Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


So it looks like next week I might be buying my DSLR. I was all set to buy the Rebel but then a friend pointed out the excellent reviews the Olympus E-500 has gotten and it's priced much less. Anyone have any experience with the E-500? Wander


( 24 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 4th, 2006 12:01 am (UTC)
A Canon is actually a better investment. The lenses for Canon's are much better and there is a better selection available. And you can transfer them to just about any current (and any new) Canon bodies. A new 10MP Rebel just came out so you should be able to get a good deal on the previous 8MP one. It's still a good camera.

Having a quality lens is so much more important than the camera body. The lens is what will ultimately give you a good photo image.
Nov. 4th, 2006 12:03 am (UTC)
Oh yeah, just to be fair... Nikon is a good choice as well. There are generally two main camps, Nikon and Canon users. I happen to be the latter.
Nov. 4th, 2006 12:30 am (UTC)
The Olympus Actually fared better than the Nikon on the Digital Photo Reviewers Site and comparable to the Canon except that the Canon Sensor was rated better than anyone else.

I've never actually been a Nikon fan. In film cameras, I always stuck with Minolta. But as we all know Monolta dropped out of the race for the DSLR's.

Nov. 4th, 2006 12:51 am (UTC)
If you take a look at the available lenses and accessories for the Canon, you'll likely be reassured that you are making the right choice for the long run.

The E-500 is undeniably a really good value. I think the only thing that I personally would prefer the Rebel over the Olympus is that I do a lot of continuous shooting in "burst mode" for action and spontaneous shots and the Rebel is much faster and better at.

Another thing to take into consideration is that the Rebel is quite small and feels uncomfortable in larger hands, although that might be something to get used to. I actually like the light weight of the Rebel for travelling and because I love taking pictures of people i come across, the smaller size seems less intimidating.

Time for you to do some Googling! ;)
Nov. 4th, 2006 01:20 am (UTC)
The issues you raised are exactly the ones I was looking at. A fellow digital enthusiast in my office who owns a Rebel was complaining about the size thing because he has big hands as do I. And we were talking about the burst mode thing. The review says if you use one of the faster Compact Flash cards like the 2 gig Sandisk Extreme IV, you get comparable performance from the Olympus. Though I have to admit I don't do that much action photography. So it's probably not as much a factor to me than you. Apparently Olympus has come out with a nice range of lenses as well. It may just come down to how much unpaid vacation pay I actually get. $1000 or more and I'll probably go with the Rebel.

Nov. 4th, 2006 01:30 am (UTC)
The Rebel does have an available grip for an extra battery which can help with the size issue.

With the speed, it certainly helps with action photography but I find it's less frustrating for shots in general because you don't have to wait for it to start up or save to the disk. I'm sure you have experienced situations where you have failed to capture an image at a crucial moment because you are waiting for the camera to be able to shoot.
Nov. 4th, 2006 01:39 am (UTC)
Yeah, even on a film camera when they started going fully automatic. Maybe I should just get a Haseblaad and forget about the others. hehehe

(Deleted comment)
Nov. 4th, 2006 04:09 am (UTC)
Kidding mostly. I'm essentially getting paid my normal paycheck every two weeks until March and not having to work for it. Now if I pick up a lot of freelance work in the meantime it could be very lucrative.

Nov. 4th, 2006 03:29 am (UTC)
Maybe I should just get a Haseblaad and forget about the others. hehehe

Just how big was that severance package anyhow?! Ha ha!
Nov. 4th, 2006 01:43 am (UTC)
I have the Rebel XT also. It's my first digital camera and I'm totally in love with it. I love the auto focus by just pressing the button down half way and then shooting the picture. I have poor eyesight and difficulty manually focusing with my 35mm SLR film camera. I've only had mine for 2 months now.
Nov. 4th, 2006 12:03 am (UTC)

Nov. 5th, 2006 07:05 am (UTC)
OK, I can get the body for $571. What lens would you suggest as a good all around lens.

Nov. 5th, 2006 10:59 am (UTC)
That's a good price! As for lenses, I guess it really depends on your budget. I got stuck with two lenses that came with my old film SLR and they are crappy. The photos are disappointing and foggy. If I had to start all over back then, I would have rather saved my money by just getting the body and using the money I saved towards one good zoom lens.

- The EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 IS USM is very versatile and popular. It also has image stabilization.
- The 50mm 1.8 is a bargain at less than $100. It's a fixed focal lens but the images are incredibly sharp and beautiful. It's great for portraits. I have a 50mm 1.4 that is similiar but a lot pricier... I use it most of the time.

Here's a great link that gives a rundown of the lenses. If you scroll to near the bottom, there are some brief reviews.

And here's a link to a coupon PDF for a rebate you might be eligible for:
Nov. 5th, 2006 05:57 pm (UTC)
I was really lucky on my film camera to get some awesome lenses when I first started. A 28-70 and a 70-300 which pretty much gave me all I needed from my Minolta Maxxum. Even my old 60's model Minolta SRT 101, metal body had some great lenses with it. That's proably why I shot film much longer than most photogrpahers who went digital early on. I still use it for a lot of my art photography. I've been happy with my Kodak point and shoot 5 MP so far. It's what I've shot almost everything for the last 2 years with. But obviously PAS cameras have their limitations. The crappy photos in low light thing being one of the most bothersome things. So I'm really looking forward to moving up to a DSLR and getting back to the kind of photography I grew up with. I just wish I could find a good SLR I could use my old Minolta lenses with.

