Winner - Best Inexpensive DSLR

[dc2]

Maybe someone will disagree with me here but I find most of the mags in the UK seem to be more favorable to wards canon than anything else on the market.

[dougjgreen]

What I found most interesting is, it appeared to me objectively on close examination of the results, that the Olympus outperformed the Canon and the others, slightly, yet they declared the Canon the winner.

I say that as someone who has a stake in neither one - I'm in the Nikon system, but my DSLR is a Kodak DCS-760 (which is an older, pro-level camera built into an F5 body).

[JKSeidel]

After seeing some of the shots Oly users have posted on here and on PBase, I have to say that I am both surprised and very impressed with their output. For a manufacturer that never gets mentioned in the same breath as Canon or Nikon, I'm finding it startling that Olympus isn't creating more of a buzz. I'm heavily invested in Canon gear, but Oly would certainly seem like a very viable choice if I had to start over.

[dougjgreen]

The reason Olympus' SLR system has not created a buzz, is that they made a decision NOT to leverage the OM lensmount on their 4/3 system. It's possible to use these lenses on the Olympus DSLRs with an adapter, but Oly never encouraged this, and never widely publicized this capability. So, unlike Canon and Nikon, and Pentax and even Minolta, they entered the DSLR market without much if any captive audience who already had an investment in their system.

So, even if their cameras were competitive or even slightly superior to the competition, on their own, they were not compelling to any photographer who already had an investment in another system for film use. I certainly might have bought an E-1 a year ago if the OM-mount adapter had been widely available. I was already a satisfied owner of an E-10.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

The reason Olympus' SLR system has not created a buzz, is that they made a decision NOT to leverage the OM lensmount on their 4/3 system.* It's possible to use these lenses on the Olympus DSLRs with an adapter, but Oly never encouraged this, and never widely publicized this capability.* So, unlike Canon and Nikon, and Pentax and even Minolta, they entered the DSLR market without much if any captive audience who already had an investment in their system.*

So, even if their cameras were competitive or even slightly superior to the competition, on their own, they were not compelling to any photographer who already had an investment in another system for film use.* *I certainly might have bought an E-1 a year ago* if the OM-mount adapter had been widely available.* I was already a satisfied owner of an E-10.

Hmm, not sure about that. I use the OM lenses on an E-1, and frankly they are not as good as the current offerings.

The main reason in my view is that Oly spent a long time out of the SLR market, and so started with a clean slate which allowed them to develop a complete digital system. I personally welcome that decision, and the E-x system is really rather good and often doesn't get the attention it deserves. It's pretty popular for a new starter and seems to be growing.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Well that has changed with the March Edition of the magazine – they review low end DSLR’s – ($600-$800) and they actually chose an overall best pick – the Canon Rebel XT. Good for them – not because they chose a Canon (but that is good too) but because they actually CHOSE something!!

You still read Pop Photo?

I would still wonder how meaningful the results were, not necessarily because they chose the Canon but because of the generally widespread partisanship in choosing and writing about dSLR systems generally. I'm beginning to wonder if a person exists who can be shown to be both knowledgeable and impartial on this issue. :P

Psychologists, medical researchers, opinion surveyers, and the like have been contending with that issue for many years. To be well-respected or even to be considered valid, research in these areas incorporate special techniques and controls to combat the tendency toward partisanship - and even they slip up occasionally. In this instance, I would wonder, for instance, if the pictures being judged in the image quality part were even single blind (the judges cannot know beforehand which images came from what kind of camera). In more tightly controlled experiements, double blind test are called for, where not only the judges but also people who interact with them during the judging process, e.g., who hand the judges the photos, are also kept in the dark about which images came from what camera. Of course, this would be impossible if the judges were also the photographers who shot the pictures.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Paul

Hmm, not sure about that. I use the OM lenses on an E-1, and frankly they are not as good as the current offerings.

The main reason in my view is that Oly spent a long time out of the SLR market, and so started with a clean slate which allowed them to develop a complete digital system. I personally welcome that decision, and the E-x system is really rather good and often doesn't get the attention it deserves. It's pretty popular for a new starter and seems to be growing.

I don't dispute that Olympus may have made a legitimate decision, based on their view that the OM lenses wouldn't provide the quality and/or ergonomics that Oly was looking for in their 4/3 system. However, my comment was based on why they didn't have buzz in the marketplace. They might have made the right engineering decision, but the wrong business decision. There is no question that the E-1 was a better camera than it's sales warranted. Another marketing gaffe that Olympus made in the E-1 was in failing to realize that 5 Million really good pixels is a very tough sell against 6 million or 8 million average pixels, even when the technical merits are justifiable. They finally figured this one out, however it left them in the strange position that their top-end camera had lesser specs than their consumer cameras.

The fact that they have not followed up the E-1 with another pro body in well over 2 years seems to indicate an understanding that they can't compete in that space with Nikon and Canon. OTOH, from what I've seen, the E-500 is also a superb camera that is targeted to a market space where Oly can possibly be more successful. But, because of the lensmount decision, they don't have an installed base to build on.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

I don't dispute that Olympus may have made a legitimate decision, based on their view that the OM lenses wouldn't provide the quality and/or ergonomics that Oly was looking for in their 4/3 system. However, my comment was based on why they didn't have buzz in the marketplace. They might have made the right engineering decision, but the wrong business decision.

But it would have been pretty much impossible for them to carry over the OM format in this day and age. The OM lenses had no AF for a start. It would have been a disaster surely. If you want to use the decades old OM lenses, then Olympus did hand out a free adapter (at first, now available for around $100 or less).

