Olympus E520 or Nikon D3000..Please Help

[Ruckus]

Hi new to digital slrs and have little bit of money to buy my first camera. Went to loca Ritz and talked to guy at store told him my price range of 600 or less and he suggested the Nikon D3000. I did some research online before visisting the store and decided to ask about the Olympus cameras they had he pulled out a E520 and scanned it to check price to his surprise it was on clearence for $369 and the D3000 was $500. I asked if the E520 was on par with the D3000 and he said yeah and for the discouted price it was a steal.So my question is should i get the E520 and use the money for accessories extra lense or filter or something or should i still get the D3000 or do you guys recommend a different camera with in the same price range as these. I want something tha will last my for year or two I dont wanna have to replace the camera in 6 months and i would also like something that when i do upgrade i can still use the lenses and accessoried i purchased for the new camera.

Please help my ASAP dont think the camera will stay in stock for long at that price.

Thanks For Your Help and sorry if posted in wrong section also did search and came up with nothing.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ruckus,

You haven't told use what you want to photograph, I ask because this may affect the choice.
If you are going to be 'into' wildlife and long telephoto lenses, then the additional crop factor of the Olympus 4/3 system (cf=2) may be of benefit over the Nikon (cf=1.5).
However, if you are thinking of earning a living from photography ultimately, that may steer you to Nikon, but some pros do use Olypus.

If you have handled them both, how did you get on with ergonomics of handling and menus?
Did one seem small and fiddly compared to the other? (depends how big your hands are)

Statment of fact; I own a D5000, the bigger brother to the D3000, I considered the Oly E-620 when I made that purchase, so I may be biassed.

Off the top of my head (NB this is not a complete list and I am but one person, other's views may differ);
Reasons to go for Nikon D3000;
- Probably better noise performance
- Bigger range of affordable lenses without going into thousands of GB pounds
- Folding screen
- Newer generation of sensor technology (I believe)

Reasons to go for Olympus E-520
- Smaller and lighter
- From memory, the E-620 had better Live View AF, but not sure if either your considering have Live View
- Cheaper body - you are correct that investing more in lenses is a good idea

I may add to this list later when I am not late for work
But I would urge other members to jump in with their views.

Cheers,

[Ruckus]

I am planning on shooting more landscape and wildlife photos but occasionaly i would like to use the camera to shoot family photos.

[Ruckus]

Come on guys really need some help

[Colin Southern]

Come on guys really need some help

I'd love to help, but I'm a Canon shooter (and wouldn't have it any other way).

As a rule, most manufacturers have near identical features at the same price points. Often too there's no such things as a "right" or "wrong" choice because there is so much overlap between models and brands (at the end of the day the camera is just a box that lets the light in).

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ruckus,

Any chance you could make a list of the key spec points of the two models side-by-side in a post here so I can whizz through them and guide you as to what they mean and which is "best"?

If I have to do the research as well, it'll just take longer and frankly, I'm just about to start an 10 hr day at work (+travel), I don't have the time on top of all the other stuff I do. But if you provide the list, I can provide some more help, possibly lunchtime (1300 GMT) or this evening (2000 GMT).

Cheers,

[Amberglass]

Hi Ruckus,

Buying cameras are a personal choice but as Dave mentioned, it's best to go into the store and physically hold the bodies you are considering. Also look at the available lenses that are out there for your particular camera (brand name, third parties, and used). It's the lenses that you will need in the long run and investment wise.

I'm a Canon and Nikon user (more Nikon within the past two years, but Canon for 20+). I find the menus more easier to navigate than the Olys, but then again that's me. Just remember, once you commit to a system; you're pretty much stuck unless you have a lot of money under the mattress.

[Ruckus]

Been doing some research and thinking bout just saving up little more money and getting a nikon d5000 or canon rebel xsi(d450). What do you guys think? Leaning more towards the xsi since little cheaper and canon lenses and little more affordable and from what i been reading canon make best lenses. But d500 has flip lcd and cn shoot videos which prob will never use but would be nice to have at sometimes.

[Colin Southern]

Been doing some research and thinking bout just saving up little more money and getting a nikon d5000 or canon rebel xsi(d450). What do you guys think? Leaning more towards the xsi since little cheaper and canon lenses and little more affordable and from what i been reading canon make best lenses. But d500 has flip lcd and cn shoot videos which prob will never use but would be nice to have at sometimes.

Hi Ruckus,

Many cameras have similar features at similar prices - so often there isn't a lot of difference.

Personally having a tiltable screen is of little use to me - but I know it's a feature Dave here found important - so really down to personal circumstances.

My personal experience with the 450D's grandfather (the 350D) is that it's too small and doesn't have a QCD (quick Control Dial) as found on the pro-sumer series. I only had my 350D a few weeks before I sold it at a loss and bought a 20D and never looked back. So personally I'd buy a 30D or a 40D second hand over a new 450D (which was superceeded by the 500D by the way), but that's just me.

Canon have a bigger lens selection than Nikon for DSLR cameras, but so long as there is one that meets your needs from either camp then it really doesn't matter how many either camp has that you don't need

Both camps make entry-level - pro-sumer, and professional quality lenses - with the optical quality being "more than adequate" in both camps.

Hopefully some of the others will chip in with their own thoughts - as a diehard Canon shooter, I'm probably a bit biased

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Ruckus,

A bit more on the tilty screen topic.

I basically waited (to buy a DSLR) until either Nikon or Canon came out with one, as I was fed up not being able to see this fixed screen on my bridge camera. Nikon got there first with the D5000 and I went to a dealer to play and compared to the Panasonic GH-1 and Sony A350.

