On the Fuji S2 Pro, check the prices at www.keh.com. The $1300 for a used body is steep, to put it politely.

Thats why I considered buying others. The E-300 looks pretty good because it comes with 2 lenses and i've heard that the kit lenses are pretty good. but out of the ones listed which one would be the best for a camera/price ratio for a beginner when it comes to SLR's?

The camera that fits your hand easily is the one to buy.
Olmpus has 2 features not found on any other brands: pixel mapping, which will take care of "dead pixels" and auto sensor cleaning.
Stay away from kit lenses from anybody. If you decide on Olympus, go with the 28-108 2.8/3.5 lens, more expensive, but in the long run a better choice.

Ronk,

On what objective basis are you categorically condemning all "kit" lenses?

When it first came out the Canon Rebel arrived with an 18-55mm "kit" lens. I promptly did a comparison test shooting of very elaborate mission church interiors, with the camera lock down securely on a heavy Gitzo tripod, and shot with both the Canon kit 18-55mm and a Canon 20-35mm 2.8 "L". No discernable difference could be detected in sharpness, detail and rectilinear correction between the two lenses in prints blown up to 12x18 inches on 13x19 paper. That makes the Canon 18-55mm kit lens an incredibly good value in performance for the money, which is very modest in comparison to a Canon professional quality lens.

david, IMHO the kit lenses are too slow. they force the user to use a higher iso and compromise dof effects in camera.In the Oly's case, the 28-108 will focus to almost 1/2 life size as well, prwecluding for many folks the need to purchase a separate macro lens.

Ronk,

Maybe with some lesser camera brands you might need a faster lens, but it is not something I have found I am "forced" to use a higher ISO rating with any of the cameras I have used. And the close-focusing provided by zooms with an added macro range, does not come close to matching the range of a single-focus lens designed for macro photography. I think you are being neither honest or fair and you should retract your far too general condemnation of products which for many will serve them well and save them investing in more than they need.

David,

You stated "I think you are being neither honest or fair and you should retract your far too general condemnation of products...". May I remind you of your Nikon bashing (describing the new Nikon D200 as hyperbole and questioning Nikon's integrity and intentions). It appears to me that you are in no position to find fault with others.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Back on subject, for the E-500, besides having the option to do continuous shooting over burst shooting like in the E-300, it is worth it to buy the E-500 despite it only comming with one lense?

Frans,

Get your story straight. I did not bash Nikon, I simply criticized their marketing language in one particular instance. What is marketing language, advertising, if not a lot of usually unfounded hype intended to mislead?

Thats a lot different than condemning a whole class of lenses with a broad brush.

We are and should be free to express opinions, and be critical. But in this context in which many come to acquire information to make decisions as to what to buy, strong condemnation of an entire range of products based purely on limited individual experience can be misleading and potentially damaging.

David,

I don't need to get any story straight. The story is yours, not mine. These are your words, not mine:
"The 10.2 EFFECTIVE megapixel image sensor on the D200, is more hyperbole than anything. What happened to REAL pixels? Apparently the sensor does NOT have 10.2 megapixels of real sensors, it only produces an image as if it did. That won't compete with anything real."
"They would not use the word effective but for a reason, and what is advertising language other than hyperbole?"
"I simply questioned the Nikon PR language in respect that it may not in reality compete one on one with more expensive cameras."
"I simply quoted Nikon and suggested there may be a reason for the use of the term "effective" which should elicit skepticism."
"The entire press release is typical of the genre, containing countless unsubstantiated adjectives."
"I doubt any company will undercut an important camera model like Nikon's D2X with another camera at less than half the price that performs just as well."

Since, as you say, we are free to express opinions, I express the opinion that your comments constitute Nikon bashing. And while we are on the subject, you are in no position to ask other people to retract their opinions, since, after all, we are and should be free to express them.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

can we PLEASE get back on subject?

I don't know about you, but if I am attacked, I fight back.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Franz,

I would make the same criticism of any similar use of language by any manufacturer that is so obviously intended to mislead. In fact Nikon is not exceptional in this regard, and as you failed to note the language I criticized was produced by a PR agency in a news release for Nikon, not by Nikon directly. So how really can that be Nikon bashing?

You are just looking for an excuse to do your own personal bashing, possibly?

Franz,

No one, including me, has attacked you. So what's your problem. You are the one who keeps bringing my name into your arguments attempting to define how everyone should follow your lead about LCD's and color management. So what are you doing if not trying to incite some kind of response from me?

Obviously a war of words is not what anyone else wants, so why do you persist?

