Any opinions on the Olympus E330?

[OREOSpeedwagon]

I'm looking to get into photography but being a college student, unfortunately my budget is a little thin. I've been looking at the Olympus E330, mostly because of the good reviews and price ($399 on Amazon). Does anyone have any experience with or opinions on this camera? I'm open to other suggestions as well, and I can stretch my budget to $500 if necessary but I can't really afford much more than that.

edit: I'm also looking at the Canon Rebel XT.. would it be worth the $100 to go with it instead of the Olympus?

 

[Sassy Rabbit]

I have an E-500 (one model up) and I have really like it, though I have noticed that the Olympus brand does not seem to be too popular here. I bought it because, at the time, the price was right compared to the Cannon DSLRs. (Though, retrospectively, I am kicking myself for the decision because I later inherited both a Pentax and Cannon SLR from my parents and grandparents....but hindsight is 20/20). If you currently have an SLR, you might get more mileage from another brand if you already have lenses.

 

[ElFenix]

the E-330 has a dim, small viewfinder. i think even the E-300 was pretty bad.

you may want to try the E-500 from cameta camera or olympus auctions on ebay.

also, with the rebate the pentax K100D (which has an excellent viewfinder and good ergonomics) has been under $400 lately. unfortunately buydig just raised the price $50.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Olympus has some exceptional lenses available for their system. However, in my mind there are a couple of distinct cons about the 4/3 system.

1) 4:3 aspect ratio. This is personal preference, but I find that I prefer the traditional 3:2 aspect ratio as opposed to the 4:3 ratio. Granted, you can easily crop back to 3:2, but that's one more step each time one edits a photo. Of course, some others prefer this ratio, so it's something you'll have to decide for yourself.

2) Physically smaller sensor compared to even APS-C DSLRs. This puts them at a slight disadvantage at high ISOs. That said, this isn't a huge deal to me, after all, I've found the Sony A100's high-ISO noise to be something that I can work with, and there's not much difference between its performance and the 4/3 cameras' performance. The killer here for me though is the smaller viewfinder.

Those are fairly minor quibbles though, and I've seen some spectacular shots from Olympus cameras. I've been very fond of Olympus point and shoots and I think they make some exceptional lenses so I can't see anyone going "wrong" with an Olympus DSLR. If it fits your hand and you like it, then go for it. I seriously doubt that you'll be disappointed.

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

The Olys are what I consider something of a niche market - those who want a compact and light SLR package, more compact than the Rebel series. I think I would thoroughly enjoy one for backpacking. Just thinking about being able to carry a lightweight-ish 1.7lb f/2.8 50-150mm and have the equivalent FOV of a 100-300mm f/2.8 lens is very very very very very tempting. I currently carry a 100-300mm f/4 and the thing is 5lb and swings around like a bat , not to mention my 30D body + grip isn't exactly light compared to an Olympus body. *drools*

I know on a 30D the 100-300mm is actually 160-480mm, but the 70-200mm f/2.8 is around the same weight, and on a 30D would almost equal the 100-300mm FOV of the 50-150mm on the Olympus.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
The Olys are what I consider something of a niche market - those who want a compact and light SLR package, more compact than the Rebel series. I think I would thoroughly enjoy one for backpacking. Just thinking about being able to carry a lightweight-ish 1.7lb f/2.8 50-150mm and have the equivalent FOV of a 100-300mm f/2.8 lens is very very very very very tempting. I currently carry a 100-300mm f/4 and the thing is 5lb and swings around like a bat , not to mention my 30D body + grip isn't exactly light compared to an Olympus body. *drools*

I know on a 30D the 100-300mm is actually 160-480mm, but the 70-200mm f/2.8 is around the same weight, and on a 30D would almost equal the 100-300mm FOV of the 50-150mm on the Olympus.

olympus makes a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5, the new sonic motor version weighs just over 2 lbs, a slight reduction from the old one. not bad if paired with an E-510.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the E-330 has a dim, small viewfinder. i think even the E-300 was pretty bad.

you may want to try the E-500 from cameta camera or olympus auctions on ebay.

also, with the rebate the pentax K100D (which has an excellent viewfinder and good ergonomics) has been under $400 lately. unfortunately buydig just raised the price $50.

