E520 vs rebel (cannon) (1 Viewer)

Im reading reviews on both cameras. Which camera would you prefer and why...?

Its so tough to decide a choice

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=122097 has a lot of discussions about how to choose your first SLR, much of it relevant to your question.

Niels

The thread that Niels gave is a good place to look.

I think I can give a briefer summary of the case to be made for the 2 cameras, since I just went thru the same deciding process myself. I guess you could say I'm prejudiced in favor of the E520, because that is what I finally bought, but I think I know the issues.

The big advantage of the E520 is that you get more magnification for a given price and size of lens. This is because the E-520 has a 2x "magnification factor" versus 1.6 for the Canon.


The zoom lens that everyone is buying for the E-520 is the 70-300mm zoom. With the 2x factor, you effectively have a 140-600mm lens. But the size (and price) of the lens is that of a 300 max lens, so it is quite compact for a lens that really gets you out to 600mm.

With the Canon camera, in order to get out to 600mm, you have to buy a 400mm max lens (400 x 1.6 = approx 600). So you need a lens that is the size (and price) of a 400mm lens, which is considerably larger than a 300mm lens.

Another advantage of E-520 (and a major one, I think), is that the image stabilization is in the body of the camera itself, so ANY lens you put on it is image stabilized. With the Canon camera, you have to buy special lenses that have image stabilization, which are more expensive than non-stabilized lenses (although they have recently introduced some less-expensive lenses like this because of competition with Olympus and others with body-based stabilization).

So, if you are going to do nature photography and want to limit the size (and price, probably) of the kit you carry around, the E-520 is a better choice.

The good points of the Rebel are that it has somewhat better dynamic range (can show a greater range of highlights and dark areas within the same image without losing the details). Note that I said "somewhat" - both cameras are good in this respect, but the Rebel is better.

Another factor is that the Rebel is arguably better in low light situations - i.e. you get less noise with high ISOs, although this seems to depend on which review you read.

Another advantage is that a lot of independent manufacturers (e.g. Tamron) make lenses for Canon cameras, while few do for Olympus (Sigma does, and they are nice). However, Olympus lenses are very good and they have most of a person's requirements covered.

As far as I can see, that's about it. If I were just going to get a camera for taking studio pictures, or say doing wedding photography, etc, I think I might get a Rebel. But for nature photography, I think the E-520 is a better bet.

hmm ...its weird how u would compare studio pics vs nature pics. I would assume both would look good with one camera.

Thanks for your big post. Im definitely weighing in on the E520.

They both are very popular cameras. I think the Rebel is a little more expensive though. I like the image stabilization in the E520 though.

LuvBlueJay said:

hmm ...its weird how u would compare studio pics vs nature pics. I would assume both would look good with one camera.

Click to expand...

They WOULD both look good with either camera. This is one of the problems with comparing cameras (or anything else, for that matter). When you compare 2 cameras, you give the RELATIVE strengths and weaknesses of each. So, when you mention a RELATIVE weakness of one, it sounds like it must be really bad at that particular thing. But this is only because you are forcing a choice between 2 very good cameras.

In fact, they are both very good cameras and both are excellent at taking pictures of ANYTHING. But, as I said, each has its own area where one is marginally better than the other, which is kind of what you get whenever you compare 2 things.

I should mention here that I even was thinking about getting a Canon 40D, which is a more advanced (and more expensive) camera than the Rebel and E-520. I still decided to get the E-520, for the same reasons I mentioned above.

LuvBlueJay said:

I like the image stabilization in the E520 though.

Click to expand...

Figured I'd add a little more on this topic. You are correct in wanting the image stabilization. If you have never taken pictures with a high-magnification lens, you may have problems, at least at first. You should read this review of the Oly 70-300mm lens:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/zd-070-300.html

In the beginning he discusses the problem people have with such lenses. And this lens only weighs about 1.36 lbs (620g). Consider if you get a Rebel and a 135-400mm Sigma lens, which weighs TWICE as much (1280g). And you will not have stabilization on the Rebel.

It's hard enough to take pictures with these lenses on a tripod, let alone trying to hand-hold them, and without stabilization it's very difficult.

This is actually why I recommended getting a super-zoom (on a different thread) to start with. They are MUCH lighter and smaller and easier to handhold, and most have image stabilization.

But I guess I shouldn't discourage you too much on a DSLR. If you got a super-zoom, you might not ever be happy, so perhaps a DSLR is the way to go right off the bat.

RAH said:

Figured I'd add a little more on this topic. You are correct in wanting the image stabilization. If you have never taken pictures with a high-magnification lens, you may have problems, at least at first. You should read this review of the Oly 70-300mm lens:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/zd-070-300.html

In the beginning he discusses the problem people have with such lenses. And this lens only weighs about 1.36 lbs (620g). Consider if you get a Rebel and a 135-400mm Sigma lens, which weighs TWICE as much (1280g). And you will not have stabilization on the Rebel.