There is no question that the E-1 was a better camera than it's sales warranted. Another marketing gaffe that Olympus made in the E-1 was in failing to realize that 5 Million really good pixels is a very tough sell against 6 million or 8 million average pixels, even when the technical merits are justifiable. They finally figured this one out, however it left them in the strange position that their top-end camera had lesser specs than their consumer cameras.

Totally agree on pixels. They quickly looked out of step when other pro build DSLRs came out soon after with more. I think 5 million great pixels is better than 8 or 10 million mediocre.

The fact that they have not followed up the E-1 with another pro body in well over 2 years seems to indicate an understanding that they can't compete in that space with Nikon and Canon. OTOH, from what I've seen, the E-500 is also a superb camera that is targeted to a market space where Oly can possibly be more successful.

I think a lot of people who get into the Olympus concept would agree about the delays over a major upgrade of their flagship model. Still, they should have something this year and we get too caught up in the Canon way of constantly releasing models (no offense to Canon, but people now expect yearly updates whether they need it or not). Personally, I feel there is still a lot of life left in a 5.5mp pro-spec DSLR, which can now be picked up new for the price of a Canon 350D .

But, because of the lensmount decision, they don't have an installed base to build on.

But the installed base would be people who hadn't had a new OM release for a decade or so. I really don't think that base was worth catering for (or even if it was possible to cater for them). What I have found, however, is that Olympus users are pretty loyal and there are a lot of OM users who moved to the E-1. May not be so noticeable on some sites or in some areas, but certainly seems quite a popular model amongst Europeans from what I've seen. There will always be a market for quality cameras and lenses and innovative features. I hope that Olympus don't just try and compete directly with Canon/Nikon - I think they understand their userbase better than that.

[Nikonfreak]

I believe that lots of reviews and winners might be based on advertising dollars depending on the magazine it is.

The competition is good though. It keeps everyone on their toes. Ultimately we, the consumers, are the winners from these camera contests as we end up with better products overall from all competitors trying to out-do each other.

Julio

[dougjgreen]

Paul, I don't feel that Olympus should have used the OM-mount for their new system. I just believe that they should have been much more aggressive about marketing the OM-mount adapter. For the longest time, they never even officially acknowledged it's availability. I kept hearing that it was out of stock and wouldn't become available again. At the time I considered buying an E-1, about a year and a half ago, I could not get a straight answer from Olympus about the availability of the adapter - and the dealers did not have it around. (I own Zuiko lenses in 28, 50, and 70-200 focal lengths, as well as have Tamron adaptalls for other lengths such as 17mm and 90mm Macro).

The fact is, because I could not get a straight answer about this OM to 4/3 adapter, I took a pass on the system, and eventually bought a used Kodak DCS-760, which has 6 Million superb pixels, built into a Nikon F5 body. Not being sure about that adapter's availability and what features were retained when using it, and not ever seeing test results for older Zuiko glass used on the camera, was in fact the deal-breaker for me in my consideration of the E-1. The fact is, 1-2 years ago, I was in a position to buy the best < $1500 camera I could which supported either my Nikon, or my Olympus MF glass. Nikon did not support me in a timely enough fashion either (Had a D200-like camera been available then, or had the D70 or D100 supported my manual focus Nikon glass, I'd surely have gone that route). Neither Olympus nor Nikon seemed to be offerring me what I needed, so what I ended up doing was getting an older $8000 camera that, over time, had come down in price to < $1500 on the used market, that did meet my needs. Had Olympus properly marketed what they had, I very likely would have bought an E-1 about 18 months ago.

[llpoolej]

I think the Rebel XT is a very good entry level camera. I also think the D50 is a great entry level camera. Same goes for the E-500.

I am an oly user, with an E-1 and I have to say I just adore my lenses. I will probably add the 35-100 f2 to the lineup in the near future. Before I invest in such a nice lens, I want the E-1 successor(as long as it lives up to my expectations) I think the lenses are just amazing. Granted, I am surely biased

My husband got tired of waiting for the replacement for the E-1 to come out, so he bought an E-500 that actually came while writing this post. Now he has a camera and the complaining can stop .

[cyclohexane]

I loved how they faulted the D50 for requiring a button to be held to set aperture in manual when the XT/350D also requires a button to set aperture in manual.* I've handled all of the cameras in the article, but only know the D50 and XT well.* I wonder what other things that certain cameras were faulted for also went unmentioned when talking about another model; it seemed like each of the "Ease of Use" categories had different foci.

The skintones on the XT did indeed look best to my eye (keep in mind preferences for skintone/other color vary by region and even individuals).* When using an XT I have found that they generally are pleasing, but with the built-in flash I've seen them shift yellow even with correct white balance settings.* The Nikon D50's skintone looked pretty bad in the review, but the default color space for the Nikon D50 is also really bad for skintones- the instruction manual states the sRGB III (default) is meant to be used in landscapes.* Personally, I prefer Mode II (Adobe RGB) as it is the most consistent across the different models, and renders the best Asian skintones- something my family requires.

[badpickev]

the big thing the keeps me from reccomending a oly cameras is the cost of the glass. after the initial purchase, it gets expensive fast. I know sigma is now starting to make glass for oly but still 6-7K for a 300 f2.8?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by badpickev

the big thing the keeps me from reccomending a oly cameras is the cost of the glass. after the initial purchase, it gets expensive fast. I know sigma is now starting to make glass for oly but still 6-7K for a 300 f2.8?

Well you get what you pay for, though I agree that the long fast lenses look expensive. Good lenses last a lot longer than the bodies, so come closest to living up to the word 'investment'.

[dc2]

Originally Posted by Paul

Well you get what you pay for, though I agree that the long fast lenses look expensive. Good lenses last a lot longer than the bodies, so come closest to living up to the word 'investment'.

Whats the most expesive lens you Paul ?
And whats the favourite lens you have for your oly ?