Reading mode: Light Dark

E3 V 40D....Help ME!!

Go to last post
G

Geoff_R

Veteran Member
Messages
4,693
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
I'm really trying hard to reconcile my decision to buy 2 x E3 bodies.

I keep looking at the specs of the 40D and and have downloaded as many sample files from both the E3 and the 40D I can find and the 40D seems to have the edge on the high iso stuff and a higher FPS. Also at the 40D's price point in the UK I can nearly get 2 x 40D's for the cost of one E3.
I'm on the brink do I cancel my E3's or is the a good reason why shouldnt?
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
Better, more consistent, more logical, lighter lenses.
Weatherproofing.
Articulating screen.
Dust buster that works.
In body IS.

E3 better camera really, but almost certainly not as good at high ISO stuff - that's what you lose for portability.

If you need high ISO rather than portability, you should forget both of them and go 35mmFF. APS-C is pointless - high ISO is only a bit better than 4/3rds, but the stupid 3:2 aspect ration means you use the image circle much less well, resulting in a serious weight gain and quality loss.

As for the 40D being half the price in the UK, you shouldn't buy hooky cameras off people in pubs :-)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
 
40D has lots more chroma noise and worse colors. Also you gotta spend big bucks on heavy L glass made for 35mm FF cameras cause Canon really just humors their APS sensor crowd. Finally Canon quality control is dodgy at times and they have a 'deal with it' mentality I mean just look at all those poor saps who spent 4 grand on a 1D mk3 only to be left dangling for months with a broken autofocus.

Don't get me wrong when their stuff works it is really good (which can be said for all manufacturers) but I personally don't trust their quality control enough to spend thousands of dollars on a camera that might not work right out of the box or that I'll get a sharp lens (even with the L series) the first time around. There's also the chroma noise which I personally hate with a passion.
 
Hi, i had the 40D i will cut to the quick as i don't have much time, the 40D is a very good camera in many respects but for me the big issue was Dust. I had dust that a rocket blower would not shift, so it left me to wet clean it which i did 7 times with the Eclipse 2 and sensor swabs, after 7 swipes still dust. It was so frustrating that the Dust reduction did not work properly, not like the Olympus i have had Olympus for over 3 years and not ounce did i have to clean the sensor. So my friend I'm not knocking the IQ etc, just the DR which in one word is Cr^p but if you can live with having to clean the sensor, and wet clean sometimes and it don't bother you, the 40D at the price might be a worthy consideration all the best Alan.
 
Louis_Dobson said:
Better, more consistent, more logical, lighter lenses.
Click to expand...
And yet another large investment in SWD glass to gain that advantage....plus the Canon also has a wide range of some pretty decent 3rd party glass available.
And as you know I'm an oddball around here...the 35-100 is not light.
Louis_Dobson said:
Weatherproofing.
Click to expand...
Agreed.....still got my E-1's though
Louis_Dobson said:
Articulating screen.
Click to expand...
Not a deal buster for me plus the Canon has a 3" screen as opposed to 2.5"
Louis_Dobson said:
Dust buster that works.
Click to expand...
Agreed
Louis_Dobson said:
In body IS.
Click to expand...
Canon IS lenses are about the same dosh as the pro and super pro zuiko's
Louis_Dobson said:
E3 better camera really, but almost certainly not as good at high ISO
stuff - that's what you lose for portability.

