# Olympus vs. Nikon vs Canon?



## Katharina B. (Oct 7, 2007)

Hi everyone, Im new to this forum, this is my first post and ive got a pretty pressing issue to solve...

Which camera to buy?

I recieved a Konica Minolta Dimage X50 P&S from my parents two years ago, and now I want to buy a dslr, seeing as Im really interested in photography. Theres a couple Ive tried out, and for two months ive been debating on which one to get. The problem is that new ones keep coming out, and getting better! typical technology... 

Possible Cameras?
-Nikon D300
-Canon 40D
-Olympus 510
-Panasonic L10 (not out yet)
-Olympus E-3 (rumoured)

Im leaning very heavily towards the Olympus 510 with kit lenses 14-42 mm & 40-150 mm, seeing as the whole kit would be very well priced and the kit lenses are said to be of very high quality. The olympus also has IS, the most effective Dust Removal system, and an LCD featuring live view, which are 3 aspects that are quite important, and appealing to me. The downsides? The fly-by wire manual focusing, the fact that the small sensor doesnt allow very shallow depth of field, and Im not sure about the 4/3 system, if it's a good one to invest in, seeing as the range of affordable lenses is quite narrow. This wont really be a problem though, seeing as Im not a professional, and am just thinking of buying a macro and maybe a teleconverter for longer focal lengths. The compactness and light weight of this camera also is a leading factor in my decision. 

The new Canon 40D and Nikon D300 are also quite interesting, but are obviously in a different class, both in price and in ability. I am willing to invest in one of these better bodies, although Im considering that lenses are very expensive, and I, as a beginner, wont really be needing such good bodies yet. This led me to the Nikon D300 ,as my father used to do lots of photography with a variety of cameras, and has a couple of Nikon lenses that I would be able to use . This would be a smart choice, because then I would have quite a 'large' choice of lenses to use, (even though they cant AF). The upsides to both these cameras are: quicker shutter speeds, live view (very important to me), larger screens (Nikon has screen with 920,000 resolution), better viewfinders, higher fps, and more autofocus points. THe Nikon menu is also very user-friendly and easy to use. The downsides: No IS, and noticeably heavier and less compact than olympus.

Other possiblities would be the Panasonic L10, or the rumoured E-3 to released on October 17. If it will be better, but have all the positive points of the 510, and maybe even be more compact than the Nikon D300, and Canon 40D, price would not be a huge issue, yet availability will.

Im flying to Toronto and then California on October 20, and for this trip Id like to have my dslr already, either bought here in europe, or at the beginning of the trip in toronto.

Any opinions on the cameras? is it worth waiting for the E3 rather than buy the 510?
 Thanks in advance!
Katharina

(Ill be posting images from my curent camera soon)


----------



## jon_k (Oct 7, 2007)

Hello,

I've got an Olympus E-500. I'd upgrade to the e-510, but I'm waiting to see what the E-3 has to offer first, then I'll decide.

The advantages to four-thirds:
Small bodies, large DOF with smaller sensor, lighter lenses

The disadvantages:
If your one of those pixel peepers who judge a system by its 100% image view, you'll have a fit about noise, especially over ISO 200.

I'm pretty sure everyone here will come on with 101 reasons why you should buy Canon or Nikon. Noise is the biggest arguement. We hear all the time that Olympus has too small a sensor, high ISO noise, not enough primes and a poor lens selection!

*Lenses...*
They have a good range regarding to zooms, but i would like to see more primes; thats the area where Olympus is still weak. To fill my prime fetish, I use OM, Hexanon and Pentax manual lenses with manual focus.

Here's the full 4/3 lens lineup if you haven't seen it. The one on Olympus's website isn't complete. This site has a full list of all the lenses for the 4/3 system.
http://four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

*As for the noise complaints...*
Tell me the Four Thirds system is trash after visiting this link. http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/oly-e/e510-fs.html

The noise performance isn't as good as Nikons offerings, but it surely isn't a reason to not buy the system. Unless your in poorly lit gyms or poorly lit chapels, the noise isn't an issue at all.

*The best photographers use Nikon or Canon*
I've seen beautiful pictures taken with an old E-1 body. Check these out:
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=1773259&include=all

*The legacy support is horrible*
The E- system is able to use the most amount of legacy lenses ever. The flange distance for the 4/3 system is most compatible with the 35mm lenses. The only 35mm lenses that won't work are the old Canon lenses. The converter rings are on eBay like crazy. If you have any 35mm lenses, chances are they'll work on your E- body. Although some converters haven't been made yet, so you may have to modify the mount for the E- body. That's what I've done with my Konica AR lenses.

*My opinion*
I've been using this system for quite a while and I have no regrets. I've noticed people get into wars when you ask things like you did with a thread like this. Everyone wants to justify why they spent a load of cash on their system. Luckily, I spent less money on my system than someone would have for the same equipment with Nikon or Canon as Olympus is more on the budget end of things.

I've gone to about 20 or 30 photo meetups I've arranged with other photographers and people bring their heavy white glass and other items. When I pull out my old Kenko 840-1600mm lens peoples jaws drop when I tell them the focal length when they're glass is just as long with half the focal length. That reaction makes the system worth using alone.

I've never had buyers remorse or ever really wish I had a Nikon or Canon. I've never found a situation where 4/3 has hindered my pictures or my creative ability. If you learn your camera, you can take good pictures regardless what the name on the body is.

You making your choice will be a hard one because you'll soon get a lot of counter-arguments to my arguments and it'll be easy to make your head spin with what people are going to say here. Unfortunately there isn't many Olympus users on this forum, so there's going to be much more arguements for Nikon and Canon offerings.


----------



## photogincollege (Oct 7, 2007)

I am a nikon and canon man myself, but as jon said unless your really worried about noise, i am because i like concerts and very low light no flash at all situations and little room for tripods this is an issue for me but if you dont have a problem with that and you like the feel and compactness of the olympus then get the olympus, don't let us sway you by what we like, get what you like, you'll be happier with the choice, any of those will still take great photo's.


----------



## jon_k (Oct 7, 2007)

I'd like to add another thing about your wonderance about the DOF

There's about a stop of difference in DOF between APS-C and 4/3. Add another stop of difference with Full-frame. So, if you use a tele to get subject isolation, as in sports and many other aplications, the bigger formats has an advantage.

Although 4/3 clearly has an advantage because you can get more tele with less focal length. (2x crop) ;-) If more DOF is the goal, then 4/3 has the advantage. 

For quite some time, folks have been complaining about the drawbacks of vignetting and soft corners with the FF medium in the dpreview forums. This could be an issue to consider. Full frame also costs more and bigger body/heavier.

APS-C might be something to consider but it's only a tad bit larger than 4/3 when you compare the two against the full frame format.


----------



## Patrice (Oct 7, 2007)

Except for a very few and some really old ones, almost every lens that Nikon has ever made will work on a D300 or D200. This means that a large selection of reasonably priced second hand lenses is available.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 7, 2007)

I'm a Nikon user and will be happy to upgrade to another Nikon.


----------



## Alex_B (Oct 8, 2007)

errm, I always considered larger DOF one of the downsides of APS-C and smaller formats ... people buy expensive wide aperture lenses just to get the DOF shallow ...


----------



## RyanLilly (Oct 8, 2007)

If you think You like the Olympus ,go for it. But the selection on Nikon lenses you father has might make the Nikon worthwhile. Personally I shoot with an OLD Olympus E-10 fixed lens SLR. It was a Pretty good Cam back in 2001, and I still get some great shots today. I will probably be Buying an new Canon 40d and lenses. But For you I think its between the Olympus and Nikon, which ever way will probably serve you well.

I would not worry about physical size; between a P&S and a SLR is a big step, but from SLR to SLR, especially if you are carrying extra lenses and gear, a bit bigger or smaller, doesn't make that much difference overall. IMO


----------



## jon_k (Oct 8, 2007)

RyanLilly said:


> But the selection on Nikon lenses you father has might make the Nikon worthwhile.



There's many many Nikon to 4/3 adapters that can be had on ebay to convert Nikon lenses to mount on 4/3 cameras.

AF won't work, of course, but they will work fine with infinity focus etc.

Word of advice if you do any MF on an Olympus body is to get a split prism focus screen installed. That's what I plan to do. The naked eye can only manually focus so well.


