The Online Photographer top 10 cameras

[Groucho]

This article was posted pretty recently... there's some interesting choices and observations there, probably good to stir up a little controversy.

Like... not one, but two film cameras, including a large-format one. Another pick is a medium-format digital back. And even a point-n-shoot! (Their pick can be debated - they went with the Canon SD870 over the Fuji F40, just barely, because of the F40 lacking true IS.

Some of the picks are not surprising - the Nikon D300 (certainly the APS-sensor camera to beat at the moment) is #1 and the D3 is #4. But there's some very kind words for the Pentax/Oly crowd with their D300 paragraph:

Although image quality is not quite as good as the K20D's, and the basic body style is not quite as pleasingly put together or as much of a pleasure to use at the Olympus E-3...

Based on that, it probably won't be a surprise that the #2 and #3 pick are a tie between the K20D and the E3.

In case there's not enough controversy yet, they explain the Pentax/Oly tie as being about lenses.

Olympus has become to the digital age what Leica was to the preceeding generation and Zeiss to the generation before that—the world's leading lensmaker.

No company has Pentax's range of purposed-for-digital single-focal-length lenses, however. Both Carl and I are using Pentax's stunning new 35mm DA Macro, which we plan to do an extensive joint post about sometime in the coming two months or so. Suffice to say that we both agree it is, in Carl's words, "really something special."

By contrast, Nikon's and Canon's large but jumbled lens lineups are a hodgepodge of good and not-so-good, old made-for-film and new digital-specific, IS-enabled and not, pro and "consumer," full-frame and reduced-frame, that can ultimately be confusing and even frustrating.

Let the debate begin.

 

[jann1033]

interesting article but i think pentax and Oliy would actually be 3&4 since he picks the 40d in 1 with the Nikon (with which i agree , i would almost change systems for the n300 ) ( getting the debate rolling( )

my dream camera there is that wista .... a thing of beauty... but hub would lay down and refuse to move if i bought that for him to lug around , plus we'd probably have to permanently dwell in our tent to afford it

 

[Groucho]

I love the large-format cameras, too... one of these days, maybe.....

But I have to disagree on the 40D. I think that if they thought it deserved a place on the list, it would have one. The K20D and E3 are direct competitors to the D300, just like the 40D, and they made the list. Note that there's a similar "alternate" mention of the A700 in the K20D/E3 section, and they specifically say that concerns about image quality kept it (the A700) off their list. Similarly, their position (as I read it) is that the 40D does nothing better than the D300 except cost less, whereas the K20D and E3 have improvements (IQ and ergonomics, no say nothing of built-in IS.)

 

[jann1033]

actually if you read the last pp it says "Also a well-sorted, nicely evolved, cheaper competitor with excellent performance: the Canon 40D, a recent update of the D30 [sic]*. Although it scores over the D300 in only one way—price—the 40D is a solid step up from entry-level DSLRs and a fine user overall." so unlike the 700 they don't state any reservations about it. between the d300 and 40d, they are rating the d300 as number one, which i would agree it has some features that are better than the 40d.

 

[ukcatfan]

I still no do think the author is placing it as any sort of tie for first.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

This somehow sounds familiar...

Let's get the negatives about the Olympus E-3 out of the way first, because there are some, as rehearsed ad nauseam by pontificators who don't find this camera appealing on paper.

• Only ten megapixels. Check, although "who needs more" is still a valid question.

• Sensor slightly smaller than the more common APS-C-size. Check, although the difference is mostly theoretical and usually highly overstated—4/3rds is really barely smaller than APS-C, and the lion's share of viewers, even experienced ones, wouldn't be able to pick out which is which in a blind test except at just the right enlargement sizes.

• Olympus isn't one of the "Big Two." Check. But it's still a big, innovative, highly experienced camera company with extremely talented designers and engineers in its employ.

There are some advantages to the E-3 too: a solid and pleasing feel to its build; with the right lenses, it's waterproof (you won't catch me trying this, but I've seen them held under running faucets with impunity—try that with your D300); IS built into the body; and the lens line is simply ne plus ultra—Olympus, we feel, is the world's leading lensmaker at this moment. Focus with the new SWD lenses is very fast, but slows down considerably in low light levels (the D300 and A700 do better in low light levels). No, the E-3 just doesn't win many of the pixel-peeping or spec-chasing contests. Other cameras can out-point it.

However, there is one important measure in which the E-3 absolutely excels: image quality. As Peter K. Burian writes in his Shutterbug review, "Low ISO image quality is superlative. My best ISO 100 to 400 JPEGs are clean, silky smooth, and finely detailed. Resolution is outstanding, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness are quite high for a very pleasing overall effect." Used with one of the better Oly lenses, the E-3, within its power band, is capable of connoisseur-pleasing photographic image quality that's tough to beat with just about anything on the market.