If you need high ISO rather than portability, you should forget both
of them and go 35mmFF. APS-C is pointless - high ISO is only a bit
better than 4/3rds, but the stupid 3:2 aspect ration means you use
the image circle much less well, resulting in a serious weight gain
and quality loss.
Click to expand...
Life is full of compromise's I NEED better high iso performance and dont want the weight penalty and expense of full frame
Louis_Dobson said:
As for the 40D being half the price in the UK, you shouldn't buy
hooky cameras off people in pubs :-)
Click to expand...
You gotta shop around where you can:-)
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
lloyd007 said:
40D has lots more chroma noise and worse colors. Also you gotta spend
big bucks on heavy L glass made for 35mm FF cameras cause Canon
really just humors their APS sensor crowd. Finally Canon quality
control is dodgy at times and they have a 'deal with it' mentality I
mean just look at all those poor saps who spent 4 grand on a 1D mk3
only to be left dangling for months with a broken autofocus.
Click to expand...
Agreed Canon QC leaves a lot to be desired at times...colours are a personal taste thing. Have you done lots of back to back comparisons of iso1600/3200 files from both using your normal workflow and printed them?....I have.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
Kanji said:
That's a big chunk of change for a camera that has not come out yet.
Why not just wait until you've handled one and taken a few of your
own test shots to see how you like it
Click to expand...
That would be the sensible thing to do but the diary is full with work and I need to sort this asap.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
Alan I dislike dust as well and the Oly dust reduction is the best but I can live with it.....just.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
No I haven't printed but I did view a metric ton of images of all stripes from all the cameras I was considering during my research period. It's a personal thing I know but I disliked Canon images the most. Fuji had the best images imo but from reading up on it it seems the S5 has some serious drawbacks wrt ease of use.
 
Geoff

Considering what you've been able to accomplish with the E1, the E3 will be a walk in the park. I too was considering what to do if Olympus was not going to come up with a replacement for the venerable E1, but now I see no reason to change. BTW, I would have gone Nikon over Canon in any case; Canon's QC is just rubbish.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au
 
First, ALL DSLR take fantastic photos, no question about that. 40D might have slight edge in high ISO (I have not tested it myself), but the difference is hardly noticeable unless you pixel peep.

Why not consider Canon 5D? It is a bargain right now, but FF lenser are expensive.
I did some nerdy spreadsheet research:





Cost and weight comparison, even with the mega-heavy and expensive 7-14 the E-3 system is a decent option.

--
http://www.4-3system.com
http://jonr.light.is
 
Louis_Dobson said:
Better, more consistent, more logical, lighter lenses.

If you need high ISO rather than portability, you should forget both
of them and go 35mmFF. APS-C is pointless - high ISO is only a bit
better than 4/3rds, but the stupid 3:2 aspect ration means you use
the image circle much less well, resulting in a serious weight gain
and quality loss.
Click to expand...
Only under the condition, that you accept more noise and wider dof, the lenses are lighter and and the capabilities for available ligth is restricted. Using lenses with better light intensity and lowering the ISO at the same time can compensate these restrictions.
 
looking at your excellent work i would imagine low light AF performance is a major consideration, i would test both cameras, if you can in similar conditions you intend to shoot in
 
In your most recent "fight night" thread, weren't you expressing how much you loved your 35-100 f2? That's a damned expensive and fine piece of glass you have. Imagine using it on the E-3. You obtain excellent results already (in combination with your skill of course), so why not move up in the 4/3 realm with the E-3? It can only get better my friend. As I've learned driving on heavily congested highways... you think the other lane is going faster, then you switch and realize what an idiot you are because if you had stayed in the original lane, you'd be much further ahead. If you were serious about "upgrading", though more expensive and heavier, just go to the D3, no sense in lateral transfers.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keggo/

Join the Flickr Group: Olympus Outcasts!
http://www.flickr.com/groups/558514@N21/