Thanks for the help!

Nov. 5th, 2006 09:54 pm (UTC)
It really is too bad Minolta never developed a digital SLR. It sounds like you could have continued using some pretty good lenses if they did.

> The crappy photos in low light thing being one of the most bothersome things.

That's why I recommended the 50mm 1.8. Although it's not as versatile because of it's fixed focal length, it's very good in low light situations and only costs around $80. You just have to zoom back and forth using your feet...
Nov. 6th, 2006 12:12 am (UTC)
Oh... forget the 17-85mm...

The 24-70 seems better and has F 2.8. I think it's much more inexpensive too.
Nov. 4th, 2006 01:41 am (UTC)
I've got the Rebel XT. I'm very happy with it and caught it for $200 off at Best Buy.

You already know I'm sure that your photos are only as good as the glass/lens in your camera.
Nov. 4th, 2006 01:44 am (UTC)
It's hard to imagine I've taken over 10,000 photos with my Point and shoot digital in 2 years without buying a DSLR. It's good I'm hearing all this stuff about the Rebel. I need to go down to Best Buy and hold both of them in my hands to compare.

Nov. 4th, 2006 01:59 am (UTC)
I like the Canon Rebel XT because it is about the same feel and weight as my 35mm film camera. It isn't a flat little thing, It's a full size camera. I love the way it felt in my hand the first time I held it.
Check out the Yellowstone photos and any other on flickr by my friend
tiwonge. Look at the ones from the Everglades of the alligator and the red-winged black bird in flight. Definitely look at the Yellowstone photos. They were all shot with the Rebel XT.

Price wise, the usual Best Buy price is $999.99 and I got mine for $200 off. I can't praise that camera enough. I was told by the sales person and shown the next better Canon camera and it was $1500. I can't justify that price for the amount of photos I will be taking. Now tiwonge has shots well over a thousand. If you want any info, he can tell you anything about the Rebel XT. Just tell him I referred you. He's a great guy and very friendly.
Nov. 4th, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC)
I'll second the above glowing reviews of the Canon Digital Rebel, especially the comments regarding the quality of the available lenses. I'll also add that I get absolutely amazing color values shooting in low-light conditions. Much of my photography lately has been nighttime studies in color and motion, and one of the reasons for this is that the Reb handles those difficult situations with such grace. With good GND and polarizing filters, it's also a very competent lightweight backpacking camera, and you know how difficult the light can be at 12,000 feet!
Nov. 5th, 2006 06:49 am (UTC)
Thanks, I've really heard nothing bad about the Rebel except the uncomfortable in big hands thing. As I said, it will come down to how big a check my unpaid vacation gives me. I'm not very good at waiting for these things once I've decided I want one.

Nov. 5th, 2006 11:07 am (UTC)
If the size really bothers you, you can get a vertical grip that also provides extra batter power in the future. A lot of people who have gotten one have stated that it made the camera feel much more comfortable to have the grip size increased this way.


Personally, I like the small size and it doesn't feel awkward to me at all. But I have medium/average sized hands. My former digital camera was much smaller so that might be a factor in how the Rebel feels to me.
Nov. 7th, 2006 04:41 am (UTC)
Looks like I'm the only Nikon fan here...

I've got both film and digital Nikon SLR's - an F3, an FM10 and a D70. I'm happy with all of them. The D70 is a hefty camera; you could kill someone with it if you needed to - it is by no means light and dainty. I understand that the D50 and D80 are smaller and more convenient. One of the major advantages to Nikon is that the F-type bayonet mount has not changed since 1959, meaning that you can use virtually any Nikon lens with your DSLR. This opens up the used market to you, usually allowing you to get equipment for cheap.

All that being said, you can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Both are superior cameras. Both have excellent optics. Try to get ED (extra low dispersion) glass in your lenses; it's more expensive, but it minimizes chromatic aberration. I have no experience with the Olympus DSLRs but I have an Olympus digital point and shoot that is a great little camera.

If you don't already, look at ordering your equipment online from B & H Photo or Adorama. They're usually cheaper and quick to deliver. I have ordered a bunch of stuff from Adorama and have never had any problems with them.

I do a lot of low light/astrophotography. The one major drawback to DSLR's is long exposures. Most if not all DSLR's have a noise reduction feature, as all sensors have hot pixels. I can get two 20 minute exposures with the D70 before the battery runs out. While there is a DC power port, when I'm doing extremely long exposures, I'm usually not anywhere near a power supply. For most long exposure shots, I end up using film (the F3).

Nov. 10th, 2006 06:34 am (UTC)
Re: Nikon
Thanks for the tip Anonymous one! B&H appears to have some really excellent prices!

( 24 comments — Leave a comment )


Wander aka StoneBear
Bear Dancer Studios

Latest Month

December 2016
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones