dSLR shopping

[JonS]

Only comment I would make about that, Cakey, is that you just need to remember you're not simply buying a camera, but buying into a complete and largely proprietary system. Admittedly, 169 quid seems a bargain for any modern SLR with a couple of consumer-grade lenses, but, what happens when you decide you want to make another lens purchase (eg. macro) or buy a hotshoe flashgun ? Suddenly, you're spending a lot more than 169 quid on accessories that will only work with an Olympus body. Does the Olympus system suit your needs and wallet ? The same argument applies to any of the other brands as well, of course.

Alternatively, you could then sell the entire Olympus kit and buy a different brand camera and the actual lenses you know you'll want by then. But that gives an inertia to making further purchases.

Just food for thought, really. I'm not knocking Olympus stuff, but the Four Thirds system they use for their digital stuff is a smaller sensor than the other big players and sensor noise margins are always going to be higher as a result. I'm also not completely convinced by the argument put forward that the system and its 2x crop factor means that long telephoto lenses can be made lighter, more compact and more cost effectively. Their big lenses still seem big and expensive. None of this may matter much to you at the end of the day, depending on what you want/expect from the camera.

Jon

[CakeBoy]

Very good points Jon, and I have been wrestling with some of them overnight. The things that trouble me are the Four Thirds system/sensor issues you mentioned, the lack of physical stabilisation on the Olympus (it apparently smooths focus instead ) and there only being a 3 focussing points on it versus 9 on the Sony.

What I like about the Sony is the way they have brought lots of higher end features to the 'starter' market, their particularly good sensor stabilisation and the half reasonable kit lens quality and range (for a kit lense).

We really only want it for decent everyday shots and perhaps a little bit of hobby photography. No-one here will ever reach the photographic equivalent of TMC in terms of geekiness or hobbying. That said, I do believe in getting the best for the budget, which was roughly the £230 we were spending on the Sony.

I'm torn now tbh, the Sony body is definately more than £60 better than the Olympus body (which would have been a non-starter for us at anything other than the bargain price - not because it is no good, but because others offered more at the original selling price) as far as features are concerned, though the Olympus has good reviews for its shot quality and appears to be one of the better Four Thirds out there (it has the newer Panny sensor vs the original Kodak noise laden one), albeit inherantly noisier as you rightly mentioned. It has clearly been drastically reduced in price as a superceeded model that could not compete at the Sony's price point, and in the hope that it would shift at £169.

It seems a no brainer in favour of the Sony, and it would be, but ....... eventually, possibly soonish, we would need more glass for the Sony in order to cope with landscape shots. The Olympus has that glass with it, and by all accounts Olympus kit lenses are about as respectable as kit glass ever gets. So it would be another, say, £170 for similar quality Sony glass to make the kit comparable and the price differential becomes £230 - unless we make do with only one lense for quite a while.

Right now we are not skilled enough to find either body unacceptable. We have a point and shoot plus a film SLR, but it's ancient and manual only - no auto at all! Either of these cameras would be amazing to us.

Finally, the Olympus lenses alone currently each sell for about the same as the whole kit would cost us. Had we not ordered the Sony already and now have some perceived relationship expectancy from it, I would probably have just started off with the Olympus option because, as you rightly said, it could be sold on later - and I would think should not lose value any time soon because of the lenses. Actually, there is a clamour on the 'voucher code/deal' forums for these and they are going on ebay for around £100 more than the sale price, so perhaps that is an option in order to subsidise a second Sony lense. Even then though it would blow out budget. (Incidentally, it seems that the Sony kit went as low as £190 for a day before Christmas thanks t multiple discounting by Sony and retailers.)

Making it worse, the Sony arrived today and is sat in its box looking lovely. This is terrible . In the end, I need to remember that this is not the start of a big photography hobby, but just the need/desire for a decent camera set-up that will take good to very good photos and for that the Olympus should be very good. Still undecided though .......

[JonS]

It's a tough one, and at these sorts of prices, I guess there's a real possibility to just treat the purchase like one would buy a digital compact or bridge camera, ie. without the intention of buying any accessories, and just buying a whole new kit when you want to upgrade.

Out of interest, what are the focal lengths of the lenses in each kit ? The focal lengths specified are usually written as what they would be on a 35mm film camera, so before the digital camera's crop factor has been taken into consideration. A quick google gave me an Olympus kit that had a 14-42 and a 40-150 (which is equivalent to 28-84 and 80-300 on a 2x crop camera) and a Sony that had an 18-70 (27-105 equivalent after 1.5x crop factor)

If these are the same kits that you're looking at then I would think that the sony actually has the wide-angle advantage by 1mm for landscapes ? Obviously, it is a lot shorter at the telephoto end. This doesn't take into account any differences in build between the Olympus and Sony kit lenses. As one would expect with kit lenses, neither seem particularly ambitious on the maximum aperture ranges, although they do at least have reasonably restricted zoom ranges which helps.

