Camera people, help me out please - I’m looking to get a Digital SLR for some amateur sports photography. The Canon Digital Rebel seems to be highly recommended here, but what about this one…it’s the Olympus E500, and currently comes with two lenses. It’s on sale right now for about $600US. Here’s some information - any opinions would be great, as I don’t know a ton about digital SLR’s. Worth it, or keep looking at the Canon?
**Olympus Evolt E500 - 8.0MP **
This fantastic SLR kit from Olympus ships with two lenses for the best shots in any condition.
A pristine Zuiko 14 - 45mm lens for wide angle shooting and a 40 - 150mm lens for telephoto applications means that you’re prepared no matter what the shot might be. A Supersonic Wave Filter eliminates the dust and debris gathered inside the camera body on the 8.0MP CCD. Images captured are vivid with a full range of colour, contrast and detail.
The camera body supports 25 shooting modes total: 15 selectable scene modes and 10 exposure modes. After the shot you can check out your work on the gorgeous 2.5" HyperCrystal LCD - the 160 degree viewing angle and unique construction makes it more visible than ever before. Choose your media, either xD memory or Compact Flash - or both!
The Olympus E-volt E500 dual lens kit is a great choice in a digital SLR.
14-45mm f3.5-5.6 Lens
Sturdy and versatile lens delivers stunning images even as close as 15 inches.
40-150mm f3.5-4.5 Lens
This portable lens with a 3.8x zoom is perfect for Sports and Portrait photography.
35mm Equivalent Zoom 28mm - 300mm
Aperture Range f/3.5 - f/2.2
Auto OFF Mode Yes
Autofocus System TTL
Battery Type Rechargeable Lithium-Ion
Built-In or External Flash Built-In
Burst Mode 2.5fps
Digital Media Type CompactFlash, xD Card
Digital Sensor Size 17.3 x 13.0mm
Digital Zoom No
Effective Image Size of Digital Sensor 8.0MP
Exposure Compensation +/- 5EV In 1, 1/2, 1/3 Steps
Exposure Metering System Digital ESP, Centre Weighted Average
File Formats RAW, TIFF, JPEG
Flash Range Guide #13
Focus Range EV 0 - 19 (ISO 100)
Internal Memory None For Image Capture
ISO Rating 100 - 1600
LCD Monitor Size 2.5" HyperCrystal
Optical Zoom 3.8X
Playback Menu Yes
Self-Timer Yes
Shutter Speed 1/4000 - 2 Seconds, up to 8min. Bulb
Are you looking at the Rebel XTi? If so, Popular Photography just reviewed it. Bottom line: “No, it’s not a bulletproof tank, and some of the control buttons are just barely up from point-and-shoot. But given the image quality, autofocusing, fast shooting, and exposure controls, it’s not just a great deal, it’s a screaming, bloody, great deal.”
The reviewer writes that the picture quality is right up there with the more pricey Nikon D80 and better than the Sony A100. Good luck! I have the Rebel XT; it’s a blast.
Get the Rebel XTi. Canon’s lenses are better across the range. Even the cheap $90 50mm f1.8 is as good as any of the Olympus glass. The e-Volt is good for studio applications…but the Canon is lighter and a better all-around shooter. That said, DON’T get the kit lens with the Canon. That lens sucks and will make you think the Olympus is better.
If you can’t go for the Canon…go for the Nikon D50…again…because Nikon’s glass is better across the range than Olympus. Olympus makes some good fixed-lenses…but most consumers go for zooms…and both Canon and Nikon beat the consumer field on those lenses.
Buy an SLR for the lens possibilities…not the body…
I have a Nikon D50…its awesome. I’ve had 11x14 prints made from JPEGs I shot with it. If you can afford to, I would go with the D80, but the D50 is still a really good camera.
Are you looking at the Rebel XTi?
I’m looking at the Rebel XT - it comes in at about $600US while the XTi is $850 or so. There are so many good things said about the Rebel XT, that I’d like to stick in that price range since I know I can get a good camera with the XT. Just wonderring if the Olympus looked good or not in comparison.
I agree - you simply cannot go wrong with a Nikon - I have 2 Nikon cameras right now and love them. Have used them for web photos, posters, prints - they offer a lot of setting choices and take top quality pix.
I’m partial but i don;t think it’s really worth it.
Both Nikon and Canon make very impressive products and if you look at what most sports photographers shoot it’s no wonder you don’t see much other than those 2 brands…
I’ve owned 2 Canon SLRs, and 4 Nikon SLRs… 2 of them Digital…
Here are some thoughts…
Canon makes products much like comuter companies make software… always cutting edge and they really push what DSLRs have to offer… Nikon however is always catching up, but not in a Bad way. Nikon focuses on more mechanics in their equipment rather than circuitry… When you lift both you can tell… much more metal machinery in the Nikons…
Also, Canon makes a new mid range D-SLR every 7 months… while Nikon takes their time… look at the value of the Rebel XT compared to the Nikon N65… they are both more than 3 years old but the nikon keeps it’s value much longer…
I’m not sure if this helps, but they are some thoughts to keep in mind.
Lastly… nikons are slightly bigger…so if you have very small hands the nikon may be a bit awkward…
I’d say hold as many SLRs as you can and see which one feels right… it may sound stupid but it makes a difference.