It's hard enough to take pictures with these lenses on a tripod, let alone trying to hand-hold them, and without stabilization it's very difficult.

This is actually why I recommended getting a super-zoom (on a different thread) to start with. They are MUCH lighter and smaller and easier to handhold, and most have image stabilization.

But I guess I shouldn't discourage you too much on a DSLR. If you got a super-zoom, you might not ever be happy, so perhaps a DSLR is the way to go right off the bat.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that link to the Wrotniak page :t:

Niels

Ok i have a silly question. What made you choose a dSLR camera compared to a point and shoot (lets say extra zoom) camera? Is it worth it to upgrade?

RAH, thanks for the link! I did learn some more things and you made lots of sense about the stablization

LuvBlueJay said:

Ok i have a silly question. What made you choose a dSLR camera compared to a point and shoot (lets say extra zoom) camera? Is it worth it to upgrade?

Click to expand...

Myself, I have been using super-zoom cameras (which are basically point-and-shoots with big lenses and an electronic viewfinder (EVF) ) for about 5 years, starting with the 3MP Olympus C-730, then a 4MP C-750, and now an 8MP Canon S5. I get more magnification out of them using the Oly TCON-17 teleextender, recently mentioned in another thread on this topic.

I just recently got the Oly E-520 DSLR basically for 2 reasons: they DO in fact take sharper pictures; I got several thousand dollars as an unexpected windfall, so I figured I'd blow it on something I really would love to have but seemed too expensive.

But I have been pretty satisfied with the S5 superzoom, and will continue to carry it with me on birding trips (as opposed to stricly going out to take pictures), because it is handy to have along and doesn't weigh you down like a DSLR.

I also have a compact Fuji E-900 point-and-shoot, which takes very sharp and noise-free pictures, so I didn't even NEED the DSLR for sharpness. I have used this camera for photographing paintings we have at a museum I volunteer at. We sell prints of these up to 12 x 16 inches (see what I'm talking about here: http://www.hamptonhistoricalsociety.org/printctlg/index.htm ). So, the point is, point-and-shoot cameras can do pretty fine work.

I guess it depends on how much you want to spend and how much of a "pixel peeper" you are. Yes, I did envy some of the really sharp nature shots I'd see on the DSLR forums and was a little unhappy with the S5 for that reason.

You're welcome for the links and stabilization info!

And now for the opposite answer: why I dont have a dSLR: I used to have a film version of the same, which weighed a ton and was able to take some nice pictures. Due to living where the light was not too great, I had to rely on 200 iso film, and I used slide film to keep the cost reasonable and to be able to project the image so that the tiny bird in the center was visible. I then moved to a place without a slide development facility, looked around and bought my first P&S digital, a coolpix 4500 with the 3x extender; I therefore had the exact same maximum reach as with my old soligor 450mm lens, but in addition, I had all the utility of being able to zoom out and do macro in a pachage that did not weigh more than the camera house of my old system, took images that looked sharper, and as an added bonus I was able to use the camera for digiscoping.

I still have the old camera for digiscoping, but for regular images, I have now bought an FX18 which is a superzoom that I am very happy with, and which weighs about half of the coolpix setup! My best images look about as good as the images produced with the oly70-300 lens which was shown in the link provided above (I am only exagerating a little).

In short, I just dont think the bulk and weight of a dSLR setup is worth it for me, it would be left behind too often, and I have difficulty already now keeping below the weight limits when I am traveling. What I know I am missing is basically performance at higher iso (using 400 is iffy on my pana; if just I could set noise reduction to none instead of -2 (meaning a little less than standard) on my pana, things would be even better )

Niels

Yeah, I think that the FX-18 and some of the other recent Panasonic models may in fact take sharper pictures than my Canon S5. I think the Canon may beat them a little on the noise at 400.

Regardless, I agree about the weight of DSLRs being a big factor against them, even for relatively small ones like the E-520 (considering the smallish 70-300mm lens). I cannot imagine carrying my binocs, tripod, and Pentax PF-65 spotting scope PLUS a DSLR. I can carry the S5 in a bag and have the TCON-17 waiting in the car "just in case".

I was in the camera store trying the different SLR cameras (to see IN PERSON as opposed to online) and i liked how they were FAST with taking pics (no lag time). Is there a point and shoot camera that is as fast as a SLR?
And i noticed that you had to manually focus (unless i couldnt find the autofocus button?),
is that how all SLRs are?

As for how big they are...hmm....the 520 is huge! (as well as the others).

I love the point and shoot (smaller) but the lag time will make u miss those animal shots..

Confused....