It looks like Cameta has a nice E-500 kit on ebay for $425. This sounds like it would be a better bet than the E-330 Any opinions on this one?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the E-330 has a dim, small viewfinder. i think even the E-300 was pretty bad.

you may want to try the E-500 from cameta camera or olympus auctions on ebay.

also, with the rebate the pentax K100D (which has an excellent viewfinder and good ergonomics) has been under $400 lately. unfortunately buydig just raised the price $50.

It looks like Cameta has a nice E-500 kit on ebay for $425. This sounds like it would be a better bet than the E-330 Any opinions on this one?

also on amazon

edit: viewfinder is actually smaller on the E-500, but should be much brighter because it doesn't have the A mode live view of the E-330. neither will be particularly useful for manual focus confirmation. though, most digital SLR viewfinders aren't.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

What about the Nikon D40? Between it and the E-500 which would be a better choice?

 

[tfinch2]

Get an E-300. Bigger viewfinder + better built camera. I've liked mine for the 3 years I've had it. Check sig for pics.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Get an E-300. Bigger viewfinder + better built camera. I've liked mine for the 3 years I've had it. Check sig for pics.

I considered the E-300 at first but the shape and noise at high ISO levels bothers me a little bit. That's why I started looking at the E-330 and the E-500, but now I'm kind of leaning toward the Nikon D40. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens looks really nice (and affordable too), and all around I'm really impressed with the photos on flickr and the reviews I've been reading. Any opinions on the E-500 v. D40?

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Get an E-300. Bigger viewfinder + better built camera. I've liked mine for the 3 years I've had it. Check sig for pics.

I considered the E-300 at first but the shape and noise at high ISO levels bothers me a little bit. That's why I started looking at the E-330 and the E-500, but now I'm kind of leaning toward the Nikon D40. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens looks really nice (and affordable too), and all around I'm really impressed with the photos on flickr and the reviews I've been reading. Any opinions on the E-500 v. D40?

Oh noes, the shape of my camera will make me take inferior pictures! How is the shape of the E-330 any different? High ISO is overrated. Get a monopod.

You will be unhappy with the E-500 because of serious tunnelvision. Don't get the D40, you won't be able to use any non-AF-S lenses with it (IE 50mm f/1.8).

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Get an E-300. Bigger viewfinder + better built camera. I've liked mine for the 3 years I've had it. Check sig for pics.

I considered the E-300 at first but the shape and noise at high ISO levels bothers me a little bit. That's why I started looking at the E-330 and the E-500, but now I'm kind of leaning toward the Nikon D40. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens looks really nice (and affordable too), and all around I'm really impressed with the photos on flickr and the reviews I've been reading. Any opinions on the E-500 v. D40?

Oh noes, the shape of my camera will make me take inferior pictures! How is the shape of the E-330 any different? High ISO is overrated. Get a monopod.

You will be unhappy with the E-500 because of serious tunnelvision. Don't get the D40, you won't be able to use any non-AF-S lenses with it (IE 50mm f/1.8).

I have fairly large hands and I was a little worried the smaller grip would be uncomfortable to use. Not saying it would affect the image quality but I'd rather the grip be slightly larger.

The 50mm lens I was looking at was this one, which should work with the D40, just manual focus only right?

edit: I should clarify - the main reason I'm looking at the D40 is because it appears to be a good, solid entry-level SLR with (from what I've read) one of the best kit-lenses at the <$500 price point. This is a plus because after buying the camera, I won't have much money to spend on lenses for quite a while.

