E-330 v Canon 350D

I want to buy a SLR camera. I have been using C-7070WZ for quite some time and have grown out of it. Well, I'd like to think that.

I am looking at two different cameras Canon 350D and Olympus E-330 and cannot decide which camera to buy. There will be many subjective and bias opinions favouring E-330 since I am on Olympus SLR forum, I would like to hear all the nice features and as many reasons as possible to buy Olympus E-330 and not Canon 350D.

Thanks

joey_ said:

I want to buy a SLR camera. I have been using C-7070WZ for quite
some time and have grown out of it. Well, I'd like to think that.

I am looking at two different cameras Canon 350D and Olympus E-330
and cannot decide which camera to buy. There will be many
subjective and bias opinions favouring E-330 since I am on Olympus
SLR forum, I would like to hear all the nice features and as many
reasons as possible to buy Olympus E-330 and not Canon 350D.

Click to expand...

Make a list of the things YOU want, and try both cameras in-store for yourself- see which one you like. You can hear here and that but in the end, it's your money and you should buy what fullfills your needs- not someone else's.

Main sticking points:

Canon - better ISO, faster Auto Focus. You doing sports? Canon's probably better

e-330 - live view- precie macros, weird angles, convenience (less contorting the body). No worries about dust in sensor.

But make your own list, try the cameras for yourself, don't let someone convince you of their reason when it may be meaningless to you. At the very minimum say why you are looking at these two cameras, I don't see any requirements you have up there. Besides, this has been discussed quite a bit.

joey_ said:

Thanks

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d
Tools/Gui Programmer - vid games industry, photography student

Why just limit yourself to these two? I for one think you should also consider both the Olympus E-500 and the Nikon D70s. As for having people here listing you the benefits of each camera, why don't you tell us what you are looking for in an SLR. List your criteria from most important to lesser importance.

For instance what is your budget? What type of photography are you into? Are you looking to buy certain lenses? Etc.

That's what I thought. Other than Live View on LCD and protective filter for the sensore plus the price tag - there's nothing special about the camera.

I already mentioned that this would be my frist SLR. Why am I limiting myself to these models? First, Canon makes great SLR camera and there're many lenses available for their cameras. Olympus, because I am used to Olympus cameras.

As for D70 and E-500, well, is D70 still manufactured? There has been D50, D70s and now D80 which will be available on the market in early November this year. I'd like to buy the latest models.

joey_ said:

That's what I thought. Other than Live View on LCD and protective
filter for the sensore plus the price tag - there's nothing special
about the camera.

I already mentioned that this would be my frist SLR. Why am I
limiting myself to these models? First, Canon makes great SLR
camera and there're many lenses available for their cameras.
Olympus, because I am used to Olympus cameras.
As for D70 and E-500, well, is D70 still manufactured? There has
been D50, D70s and now D80 which will be available on the market in
early November this year. I'd like to buy the latest models.

Click to expand...

Look at what I wrote again. I said Nikon D70s not D70 ;-P

Anyways, I really think you should consider the E-500 as well. It comes in a two lens kit for the same price as the 350D kit with only one lens. I've demoed the two and to me, if you are only getting the camera with the kit, then the Olympus E-500 is the better deal than the Canon 350D. I also like the feel of the E-500 in my hands. The grip is fatter and easier to hold. I don't particularly like the thin grip on the 350D. You definitely should look at them in store and see which one feels right to you .

If you go with the Canon 350D then I would highly suggest you get just the body and invest in a more substantial lens.

Not getting at you, I see the same advice offered a lot, but I disagree.

Not until you have a lot of experience can you possibly tell whether it does what you want or not, and the camera ITSELF leads you into (hopefully interesting) areas.

Having a fiddle in the shop is like buying a sports car or sports bike to drive hard in/on (not ponce about trying to look cool) on the basis of sitting in/on it in the showroom and driving a mile or so in traffic.

Only once you've had it tail out at 150 miles an hour through a downhill tightening S can you possibly say if it is any good, and nobody is going to let you do that without buying it.

Playing in the showrrom just tells you if you can fit in it.

So, with a camera, read the reviews (and with the poor old E330, not just PA's barmy review), ask opinions, etc. Holding it in the shop tells you if it can't fit your hand, but that's about all.

Just my opinion.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

joey_ said:

That's what I thought. Other than Live View on LCD and protective
filter for the sensore plus the price tag - there's nothing special
about the camera.

Click to expand...

If you go that way, there is also nothing special about the canon or others... the camera is a tool.

If you like Olympus colors, image and build quality, and Olympus ergonomy, you'll like the E-330...

Then the lens choice is not that bad with the Olympus line, canon does not offer a lot more than Olympus...
So the choice is yours to make, Ive made mine and don't have any regret.
Regards
--
Comments are always welcome...
My gear is in my profile...

the comedy kit lenses, so if you can afford the E330 I'd consider a cheaper body and a proper lens.

As for the two cameras - they are so different; if you want the one you won't want the other.

My kind of phtography is arty stuff and landscapes, so I'd want LiveView. If you mainly take pictures of your family and pets in low light, the 350D is much better.

The direct Oly equivalent of the 350D is the E500 of course, which I have, along with the E1. The E330 is an E500 modified to provide LiveView.

The 350D is probabaly a better camera technically than the E500 - the viewfinder isn't so cramped, it does more fps, and the high ISO noise performance is better.

However, to get a good picture you have to:

Have the camera with you.
Have it correctly set.

The Oly 2x crop factor (which, as various people endlessly point out, is a misnomer, because there is no crop) makes for a much lighter system than the APS-C Canon (let alone the 35mmFF), so, if you buy some lenses, you are much more likley to actually be CARRYING your cameras if you get an Oly. Heavy kit, after people have played for a bit, tends to be left at home...

The Canon brings the baggage of earlier Canons with it, being clearly related to the (horrible) Canon EOS film camera I have here, and it really is an evil thing to hold, use and set. With the Oly, press the OK button, and you have a quickly navigable backscreen where almost anything can be set quickly. The Canon is menu driven, with all that means in wasted time and lost shots.

I've nothing against Canon, and now my needs have changed and a luggable, expensive lump is a valid solution, I'm looking at a 5D if Olympus doesn't come up with a high end camera soon (which they probabaly will - we should knbow in a few weeks). But I'd not use a 350D - very awkward camera, and there is no shortage of competition. If you wnat a Canon, why not a 30D? I've never used one, but that is a very powerful camera I'm told.

Back to the E330...

The weakness of the 330 is that it is based on the cheap and cheerful E500. If you do arty shots, I reckon LiveView is to kill for, and I'd love it. If you don't, then you are paying too much for an E500 and/or missing the chance for a faster, more powerful camera. It would be my choice, but it isn't for everyone. The unimaginative shooter isn't going to get mcuh from it.

If I wanted a cheap entry level camera like the 350D I'd consider the E500, the D50 (only 6MP and nastily cut down, but good quality and nice to use), the Pentax *ist (6MP and menu driven, but great viewfinder and practically being given away).

If I were prepared to pay a bit more I'd consider the E330 (really a question of whether you have the imagination to use LiveView, or just want straight shots), the new Sony A100 (looks good on paper), or the D80 (nice new toy, looking good).

With the greatest respect, coming up with a shortlist of two such different cameras as the E330 and the 350D suggests more thought needed. Just my opinion.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Thanks for your reply. Your argument is based on live viewfinder in E-330. As for arty landscapes? Wouldn't that depend on the quality and type of the lens rather than the camera body? Getting fast, quality wide zoom lens that's what I would consider if I am going for landscape arty shots. 6Mb In Nikon D50/D70s and Pentax - is hardly an issue for me. 6Mb is more than enough for me at the moment.

Louis_Dobson said:

The Oly 2x crop factor (which, as various people endlessly point
out, is a misnomer, because there is no crop) makes for a much
lighter system than the APS-C Canon (let alone the 35mmFF), so, if
you buy some lenses, you are much more likley to actually be
CARRYING your cameras if you get an Oly. Heavy kit, after people
have played for a bit, tends to be left at home...

Click to expand...

I see you mention this a lot, but I'm still curious as to the basis for this. This should be the case in theory, obviously, but I've never found the E-300/500 to be noticeably lighter or smaller than my APS-C camera, and that's just with the kit lenses for the Olys. If anything, the E-300 is usually more noticeable in its bulkiness than anything.

joey_ said:

Thanks for your reply. Your argument is based on live viewfinder in
E-330. As for arty landscapes? Wouldn't that depend on the quality
and type of the lens rather than the camera body? Getting fast,
quality wide zoom lens that's what I would consider if I am going
for landscape arty shots. 6Mb In Nikon D50/D70s and Pentax - is
hardly an issue for me. 6Mb is more than enough for me at the
moment.