Been using mine for a year w/ a standard 70-300mm zoom. If you’re looking for sample images shot w/ the camera, feel free to check out my online album: http://www.msadventures.photosite.com/
Just my total amateurish opinion:
-Since your application is amateur sports photography, just make sure these’re your requirements:
sports photography implied you can’t get close enough to the subject. You’ve to shot from distance away. Therefore zoom is a requirement. Am I correct?
Sports photography implied the subject is moving, such as cycling. So you need fast lens as well as anti-shake technology for compenssate for zoom. Correct?
I was in your situation not long ago. I was deciding between Nikon d50 and Cannon rebel xti. I settled with Nikon d50 which I regret. Not because there’s anything wrong with d50. In fact d50 has a slight edge over Rebel. However, later down the road, I find out the above 2 requirements and I start shopping for lenses. Nikon sell a 18-200 VR lenses for $950 (if you can get them), the similar lens from Canon (with IS) only cost half of what Nikon is asking. I can accomplish 1) and 2) for about $1k on Canon solution and $1.5k on Nikon. I wish I had gone with the Canon solution because of the lens price. Lately I also find out I can accomplish 1) and 2) on another brand with much lesser cost. I find a Pentax DSLR with build-in antishake and a very reasonable cost fast zoom (checkout buydig.com).
If I get to start over again, I would go with Pentax solution. All the above DSLR would give you superior picture quality.
It’s the lenses that satisfy your application that you should paying attention, not the camera body.
Just my 2cents…
Get the kit lens and then when you save up some get the 70-200f4 L-series lens. The majority of the pictures on my blog are taken with that lens so you can check them out. Look at my '05 blog for pictures I took during the tour, then both blogs for the soccer and bike racing shots I took of my kids. XTi with that lens will blow you away!
XTi … end of discussion. Get the kit lens and then when you save up some get the 70-200f4 L-series lens. The majority of the pictures on my blog are taken with that lens so you can check them out. XTi with that lens will blow you away!
Are your pics taken with the XTi?
Just my total amateurish opinion:
-Since your application is amateur sports photography, just make sure these’re your requirements:
sports photography implied you can’t get close enough to the subject. You’ve to shot from distance away. Therefore zoom is a requirement. Am I correct?
Sports photography implied the subject is moving, such as cycling. So you need fast lens as well as anti-shake technology for compenssate for zoom. Correct?
I was in your situation not long ago. I was deciding between Nikon d50 and Cannon rebel xti. I settled with Nikon d50 which I regret. Not because there’s anything wrong with d50. In fact d50 has a slight edge over Rebel. However, later down the road, I find out the above 2 requirements and I start shopping for lenses. Nikon sell a 18-200 VR lenses for $950 (if you can get them), the similar lens from Canon (with IS) only cost half of what Nikon is asking. I can accomplish 1) and 2) for about $1k on Canon solution and $1.5k on Nikon. I wish I had gone with the Canon solution because of the lens price. Lately I also find out I can accomplish 1) and 2) on another brand with much lesser cost. I find a Pentax DSLR with build-in antishake and a very reasonable cost fast zoom (checkout buydig.com).
If I get to start over again, I would go with Pentax solution. All the above DSLR would give you superior picture quality.
It’s the lenses that satisfy your application that you should paying attention, not the camera body.
Just my 2cents…
All-in-one lenses like the 18-200 are always a compromise and I don’t recommend them. The 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 IS or Non-IS are the gold-standards. IS adds a lot of size and cost to the lens and is not necessary for amateurs. My 70-200 is non IS and I’ve never had blurry shots.
In that price range, I would take a serious look at the new Nikon D40. It is basically a replacement for the D50, and it is even cheaper and better in many ways, especially with the rear LCD.
Here is a good site for reviews of Nikon’s cameras and lenses. Also Canon reviews.
The site has a lot of good info on other camera topics as well, including a good summary of why vibration reduction (VR aka IS) is important…although if you will be using the camera mostly on sunny days or with a flash indoors, it may not matter as much. Poke around…
#1. The bodies are solid. They aren’t light weight, but they aren’t made of plastic. There is a serious frame inside a Nikon. A Nikon body will take a beating without resulting in light leaks, cracked prisms, stuck lenses, or whatnot. The innards stay in place as they should. Trust me. I’ve been too close to the action before. I’ve broken ribs in a photo shoot. The camera was fine. I was left panhandling for pain pills.
#2. All Nikon lenses fit and function on all Nikon bodies. This means you have access to a huge aftermarket/used selection of great deals. A 30 year old manual lens will still work on your shiny new auto focus digital body. The auto focus won’t (the old lens lacks the motors) but it will still meter and manual focus with clarity and poise. This means if you get some idea for a super shot, you can go pick up an old lens (amazing craftsmanship in some of the old glass) for chump change. You don’t need the $400 lens of the month to test an idea. And, you can always upgrade an individual component in you kit without sacrificing the entire package.
#3. Image quality is second to none. More dynamic range where it counts. Don’t just count pixels. Nikon gives you better, cleaner, pixels throughout the frame. I’ve trusted the meetering in some pretty wacky situations and it’s not let me down.
It’s nothing for me to shoot a 100-300 frames on a weekend. I’ve had the luck of being flown cross-country and stuck in hotels just because people wanted me to document an event. I’ve even had magazine photo editors email me with requests. When the digital revolution began, many of my fellows went Canon. Canons are good and cheap. But I’ve seen those shooters have issues with their cameras over time. In the last few months I’ve even seen two Canon shooters go back to their film kits due to frustration. Nikon’s aren’t cheap. Quality seldom is.