, requiring a crop... I don't know how comon this problem is... At least it's adding info to my composition rather than not including it... But still... Any thoughts?

More shots of Japan...

wolfwoods

I noticed the same phenomenon with my film cameras, too. I acknowledge that I don't have experience with a wide variety of cameras, but I noticed I could take a group shot with people right on the edge of the viewfinder and actually see some clearance around the group in the photo I took. Like you, I accepted that as a good thing. You can always crop, but it is more difficult to add what isn't there.

I don't think using the LCD for a viewfinder will be any better. IMHO it is additional mirrors and moving parts that make noise, need to be kept clean, be repaired, add to the weight, etc. I don't fully trust the LCD view AFTER the shutter clicks, I don't think I'd trust it BEFORE either (at least I don't when I use a PandS. In many cases the LCD is nearly useless because of ambient light...again, my opinion.