Deal or no deal?

[Ptyler22]

I have been looking for an SLR for a whle now and I think I found a keeper finally!!! YAAAA. But first is this a good deal? Olympus Evolt E-420, with 14-42mm kit lens and an epson photoprinter with a $100 which makes it free. The price is $524 you can get a 40-150mm lens with the camera and 14-42mm for only 100 more so it is $624. I don't quite have $624 but i might be able to squeeze it out of my parents. I'm not sure if you can get the printer with the 40-150 but I am going to try. How good a deal is this? should I go for it?
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=205983

 

[JimmyO]

Well
How bad do you need the photoprinter? I dont think its worth it. I would try to find one without one and save the money. I really dislike those little printers. With the cost of paper and ink i find it both easier and cheaper to get my prints done at CVS.

 

[Ptyler22]

You don't have to pay for the printer. It is $524 with or without the printer. There is a $100 mail in rebate so when you send that in that is the cost of the printer. You still think I should find a better deal?

 

[PhotoDonkey]

They're bundling the printer. Do a web search and see what turns up. You might find something cheaper sans printer.

 

[JimmyO]

If your really concerned about price just get a D40

You will love it!

 

[elemental]

As far as the price, it seems pretty good. My only question is are you considering this because it's a great deal on the camera you want or are you considering it because it's the cheapest DSLR you can find?

If you're interested because of the price, you should know that there are quite a few entry-level DSLRs at or near that price point, particularly the models that are just being replaced this year (Nikon D40, Pentax K100D, etc.). The E-420 is a somewhat specific camera: It's the smallest DSLR on the market, which means you gain portability at the cost of ergonomics. I would definitel hold it before I bought it. It also has a 2X crop factor and uses the 4/3 system, which are either a plus or a minus depending on what you're shooting.

If you haven't done your homework, two of my favorite review sites are http://www.dpreview.com and http://www.dcresource.com. If price is a big issue would at least check out the Nikon D40, Pentax K100D, Canon Digital Rebel XT (which can be had for $450 with a kit lens at B&H).

If you've already done your research and really want the E-420, please ignore all of this.

 

[Ptyler22]

As far as the price, it seems pretty good. My only question is are you considering this because it's a great deal on the camera you want or are you considering it because it's the cheapest DSLR you can find?

If you're interested because of the price, you should know that there are quite a few entry-level DSLRs at or near that price point, particularly the models that are just being replaced this year (Nikon D40, Pentax K100D, etc.). The E-420 is a somewhat specific camera: It's the smallest DSLR on the market, which means you gain portability at the cost of ergonomics. I would definitel hold it before I bought it. It also has a 2X crop factor and uses the 4/3 system, which are either a plus or a minus depending on what you're shooting.

If you haven't done your homework, two of my favorite review sites are http://www.dpreview.com and http://www.dcresource.com. If price is a big issue would at least check out the Nikon D40, Pentax K100D, Canon Digital Rebel XT (which can be had for $450 with a kit lens at B&H).

If you've already done your research and really want the E-420, please ignore all of this.

I have been researching mostly the E420 and the D40, D40x, and d60. I want the E420 because of the 10 mega pixels for big pictures that I can crop and 3.5 fps. Is the 2x crop factor a bad thing? and what is the 4/3 system?
thanks

 

[Rogan]

the 2x crop factor is a good and bad thing, its bad if you want wide angle lenses, its a good thing if you want long zoom lenses

and the 4/3 system if i'm right, put the picture in the ratio 4:3

 

[Alfred D.]

the 4/3 system if i'm right, put the picture in the ratio 4:3

That's right, Rogan. That aspect ratio was derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The images/sensors of/in most compact cameras today are the same aspect ratio (not the same size!).

 

[lockwood81]

You don't have to pay for the printer. It is $524 with or without the printer. There is a $100 mail in rebate so when you send that in that is the cost of the printer. You still think I should find a better deal?

Since they are throwing the printer in, the $ 524 is a good deal on the camera.

