Olympus Evolt-500 vs. these

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Mar 23, 2006.

  1. Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer?
    It is equivalent to which of these cameras,
    and is it a better value than them?
    KM 70D 6mp
    Canon Rebel XT(350D) 8mp
    Nikon D50
    Pentax *ist DL - 6mp

    I like that the kit includes 2 lenses. However, not too many stores
    carry lenses
    for the Olympus, and their prices seem to be the same as for Canon

    Non-SLR cameras I am considering: Lumix FZ-30, Fuji FinePix S9000,
    Dimage A200, CANON PowerShot Pro1, Kodak P880.
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Mar 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Steven Wandy Guest

    Is the Olympus Evolt-500 an entry level SLR/pro-sumer?
    The general opinion is that is where Oly was attempting to position
    the camera.
    That you will get a very WIDE difference of opinions. (Based primarily on
    particular camera manufacturer the responder likes or dislikes.)
    Check any of the bigger stores. They all carry/stock Oly lenses.
    Steven Wandy, Mar 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    That's because there aren't very many lenses to carry.
    If you've got a list of non-DSLR cameras you're considering, then you
    probably don't need a DSLR.
    Paul Mitchum, Mar 23, 2006
  4. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ian lincoln Guest

    Best value is the 350D.
    What existing lenses, if any, do you have.

    If you do low light stuff or just indoor the km can be a bargain with its
    built in antishake system. All the others require buying lenses with
    antishake built into them so that adds roughly £200 per lens. Whereas its
    free on all the KM lenses you will buy. If you are considering the nikon
    D50 then also consider the km 5D.
    ian lincoln, Mar 25, 2006
  5. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    ian lincoln Guest

    or appreciate how much better they are than non dslrs. Image noise will be
    lower, response times will be faster, AF will be faster. There isn't an lcd
    viewfinder or screen that can match an optical viewfinder. Against dlrs are
    increased weight, lenses cost extra, unless you sacrifice quality with and
    even then you won't get the same range of focal lengths in the one lens.
    ian lincoln, Mar 25, 2006
  6. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Thomas Guest

    Yes, I think it is. But unlike most DSLR it uses the 4/3 sensor format,
    which is only half as big as the common APS format. Theoretically this
    should lead to a smaller camera and smaller lenses. In the end, the
    difference is not all that great. But if you appreciate small and light
    equipment and want the flexibility of DSLR, then the Olympus might be
    for your.

    Otherwise I would recommend getting a more popular DSLR system. With
    Canon, Nikon or even Pentax you have a much wider range of compatible
    lenses. The same is true for Minolta, but while lenses are generally
    rather cheap, the future of Minolta with Sony is kind of uncertain.

    If size is your main concern, then getting a compact digital may be
    better. While you can save some money that way, you also lose a lot of

    Thomas, Mar 25, 2006
  7. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Xar Guest


    I'm very happy owner of E-500 and I wouldn't change it to any other
    camera. If you count potential cost of any other camera with lenses that
    have the same quality as these two bundled with E-500, the cost will be
    much higher. Body is just a small part of TCO of any system. And believe
    me, if you buy any lens from Zuiko Digital series it will have better
    quality then any competitive model for similar price.
    Maybe ZD line is not as long as Canon or Nikon, but it covers very wide
    range of focal length. And quality of entry-level cameras and ZD lenses
    is much better then in other systems.
    Besides that you can buy any camera and any lens and don't worry about
    possible problems with BF/FF - QA in Olympus is really highest class.

    If you would need more information about that camera and lenses - just
    send me a mail :)

    Xar, Mar 25, 2006
  8. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Basic Wedge Guest

    You're quite right Robert. With 16 lenses available from Olympus, 9 or 10
    from Sigma, and a forthcoming series from Leica, users of the 4/3rds system
    needn't feel second to anyone. Indeed, since every one of Olympus' ZD lenses
    was actually designed for use on a digital camera, it's users of other
    brands who face compromises.

    Something you didn't mention is that, with just two, very highly regarded,
    fast, and affordable lenses (the 14-54/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8, an Olympus
    user can seamlessly cover a vast range of focal lengths. Add to that, the
    (admittedly expensive) 7-14mm lens, and you have a trio of lenses with a
    range no other brand can touch, with any number of lenses.

    Canon, for example has 7 or 8 lenses all beginning at 28mm of focal length.
    In a world of digital cameras, where most bodies add a "cropping factor",
    what the hell is the use of a 28mm lens? How does it make any sense to have
    so many lenses at such a useless focal length? Even for those Canon users
    with so-called "full-frame" sensors (sized to equal the now outdated 35mm
    film format - for who knows what reason) what use is a cheap, plastic
    28-90mm f/4-5.6 lens? (Amazingly, Canon even put a USM motor into this piece
    of C#@&!) Yes, Canon's amazing lens selection. Amazingly outmoded perhaps.
    Nikon, some may argue, is a little closer to having a sensible approach to
    their lens selection.

