What would you get?

Olympus E-500 or the Canon 350D
Please state why.

Was reading this http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/page19.asp

Got a 350D, wouldnt want anything less than an EOS from now-on, to be honest.

They are proper - you click the button and theres no lag, it just takes a picture. The battery lasts.. well, I dunno.. never flattened it yet while out taking pictures. And Ive been away ~4/5 days without the charger, using the camera (with an IS lens) extensively.

Battery charge wise, its got loads left after I fill the 1GB card (~300 pics)  so I think your going to see more than 400/500 out of a battery. Need more? get the battery grip and have 2 batteries.

Then theres the list of lenses fit to it...  thats, err.. every lens canon have made since they went EF (> 20yrs ago) Its also compatible with the new EF-S lenses, so thats good, as its not going to be out of date. the camera will fail or youll want to upgrade anyway before canon stop supporting it.)

That and the fact the canon has a sockin great big CMOS sensor, so you can effectively use ISO 400 without worry, and ISO 800 aint bad either. if your desperate, you can use the highest setting: 1600, although do expect noise there.

That and you have to wait nearly 2 seconds for the Olympus to boot up - lame, you might miss a picture there. The 350D rocks, Id lost some shots if I had to wait for it to boot - instant-on, it really is. I cant beat it.. ive tried turning it on and pressing the shutter button as soon as I can and it takes the pic.. Ive not managed to catch it out!

ignore the nearly 3FPS for 27 images. some sites say 14..  I have found it takes pictures in its nearly 3FPS for as long as I hold the shutter. Ive an 80x Lexar CF card in there.

Any other questions you may have, ill be happy to answer about the 350D - cant rate it highly enough really.

Had an olmypus before it, easier menus perhaps... but the 350D is built in a way that you barely need to ever look at one, and you cant get easier than that

EOS 350D, as i was well impressed with the one i saw

Canon 350D.

Why didnt you make it a poll?

Practically every review it goes into it wins anyway.

Canon 350D.

Why didnt you make it a poll?

cause people would vote and not leave their reason, which is what i needed most

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

E500 = more bang for your buck.

2 Lenses including a decent zoom plus the body from curries for £549, or the closest decent EOS350 deal is 1 USM lens (you need it Ive seen a non-usm lens... its slow as hell), and a body for £600+

Oly kit lenses are the best according to julio at s5000.net

And the fact that as a new photographer your new toy will involve you buying lots of gubbins for your camera. The ultrasonic dust thing that the OLY has apparantly really helps while the eos350 has nothing like that.

Id go E-500 or 20d. the 350 is the ipod of the camera world. Sure its a good mp3 player, but its over priced for what it does.

My main reasons for wanting the E-500
Really think monetary value is going to win here. Shame i cant have both cause they are both really good cameras from the reviews

lol my main reason would be because of the 2 lenses it comes with.

My mate bought a 350d spent the £600+ from jessops.

Hes now spent I would guess about £250 on lenses and filters and other gubbins for it.

He still cant match my zoom on my fuji yet.

He has a 38 - 55mm zoom, and a 90 - 200mm zoom.

but with the 55mm on he doesnt have enough reach, with the 90mm he cant get enough wideangle on it.

Hes going to have to buy at least one more lens to cover the range inbetween the 55 and the 90... and then he wants more zoom than 200 I think. He also wants the fixed 50mm lens for it.

That little bunch of 3 lenses is likely to cost him £400-£500 in total.

The two lenses the olympus comes with is definately a major benefit. Id go for it if I had the dosh.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

My mate bought a 350d spent the £600+ from jessops.

Hes now spent I would guess about £250 on lenses and filters and other gubbins for it.

He still cant match my zoom on my fuji yet.

He has a 38 - 55mm zoom, and a 90 - 200mm zoom.

but with the 55mm on he doesnt have enough reach, with the 90mm he cant get enough wideangle on it.

Same can be said of my Panasonic DMC-FZ20 and even more so of the -FZ30, where it does have an advantage though is low light and limited light action photography.

Er... are the FZ-20 or FZ-30 dSLRs?? Thought they were "prosumer" cameras just like your current one.

An E500 is a dSLR. It has all the bells and whistles of the canon, plus the ultrasonic dust thing, and its cheaper, comes with more fittings.

My point I was making with the zoom comparison is that Brummie owns a S5600... hes used to 10x zoom (300 and something mm), when he has a dSLR the first thing hell end up buying for a canon is another zoom lens so it gives him more reach.

The Oly comes with one, it also comes with a lower zoom lens, and they both compliment each other, so he wont be stuck with dead ground in between the two lenses where hed need to buy another lens.

I dont like either, Pentax are far superior imo, but these are the pros and cons as I see them.

The Oly is likely to be easier to use and while the Oly Zuiko lenses are nothing to shout about, it uses the same mount as the Panasonic Lumix interchangable lens version. The higher end Canon glass is pretty good but its no match for Leica. Also the Panasonic/Leica lenses will have MOIS which will work with Oly bodys.

The Canon has a wider array of lenses available for it, though it is second bottom of the list in terms of lens backwards compatibility, the only one it beats is the Oly. The Canon has a larger sensor, giving better low light performance in terms of noise. If you like wide angle, the Canon has a lower crop factor so wide angle lenses are cheaper.


If I had to go with one of those two, much as it pains me to say it because I dont like them, Id take the Canon. Mainly because of its low light performance and larger array of available lenses.

As I say though, I rate my *ist DL2 over either camera, no question. The Pentax AF system is more precise (if a little slower), I have ISO 3200 and access to more than 30 years worth of Pentax SMC glassware. Oh and Ive yet to see a non-Pentax DSLR with a proper viewfinder.

PS I agree with snellgrove on trying out both cameras