I have an e-510 and a few lenses to go with it. It;s a good camera and I have had some great results from it, but I now want to upgrade and am in a quandary. Do I go for the E-5, the only Olympus DSLR on the market, and keep my lenses or do I swap for a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 60D, both of which retail similarly at just under £1000GBP. I would then have to sell my lenses and build up a new system and end up with not as much glass as I have now for the money I sell them for.
I have an e-510 and a few lenses to go with it. It;s a good camera and I have had some great results from it, but I now want to upgrade and am in a quandary. Do I go for the E-5, the only Olympus DSLR on the market, and keep my lenses or do I swap for a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 60D, both of which retail similarly at just under £1000GBP. I would then have to sell my lenses and build up a new system and end up with not as much glass as I have now for the money I sell them for.
Thoughts please?
Ivor
Hi Ivor,
Firstly, I have taken the liberty of deleting the duplicate of this thread.
Unfortunately only you can answer the question that you pose, but here are my thoughts.
Firstly, you are obviously happy with your Olympus system and the E-5 would be a very nice and logical upgrade. It's image quality is well proven and it punches well above its 12mp resolution. It's extremely well built and could satisfy your needs for many, many years to come.
That said, you know there is a question mark over future Four Thirds DSLRs from Olympus and that a future upgrade may not be comming. It's quite possible that there might be at least one more model in the line but we do not know for sure. I would guess that this uncertainty is part of your quandry.
If you do invest in an E-5 and there is no further upgrade you will have the choice of eventually migrating to Micro Four Thirds, where hopefully the focus issue of using regular Foour Thirds lenses will soon be resolved, or continuing to use your E-5 for the long term despite technology marching on in other products. That may not be a problem; the E-5 may be all you ever need despite advancements being made elsewhere and, as I say, it is built to last. Over time this could be a very cost effective solution because you won't be regularly upgrading. If I was in your situation it's probably the option I would chose.
However, I can appreciate that at the moment the Canon or Nikon stable may seem a more certain bet, with regular DSLR upgrades likely for the forseeable future. Long term, of course, we just don't know what the future holds for DSLRs; it's possible that eventually the vast majority of cameras from all manufacturers may be mirrorless.
What I would suggest, if you are thinking of changing brands, is that you visit a camera shop several times to handle the D7000 and 60D. Without doubt they are both fine cameras but you want to ensure that the one you choose is right for you. Are the buttons and dials all easily reached and comfortable to use? Is the camera comfortable to hold for long periods? Is all of the viewfinder display easy to see (sometimes a problem especially if you where glasses)? Are the menus intuitive and logical to access?
Of course, the same holds true for the E-5, although I did find stepping up from the E-510 to the E-3 quite a natural transition. Unfortunately you are less likely to find one to handle at your local dealer but you could always hire one for a few days using the hire service on E-System User Group or perhaps arrange to meet up with an E-5 owner who lives near you.
As I say, what you should do is a question only you can answer but Hopefully you'll find these thoughts useful. Let us know what you decide.
or you could so as I am doing, wait for the E-7 (perhaps this fall?) and purchase that if it comes out and is suitable or an E-5 which surely will have come down in price by then. It is speculation but its not like you haven't got a camera right now...
__________________
"Stef" E620 and stuff... and more stuff...
I appreciate your quandary. Here's my story so far, I hope it helps:
Some time ago, I made the decision to jump from Olympus, based on my assumptions of the future for the Olympus four-thirds dSLR range.
It was a little after I bought an E3 that I started to feel a little concern about the direction that Olympus was taking.
When the E5 became a very solid rumor, I figured that Olympus was pumping money back into the four-thirds line and I dropped some money of my own into a 50-200 lens. Once the E5 was actually released though, buyers remorse once again set in - I was expecting more from the E5 (not that the E5 is a bad camera, but that it's not exactly light years ahead of the E3) - this was where I really felt that the four-thirds line is coming to a close. This was an unfortunate revelation for me as I am not ready to give up a mirror and pentaprism just yet!
That being said, I haven't made the jump yet. The E3 still works and takes great pictures. The dynamic range could be better, but that's really all that I wish for.
My next camera will almost certainly be a Nikon and probably a D800. If I do go that route, I will probably still continue to use the E3 for anything where I can take advantage of the crop factor / telephoto range. Glass for the Full Frame is going to be really expensive at the telephoto end
As far as lenses are concerned, there's a lot available on the secondhand market for Canon and Nikon should you choose either, which may lessen the blow to you for replacing those Olympus lenses.
__________________
Regards,
Keith
You don't take a photograph, you make it. - Ansel Adams
Last edited by keithtyler; 20th April 2012 at 07:37 AM.
I think it's a cultural issue. In camera sophisticated Japan, its citizens realize DSLR's are dinosaurs and have already largely embraced micro-four thirds (and other compact system cameras). The USA and UK are lagging behind, but ultimately will follow suit since there is almost nothing a DSLR can do that a compact can't.
Also, this is the Youtube and Vimeo era and so video is becoming more popular. Mirrorless compacts like the E-M5 excel at video (5 axis image stabilization and variable, silent powerzoom like a camcorder).
