Allan Mee wrote:
> Hi
> I've got £300 to spend on a s/h DSLR. I've spent all day looking for a
> decent s/h DSLR for that price. So far I've found two camera shops with a
> DSLR at that price. A camera repair shop (where I bought my Olympus C150
> compact) has an Olympus E300 for £329 - but will sell for £20 less for a
> cash sale. Forget offhand what lens he said it has.
>
Right here is a key missing piece of information. It could be any of
several of different lenses, and it could make a significant difference
in which is the better value. The Oly 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is a $400 lens
and a fast, first rate one. The 14-45/3.5-5.6 is probably what is on the
E-300. I'm pretty sure it's build quality is better than the C 18-55.
Optically, I expect they are pretty even.
The Canyon 18-55 is a decent lens, but not great, and the one you would
almost certainly end up with doesn't have Canyon's wonderful USM
focusing, which is quicker and quieter.
The 35 mm equivalent coverage for the 18-55 is 29-88 mm, for the 14-45,
28-90, so pretty comparable.
So I would advise checking on the lens with the E-300 first, to be sure.
> A camera exchange shop elsewhere has a second-hand Canon 300D cw 18-55 lens
> - says its like new and it's got a spare battery and a canon case worth £50
> for £325.
>
You've received some good advice from AG and Winsor about how buyig
either one sort of leads into incompatible systems. Although OM lenses
may be used on either the 300D or the E-300, with an inexpensive
adapter, Digital Zuikos cannot be used on the 300D and vice versa. It's
easy to buy a second lens, a spare battery, a couple of other
accessories and suddenly, you've got enough invested in a system that
switching isn't simple or cheap.
The E-400 is based on a new standard using a 4/3 sensor, which is
significantly smaller than the sensors used on most DSLRs. this has
meant they are, at least so far, always a generation or two behind in
noise (the digital eq. of grain) performance. This means little to those
who feel using low isos is a semi religious or moral imperative*. To
those who feel liberated by the ability to use high 'speeds' with
virtually no noise, like me, this is a big deal
The noise of these particular cameras probably isn't too much different,
as the 300D is one generation older than the E-300, althouhg the 300D
may still have an edge. You can see and compare examples in the
excellent reviews at dpreview.com
Another difference that makes little difference to some and lots to
others is the aspect ratio of the sensor. The 300D, and pretty much all
DSLRs other than those using the 4/3 standard, have the same aspect
ratio as 35 mm film, the ratio of width to height is 3:2. 4/3, as the
name implies, is a squarer format, where the ratio of width to height is 4:3
Were it my £300, I think I'd wait and add to it a bit. The C 400D is out
and the 350D will be coming down in value soon and is a step up from the
300D in resolution, noise and some other features.
As AG says, both the cameras you are considering are capable of quite
wonderful results. For example, all the images in the first and third
sections of this gallery and all but the last page of the second section
were taken with the 300D <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/>. As
were all of these
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Maine/MtDesert/MtDesert/>.
Moose
* I fugure it's been so long that they've forgotten that that came to
shoot that way with film for quality of image results and now just
remember the rule, not the reason for it. Digital changes the game.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|