Sounds like the E-300 Kit is the one for you. Olympus has had a good rep. in the past for quality equipment but just remember that all lense manufacturers make a dud once in a while. You'll just have to step in it once in a while like we all do. I don't know your money situation but Ronk did make a good suggestion about the 14-54 lense. I would advise you to look at aftermarket brands to check on available lenses for Olympus as compareds to the other brands.
If photography is going to be your hobby watch out for the TECH trap. Don't get wound up in new devices and forget to take the pictures. Once you start you can decide what lenses and bodies you'll need for your interest. Just start shooting and see what catches your interest. It's 5:22 AM I'm going to bed now.

David and Frans,

I'd like to ask a favor: This is New Years Eve, and 2006 is just hours away. How about, as of midnight, all slates get wiped clean and we make a fresh start tomorrow?

The technical aspects of your on-going debate have been interesting; but the debate has also grown more rancorous over the last few months, and that is NOT fun to watch. I respect both of you, but I think you'll agree that it's time to pull the plug on this. What better time to do it than now?

What do you say, guys?

Bill

Anon.,
B&H, for one offers both cameras with both lenses, if that is the way you wish to go.
My personal prefere is the 14-54 as I stated before. The extra reach available by getting 2 lenses is only 40mm or so. The pricing is about the same and there is a rebate available from OLY. If you really need the longer reach, consider the really longer reach of the 50-200mm lens (35mm equiv. 100-400.

Bill, I'm with you here. I feel many times our passion comes with strong opinions. I feel the point here is to buy a camera that not only suits the needs of the person, but also fits the budget. Whatever camera is purchased I am sure it will find its place with he user. Now I feel Canon is favored here over Nikon products. No real personal experience with either allows me not to form my opinion, but I feel Frans has a point as far as getting the impression Nikon is lesser than Canon because of the way it is marketed or designed. From what I can see this goes back a long ways between Canon and Nikon users. Canon and Nikon makes some nice cameras. When I see images made from a D200 and compare it to a 5D I feel each have a lot to offer for the money. I would like to think Nikon has a good camera for the money. The bottom line Cameras Like the 5D are good but not everyone can afford to invest that kind of money in a camera. The Nikon D200 being about half the price gives many hope of having a quality DSLR. True it might not be real pixels when judging all things, but in reality is anything what it says it is. The one thing that has kept me out of the digital madness is things like this. It is all just about money and sales. No one company I feel gives the whole truth of things. Still shooting film I watch this from the outside so I have no personal feeling about the digital wars, but the one thing that has bothered me since digital has taken the photography world by storm is we tend to forget why we do what we do and more what technology can do for us. What is right for one might not fit the budget or one might prefer Nikon interface or Canon. Apple and PC same thing. I just paid about the same amount of money to buy a film camera a D200 or Canon 20D would cost. So is that wrong. Am I crazy for investing in the past and not the future? I might be, but I know what I want and I know what I feel I got for the money I spent. In the end whether it is digital or film, Nikon or Canon it does not matter. What matters is that one has a tool he can express his or her passion. The freedom of expression reaches far beyond brand names. Monte Johnson.

Bill,

Fine with me, happy to agree. So that takes care of my side of it.

David,

"...language...so obviously intended to mislead" is at the heart of the issue. You assert that Nikon (or its PR agency - it really doesn't matter) misleads and I strongly voice my opinion against such an attitude.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Bill,

Wiping slates clean is just fine with me.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

My budget is about $800 with at least one lense. I was over at a local camera store today and the guy behind the counter said that he could probably order a single lense E-500 kit for around $700. He also said that i should look at a Canon Digital Rebel XT, and that its twice the camera of the Evolt E-500. is this true? I need an SLR for school and i want flexibility without breaking the bank.

I own a RebelXT and it's a wonderful camera. I'm a hobbyist rather than a professional and I'll be years figuring out all of the amazing options this camera offers.

But having said that, I can't really believe that the RebbelXT is "twice the camera of the Evolt E-500". In fact, the Olympus has a few things I'd like to see on my Canon - the large bright LCD screen and multiple card slots just to name two.

This is Art more than Science. Hold each in your hand. Look through the viewfinder. Play with the zoom and focus controls. Which one speaks to you? That's the one you should get.

ok, I held a Rebel XT just the other day and even though it was just a wee bit small compared to the nikon D50, it has a better feature set. I'm mainly going for something that will give me the greatest flexibility so i don't have to worry about technological barriers.

only 1 comment on this subject
GO CANON!!!