Canon EOS Rebel Xsi or Olympus e-pm1 for a beginner?

Question

Which camera is better for me, the Olympus PEN E-PM1 or the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS?

Hey, ive been looking at the Olympus PEN mini for a while, have played around with one in a Sams Club a couple times and love it! The simplicity of it, yet classy look drew me in. I absolutely love the art filters, that's what I like the most about it, next to the interchangable lenses. But my drawback is that I dont want to spend around $400 for one, if there is a better camera I could spend that much money on, with better lenses. I'm kind of ignorant to which lens 'mm' are better :p. The Olympus kit lenses are 14-42 mm and the kit lenses to the Canon is 18-55mm, I believe. I looked at the Canon for a little bit and obviously it's a better camera since it's a DSLR and the Olympus is not. Yet, I never have actually held one or played around with one. I realize the Rebel EOS XS is an entry-level dslr camera, yet that doesnt change the fact that i'm a complete beginner at this whole DSLR hoo-hah; that's why I like the more modern Olympus. I just want an educated opinion on which one I should get. The simpler, art filter-y, dslr quality photo, smaller Olympus. Or the higher end, more advanced, possibly better quality photo, bigger canon? Thank you so much, educated opinions only please!

(I can always get a photo editing software, so the art filter deosnt mean toooooo much to me. But I really really like the in-camera panorama mode in the Olympus. I'm not sure how the canon can do panorama. Oh, and I dont see myself getting into action shots. I actually really want to get into real close-up macro shots of like plants and stuff c: )

Answer 1

Focal length (mm) is related to the size of the sensor, the 14-42mm on the Olympus and the Canon's 18-55mm do much the same job, the Canon's sensor is just a little bigger.



I'd go for a DSLR on principle, because I like a viewfinder that works all the time and doesn't drain the batteries.

Answer 2

I have an Olympus E-PL2. It's a nice camera with better image quality than cameras with tiny sensors, and sometimes I prefer it to my Nikon D90 for traveling lighter. In a way it is more finicky to get good results. With about half the sensor area of an APS-C sensor it has less dynamic range. So it is more important to get the exposure just right and harder to fix in software. With the gradation turned down, shadows look pretty dark in contrasty light, but with it turned up they can look kind of noisy.



I think Olympus often gets the color balance better than Nikon. I don't know how it compares with Canon. Actually the Olympus often does have a little bit of a red cast that I need to tweak down in software, but it gets fleshtones better more often.



The Olympus uses in body image stabilization. Nikon and Canon use optical image stabilization in many of their lenses, but not all. IBIS is not bad at shorter focal lengths, but its effectiveness greatly diminishes with telephotos.



Starting with the D90, Nikon has been using processor compensation for lateral chromatic aberration. Canon will have it in the T4i, but it is not in earlier models. Olympus does not have it, but the 14-42mm II M.Zuiko kit lens is very well corrected optically to begin with--better than Nikon or Canon kit lenses.



There is some cross-compatibility between Olympus and Panasonic Micro Four Thirds lenses. However, there are some quirks. Many Panasonic lenses have OIS, and if you turn off the Olympus IBIS and switch on the OIS in the Panasonic lens, it is supposed to work. Panasonic bodies have processor correction of chromatic aberration, but because of that Panasonic is often sloppy about chromatic aberration in its optical designs, and the Olympus body does not correct it.

Answer 3

You returned to me that you thought you'd get the XSi instead. That's just fine because it's also an excellent camera. By the way, any Rebel camera will be excellent. Even though the XSi is an older and not discontinued model it's still very viable as a dslr still camera. So good luck and enjoy.

Answer 4

Canon is healthier on account that it is more person friendly. Also extra expandable so u can use it for an extended time. Olympus is good if u r on tite price range. There have been instances when legendary Olympus OM-2n was higher than Canon on the days of movie digicam; now on digital age; Canon for certain.

Answer 5

The Canon 350D is getting a bit old now with it's 8meg sensor and small screen. There are so-called 'entry-level' cameras around now with better specs.

Loads of people have dumped them for a new bells and whistles 12 or 14 meg camera with super-wotsits all over and glossy wonders to gloat over..

Why then do hundreds of professional studios stil use them, though they were not intended for professional use, they were sold into the amateur market like most cameras are?

It's because 8meg is enough to get high quality 20x16 prints, the 350D has enough useful features on it and that camera just keeps on going like a solid workhorse, so why change it?

Studios are not money machines with money to waste.

You can pick one up for $200 from used equipment suppliers.

Most people who traded them in for a new super-camera will never be good enough to run a studio or have an exhibition of their pictures traveling the country and hanging in galleries but they still wanted a 'better' camera.

I've still got mine and I'm in no hurry to upgrade. There are 29 pages in this review.

That's because there's a lot of camera and dp reviews does a good job of it.

Look up other cameras too...see the menus

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d

The lens focal length ranges you quote are for different size sensors so you can't compare them directly.

The DSLR has an APS-C size sensor and the Olympus uses a micro 4/3rds system sensor.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm



To get macro buy a macro lens or use a normal lens with a bellows or close-up tubes. A lot of standard kit lenses have pretty close macro anyway and so do a lot of compact cameras, right down to 1cm for some of them.

For simple macro just put a close-up lens into the filter thread and use a high F number to get enough sharpness.

That's the cheap way in and you can get decent quality pictures when you know how to handle them.

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/A95/Close-Up/Close-Up-Lenses.html

Cameras are not photographers. Having the latest bits on them doesn't mean you can get any advantage from them if you don't know how to use them.

A lot of my close-ups, especially extreme close-ups, are done with an Exacta 35mm because I have all the equipment for it. It's over 40 years old and still churns out good results.

To convert to digital I can just run the negatives or slides through a scanner.

It has interchangable viewfinders and screens and you can even use a standard lens as a screen magnifier and use aerial knife-edge focusing without a screen at all.

There is a built in cutting knife for getting bits of film out instead of waiting for the end of the roll, and cassette to cassette take-up so you can take the film out in daylight.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/exakta/_img/x/ex-60e(02)-kopil-bel-x.jpg

Scroll down for more pics of the camera

http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/Close-up%20Page.htm

http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C395.html

Here's an answer about camera quality. The camera buffs are obviously into cameras more than photography.

Laughable......

Have fun choosing a camera but don't bother with all the latest hi-spec stuff with it's high prices. You can get good results with less but you have to learn how to use the camera, however expensive it is.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20120129170541AA2GUDK

Answer 6

You seem to be fascinated by the PEN so go out and get it. Now!