worth upgrading e420 to e3???

Started May 6, 2013 | Questions thread
Historicity Senior Member • Posts: 1,037
Re: worth upgrading e420 to e3???

Bobby J wrote:

The 420 is an "Entry Level"camera.  Plastic, not built to "Pro" quality level.  The E-3 is a head and shoulders better camera.  IMHO, it is a vastly under-rated camera.  It makes LOVELY images.  The only thing the 420 has on it is light weight.  As somebody pointed out it's a good hiking camera, or travel cam when weight is a problem.

The E-3 weighs about the same as a Nikon D-300.  It has a shutter designed to go 100K cycles plus.  It is a fragile as a hockey puck.  Whole different league than the 420, not that the 420 is a bad camera...it's just not made to the same standard.

Someone said the E-3 is bad in low light.  Well, it's not as good as the Canikons above ISO 800, but to there it will hold it's own if you know how to use it.  For that matter I had useable results up to 1600, so it's not as bad as some might say, but not as good as the competion.  At today's prices it's bargain.

-- hide signature --


I have an E-3 and don't believe I "underrated" it in any way.  I like it fine.  But when you say the E-3 is a "head and shoulders better camera," you forgot to say better for what.  "better" is not intransitive.  My note was in reply to someone who used "upgrade" as though it were intransitive or an "absolute," but cameras are used for to take pictures of things and he didn't say what it was he most commonly photographed, just as you don't.

A consumer magazine will tell you that my Jeep Liberty is a very poor vehicle, but when you read the actual description you will find that it is a superb vehicle for going off road (the way I often use it), but it is poor when compared to an ordinary sedan for driving comfortably on highways.

Also as I said in my note I have cameras for different purposes.  I have an E-1 & E-3 for inclement weather -- also a Pentax K20d and K7 for the same purpose, by the way.  But the E-420 has proven itself to me.  It isn't cheaply built.  It is very well constructed, and "entry level camera" doesn't really mean anything in terms of build anymore.  You can get all sorts of Canon and Nikon cameras that aren't weather sealed and I doubt many of them are more durable or better made than the E-420.

But we are speculating about how the OP intends to use his camera.  He has been using the E-420 and may be happy with it.  He doesn't say that he isn't, but if he thinks that the E-3 will do something for him that his E-420 won't, I wonder what that is.  He only mentioned low light capability, but has he exhausted his E-420's capabilities in that respect?  Has he taken photos with a tripod, remote shutter actuator and at extremely slow shutter speeds?  How often does he need low-light capability?  I know the camera companies and other advertisers have spent a lot of money convincing a lot of people that they need extremely low-light capability, but I've discovered that I don't.  On hikes when I thought surely I am in low light but have taken a photo anyway (with my E-420, E-1, E-520, or E-500) as often as not the photos have been fine.  Yes, I have some semi-pro weather-sealed, extremely well-built cameras, but day in and day out, having a camera on hand "just in case," I prefer the E-420.


 Historicity's gear list:Historicity's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-420 Olympus E-500 Olympus E-600 Olympus E-5 +68 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow