E-3 vs 40D Debate

Dale & Stacy

TPF Noob!
Dec 7, 2007
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Many are saying the Olympus E-3 is an exact equal to the 40D.

I don't know enough about either of these but am learning fast....What are your opinions on this?

I am looking for some good open discussion to the pros and cons of each camera.

Thanks for your input.
why is the XT not a part of this? I think the XT would be better than the 40D...and isn't it cheaper?
is this irony? ;)

or sarcasm ;)
anyway, back to the thread. I would not consider the E-3 to be equivalent to the Canon 40 D. I would clearly prefer the 40 D. But then again, I am heavily Canon biased.
well if The Olympus E3 is only equal to the Canon 40D then Olympus have really missed the boat.

E3 is the Olympus pro camera
40D is Canons one up from entry level camera
i said i am biased ;)
You can compare camera bodies till the cows come home, but the real deciding factor is its ease of use, ergonomics and lens line-up. In the end, you will be upgrading bodies far faster than quality lenses as technology changes. I am also Canon biased because I felt their telephoto lenses were far superior to any other maker. That was a consideration when I chose between Nikon and Canon. You buy into the "system" over any feature that a body may have. 2 cents.
I can understand what you are saying about buying into an entire system which is why I am here asking the questions. Canon or Olympus?

Which lenses are superior as a whole and why?

I have heard that Zuiko Digital Lenses are pretty good quality lenses.

I have also heard that about Canon lenses....

so which (in your opinion) is the better system....this is what I am after....

I am going to purchase one of these 2 systems - just not sure which yet
I have used both cameras (Olympus and Canon DSLRs) and much prefer my 40D.

Much better ergonomics and ease of use... Plus im pretty sure Canon's lenses are a helluva lot better than Olympus' (except the 40d kit lens ;))
You really need to go to the store and handle the cameras and see how they "feel" to you. You will be the one using the equipment, so it has to feel good to you. The 1Ds Mark III may be the best camera on the market, but if it is cumbersome for you to use, it will not be a good choice. Both systems have great lenses and their respective pros and cons. Canon's premium glass is not the cheapest in the world. :thumbdown: The only Olympus I owned was a old P&S so I only have experience with the Canon DSLR. I can tell you form using both Nikon and Canon, that I much prefer Canon for their ergonomics and lens selection. Not to say that Nikon has bad lenses, just not the variety I was after. Case in point the indispensible 70-200mm zoom. Nikon makes ONE lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 ED VR. Excellent lens, just a tad under $2K. For a starter, it is a huge hit on the wallet. Canon makes FOUR. An f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8 & f/2.8 IS. All priced between $500-$1700 and all L's. Pick your poison. All version are great lenses. I started with the f/4 and upgraded two years down the road to the f/2.8 IS. Now a Nikonian might say that its because Nikon only makes the best. May be true and all, but not everyone can afford a $2000 lens right out of the box. Gotta cater to the masses. Since I mostly shoot wildlife, I know my lenses are gonna get pummeled in the field and chose Canon for the L's near legendary durabilty and quality. I try to baby my lenses as much as possible, but they still take a lick here and there. Still tickin' though. :wink:
So what do you think about Aftermarket lenses such as Tamron or Sigma?
So what do you think about Aftermarket lenses such as Tamron or Sigma?
I debated whether or not to get a sigma 10-22 instead of my canon.

IMHO they are not made nearly as well (except for mabye tokina), and ended up paying a lot more for the canon 10-22
With lenses, the adage holds true that you get what you pay for. All makers have decent lenses, it is just up to the features you require and level of image quality you need. This being stated, the higher-end pro lenses are of the uptmost quality. If you require that level of quality, than that is the way to go. Other brands just do not match up too well to them. Not really a fair comparison since that is not their intent. It fills the gap that users demand that do not require a high degree of performance. If you are not as demanding, than the entry/ mid-level Canon lenses, Sigma, Tokina & Tamron are just fine. I found my experience with Sigma was too great a drop-off in quality and performance for my needs. I wanted a reasonable 24-70 f/2.8 and purchased the Sigma version instead of the Canon for the $900 savings. Bad idea in hindsight. Poor build quality, no HSM, and less than stellar edge sharpness did the lens in. Traded it in for a EF 24-105 f/4 L IS. Much happier now. :wink:
whoops! I messed up with the first reply. I thought he said D40 (nikon)...

I would get the Canon. I like their cameras, and love their lenses.

You should get whichever YOU want. Neither system is so much better that you wuldn't be able to work otherwise.

Most reactions