What would the camera LAG time be listed as if i were to look at cameras online? How would someone know how fast a picture is taken between shots without actually being in the store?

I again, thank you guys n gals. I feel like i ask stupid questions.

LuvBlueJay said:

What would the camera LAG time be listed as if i were to look at cameras online? How would someone know how fast a picture is taken between shots without actually being in the store?

I again, thank you guys n gals. I feel like i ask stupid questions.

Click to expand...

In DPreview.com, for those cameras they have actually done a full review of, there will be a page with "timing notes" such as this one http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms100fs/page4.asp.

For a lot of cameras, the lag depends on the amount of light available, and for SLR cameras, there will additionally be a factor of which lens is sitting on the camera. Some of those things can be found in the text in the DPReview reviews. On any camera (P&S as well as SLR), the major part of the lag is due to focusing; when I have used my FZ18 P&S in manual focus, it has felt really fast.

Niels

LuvBlueJay said:

Is there a point and shoot camera that is as fast as a SLR?
...
And i noticed that you had to manually focus
...
As for how big they are...hmm....the 520 is huge! (as well as the others).

Click to expand...

Concerning the time lag with point-and-shoots - this is only true if you do not pre-focus. By pre-focus I mean half-depressing the shutter button until the camera focuses. Then, once the camera has attained focus, you fully depress the shutter to take the shot. This is the way I just about ALWAYS take pictures. I almost never just push the button from top to bottom in one press, whether I'm using a p&S or a DSLR.

So, in other words, if you are taking a picture of a robin (why?), you half depress the shutter to focus on him, then continue to hold it down, waiting till he is in a nice position, and then fully depress the button. When you do it this way, you get INSTANTANEOUS response, and you can exactly time your picture. A p&s used this way is just as fast as a DSLR in actual use. It is true that attaining focus with a p&s in the pre-focus phase can be slower, but once focus is attained, the p&s is extremely fast taking the picture.

Obviously you cannot use this technique for "grab shots" where you have to fire in a real hurry, but really, how often does this actually happen? Birds in flight shots is one obvious example, of course.

Burst shots (multiple shots with one press) are faster with a DSLR, of course. An E-520 can do 3.5/sec, whereas my Canon S5 does 1.5/sec. But 1.5/sec is still pretty quick. Again, you use pre-focusing, and then fully depress the shutter and let it fly.

As far as autofocus, you must have done something wrong in the store, because DSLRs use AF with most modern lenses.

I agree that DSLRs are huge. I see some folks happily using the Canon 40D and saying how the Rebel is too SMALL (yes, can you believe it?!?), but when I compare even the E-520 to my old Pentax MX film SLR, the E-520 is absolutely huge.

To show you what I mean about exactly timing a shot with a p&s, I have attached a shot I took about 4 years ago with an Olympus C-730 3MP super-zoom with a TCON-17 extender.

That picture is not a lucky shot. I could see that the cormorant on the left was swimming up to the rock and looked like he might try to chase the cormorant on the right (taking off) off the rock. So, I pre-focused on the rock (half-depressing the shutter button and holding) and waited till the exact second when it happened and then fully depressed the shutter button to take the picture.

So, you can exactly time shots with a p&s. Had I taken that shot with a DSLR, I would have doen the exact same thing and the results would have been pretty much the same (except for the 10MP vs the 3!).

I have a Canon S3 superzoom P&S. I'm also considering a DSLR. One of the ongoing frustrations I have with the S3 is that often when a bird is in dense foliage it is difficult to get the camera to achieve focus.

Bob D said:

I have a Canon S3 superzoom P&S. I'm also considering a DSLR. One of the ongoing frustrations I have with the S3 is that often when a bird is in dense foliage it is difficult to get the camera to achieve focus.

Click to expand...

Firstly, there might be settings that can help some on this: use the setting that reduces the size of the area that the camera considers for focusing as much as possible. Secondly, my Pana FZ18 has the smallest (so it seems -- on the setting for the smallest area) focus area of any P&S I have tried (this household has five different, one of my friends have two additional ones), making that particular problem easier to handle. How this works on an SLR I don't know.

Niels

RAH said:

I cannot imagine carrying my binocs, tripod, and Pentax PF-65 spotting scope PLUS a DSLR. I can carry the S5 in a bag and have the TCON-17 waiting in the car "just in case".

Click to expand...

Well, I carry my bins, scope and tripod, and Canon Rebel XT + 100-400L IS regularly with no problems. And I'm not a heavy weight body builder or something like that. I have a Power Shot S5 IS as well. And while it is a nice camera to take everywhere when I can't - or won't - bring my "heavy" equipment, there is noway it can compare to the dSLR and longer lens when it comes to IQ or usability. - Just my 0.2 cents.

Thomas