Beginner Looking for DSLR Advice
locutusofb via PhotoKB.com
looking at two unit and was wondering some things.
I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. Both
around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ?
--
Message posted via PhotoKB.com
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/photo-digital-slr/200601/1
Jasen
"locutusofb via PhotoKB.com" <u17388@uwe> wrote in message
news:5a0ba2019da39@uwe...
Why not Minolta, Canon or another Nikon?
locutusofb via PhotoKB.com
>>I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am
>> looking at two unit and was wondering some things.
>>
>> I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense.
>> Both
>> around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ?
>
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> Jasen wrote:
>
>>>I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am
>>>looking at two unit and was wondering some things.
>>>
>>>I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense.
>>>Both
>>>around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ?
>>
>>Why not Minolta, Canon or another Nikon?
>
> Mainly price
>
Check reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alpha
and look specifically at the features you want as the reason
for moving up (e.g. low light performance, shutter lag, frames
per second, etc.)
Roger
photos: http://www.clarkvision.com
Steven Wandy
> looking at two unit and was wondering some things.
>
> I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense.
> Both
> around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ?
>
I have the E300. There are some differences in the two cameras - function
wise - that make
the E500 slightly better BUT most people that have the E300 would not
consider the
differences big enough to change. The build quality on the E300 - while a
little strange looking and feeling to some - is much better than the E500.
Jasen
"locutusofb via PhotoKB.com" <u17388@uwe> wrote in message
Go to DPReview as Roger recommends, but ask yourself, how long do you want
to have this camera before you upgrade again? Maybe then think about
spending a little more to really get the better features, ergonomics you
want and get better quality too. Personally I don't like the Olympus line
up, but that's just me. I bought the Minolta 7D and it is pretty damn good
for my hard earned dollar. The new Canon's and Nikon's are equally
impressive too.
Ron Zeis
"Steven Wandy" <Swa...@si.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mXawf.30574$GW1....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
the feel of the E1 better.(It fit my hand). It also had more controls on
the body, more solid body, etc. So I bought the E1.
This Fall I tried out the E500 and it felt better than the E300. I bought
one for my wife. She loves it. It is much lighter and has more megapixels
than mine. She has the 2 lens outfit, which is a great bargain. I have the
14-54 lens, which is a fabulous lens, but her 14-45 is almost as good. I
also have the 50-200 which is more than fabulous. However her 40-150 weighs
considerably less. You can walk around all day with the E500 and this lens
and hardly notice it. Put the 50-200 on the E1 and you get a pretty sore
arm.
I think you would be very happy with the E500. It has its warts, they all
do. Keep the ISO down, 1600 should only be used for emergencies, unless you
want to spend a bit of time with post processing. There aren't a lot of
lenses for the Olympus, and most of them, though very good, are expensive.
If you need a lung telephoto, get an OM adaptor and pick up some used OM
lenses. They work pretty good, though you have to manually focus in a
stopped down mode. You can use aperture priority, however.
One thing about Olympus. You need a lot of self confidence. Because you
will get all sorts of heat from Canon users telling you what a mistake you
made. Nikon users are more accepting.
Just remember that it's not the camera, but the photographer. So have fun.
C J Southern
"locutusofb via PhotoKB.com" <u17388@uwe> wrote in message
> I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am
> looking at two unit and was wondering some things.
>
> I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense.
Both
> around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ?
I'm probably biased, but I'd suggest trying to stretch the budget to
something like a Canon 20D (or if desperate, a Canon 350D/ XT).
David Geesaman
> I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am
> looking at two unit and was wondering some things.
>
> I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. Both
> around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ?
I think the first thing you need to do is establish both a short-term
and long-term budget. Basically, I would expect you'll get hooked on
the capabilities of dSLR photography, and you'll want to expand as much
as possible.
Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear
junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two
orders of magnitude. If spending $1000 now for a basic setup might lead
to spending $2000/year on new gear in the future, then you will make
decisions differently than a guy like myself who managed to spend $1000
but won't be spending any more for quite some time. (Some here find my
budget limitations inconceivable or imaginary, but I assure you it's a
normal thing). While my gear has limitations that I occasionally bump
into, it still produces great shots and is far better than the digital
cameras that cost not much less. Try to budget for the best lenses you
can afford, regardless of which system you choose.
So when you say price is an issue, be more specific.
Dave
Cheesehead
I've not handled the Minolta
but both the Pentax & Nikon
bodies feel more solid than the Canon
and have a wider range of lenses to use.
Collin
locutusofb via PhotoKB.com
Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit.
--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Little Green Eyed Dragon
"locutusofb via PhotoKB.com" <u17388@uwe> wrote:
> Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit.
Part time job?
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".
locutusofb via PhotoKB.com
>
>> Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit.
>
>Part time job?
>
My schedule does not allow it would have to work every other week . Cause 8
days on at 11 hours each day then 6 days off.
David Geesaman
> David Geesaman wrote:
>> Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear
>> junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two
>> orders of magnitude. If spending $1000 now for a basic setup might lead
>> to spending $2000/year on new gear in the future, then you will make
>> decisions differently than a guy like myself who managed to spend $1000
>> but won't be spending any more for quite some time. (Some here find my
>> budget limitations inconceivable or imaginary, but I assure you it's a
>> normal thing). While my gear has limitations that I occasionally bump
>> into, it still produces great shots and is far better than the digital
>> cameras that cost not much less. Try to budget for the best lenses you
>> can afford, regardless of which system you choose.
>> So when you say price is an issue, be more specific.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit.