    Basic Wedge, Mar 26, 2006
  9. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Stacey Guest

    Where did you study math to come up with that figure?
    Stacey, Mar 26, 2006
  10. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Thomas Guest

    The Olympus senser is 17.3mm * 13mm or 225mm^2.
    The standard APS-C sensor is 23.5mm * 15.6mm or 369mm^2.
    This makes the Olympus sensor just over 60% the size of the APS-C

    Add in the fact that the the Olympus crops more pixels (at least than
    my Minolta), plus you have to crop the 4:3 format to 3:2 for most
    purposes (ok, this may be an old fashioned assumption, or maybe not?),
    and the effective areas are nearly exactly 1:2.

    Of course you can still get the E series, but you should also know what
    this means for your field of depth.

    Thomas, Mar 26, 2006
  11. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Tony Polson Guest

    In terms of the area of the sensor, he's about right.
    Tony Polson, Mar 26, 2006
  12. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    DonB Guest

    If you read the reviews (on the web and magazines) you will find the
    E-500 is the best for your money. But you need to make sure your deal
    includes the 14-45 lens, or if you can afford it, the 14-54. Even the
    14-45 is a better kit lens than the Canon offer,
    DonB, Mar 26, 2006
  13. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Stacey Guest

    Why would you crop to 3:2? The most common print sizes (8X10, 11X14,16X20)
    are very close to 4:3 not 3:2. When you consider this, there is only 1.5mm
    difference between these sensors, not 1/2 the size. I understand you want
    to make your sensor =bigger= but lets be realistic and think about how the
    end results are used by most people.
    Stacey, Mar 26, 2006
  14. I'd bet a mint that the most common print size is 4 x6. By far.
    John McWilliams, Mar 27, 2006
  15. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    D-Mac Guest

    This is correct John but I think Stacey is talking about enlargements.
    Just trying to buy a 8'25" x 11.9" picture frame and see which size is
    the most popular.

    It probably doesn't matter much to people of the digital era but the
    bastardization of thousand year old standards by people trying to adapt
    their products to existing materials is really rotten and simply won't
    work in the long term.

    The first 35mm cameras were designed to use cheaply available film from
    aerial movie cameras after the war. Instead of use the existing frame
    proportion, they decided to use the film lengthwise and make a small,
    compact camera suitable for landscape photos. Call it a mini panorama

    While all this was going on, Professional photographers stuck with
    8"x10", "Full plate" cameras. The 4"x5" 'Half plate" cameras for serious
    photography. The smaller sizes derived from that dimension formula,
    continue right now as the "perfect proportions" for a portrait. 645 67,
    even 4/3. Proportions devised by people who really did know about
    portraiture 1000 years ago.

    Any attempt now to try and make out a longer picture is somehow a better
    'perfect proportion' is not going to work. It simply is not. The only
    flaw in the 4/3 system is the sensor density and it seems even that is
    soon to be overcome with organic sensors now in the development phase.

    So basically if all or the majority of your photography is going to be
    horizontal landscapes, buy a camera with proportions of the sensor to
    suit. If however, you take a lot of portraits, you'll get a larger image
    by not needing to crop off the ends to make a perfect proportion, buy an
    Olympus or similar. It is odd, don't you think? That P&S camera don't
    have 35mm proportion sensors.
    D-Mac, Mar 27, 2006
  16. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Stacey Guest

    And in a 4X6 print size are ANY of the dSLRs going to have problems with
    image quality? It's only in the larger sizes, which most of are close to
    4:3, is where you need the extra pixels and image quality.
    Stacey, Mar 29, 2006
  17. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Thomas Guest

    [4:3 or 3:2]
    compact camera suitable for landscape photos. Call it a mini panorama
    I agree that different areas of photografy have different "default"
    formats. This ranges from square medium format to 16:9 HDTV format.

    I would also agree that 4:3 is better as a portrait format. However, in
    landscape it looks rather dull, and that is probably the reason we have
    3:2 and 16:9.

    If there was a 19:6 DSLR, I would be tempted to try it. I have used 4:3
    digital cameras, and personally I was not impressed. Maybe I am too
    used to 3:2, because I have been taking slides for decades.

    Thomas, Mar 29, 2006
  18. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Skip M Guest

    Heck, in 4x6, my little Casio holds its own...
    Skip M, Mar 30, 2006
  19. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    Stacey Guest

    Exactly. My 2MP nikon works great at that print size and even the 8X10's of
    the right subject matter aren't bad.
    Stacey, Mar 31, 2006
  20. Mr.Bolshoyhuy

    burnsdavidj Guest

    With high end full frame Canons approaching (acutally, its beating) the
    resolution of medium format, you'll understand why having 'full frame'
    sensors in a traditional 35mm body is so beneficial.

    FF is a good objective, since its a larger sensor size footprint -- it
    allows for less pixel density, which results in less noise. It also
    gives 'head room' for MORE pixels, when the technology allows, in the
    same footprint.

    Finally, those who have great legacy 35mm 'full frame' oriented lenses,
    can work with the proportions they are used too. FF isn't for
    everyone, but i think its a better growth strategy than Nikons
    APS-sized sensor only. Canon offers both.

    So while i disagree with your statements about FF, I agree that Olympus
    has some great glass. Their lens lineup, while perhaps not as deep as
    Canon's or Nikon's, is no slouch and there's lots of options available.
    The only place I'd be a bit leary of buying Olympus would be if I'm
    doing some very long zoom/prime work, such as birding or long distance
    burnsdavidj, Mar 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.