Anybody out there that wold buy the olympus evolt 500 instead of the rebel?

[pyrxtc]

PS: I'm getting an E500 from my friend's store today to do a quick test, we'll see what happens (I'm comparing it with my really really old Canon 10D)

Well, the opnion was for the 500 and since you ahven't even tested it out yet, then maybe you should have waited until you did to chime in and say how awful it was. For someone who test cameras, maybe you should be testing it against something that came out the same time as it did to see how it compares.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

okay, just got back with Evolt 500 and RebelXT (I borrowed both so nobody can accuse me for writing a biased opinion based on a different camera models asked by OP). So am I allowed to chime in about the objective deficiencies (and also the strengths) now? I won't put ANY subjective review.

PROs:
1. better built quality than XT

2. better sized than XT (XT is way too small for my hand)

3. $100 cheaper than XT

4. Quiet mirror slap (XT is louder, tested in dead-silent room, my husband's sound-booth)

5. White Balance can be adjusted by Kelvin (so if you use light temp. reader, the white balance can be dead on, XT doesn't give this option)

6. Ginormous LCD (2.5", vs XT measly 1.8", this is important to me)

7. Can use both XD and CF (XT can only use CF... although at the same token, XD cards tend to be far more expensive than CF, at least 100% more in Canada)


CONs:
1. startup time is close to 2 sec with sensor-shake OFF, close to 3 sec with sensor-shake ON (XT is virtually instant, I flicked the power switch, and as fast as possible I moved my finger to the shutter button. Even before my finger reached the shutter button, the camera is already on).

2. slower AF by far (using Olympus 50mm f/2) XT is much faster (using Canon 50mm f/1.8, non-USM); using respective kit lens, AF on Olympus is slightly slower than Canon

3. ISO 200 on Olympus is grainier than ISO 200 on XT

4. ISO 400 on Olympus is on par with ISO 1600 on XT

5. Beyond ISO 400 is 'boost mode' only (meaning: the camera takes the picture with exposure lowered, then post-processed by boosting the exposure back to 'normal' within the camera. This is done for ISO 800 and ISO 1600). 'Boost mode' on XT starts (and stops) at ISO 3200. Natively the sensor sensitiviy goes up to ISO 1600 without resorting to lowering the exposure and post processing within camera body)

6. 3-point AF only (XT has 7 points, not that it matters, I only use the centre point and reframe, but for some people, the more AF points the better)

7. USB 1.1 connectivity (XT uses USB 2.0... also it doesn't matter, I use card reader anyway, but then again, some people download their pics straight from their camera)

8. Viewfinder is very small for my taste. To me, I can only use it to frame my pic but not to do manual focusing (XT is also too small for my taste, but it's large enough for me to do manual focusing).


That's all, that's as objective as I can comparing both cameras in question by the OP.

 

[pyrxtc]

you can speed up the start of the camera by turning off the sensor shake. But it really helps keep the dust off the lens.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

that's AFTER turning the anti-dust shake OFF. If I turn the anti-dust shake ON, the startup time is closer to 3 seconds. By the time the camera is on, whatever thing you want to take picture of is already gone. Even with anti-dust shake OFF. It's quite apparent that you don't really know your camera startup time. I thought you I'm the one who is supposed to know not what I'm talking about.

Heck, my Canon P&S 2004-release A95 have 2 sec startup time... and that's a $300 camera.

 

[donaldduck1967]

Lets remember these are JUST cameras. Lets not start a heated battle. Canon users love their equipment and it works for them. Olympus users, including me, love their equipment and it works for them. People's opinions are always going to be different. I've had my e500 for 6 months and have no problems or issues with what others may call "cons" of the camera. The reason people buy a certain camera is because they feel that camera is better suited for them. All that really matters is taking pictures and having fun.

 

[donaldduck1967]

Now who said there is a lack of lenses ??
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=8457

Those are just the lenses B&H sells. Here is a more complete list which does not inclued the lenses that will be released when Panasonic releases its 4/3's camera.

http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/oly-e/lenses.html

 

[Kelly Grannell]

the fact remains: a handful of lenses, maybe two handful of lenses vs hundreds of lenses per 3:2 dSLR brands. Thus, more limited regardless how you want to slice and dice it.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Lets remember these are JUST cameras. Lets not start a heated battle. Canon users love their equipment and it works for them. Olympus users, including me, love their equipment and it works for them. People's opinions are always going to be different. I've had my e500 for 6 months and have no problems or issues with what others may call "cons" of the camera. The reason people buy a certain camera is because they feel that camera is better suited for them. All that really matters is taking pictures and having fun.

very true, that's why I only listed what are objective (startup time, AF time etc). Now if you like it (in this case, I don't) are subjective.

 

[pyrxtc]

very true, that's why I only listed what are objective (startup time, AF time etc). Now if you like it (in this case, I don't) are subjective.

Actually you ctiticised it before you ever tried it.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

but in the end, I'm still right, right?

If 4 out of 5 cameras long-term-tested are bad, it doesn't take a genious to deduce that the 5th one is also bad. (C8080WZ, E300, E330, can't remember the 4th one).

Now 5 out 5 tested are objectively bad to its direct competitor. Satisfied?

 

[donaldduck1967]

but in the end, I'm still right, right?

If 4 out of 5 cameras long-term-tested are bad, it doesn't take a genious to deduce that the 3rd one is also bad. (C8080WZ, E300, E330, can't remember the 4th one).

Now 5 out 5 tested are objectively bad to its direct competitor. Satisfied?

I'm just curious, who tested the c-8080 as bad?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I tested it. Actually I bought it, focus hunt like crazy and ISO noise at 400 no better than my (then $350) Canon A80. I thought it was my copy, so I exchanged it, twice (due to the focus hunt in low light*) with the same result.

*using the same lighting condition, my A80 can focus lock faster than the C8080WZ. This is also confirmed by my friend who owns a camera store. People tend to love the quality of the C8080WZ except for the high ISO noise at ISO 400 and focus hunt at low-light condition.

 

[donaldduck1967]

I tested it. Actually I bought it, focus hunt like crazy and ISO noise at 400 no better than my (then $350) Canon A80. I thought it was my copy, so I exchanged it, twice (due to the focus hunt in low light*) with the same result.

*using the same lighting condition, my A80 can focus lock faster than the C8080WZ. This is also confirmed by my friend who owns a camera store. People tend to love the quality of the C8080WZ except for the high ISO noise at ISO 400 and focus hunt at low-light condition.

It's a shame that they only recently released a "unofficial" firmware update fot the 8080 and 5060 for the low light focus. I updated my 5060 and what a big difference

 

[Kelly Grannell]

really? Geez! because if it not due to the low-light (in)capability I would've kept the camera instead of the Canon A80 !! Lost a LOT of moments because of that problem.

It's about a year and a half too late!