Thus the sensible thing to do IMHO is get an E-M5 with the free 4/3 adapter and temporarily use your 4/3 lens while slowly accumulating funds to buy faster focusing native m4/3 len's.
If you move straight to a 60D or D7000 there are some initial shocks you'll have to learn to live with like jpegs with soft focus and wierd colors (as compared to out of the camera jpegs you are used to from Olympus cameras).
Interesting discussion. Sorry about the duplicate thread, I'm not sure how that happened (it was late at night!).
I bought the E-510 mainly because I used to have a OM2n and liked the Olympus brand. But that does not mean that I am that loyal to the brand that I would not jump ship. However, the E-5 is probably my first choice and it is nice to hear others thoughts that confirm my opinion.
I absolutely agree with you John about trying the camera first, and I will certainly do that.
The E-510 was an innovative camera and I have been pleased with the results but it has limitations, especially its low light performance and its lack of dynamic range. I know that any camera I upgrade to will have other limitations.
I would not go for a CSC; they are the wrong size for me. To bulky to conveniently fit in a pocket, too fiddly for my big hands. Looking at lots of comparisons the image quality does not match that of similarly priced DSLRs. Furthermore, the lack of shutter and mirror leaves the sensor exposed to dust. If I were forced down that route I would not go for any of the PEN models as they don't perform as well as the Nikons, Panasonics or the Sonys on the market. I think they are a passing whim like APS cameras were in the film days before digital.
Most modern DSLRs can do video too, but that doesn't bother me. I take photographs for my own enjoyment, my chance to be a bit creative and learn technical skills too. The E-5's robustness and it's crop factor are the attractive features. I don't need 20 million pixels as I rarely print over A4 and who needs the increased file size.
And, as you say John, it is a camera built to last (one would hope so for that money!) It is also £500 cheaper now then when first released. Technology may change again, but outstanding photographs are possible with the current technology, so there isn't a great call upgrade.
Thanks everyone for your input. More thoughts are welcome.
The leap in IQ between an E-510 and an E-5 is the same as you would expect from a camera 3 years newer. To some it's insignificant, to others (like myself who must make a living off my photos and every little thing counts), the difference is something important. It's all subjective.
What's more objective though, is the difference in build, controls, and viewfinder. The crystal pentaprism viewfinder of the E-5 is much larger and brighter, allowing you to see and focus clearly. The forward/rear control dials make changing settings so much quicker and more effective, unlike the awkward, cumbersome process of holding the Exposure Comp button while turning the dial. The camera is built with a heavy-duty magnesium alloy frame which can be dropped repeatedly from all kinds of heights and even stood on. The body is fully weather sealed and can be shot in blizzards or torrential downpours. The camera also features ports for PC Sync and cable release.
There are so many differences that you'll notice in the camera long before you notice the difference in IQ. The difference in IQ is there though, and it is very noticeable. Compared to most E-System DSLRs with the NMOS sensors the E-5 is much sharper, but the E-510 also features a pretty weak AA filter and delivers quite fine detail especially with its 1:2.7 superfine JPGs. Where you'll notice the biggest difference though is in high-ISO performance. The noise is very clean and neutral in color, not full of chroma and luminance. The dynamic range isn't fantastic but will offer significantly less tendency for blow-outs over the E-510.
The E-5 will be a very worthy upgrade for you.
If you're really looking for a big boost in IQ though, the first place to look is always in higher quality glass. I don't know where you stand there.
Ned brings up some really good points. When I purchased my E3 it was an upgrade from an E500 and the larger viewfinder, weather sealing and faster focusing were the main reasons for me to upgrade. Since then, I have used the E3 in heavy rain and even washed it under running water after falling down a muddy embankment once!
__________________
Regards,
Keith
You don't take a photograph, you make it. - Ansel Adams
The Following User Says Thank You to keithtyler For This Useful Post:
Where you'll notice the biggest difference though is in high-ISO performance. The noise is very clean and neutral in color, not full of chroma and luminance.
...
If you're really looking for a big boost in IQ though, the first place to look is always in higher quality glass. I don't know where you stand there.
Thanks, that is very interesting. I notice enough increase in noise with the E-510 to make me dissatisfied with the image quality above ISO 400. I like clean sharp images, which I can easily get at ISO settings of 1-200, but I don't usually push the sensitivity up any higher because I don't like the results.
I do notice image quality differences using my other lenses other than the standard kit lens, although I haven't invested in any really fast lenses (I have a family to feed.) I also notices a big drop in quality when I toyed with some old film SLR lenses, apart from the 50mm f1.8 that I had for my OM2n may years ago, that performs brilliantly, although I struggle manually focusing with the small viewfinder on the E-510, (I'm middle aged!) so the improved viewfinder on the E-5 will make a big difference for me.
I also like the swiveling live view, which I had on a Nikon bridge camera 9 years ago, and have really missed, especially for macro and low-level shooting.
Thankfully the guitar I am selling on Ebay to fund the camera has gone over its reserve!
Linear Mode