Regarding our "tie" between the K20D and the E-3: What both of these cameras share is especially high image quality and fine lens lineups. However, the two companies' approach to lens availability is radically different. Both have advantages. Olympus has been building its Zuiko Digital lineup from scratch since the advent of the E System, giving it a real advantage in terms of overall quality—what one might call a coherence of quality. As we've written elsewhere, Olympus has become to the digital age what Leica was to the preceeding generation and Zeiss to the generation before that—the world's leading lensmaker. However good its principal offerings, however, the line remains seriously limited, meaning that you should check for the current availability of the lenses you need before buying into the system.

 

[Renysmom]

"Let's get the negatives about the Olympus E-3 out of the way first, because there are some, as rehearsed ad nauseam by pontificators who don't find this camera appealing on paper.

• Only ten megapixels. Check, although "who needs more" is still a valid question.

• Sensor slightly smaller than the more common APS-C-size. Check, although the difference is mostly theoretical and usually highly overstated—4/3rds is really barely smaller than APS-C, and the lion's share of viewers, even experienced ones, wouldn't be able to pick out which is which in a blind test except at just the right enlargement sizes.

• Olympus isn't one of the "Big Two." Check. But it's still a big, innovative, highly experienced camera company with extremely talented designers and engineers in its employ.

There are some advantages to the E-3 too: a solid and pleasing feel to its build; with the right lenses, it's waterproof (you won't catch me trying this, but I've seen them held under running faucets with impunity—try that with your D300); IS built into the body; and the lens line is simply ne plus ultra—Olympus, we feel, is the world's leading lensmaker at this moment. Focus with the new SWD lenses is very fast, but slows down considerably in low light levels (the D300 and A700 do better in low light levels). No, the E-3 just doesn't win many of the pixel-peeping or spec-chasing contests. Other cameras can out-point it.

However, there is one important measure in which the E-3 absolutely excels: image quality. As Peter K. Burian writes in his Shutterbug review, "Low ISO image quality is superlative. My best ISO 100 to 400 JPEGs are clean, silky smooth, and finely detailed. Resolution is outstanding, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness are quite high for a very pleasing overall effect." Used with one of the better Oly lenses, the E-3, within its power band, is capable of connoisseur-pleasing photographic image quality that's tough to beat with just about anything on the market.

Regarding our "tie" between the K20D and the E-3: What both of these cameras share is especially high image quality and fine lens lineups. However, the two companies' approach to lens availability is radically different. Both have advantages. Olympus has been building its Zuiko Digital lineup from scratch since the advent of the E System, giving it a real advantage in terms of overall quality—what one might call a coherence of quality. As we've written elsewhere, Olympus has become to the digital age what Leica was to the preceeding generation and Zeiss to the generation before that—the world's leading lensmaker. However good its principal offerings, however, the line remains seriously limited, meaning that you should check for the current availability of the lenses you need before buying into the system."


I am probably one of the only Dis'r here who actually owns the E-3, at least as far as I know and let me tell you. It is a superior camera. I have taken some of the best pictures I have ever taken since getting this camera. Throw in the new Oly 12-60 lens or the 70-300, both which I have and it is camera heaven. I would highly suggest the Oly line of DSLR's to anyone who is getting their first DSLR

 

[jann1033]

180+ views and only 6 replies...i must be the only one searching for an outlet for my pent up aggression

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Guess this is worth saving for future reference on first-dSLR threads.

Any entry-level DSLR, with the Canon 450 (Rebel XSi in the 'States) and Nikon D60 leading the pack. (Note: both bodies are recommended with the matching IS/VR lenses, per the links.) The primary difference between point-and-shoots and DSLRs is the size of the sensor: digicams have sensors roughly the size of a fingernail, and DSLRs have sensors roughly the size of a postage stamp. It's a huge difference, and it shows in overall image quality, especially at higher ISOs (light sensitivity) in low light. Unless you always shoot in good light, we feel it's worth jumping that chasm. Our top recommendation for anyone currently shooting with a small-sensor digicam of any description, assuming they can handle the size, is to make the jump to large image sensors. The cheapest and most satisfying way to do this is to invest in an entry-level DSLR.

Besides the Canon and Nikon, two entry-level DSLRs that offer body-based image stabilization (as opposed to having the technology in the lens) are the Pentax K200D and the Olympus E-520. The advantage of doing it this way is that any lens you put on the camera will be able to utilize the feature. In the case of the Pentax, that includes many older lenses in Pentax K-mount.

Renysmom I know of at least one other Dis'er who will be buying the E3 soon. I believe the Oly E-420 shares some of the features of the E3 which has helped make it appealing to many (will see if I can find a reference article).

 

[Renysmom]

pea-n-me wrote:

Renysmom I know of at least one other Dis'er who will be buying the E3 soon"



Pea - DO IT DO IT DO IT... You wont regret it