To be honest, what sold me the camera (ironically) was the viewfinder AF performance and knowing it was basically the same as that on the D90. The AF performance on Live View was actually disappointing, no better than my bridge camera, but at least I could see the screen, so I went for the D5000 over the other two.

I'm happy with my choice of camera and, now I have the Nikon 18 - 200mm, the lens too.

I have used the tilty screen feature (possibly not as much as I might have expected), but it is very nice being able to stow it 'face in' and not worry about scratching it when the camera is in the bag.

As I came from a camera with 0 quick control dials, having one rather than two doesn't worry me. I'm sure if Colin leant me his camera and I got used to it, I wouldn't want to go back! But for now I'm happy

The points about lens choice are valid and mainly why I went with Nikon and not Sony or Panasonic.
I would love a longer lens for wildlife, but now wonder whether the affordable 70-300mm would be long enough, unfortunately, from Nikon, anything longer is way beyond my reach.

Regarding movies, I did use it on my Fuji bridge camera, but haven't so far on the Nikon, despite thinking as you are.

Cheers,

[stopkidding]

Hello,

I am a Panasonic DLSR user, which means I am on the four-thirds standard, same as Olympus. So I am basically using Panasonic/Leica and Olympus lenses. The decision between Nikon/Canon Vs Four Thirds (Panasonic/Olympus) basically boils down to one thing.

Is low light/high ISO photography absolutely critical to you?


If the answer is a resounding yes, then buy the Nikon.
If the answer is, No I don't care about low light or high ISO (greater than 1200), then buy the Olympus, save the extra money and buy a fast prime lens for low light photography (f1.4)

As a four thirds user, I can vouch for one thing. Olympus makes some best lenses for the digital SLR space. Their camera are usually packed with innovative features and you get a lot of your $ minus the Canon/Nikon marketing premium. I am not bashing Canon/Nikon, they make stellar products, but simple market economics states that because of their brand recognition, they demand higher average selling prices than comparable SLRs from other manufacturers.

And did I mention the quality if the Zuiko Digital optics? If you do a quick survey of the major review sites, many of them are now beginning to acknowledge that Olympus optics can be the single most compelling reason to buy into the four-thirds format and olympus cameras. And since SLRs are all about the lenses, it makes good sense as well.

But in the end, you will not be disappointed with Canon or Nikon or any other manufacture, They all make good products, the key would be to make a decision on which format you want to invest in and sticking to that!

Good Luck!

[jacsul]

I own an E-620 and for what it's worth I got the body + 2 lenses, 14-42mm and the 40-150mm for under 800 dollars (US)
So far noise hasn't been an issue for me. If you want to buy lenses for this camera you can outfit it with older om lenses. Some of the newer digital lenses can be very expensive, check it out.
I have no regrets with this camera, it's lightweight, somewhat compact, has an adjustable LCD screen for live view and seems very fast.
That's my 2 cents worth. good luck...
Jack

[rhadorn]

Hello Ruckus,

From the discussion above, you see that you cannot take a wrong decision. I used an Olympus e-510 with a 14-54mm 'pro' lens for two years and keep it now as a second camera. I made some good pictures with it, landscape and people.

Two issues made me change for a Canon.

The first is sensor quality: too much noise for spontaneous pictures in just available light. Banding noise is most disturbing. This problem is partly solved by the use of a fast lens, indeed. And whether or not it is an issue for you depends on your preferences. The dynamic range is more limited than with other cameras of that type; the very first pictures I made with it were under- and overexposed at the same time - well, the light conditions were actually demanding (sun lit interior).

The second issue is more a matter of taste. The lens I chose was very sharp indeed and the crop factor of the four thirds format gives you a good depth of field (you may appreciate or regret this, depending on your aesthetical orientation). On the other hand, I never enjoyed the out of focus parts of my pictures; they are harsh and unpleasant. I am better served now with the bokeh of my Canon lens. Actually, this is a matter of taste, once again. While testing my new camera before buying it, I made a picture of a small figurine, with just its hands on focus, the rest being unfocused. It is 'appealing', not only to me.

I don't know the Nikon cameras but noticed that lower models benefit more than with other brands from the better sensors of the upper models.

This being said, you must learn to live with the limits of any camera you would choose.


Reto

[shreds]

Hi Ruckus,

I have been researching the Nikon D3000 for my son and have to say that for the price it certainly carries a lot of good features from the cameras further up the range.

Cards on the table I have been using Nikon for 19 years now and the good thing is that you can virtually pick any model up and intuitively feel comfortable with it, as they somehow manage to keep a Nikon feel to them in the way controls are well placed and accessible.

Of course when any one asks, I will always tell them that it is about the lens (glass) that you put on the front that will ensure that great pictures are forthcoming (assume that you have a good eye for a great picture in the first place, too). So for me it is the easy upgrade path and the fact that there will be compatibility through the range that sells it to me. Nikon do a fantastic range of lenses and I can see some of my Pro lenses being 'borrowed' if I am not careful.

Olympus have made great cameras in the past, and lots of folk are raving about the 4/3 system but it hasn't convinced me.

Needless to say my son will be getting the D3000.

Ian

[Ruckus]

Well decided to get the Canon XSI for the price and the features it has couldnt beat it just ordered it off amazon and dur to recieve it friday. Thank all you guys for information really was helpful.

[Sahil]

Hi. I have decided to buy Nikon D3000, but at the moment I can afford only the kit lens i.e. 18-55mm. Is it worthwhile? Right now I am using a P&S. (Sony W-80)

[PopsPhotos]

I have been shooting my Nikon D40 with the 18-55 lens for almost 2 years, now and am very happy with the lens. I do have the 55-200 also, but mount it only for special needs.

I'm not familiar with the D3000, so can't advise you on that part of the kit.

Pops