You should try holding if first though, it is a small dSLR.

 

[Helen B]

That's right, Rogan. That aspect ratio was derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete. The images/sensors of/in most compact cameras today are the same aspect ratio (not the same size!).

The television aspect ratio of 4:3 was itself copied from the original 35 mm motion picture aspect ratio - it wasn't an inherent property of tubes. The first video recordings (1928) and television broadcasts (in 1932) were actually made in a portrait format, not the later 4:3 landscape format.

Best,
Helen

 

[Socrates]

The television aspect ratio of 4:3 was itself copied from the original 35 mm motion picture aspect ratio - it wasn't an inherent property of tubes. The first video recordings (1928) and television broadcasts (in 1932) were actually made in a portrait format, not the later 4:3 landscape format.

Best,
Helen

That's the wonderful thing about standards. We have so many to pick from!

 

[elemental]

I have been researching mostly the E420 and the D40, D40x, and d60. I want the E420 because of the 10 mega pixels for big pictures that I can crop and 3.5 fps. Is the 2x crop factor a bad thing? and what is the 4/3 system?
thanks

2X crop factor is a double-edged sword (what isn't?). Basically, any lens you mount on the camera will actually have twice the focal length it indicates. For example, I have a 28-90mm zoom lens mounted on a Nikon N75 (a 35mm camera). If this were mounted on a D40 with a 1.5X crop factor, it would be equivalent to 42-135mm (it would be 1.5 times as "zoomed in"). The upside of this is that if you like long focal lengths (very "zoomed in" shots), they will be easier to achieve with shorter physical focal lengths. The downside is if you are a wide-angle junkie like me, your lenses will begin to get very short, complex, and expensive very quickly. Your 14mm is roughly equivalent to the 18mm standard kit lens on a body with a 1.5 or 1.6X crop factor (nearly all Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc.), so if you want an ultra-wide, it will need to have a shorter focal length to compete. Sigma, for example, makes a popular and relatively inexpensive 10-20mm ultra-wide zoom, but a 2X equivalent would be more like 7-15mm. An 8mm fisheye would have to be 6mm. Getting the picture? The thing is, the shorter the focal lengths get, the more complex and expensive the lenses are to manufacture. Basically, if you want to get into wide-angle landscape photography, a 2X crop factor is going to be an issue. If you want to shoot telephoto nature shots, it could be your best friend. It all depends on your intended use.

If megapixels are very important to you (i.e. you plan on making very large prints or doing very heavy cropping), the best deal going for a 10mp DSLR is probably Sony's recently outdated A100. There are bodies on Adorama for close to $300 in excellent used condition, and I'm sure you could find a brand new kit for well under $500 (there's one on eBay right now for $479 shipped available Buy It Now). The Sony is in many ways more conventional- traditional aspect ratio and crop factor, full-sized body that sits comfortably in the hand, etc. My roommate got one recently and loves it. If big megapixels and low price are your two primary concerns, this would probably be your other serious option.

Whether or not more megapixels is better is a somewhat hotly debated issue, so maybe you'll get to see some of that in this thread.

 

[McQueen278]

If you want an Olympus pick up a used E1 with low actuations (unlike Canon you can check exactly how many for yourself without software or sending it in to Canon). You can find one bundled with a 14-54mm f/2.8 for around $450. It is one of the finest cameras I have ever had the pleasure of using. It has a low megapixel count by todays standards, but as many have pointed out before, megapixels aren't everything. Find me another camera that can sync with it's flash at 1/4000th and no that isn't a typo. The lens is sharp as a tack, the camera is rugged as heck and with the FL50 you can shoot just about any situation with great results. The E420 is a nice camera, but is a far cry from a pro body like the E1. Check out the classifieds on http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/. Great resource for GREAT cameras.

 

[Ptyler22]

How about a Canon EOS 20D from the adorama rental department they are selling for 400. Just the body. They say on a scale of 1- 10 they would give it an 8.3. Good? no good?