Click to expand...

I think there are many good DSLR's out there that would fill the bill for you. I use, at the present time, Oly E10, E300 and E1 cameras, but I'm not pushing any camera. I think the camera that will win "Biggest Bang for the Buck" award will be the Nikon D50. Now that the D80 is out there will be a slight drop, in an already low priced D50 and it would be a very good "first" DSLR. There are even some Pro-photographers that use them. AdamT is one that comes to mind. Pentax also has some nice entry level cameras, but I have know experience with them. I did own a Canon 300D for about a years and really did like the results I got with that camera, but was never thrilled with that "silver/grey" look and the cheaper plastic feel. My daughter-in-law just bought a D50 to back up her D70 for her photo business. She says she actually likes using the D50 better than the D70 and she says she gets better result with the D50 = SB600 flash. I don't know why on that one. But to be perfectly honest with you I think the E1 with 14-54mm is the best camera out there for the price. It is a professional camera at a beginners price. You say 6mp is fine! Well, Oly's E1's 5mp will be more than enough for you. Oly's 5mp will beat most others 6.3mp. God, if that doesn't sound like pushing a camera. Oh, well!
JW

I faced this same sort of problem afew months ago (except i was considering the e-500 vs d50). What made me go for olympus was how the camera felt in hand, the availability of in-camera settings, and finaly the most important consideration was the quality of the kit lenses and the rest of the lens lineup. As far as i'm conserned the 40-150mm can't be beat for the price and the 14-45mm, is (by our standards here on the oly forum)the worst performer of them all, it is certainly as good if not better then the offerings from nikon & canon.

Oly's lens lineup may be small in quantity, but it wins in quality.

just my 2 cents

P.S. my e-500 + 40-150mm is far lighter then my friends d50 + 70-300mm nikkor

is much of a muchness for any system. I went out shooting for a few days with the Canon 5d and 24-70 2.8, both notorious lumps, and while it was bulky, it was no problem at all.

However, if you get serious, you are going to carry (say) a fisheye, a WA, a normal, a proper tele and a macro, plus filters, flash etc. Then the Oly stuff gets heavy, and 35mmFF gets hernia inducing.

There are various answers to this, primes, slow IS lenses, etc etc. But the most effective answer, IMHO, would be a 4/3rds sensor, if only Oly would get their finger out and make a grown up camera.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

I'd get the D50.

Nice camera, good system, you can grow into it, and you can buy a good lens with the money saved. Nicer camera than the clunky 350D, and I think, unless Oly especially appleals, you need to wait a few weeks to see if they actually plan to offer a sensible system. Mind you, if you are not in a tearing hurry, I'd wait for Photokina anyway. Even if you don't want anything launched there, it generally pushes down prices of "old" models and gives you an idea of which ranges you want to go with.

Yes, of course landscapes, and everything else, depend on a good lens - that's why I suggested less camera, more lens. But that kind of stuff also tends to involve odd angles.

Two shots follow to illustrate the point.

The first was taken when I took the dog up in the hills over the last weekend. Long story, but I'm taking a break from "serious" photography, so it wasn't a photo trip, I just happened to be there when this rather attractive cloudscape presented it self.

Point 1- because the Oly's are relatively light, I had the camera bag with me. I know only too well what a 5D bag weighs, and I wouldn't take it out on a ten mile walk if I didn't plan to use it (the 350D and lenses would fall half way between).

Point 2- naturally I didn't take a tripod. So I had to rest the camera on the bag. And prosrrate myself on the ground with my head in the dirt. I nearly didn't bother. With an E330, if I had one, I could have crouched comfortably and flipped up the screen.

Second, from a few months ago, is another lying on the ground shot. Again an E330 would have helped. However, the main problems with the shot were the cheapo C-AF and buffer on the E500. A higher end camera would have made life much easier.

What I need, and it may not be what you need, is a high performance, high resolution camera with LiveView, ideally based around a 4/3rds sensor. Unfortunately it isn't made.





--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Louis_Dobson said:

There are various answers to this, primes, slow IS lenses, etc etc.
But the most effective answer, IMHO, would be a 4/3rds sensor, if
only Oly would get their finger out and make a grown up camera.
--

Click to expand...

Louis, what is so special about the 4/3 sensor used on Olympus cameras?

