Hi All I'm trying to decide on an upgrade from a Fuji Finepix S3500 to a DSLR but can't decide whivh is best/value for money/ease of use etc. etc. Currently I'm considering the Canon 400D with a 28 - 135 USM IS lens, the Olympus E510 or the NIkon D80. All are similar in price and spec. and I'm drawn to the Canon for quality and the Olympus for the live view. The Nikon also looks good but has no dust elimination. Has anybody out there any advice? Help much wppreciated. Steve
|
 |
 No, I can't help to make up your mind. What everybody will tell you is that you will have to go to a big shop and handle all 3 camera's for a good while. The one which feels best in your hands is the one to go for. The Oly is a lot smaller than the Nikon/Canon.All All DSLR's in that price range are good. It is the system you will buy into that is more important. If you buy Canon/Nikon you have loads of lenses available,also used lenses. In my opinion it is better to buy a cheap camera and good lenses rather than a good camera with cheap lenses. All my pictures are taken with an old battered D70.
|
|
Thanks for your thoughts Simon. One of the reasons I'm considering the Canon and 28 - 135 lens is because the kit lenses are reported to be relatively poor. The Olympus kit lenses do however seem to be better and I like the idea of being able to set up on a tripod and use the live view. Both of these cameras have some sort of cleaning built in but for some reson the Nikon does not - how important is this? Steve
|
|
 Yeah, Simon's on the money. There are micro-variations between the major camera systems that might make some people choose one over another for a specific need, but if you want a good general DSLR, try 'em all out. Generally, you'll find one that fits your hands better than the rest, but not by much. I also wouldn't be too concerned by dust problems. If you like the handling of the Nikon, go with the Nikon. If you don't, then go with what you like.
|
|
 Depends how much price is a concern also: Canon 400D + 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 = £405
Olympus E-410 + 14-42mm lens = £430
Nikon D40 + 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 = £310 Nikon D80 + 18-70mm (or + 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6) = £660 If you're looking around 400, then go with the Olympus for sure. If you have a tripod, as you say, then the 14mm is that bit wider than the other offerings, plus Live View is a clever thing to work with. It changes shooting style more akin to larger formats.
|
|
My thanks to Alan and Mike. As Alan says there is not (or that is how it seems) a lot of difference between the three camera systems I'm looking at. However, the lenses bundled with the Canon 400D seem poor in comparison to those from Olympus and Nikon. My budget for the whole shebang - memory, new carrycase, filters etc is about £1,000, so now, bearing in mind this dust problem with the Nikon (is there one or is this just another attempt to at a little more money making) I'm looking at the Olympus with their18 - 180 lens and the Canon with their 28 - 135 USM IS lens. There's not that much to chose on price depending on where one goes, Jessops for instance are over £100.00 dearer on the Canon + lens than the cheapest. I like the fact of the live view dcreen on the Olympus but feel that the Canon should be a better camera. As Simon says I'm going to have to try both. Decision, decisions! Steve
|
|
If you wanted liveview on a budget, there's always the older Olympus E-330 which is a bit of a bargain these days..
|
|
£1,000 is a nice budget to play with - you're just shy of some of the new cameras hitting the market (Sony a700, Olympus E3, Fuji S5) - but you can pick up a good entry-mid range DSLR with enough kit. May well be worth picking up a decent flash. Memory is fairly dirt cheap these days. Lenses - you could try to pick up a pair. How about this: Olympus E-510 + 14-42mm lens + 40-150mm II lens = £660 Lexar Pro (133x) 4GB Compact Flash card = £50 (if you're computer's up on that sort of speed, otherwise get a marginally slower and cheaper one that does exactly the same job.) Then flash is debateable... But you could probably go around the £150 mark. (Olympus FL-36 Flash Gun) That's a fair bundle for £850. Shop around and see what you can find. Oh by the way - keep your eye on the site...we have a competition around the corner...and the prize (which I'm looking at right now) is very nice. 
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions from Mike and Dennis. After what seems hours of deliberations, I'm informed by a friend that the Canon 40D has a live view screen. I hadn't really considerd this on the cost basis but even with a much better bundled lens, the 17 - 85 IS USM comes in just under my £1,000 budget. By the time I've added a few peripherals it will probably be over budget but not by much. Looking at the spec. for the 40D it seems much more of a camera and i think I'm closer to making a decision on this one - unless anyone can tell me why not. Any comments anyone? Many thanks Steve
|
|
The thing about the 40D is that it's new - and you pretty much always pay through the teeth for the latest. Far better, I think - for me at any rate - to spend money on an 12 month old model, and blow the rest of your budget of fantastic (even second-hand) lenses. The lens I'd be really after in the Canon range would be the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 which is about £600 new. In my experience, it's the lens where image quality really bottlenecks: and I reckon the 17-55mm and a cheap 400D would probably end up producing better pictures than a new 40D and a cheaper lens. Besides, who wants f4 as their fastest aperture?
|
|
Live View (real time preview) is likely to be a DSLR staple from now on... the top end cameras even have HDMI output so you can link the camera up to a HD monitor/screen for some serious preview. We're playing with a 40D right now...there'll be a full review in the coming week... But it's true - new = expensive. Manufacturers are always bashing out the next new thing...and whilst it is a raise in quality time and time again, when the next Canon comes out, the 40D will drop in price. Saying that, having a brand spanking new 40D would by no means be a bad choice! Could quite possibly be the best choice - it will blow your budget however I'd say. You should go play with all the cameras, see what you think. I still like the idea of having Live View, multiple lenses and a flash - that's got a lot more creative potential than a beefier camera body which wont have the range due to lack of accessories (soley down to cost). [ Heck, I used to make images with nothing much more than a box...and a friend of mine used to make amazing pinholes on 30x40" positive paper in a plastic dustbin! ]
|
|
Thanks everybody - I'm suffering a little at the moment from information overload. My wife and I visited the local Jessops today to have another look at my various options and the first taste of a 40D. Suffice to say that I still can't make up my mind and I'm going to leave the decision a bit longer. Steve
|
|
 £1000 could give you a really nice set up. I'd tend not to worry about the big stats (e.g. f2.8 lenses, anti-dust things) and go for a good balance of kit. I don't know much about Canon and Olympus, but as a Nikon D40 owner I'm really impressed with the lenses and extra kit (flashes, remotes etc) that Nikon offer. People are raving about Nikon's 18-200 vr lens, because it handles most situations pretty well, meaning you'll probably leave it on - meaning you won't get so much dust on your sensor. So, I'd go for a D80 or an ebayed D200 with a 18-200 lens. Or, how about a D40 or D40x with the lovely 18-70 lens and the 18-300vr lens. Maybe you could break the bank and but a D300 and then save up for a lens. Saying that though, I'd go for a D80 with an 18-70 lens, as the D80 is a strong all-rounder.
|
|