----------



## JIP (Oct 8, 2007)

Honestly, if you are thinking of buying something in the class of a D300 or a 40D you would do best to stay with a Nikon or a Canon.  Some people are sooo adamant about the quality and future of Olympus or even Sony Dslr's but a good way to judge is to look at the past.


----------



## jon_k (Oct 9, 2007)

JIP said:


> Honestly, if you are thinking of buying something in the class of a D300 or a 40D you would do best to stay with a Nikon or a Canon.  Some people are sooo adamant about the quality and future of Olympus or even Sony Dslr's but a good way to judge is to look at the past.



What's wrong with Olympus's past? The OM line of cameras was amazing and had the best Macro equipment out there. A nice bellows system, plenty of nice primes, micro stands, the lens selection was wonderful. They had a pretty wide range of zooms on the wide and long ends too. Pro's and amateurs alike enjoyed the system and the range of cameras. 

4/3 was a new system that Olympus designed from the ground up for the digital age while keeping in mind computability with legacy systems (which is accomplished with a very short flange-to-film distance.) This is why the flange distance is compatible with most all film-lenses. 

4/3 was a joint effort with partners such as sigma, kodak, and panasonic. The system is only 4 years old, so you can't blame it for its currently small digital lens selection. If the OM system is any indication, within the next 5 years the lens selection should be pretty attractive and many Canon or Nikon users might even switch to Olympus. Even Leica has come on board with designing a few lenses, and plans to design more.

You have to remember the reason Olympus ditched OM for the 4/3 is because they were one of the very first users into the Digital SLR market and they felt that designing a new system would be best for image quality rather than working a digital system around lenses designed with film standards in mind. Many other players decided to keep support for their legacy systems and that eased the blow for many going from film to digital.

I think it's a system that can only grow from here. If Olympus can make some good bodies that entice the pro's, the system can really take off and break the chains of the consumer market. I hope this doesn't sound like marketing fluff. I hate marketing fluff. But the thought that 4/3 has no future, or that Olympus has no track record in the past just isn't true.

If I thought 4/3 was going to disappear in a few years I'd have already sold all my equipment and jumped to Nikon. Fortunately, with Kodak, Fuji, Leica, Panasonic, Sanyo and Sigma on board as 4/3 partners I doubt the system is going to disappear anytime soon.

Whichever system you decide to go with in the end, please post back here and let us know! Don't leave us hanging! We want to know too!


----------



## RyanLilly (Oct 9, 2007)

Canon=Coca-Cola
Nikon= Pepsi
Olympus= RC Cola


----------



## usayit (Oct 9, 2007)

Pentax = Dr Pepper?
Leica = wine?


----------



## Keagle (Oct 9, 2007)

Very....apt? Description there usayit!


----------



## JIP (Oct 9, 2007)

jon_k said:


> What's wrong with Olympus's past? The OM line of cameras was amazing and had the best Macro equipment out there. A nice bellows system, plenty of nice primes, micro stands, the lens selection was wonderful. They had a pretty wide range of zooms on the wide and long ends too. Pro's and amateurs alike enjoyed the system and the range of cameras.
> 
> 4/3 was a new system that Olympus designed from the ground up for the digital age while keeping in mind computability with legacy systems (which is accomplished with a very short flange-to-film distance.) This is why the flange distance is compatible with most all film-lenses.
> 
> ...


 
YAK! YAK! YAK!

Just keep talking............  

 Nikon and Canon are more stable than Olympus, Minolta, Sony or whatever company you want to name that also just jumped onto the DSLR bandwagon in the last few years when they started selling better.  Personally I think anyone who is pro and decided to go other than the big 2 are going to regret it (or mabye already do hence the defensiveness).


----------



## jon_k (Oct 9, 2007)

JIP said:


> YAK! YAK! YAK!
> 
> Just keep talking............
> 
> Nikon and Canon are more stable than Olympus, Minolta, Sony or whatever company you want to name that also just jumped onto the DSLR bandwagon in the last few years when they started selling better.  Personally I think anyone who is pro and decided to go other than the big 2 are going to regret it (or mabye already do hence the defensiveness).



Haha.

Well, for me most of my shooting is for street photography and landscapes. Weight is a big issue for me, that has driven my choice of Olympus.

I was at the local camera store on Friday when they had a nikon rep there to show off Nikon's new stuff. He had about 15 lenses and bodies to  try out.