>
$800 - I presume that means your initial purchase. You need to decide
if later you might buy a couple more lenses and accessories - I can
almost guarantee you'll want to. I personally did something like that -
$550 for a Canon 300D, $200 for a Tamron 75-300mm, $100 for 1GB of CF cards.
Dave
locutusofb via PhotoKB.com
>>> Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear
>>> junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two
>>
>> Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit.
>
> $800 - I presume that means your initial purchase. You need to decide
>if later you might buy a couple more lenses and accessories - I can
>almost guarantee you'll want to. I personally did something like that -
>$550 for a Canon 300D, $200 for a Tamron 75-300mm, $100 for 1GB of CF cards.
>
> Dave
This is first purchase have CF Cards around 5 gigs worth . I have someone who
is going to pay me 2.50 per picture I do per sale he makes on his site . He
sales around 150 photos a month. He mainly needs pictures of Court houses
and such. Historical building in parts of teh state I travel in.
Charles Gillen
> Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard
> limit.
You then are a perfect customer for a Pentax DSLR with kit lens (28~80mm
equivalent). Try Froogle for ist-DL or ist-DS2. Any Pentax DSLR is both a
great camera and a great value. I have a ist-DL and love it. Beats anything
in its price range or costing hundreds more.
--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA
Cheesehead
*ist DS or DS2 body only and use inexpensive lenses to start.
Collin
Oldtimer Curt
www.Kenrockwell.com/tech/camera_recommendations_2005.htm He's got what I
consider to be great advice and he explains his rationale. It's the only
website I've been impressed with enough to $upport. The entire site is a
wealth of information regarding film and digital photography.
Enjoy,
OldtimerCurt
"Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136998712.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cheesehead
"For under $2,000 you can get a 4x5" film camera, lens, scanner and
everything you need to make 100 megapixel images. This is far better
quality than any digital camera at four times the price!"
Collin
Joan
--
Joan
"Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137155957.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Cheesehead
B&W is pretty cheap. Color negs & chromes really add up.
It's about $2 per sheet here in Columbus, OH.
<Ramble>
I do use digital as well as film. But right now most of my snapshots
are digital (Pentax *istDS) and anything "serious" is 4x5.
APX-100 4x5 -- my favorite from 2004:
http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/model.jpg
Really didn't get to do anything at all during 2005.
I'm lining up some for this year. Since it's just a hobby,
once a year is about all I can fit into my life.
</Ramble>
Collin
bj...@scn.org
> David Geesaman wrote:
> >junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two
> >orders of magnitude. If spending $1000 now for a basic setup might lead
> >to spending $2000/year on new gear in the future, then you will make
> >decisions differently than a guy like myself who managed to spend $1000
> >but won't be spending any more for quite some time. (Some here find my
> > budget limitations inconceivable or imaginary, but I assure you it's a
> >normal thing).
>
If you just need a portrait lens, then a 50/1.8 + DSLR is under your
budget.
If you want other lenses, both wide and tele, then to get something
decent you probably need at least $1500 total for the lenses and the
camera.
Minolta 5D: Anti-Shake
Pentax DS: TTL Flash
Nikon D50: 1/500s X Sync
Canon 350D: 8MP
Cheesehead
One nice thing about the DSLR revolution is that the lowly,
ubiquituous, under-rated 50/1.4 from virtually all the manufacturers is
not the portrait lens of choice? Used to be $500+ for a 70mm-90mm
range lens. Now the same basic results come for 20% of the price.
Personally, I think it's great. Three years ago I got my FA50/1.4 for
a modest $100 + shpg -- a pretty good price at the time and they were
usually selling for about $175. Today I don't know that one can be
touched for < $250. They're still the cheaper option by far.
Collin
Mike Coon
> ... 50/1.4 from virtually all the manufacturers
> is not the portrait lens of choice?
I thought that the advice of decades for portrait work was to use a lens
longer than 50mm, say 100mm. This was because although 50mm is meant to
reproduce natural perpective of the naked eye there is a subjective
enhancement that leads to a "nose too big" effect. Backing off and using
100mm is more flattering... Of course if taking a group of people this is
all, including the flattery, less relevant!
Mike.
--
If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee.
Cheesehead
It provides the crop factor of roughly a 70mm lens on 135 film or 200
on 4x5.
Just a little crop but with still good working room.
When doing a manual portrait shot many manual-focus 50/1.4 lenses
are as good but also cost half the af lens. The SMC Pentax-A50/1.4 is
a bargain to be had at any time. Good manual grip, decent
construction, and
contrasty, cool cast. It's a Leica-like blue/purple cast as opposed
the Pentax-M's brownish
cast which is Nikon-like, or the F/FA50/1.4 and the other new Pentax AF
lenses
(that I've seen) which have a very clean brown-purple combination
coating cast.
Collin
AaronW
> I thought that the advice of decades for portrait work was to use a lens
> longer than 50mm, say 100mm. This was because although 50mm is meant to
> reproduce natural perpective of the naked eye there is a subjective
> enhancement that leads to a "nose too big" effect.
Because naked eye does not look at another person that close.
> Backing off and using 100mm is more flattering...
50mm on 1.6x digital is equivalent to 80mm on full frame.
The "normal" focal length on 35mm full frame is 43mm. Longer length
compresses perspective. 85mm, being twice long as normal, is a popular
portrait length. For tight portrait, 135mm at 3 times normal, is often
used. Longer length compresses more, but a longer lens is more
expensive, heavier, of a smaller aperture, more difficult to hand hold,
more difficult to back off...
> Of course if taking a group of people this is all, including the flattery, less relevant!
For group, the camera is farther away, thus the perspective will be
similar to a single person portrait with a longer lens.