I wouldn't presume to recommend either of these cameras over the other, as I have not used them. From what you say, it doesn't seem to matter much which you pick. My gut feeling is that the Sony you've chosen is probably the better camera based on sensor size, stabilisation facilities, and the extra AF points. Manual focus can be tricky with lenses with a small maximum aperture due to not letting much light in, in conjunction with the matte focussing screens they put in DSLRs (no split prisms here) Focus and recompose does work for the most part, but it's not always good enough at close distances.

Decisions, decisions ! Hope you make your mind up soon

Jon

[CakeBoy]

Absolutely Jon, it could be seem as a stand alone purchase as you suggest. The prices, particularly of the Olympus, are indeed very good.

Yes, you have the details of the lenses included in the respective kits spot-on. No-one here knows enough about how this all works to really understand it. Actually, it is a similar leap of faith as buying a first non-steam toy coffee machine! You sort of have to jump in to learn. Lots of reading has taken place, but it's a big old curve.

The Sony is the 2008 model, whilst the Olympus is a generation earlier and of 2007 origin.

I'm nowhere nearer deciding. Perhaps both side by side will help. Your comments about the Sony advantages are extremely helpful though and a decision will have to be made over the weekend. I appreciate the imput very much.

I think a coffee is in order seeing as we are not lukely to make a decision any time soon

[HughF]

I don't know how good the Sony in-body image stabilisation is compared to the Canon EF-S IS zooms I bought for my 350D but I'm VERY happy with hand-held results photographing people indoors (especially the 55-250 IS). I dislike using flash if I can possibly avoid it.
If you wish to take any similar photos, this would be the feature which would point me strongly towards the Sony, especially given the cost-effectiveness of buying it once for the body only, not for each new lens.

Cheers,

Hugh

[CakeBoy]

A very good point Hugh. More food for thought this evening.

[dsc]

Hi Cakey,

so how's the decision-making going?

Regards,
dsc.

[CakeBoy]

Been poorly over the w/e dsc, and was going to chat with someone about it but haven't managed as yet (sorry to the person who kindly offered to run through it).

The Sony arrived and is lovely, though I suspect the more traditional SLR sized Olympus might suit us better. The other factor is, as has been said, neither is loads of cash and the whole thing could be upgraded to a totally different format later without much, if any, loss.

Also, to get the equivalent range of lenses for the Sony that the Olympus kit comes with would move the comparitive costs to £400 versus £169 (discounted from a similar price to the Sony). It might be a no-brainer really if no other factor becomes the decider. The Olympus arrives Wednesday - it'll be good to see them side by side

[dsc]

Hi Cakey,

well good luck with the choice:) and remember to post some photos! at least you won't be able to say that you didn't have a camera nearby;)

Regards,
dsc.

[CakeBoy]

Can anyone lend us a camera to photograph our camera with?

[zix]

as an old Nikonist (-ian?) I am of course happy to see you mentioning mostly Nikon as the thread develops. Have you got the new camera yet, and which one did you end up with?

[shuurajou]

Watch out zix, I'm a Canon man! Let the battle commence! Hehe .

[zix]

Oooo camera battle... naaah, I have always liked Nikon the best but can't blame anyone who chooses the Other brand. I felt Canon was way ahead in developing the SLR cameras of the future when the EOS series came out in the 80's (I mean, just look at a camera like the EOS R600, it just left all the others standing), but I had already bought Nikon lenses, and couldn't afford the system change. And I still enjoyed shooting with my FM2, there was something very right about that camera for the way I like to work.

I admit I did a lot of thinking before deciding for Nikon when going digital. Very happy with how it turned out though, when Nikon announced the D200 I knew that was the proverbial "it".
The arrival of the D200 meant I could use all of my old lenses (early 80's or late 70's Nikkor lenses with manual focus), including the trusty Nikkor 50/1.4, which has turned out to be a marvellous lens for the DX format. The D200 with the old lenses behaves just like a slightly larger and more ergonomic FM2, only I now have access to AE exposure and can see the images directly after I have shot them... plus I don't have to wind or rewind.

[zix]

Sorry, I said EOS R600 but I meant Canon EOS RT.
Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_RT
You lose 2/3 of an f-stop but the mirror doesn't move... that was a good camera! I had a friend who had one, he loved it - and of course it got stolen at some airport.

[CakeBoy]

In the end we went with the Olympus twin lens package for £169. It had a nicer size, weight and feel than the Sony. The olympus ourter shell is traditional camera type plastic reinforced with glass, whereas the Sony, although excellent of build and clearly very strong felt more like a piece of top end consumer electronics. We liked the old-style camera feel. Takes fab pics too. Thanks so much to all for the help