I was Stunned to see how huge and heavy the Nikon 200 F2.0 lens with D200/batt grip was. It felt as if it were at least ten pounds or more. Not something I would want to handhold for very long! The lens is actually 6.4 pounds, not sure about the camera. For a 300 equiv. F2 I would much rather have the Olympus Zuiko 150 F2.0 paired with the E-510 or upcoming E-3. Even though my 7-14 seems heavy for a wide angle, holding the Nikon really made me appreciate the weight savings benefits Olympus has at the Tele end.

The Nikon D200 is also *much* more expensive!

As a sidenote, the Canon 200mm f/1.8 is even heavier (though there isn't a real equivalent for that in the Olympus line) but I wouldn't leave home without a huge sturdy monopod with that beast.

I've been eyeballing the other big players, but nothing warranted jumping over the fence yet.


----------



## Katharina B. (Oct 10, 2007)

Hey everyone thanks so much for all the comments & replies, it really cleared some things up for me. Ive been trying to reply for a while but my stupid slow computer keeps freezing everytime i try to upload pictures onto photobucket, so thats not really going to work. 

Anyway, i decided to go with the Olympus e510! Its price, compactness and generally good feel led me to this decision, and because I simply cant wait any longer for new models. If the E1 ever comes out, itll be expensive at first, maybe without as good a kit as the e510 has. And anyway, there are always going to be better cameras coming out, i could wait forever, thinking that the next model might be more suitable. The considered 40d and d300 are too advanced for me at this stage, as this camera will be my first slr. And ok, maybe the professionals use canon & Nikon cameras, but Im just a beginner, and being a pro is a long way off!

Im ordering the Olympus e510 tomorrow with the double kit, and ill look into buying an adapter for it to convert Nikon lenses to 4/3 (before I didnt even know they existed). Ill post pictures (if it works!) and my experience with it around the beginning of nov. when I return from my trip to America!


So thanks again for helping my decision, I definently wont regret it!

Cya, Katharina


----------



## jon_k (Oct 10, 2007)

Really cool!

I'd love to upgrade my e-500 to an e-510. The image stabilization sounds nice! I think I'll wait for the prices of the e-3 to come down though and snag that.

As for your Nikon lenses with a converter ring, good stuff. I've got an OM lense to 4/3 adapter... and a T mount to 4/3 adapter.

I also have a bunch of Konica lenses, but there is no 4/3 adapter, so I'm in the process of modifying them to fit on the 4/3 mount. The first lens I've converted has been a success, very sharp pictures.

Just a word of advice with the legacy lenses. They look great on the cameras but it's very hard to focus with the E-500/510 because there is no focus assistance. You're basically looking in a tiny screen trying to focus.

The old film cameras use to have a split focus prism to help you... and fortunately you can purchase those focus screens for the E-510 as well!

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Olympus-DSLRs--cat_olympus.html

Katz Eye is the most reputable seller of these focus screens... but also the most expensive. They also offer services for installation if you are weary about poking around inside your body.

I just ordered a focus screen from hong kong for $20 off eBay. I'm not too worried about doing the installation, I've seen videos of other people doing it, and if I break my E-500 then that's the excuse I'd need to get the E-510.

I really hope you enjoy the camera. I love mine. Canon and Nikon users can say all they want, but I've used cameras from them and Olympus makes taking pictures fun vs the other guys.


----------



## JIP (Oct 10, 2007)

jon_k said:


> I really hope you enjoy the camera. I love mine. Canon and Nikon users can say all they want, but I've used cameras from them and *Olympus makes taking pictures fun vs the other guys*.


 
I just want to know what exactly does Olympus do to "make taking pictues fun vs. the other guys" I don't get this.  That seems like kind of a weird thing to say well mabye not weird but I just don't understand it.


----------



## Sideburns (Oct 10, 2007)

See, I wouldn't order an Olympus, but that's just me.  If you enjoy taking pictures, you're all good.

Me personally, I would go with either the Nikon or the Canon.  Either one is good (I'm not a Canon fanboy even though I have Canon).  See the thing is...they aren't going anywhere, and their lens system is VERY complete.  Both companies have every focal length covered at least 3 or 4 times...you have so many options.  That's one thing I love about the big two.

