d200 or olympus e500

I am currently shooting with an olympus c_8080, in a pt-23 housing and olympus fl-20 flash. It produces good images. sometimes great ones. The cost was reasonable.

My friend shoots with a dual flash nikon d70, his shots of the same critters generally have more saturation with better clarity and definition. His low light shots have a lot more keepers than mine. He has convinced me to upgrade to a dslr. Any advantage of the d200 over the e500? recomendations?? I know the d200 system will cost more.

I think that there will be limited housing choices for the Olympus. Nikon and Canon are a safer bet for long term support from housing manufacturers.

Alex

The Nikon will be a far more capible camera. But it costs 3x as much so it better be better. Is it 3x as good? Probably not.

You would be happy with either camera. It really comes down to how much you want to spend.

Hi,

Assuming you're going to buy an Ikelite housing and 2x Ikelite strobes (what most beginners target as their first housing) then consider this:

Nikon:

Camera 1700

Lenses 850 (wideangle zoom and macro)

Housing 1300

2x strobes 1200

Cords arms, etc 300

Total: 5350

Olympus:

Camera: 600

Lenses: 1,000 (wideangle zoom and macro)

Housing 1300

2x strobes 1200

Cords arms, etc 300

Total: $4,400

So where is the big savings now? There is a savings, but it's 20% of the whole system.

The thing about an underwater photography kit is that you have to look at the cost of the whole SYSTEM. Even if one camera is 2 times as expensive as the other, it can still end up being a miniscule 20% difference in the whole package.

Cheers

James

There's a miscalculation, apart from a difference of $150 in lenses, alle the other paramaters are the same, so olympus should be abou 950 cheaper in this calculation

Good pt, I had some coffee then fixed it.

LOL

Cheers

James

I had all day already to drink coffee :-) . The point your making is clear however. The percentage saving on the total amount is much less then the body - cost.

and if you decide later to switch, only the strobes/arms etc can be kept.

And you are going cause many people to switch from coffee to Jack Daniels with those cost warnings............

Note to self (and other wetpixel members) don't show this to your wife/husband.

Cheers

James

Note to self (and other wetpixel members) don't show this to your wife/husband.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen, self-realization is fine, but this'll drive some to switch from tea to coffee to jack daniels in one leap!.

Reciepts should be kept in a drop through box, much like what night cashiers at the 7-11 use. Reciepts should go in and never be seen again unless they have to. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES EVER, should they be totaled....

/puts head back in the sand....

I think your decision shouldn’t be based on features of those two particular cameras. You’re standing at the crossroad to decide between two systems (brands) which are quiet different in many aspects. When jumping into the (D)SLR world it’s difficult to evaluate all pros and cons between two systems for future system extension. I shoot Canon. If I would start today from the beginning to build up an underwater camera rig, I most probably would go for the Nikon D200 for some reasons. I’ll just throw in some harsh critical points on the E system from my side. Maybe they are worth to be considered for your own brand/system preferences.

- focus by wire. no mechanical focus ring with stop end like all other DSLRs. Personally I prefer a real mechanical ring.

- 4:3 image aspect ratio. I prefer classic film aspect ratio (3:2, like all other DSLRs) which has established in the past for good reasons. I don’t like the TV aspect ratio 4:3 (for shooting stills), featured by most compact digicams and the Olympus E system

- digital available light photography starts to become popular in combination with filters (have a look at www.magic-filters.com or some threads here in the board). As far as I know the only true Olympus E wideangle 7-14mm doesn’t allow filter installation at all. Maybe the new announced Olympus fisheye suffers under the same disadvantage.

- Lens costs. Olympus glass is expensive. No matter if the prices are justified or not, you have to pay a lot of money when building up the E system. For example, around 2000 bucks for the 7-14mm and 500 bucks for the 50mm macro. No third party choices here so far (which aren’t bad at all and start at a few hundred bucks).

I know this is a very single-sided post and to be honest, I’ve just shot a few pictures with an Olympus E-300 and can not comment on the system. The above points are only a few items I personally would dislike when jumping into the Olympus E system.

Julian

PS: I hop Helge is not reading here

- 4:3 image aspect ratio. I prefer classic film aspect ratio (3:2, like all other DSLRs) which has established in the past for good reasons. I don’t like the TV aspect ratio 4:3 (for shooting stills), featured by most compact digicams and the Olympus E system

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never released that the E system was 4:3. Is it really? Personally I think that is a major drawback if you shoot verticals. Is that really true?!

Alex

I never released that the E system was 4:3. Is it really? Personally I think that is a major drawback if you shoot verticals. Is that really true?! Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the Olympus E500 Specifications:

Image Sensor Type: 4/3 type Full Frame Transfer Type CCD solid-state image sensor

Effective Pixel Number: 8.15 million pixels

Aspect: 4:3

I never released that the E system was 4:3. Is it really? Personally I think that is a major drawback if you shoot verticals. Is that really true?!

 

Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. It is true. Their marketing makes a big deal of it by naming their system Four-Third.

It's funny.... while I was shooting the Olympus 5050, I liked the 4:3 aspect ratio better and actually consider the 3:2 format an issue when I first thought about moving to a DSLR, but now that I've shot the Rebel for awhile I like 3:2 better. I know that Rand had similar thoughts becasue he asked me about it. I think a large part of it is what you are used to. The larger film formats are closer to 4:3 than 3:2. Cover shots are closer to 4:3 than 3:2.

Beside to what one is used to, 3:2 is more close to the human eye's aspect ratio of view, or am I wrong? That would explain why people often prefer 3:2 over 4:3 when compared side by side (horizontal / landscape shot).

For me, applying the rule of thirds for example, somehow works better with 3:2 too.

Julian

My absolute favorite thing about switching to the S2 was the 3:2 aspect ratio.

Not sure if anyone notices, but even the TV spots we build (for the 4:3 NTSC sets) are done in 16:9. I completely agree with Julian... it just look more natural, even if we have to add a "letterbox" effect for TV viewers.

Oly might have some kick ass lenses, but 4:3 doesn't work for me...

Beside to what one is used to, 3:2 is more close to the human eye's aspect ratio of view, or am I wrong? That would explain why people often prefer 3:2 over 4:3 when compared side by side (horizontal / landscape shot).

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I shopped for picture frames not long ago. I think in the stock of standard frames 8x10 vastly out number the 8x12 frames and 16x20 are also much more numerous than the 16x24. If that is any indication, I think people hang more prints that are closer to 4:3 than 3:2.

Non-US magazines tend to be taller and thinner! Alex