 

[alfa147x]

I would do the XT no questions asked... a lot of accessories are made for canon or Nikon do the right thing and go Canon

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I would do the XT no questions asked... a lot of accessories are made for canon or Nikon do the right thing and go Canon

I have been really happy with my Canon PowerShots in the past How is the 18-55mm lens? I read a review somewhere where the reviewer wasn't happy with the kit lens, which is kind of why I'm leaning toward the Nikon.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I would do the XT no questions asked... a lot of accessories are made for canon or Nikon do the right thing and go Canon

why you are recommending the xt to someone with big hands i do not know.


the E-300 should be fine for ergonomics. it's got a good, deep hand grip. olympus lenses tend to be very good, even the kit ones. it's got a bigger grip than the E-330 (which also has a good grip), which you asked about in the OP.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I would do the XT no questions asked... a lot of accessories are made for canon or Nikon do the right thing and go Canon

why you are recommending the xt to someone with big hands i do not know.


the E-300 should be fine for ergonomics. it's got a good, deep hand grip. olympus lenses tend to be very good, even the kit ones. it's got a bigger grip than the E-330 (which also has a good grip), which you asked about in the OP.

Cool, for some reason I thought the E-300 had a small, almost nonexistent grip. Not that this revelation has a positive impact on my decision, which is now between the E-300, the E-500, and the Nikon D40 At this point is there anything significant that could sway my decision? All three seem like really great cameras.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I would do the XT no questions asked... a lot of accessories are made for canon or Nikon do the right thing and go Canon

why you are recommending the xt to someone with big hands i do not know.


the E-300 should be fine for ergonomics. it's got a good, deep hand grip. olympus lenses tend to be very good, even the kit ones. it's got a bigger grip than the E-330 (which also has a good grip), which you asked about in the OP.

Cool, for some reason I thought the E-300 had a small, almost nonexistent grip. Not that this revelation has a positive impact on my decision, which is now between the E-300, the E-500, and the Nikon D40 At this point is there anything significant that could sway my decision? All three seem like really great cameras.

Go to a store and physically hold several cameras in your hands and play with them for a while. That's the best advice I can give you. There's really no way to go "wrong" with any of the DSLRs on the market today.

ZV

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Get an E-300. Bigger viewfinder + better built camera. I've liked mine for the 3 years I've had it. Check sig for pics.

I considered the E-300 at first but the shape and noise at high ISO levels bothers me a little bit. That's why I started looking at the E-330 and the E-500, but now I'm kind of leaning toward the Nikon D40. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens looks really nice (and affordable too), and all around I'm really impressed with the photos on flickr and the reviews I've been reading. Any opinions on the E-500 v. D40?

Oh noes, the shape of my camera will make me take inferior pictures! How is the shape of the E-330 any different? High ISO is overrated. Get a monopod.

You will be unhappy with the E-500 because of serious tunnelvision. Don't get the D40, you won't be able to use any non-AF-S lenses with it (IE 50mm f/1.8).

the shape of the canon xt and xti is like holding chinese puzzle box to many.
if i have to malform my hand to take a photo...YES, it will make me take inferior pictures (or no pictures at all)

i don't know anything about the olympus.

but for the d40, the afs thing isn't a huge deal, seriously.
if you're buying an ENTRY LEVEL dslr, you probably don't already own a bunch of older lenses and you probably won't buy a bunch of non afs lenses.
Sure there are exceptions, like the 50mm, but other 'specialty' lenses (macro, wide angle) are easy to manually focus
the afs issue convinced me to buy a d80 instead of a d40.
Now i wish i would have bought the d200 though (to meter on old ais lenses).

Before actually walking into a camera store, i was completely sold on the canon XTI.
I even attempted to buy one from circuitcity online, but failed due to my coupon being expired. The next day i went to the local camera shop and held it. I hated it. I felt violated.
But the d80 made everything better.

I do agree about high iso being overrated.
And monopods rocks.
As does vodka.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon

Cool, for some reason I thought the E-300 had a small, almost nonexistent grip. Not that this revelation has a positive impact on my decision, which is now between the E-300, the E-500, and the Nikon D40 At this point is there anything significant that could sway my decision? All three seem like really great cameras.

the E-400 is the one with the small/nonexistant grip like cameras from the 70s.
E-300s are likely to be used at this point. new E-500s can still be had. olympus lacks prime lenses at the moment. nikon hasn't updated their entire lineup to use in-lens motors (how long as AF-I been around? canon has had 5 50 mm lenses since the introduction of EOS 2 decades ago, and nikon can't get off their asses to put a motor in a lens).