Just trying to save you trouble down the road.  You COULD upgrade to another Olympus, but I dono...my feeling would tend to say you'd upgrade to either a Canon or Nikon...and then you'd have to buy all new gear.

Either way it doesn't matter to me.  If you get the Olympus and you are happy and you take nice pictures...more power to ya, and prove us wrong!


----------



## jon_k (Oct 10, 2007)

JIP said:


> I just want to know what exactly does Olympus do to "make taking pictues fun vs. the other guys" I don't get this.  That seems like kind of a weird thing to say well mabye not weird but I just don't understand it.



I've not studied all the options in the Nikon line, and even less in the Canon line... but I've noticed that to get to certain stuff you have to hit the MENU button and dig around for stuff. E.G. This one ladies camera had ISO, AEL, and metering buttons on the body... but she didn't like how it kept focusing continually. I looked all over the body and finally found only in the menu the ability to turn off continuous focus mode and set it to single focus mode.

I was somewhat surprised because my body has buttons for all of those functions. As for the full frame bodies, they're heavy. I notice they have some bulk with them. I don't want to feel like I'm working out when carrying a camera. APS-C is much much better, but APS-C sensors are only a tad larger than 4/3. I also like the 4/3 aspect ratio due to the type of crops I usually do.

If I went pro, I'd go Nikon. Great high ISO... and other goodies. As-is I'm doing fine with Olympus. It's just a hobby for me now. The lens selection covers pretty much all I can think of. I've got too many lenses as it is I think, but lens lust has me buying more and more.

Olympus /is/ filling in the lens selection and creating "budget" copies of lenses that are only pro at the time being. Take a look at their lens roadmap for 2007-2008. I don't want to sell my stuff and pay twice as much on *L * glass.

Olympus isn't the #1 camera company, but I'm not buying stuff for name recognition. I buy products for 1) price 2) ease of use 3) features you get for your money. Olympus wins on all 3 I believe. They're only a step behind the latest and greatest specs sometimes, but thats to be understood with what you pay. In other ways they are a step ahead.

I am /not/ a pixel peeper who cares about megapixels, or if I have 400 focus points, or low grain at ISO 960000. I don't want to spend $3,200 on a body for features like this. I enjoy what I have, and I'm not shooting with my body to impress anyone.

Way too many "other" users brag to me about tech specs...When I get the prints back, it looks just as good as theirs, and at a fraction of the cost (without an L lens, or some expensive IS lens) If people are that interested in specs they ought to earn ultimate bragging rights with the Hasselblad H3D II 39 megapixel Digital Camera Kit. The body only costs $33,995.00 after all. I wonder if an 4x5 print from that camera would look any better from a 4x5 made by my E-500.:lmao:

Maybe I /should/ sell all  my Olympus gear and go to Canon. Like. Right now. But I have a feeling my pictures would look no better for what I do with my camera, and I'd probably end up paying more for good glass than I did originally with my Olympus system.

Some people have the most fun shooting with Holgas, some have the most fun shooting Leica... and some have the most fun shooting with Olympus. Some of you guys act like Olympus is a few steps from filing bankruptcy and that Canon and Nikon are gods. Their SLR camera division is very profitable, there are more who use it then you might think. I do not believe the SLR system from Olympus is going to disappear anytime soon.


----------



## usayit (Oct 10, 2007)

jon_k said:


> Canon and Nikon users can say all they want, but I've used cameras from them and Olympus *makes taking pictures fun vs the other guys.*



HEY! thats what us Leica shooters say all the time... lol

Honestly.. buy what feels comfortable and shoot.  That is what counts.

If for some luckiness you go professional, then you continue to shoot with what you have because it helped you go professional.  If and when you "outgrow" your system, then decide where to go next... heck... you might even get your next system for free... via some sort of sponsorship.


----------



## lordson (Oct 16, 2007)

all this time when i read the word "noise" when people talk about cameras

i though it meant how loud the "click" sound was when people take a shot

lol


----------



## Campbell (Oct 16, 2007)

I'm really happy with my E-500 as my first DSLR. It was affordably priced with the 2 lenses it came with and is very user friendly. Couldn't have asked for more in my first camera. Perhaps I'll upgrade my body to an E-500 or E-3 when I get the money, but I'm happy with what I have now.

Maybe somewhere down the road I'll venture into Nikon or Canon, but I'm content for now.


----------