 
illy said:
looking at your excellent work i would imagine low light AF
performance is a major consideration, i would test both cameras, if
you can in similar conditions you intend to shoot in
Click to expand...
I know the canon is pretty good in low light conditions.....I am concerned with how much better the 35-100 will be on the e3...
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
Geoff_R said:
Louis_Dobson said:
Better, more consistent, more logical, lighter lenses.
Click to expand...
And yet another large investment in SWD glass to gain that
advantage....plus the Canon also has a wide range of some pretty
decent 3rd party glass available.
Click to expand...
14-54 is much better than any Canon lens cheaper than 900€. 50-200 SWD is just a 100€ more than old 50-200 which I sold for 900€ last month
Geoff_R said:
And as you know I'm an oddball around here...the 35-100 is not light.
Geoff_R said:
Weatherproofing.
Click to expand...
Agreed.....still got my E-1's though
Geoff_R said:
Articulating screen.
Click to expand...
Not a deal buster for me plus the Canon has a 3" screen as opposed to
2.5"
Geoff_R said:
Dust buster that works.
Click to expand...
Agreed
Geoff_R said:
In body IS.
Click to expand...
Canon IS lenses are about the same dosh as the pro and super pro zuiko's
Click to expand...
Oly 35-100 is better lens than 70-200IS for a 200€ more
Geoff_R said:
Geoff_R said:
E3 better camera really, but almost certainly not as good at high ISO
stuff - that's what you lose for portability.

If you need high ISO rather than portability, you should forget both
of them and go 35mmFF. APS-C is pointless - high ISO is only a bit
better than 4/3rds, but the stupid 3:2 aspect ration means you use
the image circle much less well, resulting in a serious weight gain
and quality loss.
Click to expand...
Life is full of compromise's I NEED better high iso performance and
dont want the weight penalty and expense of full frame
Click to expand...
If you are satisfied with a 1/2 stop high ISO advantage, and if you like Canon colours and images you should buy Canon
Geoff_R said:
Geoff_R said:
As for the 40D being half the price in the UK, you shouldn't buy
hooky cameras off people in pubs :-)
Click to expand...
You gotta shop around where you can:-)
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
Click to expand...
Why do you ask when you do know all the answers?!

If you don't want splashproof system, if you don't want lighter system, if you don't want 28-400 range with just two sealed, light, sharp, fast zooms...buy a Canon. If you want cheap decent lenses for Canon, forgett about quality which you will gett with 14-54 and 50-200. If you want good quality for Canon you should buy 17-55 IS + 70-200 IS + 1,4TC for 28-450 range. . .and that will cost you cca 3000€. 14-54 + 50-200 SWD kit is cca 1600€. If you say that 70-200 is a better lens than 50-200...ok, if you think so, but try to find competition for Olys 50-200.
But you know that, I'm shure.
Good luck :)
 
OzRay said:
Geoff

Considering what you've been able to accomplish with the E1, the E3
will be a walk in the park. I too was considering what to do if
Olympus was not going to come up with a replacement for the venerable
E1, but now I see no reason to change. BTW, I would have gone Nikon
over Canon in any case; Canon's QC is just rubbish.
Click to expand...
Ray I know canon qc is cr*p....I've been there before.....and I know everything I currently do with the e1 will be easier and better with the e3....but things MIGHT be just a bit better and easier with the 40d.....maybe.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
Jon

I did that and it actually worked out about $2000 less to go down the canon path than the oly path even taking into account my current oly gear.
Big price differences in items like flash units have accounted for that.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
 
Geoff_R said:
lloyd007 said:
40D has lots more chroma noise and worse colors. Also you gotta spend
big bucks on heavy L glass made for 35mm FF cameras cause Canon
really just humors their APS sensor crowd. Finally Canon quality
control is dodgy at times and they have a 'deal with it' mentality I
mean just look at all those poor saps who spent 4 grand on a 1D mk3
only to be left dangling for months with a broken autofocus.
Click to expand...
Agreed Canon QC leaves a lot to be desired at times...colours are a
personal taste thing. Have you done lots of back to back comparisons
of iso1600/3200 files from both using your normal workflow and
printed them?....I have.
Click to expand...
Good for you. Whay do you ask people around to tell you which one is better when you know what you like?
Geoff_R said:
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'
Click to expand...
For instance, I don't think about iso 1600/3200 with any camera I tried (canon 20D, Canon30D, Canon 5D, Olympus E1, Olympus E300, Nikon D100, Nikon D200, Minolta D7)
Take tha Canon :)
Cheers :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top