Louis_Dobson said:

I'd get the D50.

Click to expand...

I was considering the D50 but a friend of mine talked me out of it saying it doesn't have AF assisted lightning which causes him some problems.

BTW Cool shots, I like the angle on the second picture.

Louis_Dobson said:

Not getting at you, I see the same advice offered a lot, but I
disagree.

Not until you have a lot of experience can you possibly tell
whether it does what you want or not, and the camera ITSELF leads
you into (hopefully interesting) areas.

Having a fiddle in the shop is like buying a sports car or sports
bike to drive hard in/on (not ponce about trying to look cool) on
the basis of sitting in/on it in the showroom and driving a mile or
so in traffic.

Only once you've had it tail out at 150 miles an hour through a
downhill tightening S can you possibly say if it is any good, and
nobody is going to let you do that without buying it.

Playing in the showrrom just tells you if you can fit in it.

So, with a camera, read the reviews (and with the poor old E330,
not just PA's barmy review), ask opinions, etc. Holding it in the
shop tells you if it can't fit your hand, but that's about all.

Just my opinion.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying. But you might have misinterpreted what I really meant.

What I meant to offer as advice was that ergonomics and ease of use are some of the important criteria in selecting a camera, not all of them. Heck if went to the store and only pick it up, turn it around for a few minutes then yes I see your point. But if you instead spent half an hour at the store taking pictures with it, going through the menus, and actually putting it through a brief demo, then would you not get at least a "feel" for it? I would actually say it's better than just reading about user reviews and descriptions on the internet. In the end the user is buying it for himself and just because it is well reviewed doesn't mean that the camera is right for him.

So I was only offering that advice. The opinions on here are great and helpful, but they must be complimented with actual testing at a store. And on the converse, trying it out in the store for 30 minutes is not the final straw unless you have done prior research and read some in depth user experiences with it as well.

Hope you thought about that before you labelled my advice as being bad. It was early morning so I didn't write enough to explain myself.

Those are very nice pics.

lkv11 said:

What I meant to offer as advice was that ergonomics and ease of use
are some of the important criteria in selecting a camera, not all
of them.

Click to expand...

You have to choose something first to go to the store to check it out.

size.

So - plus points:

1) A smaller focal lenth produces a larger magnification. 50mm on a 35mm camera gives you the equivalent magnification of 75mm on APS-C and 100mm on a 4/3rds camera. The advantage is obvious - Oly's fast, heavy and expensive 50-200 behaves like a 100-400 on a full frame, and for a 100-400 it is VERY fast, light and cheap. So if you want to carry a full kit, and you want to carry it everywhere, 4/3rds is way lighter and smaller.

2) You get, in my view, sensible DoF behaviour. For a given maginification and f stop, you get way less DoF than a digicam (which is good, because you can separate the subject), but more DoF than a 35mm (which is good, because in poor light getting enough DoF on a 35mm is a terrible struggle). Note - some people disagree, and want as shallow a DoF as possible in the name of art. Well, they're welcome. I hate fuzzy eared portraits and so, IME, does Joe Public. Produce a picture with one eyelash sharp and everything else blurred, only photo-nuts will like it.

3) The squarer aspect ratio uses more of the lens. In theory this produces less vignetting, straighter light path etc etc. This doesn't square with my experience and I think it is guff, but that's the story.

Minus points:

4) To cram (say) 10MP on the sensor, the photosites have to be closer. The electrical paths interfere [note to pedants: yes, I know, but this is the effect] and hence you get more nosie as you trun up the sensitivity of the sensor - ie at high ISOs. This tends to kill oly kit in DPreview reviews, but I honestly think this is a smaller disadvantage than point 1) is an advantage. If you use a software noise cleaner, you can remove the nosie with some resolution loss, and that loss is generally acceptable. I carry kit all day, I shoot high ISO once a week. I know which is important to ME, YMMV.

5) There is less light coming through the viewfinder. This gives a choice of dim (E300/330), small (E500) or expensive (E1, with a proper pentaprism).

I'm a fan of 4/3rds as an idea, but right now we are between generations at the high end - the E1 is obsolete, the replacement was (apparently) delayed due to sensor problems, and we are waiting with baited breath to see if it is finally at least demo-ed (launched would be too much) this September, so I'm not saying "Jump in, the water's lovely" because nobody yet knows if there IS any water.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/