@B1663R: yes they do however, all olympus dslr's support sd as well

lilaliendog

do they still use those stupid xD cards?

B1663R

Dell is running a special on the Canon EOS Rebel XS for just $479 including an 18-55mm lens. If you want to move up to a DSLR, but don't want to spend $2K for a camera, this is a good bet. Link: http://www.techdealdigger.com/deals/canon-eos-rebel-xs-101-mp-479-at-dell-home--home-office/4770

DallasTonberry

Olympus DSLRs support xD and CF.

DariaMover

@lilaliendog:

Actually all their DSLRs support CF and the nonsense called xD.

They do not use SD in their DSLRs.

datafox

@DallasTonberry: what the hell does this have to do with anything?

mconheady

@SgtBeavis: Yea at that range they are too close to the E3. They should have had it sub 1000. It would make it about half way from the 520-E3.

datafox

Art filters? So it's the 'sumer end of the prosumer market they're after.

xThadd

I don't see a point to getting this at $1300. For only $200 more you can get an E3. The E520 cost about $500 to 600. The price gap is still too wide. I would have gone for this if the pricing was more in the $1000 range.

SgtBeavis

I just can't see why anyone would want to invest in a 4/3's system camera (Olympus, Panasonic, etc). They will never compete with a APS-C size sensor on image quality or noise and offer very little advantage in size. Micro 4/3 looks interesting for a high quality point and shoot-ish camera, but regular 4/3? Nah... Bigger sensor will ALWAYS be better, all else being equal.

everyxnewxday

I was holding out for an e3, but this may be my next camera. The Zuiko lenses are tops and I just bought the amazing 50-200 SWD- I can't go back to Canon now. I just wish Oly would update the e3.

mconheady

@datafox: The e3 is pretty much this but weather-sealed. But the sensor - if it can deliver superior picture quality- then they have a good reason for the price- still they should have just slapped these features into the e3 and called it an e4!
They are making a big mistake by not keeping their flagship camera constantly up to date- and now undermining it with cheaper, more advanced cameras.

mconheady

@everyxnewxday: I have and it does compete. Glass... stop looking at specs and sensor size and look at glass. That's all a pro looks at. My photography business has been lucrative just using Olympus glass. Stop being a Canon/Nikon fanboy and learn something about cameras. Zuikos are the best lenses.

Also the Bigger sensor=better argument is dumb... Laserdisc better than DVD? Should Blu-ray be 4x the size of DVD? No. Technology will work to improve the performance of small things. And when sensors are improved to pretty much eliminate noise, Olympus will have compact, technologically advanced SLRs while the others will have big clunky designs still based on the 35mm tech of old. Learn something.

mconheady

This doesn't sound like a good move for Oly. As much as I love their point and shoots and their ability to push the boundaries on small SLR's this camera is not a good idea. They've priced it under their flagship camera, but not that far, AND it has a higher MP count, the same AF, and slower fps.

I'd rather see Olympus spend the money on developing the micro-4/3's format for a digital rangefinder. I love rangefinders, but no one has made a digital one that costs under 3k. They would capture a HUGE market if they made such a camera.

spawnofbill

Wow. :o) Wasn't trying to flame anyone. First off, though I do use Canon, I'm not a fanboy. I didn't even mention Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sony/Sigma/Fuji or any of the other companies that might use the 1.6x crop. I'm not comparing manufacturers, I'm comparing sensor technologies. If the guys at RED or anyone else figures out a way to put a medium format sensor in a DSLR sized body, it operates at the same speed, and sells at the same price as current Full frame DSLR's I'd say the exact same thing. If image quality is the goal, I couldn't understand investing in a smaller sensor system.

Second, if you are comparing new technology (Blu-Ray) to old tech (laserdisk) then of course the state of the art has improved such at the new smaller format is better than the old larger format. I'm sure that the new 4/3 cameras are better than the 1.6 or even full frame cameras from 5 years ago. However, the growth of technology applies equally to the larger format and in respect to noise and detail, the current 4/3 sensors simply aren't as good as the current 1.6x and full-frame, just like they aren't as good as medium format. Unfortunately 4/3 doesn't really seem to offer the same level of size and speed benifits over 1.6x that 1.6x does over medium format.

Finally, I too am a Pro and do know quite a bit (but not everything) about cameras and lenses. I would certainly invest in high quality glass over a camera body. I love my 85mm f/1.2 (nothing similar in Olympus' system) more than anything. That said, the best glass in the world won't get me any better of a shot in a dark church at ISO 3200, and a larger sensor, right now, will do that better than a 4/3.

That said, I also appreciate and understand the fact that we can make money and create outstanding photos on any system that fits our needs. I didn't intend to offend you personally or attack your choice. It's more of a critique on the direction that Olympus is going. Each to his own! Cheers.

@mconheady:

everyxnewxday

Olympus, as much as I like your build quality and your lenses (the 12-60mm SWD owns Canon and Nikon), if this has a 2.5" or 2.7" screen with ~230k px which I'm betting it does, then you fail. The D90 is cheaper than this, and it has 900k px

davekaybsc

@mconheady: I have no idea... The XS isn't worth the money either - $100 more can get you a 30D these days.

MikeGrenade

@davekaybsc:

That is the single best argument I've heard against this camera. You are right, I would definitely buy a D90 over the E30..

SgtBeavis

@mconheady:

I suspect the E3 is going to be updated this spring..

SgtBeavis

@davekaybsc: the pricing looks to be fail (though we should look at street price first), but saying it fails merely because of its LCD? you fail, too. there's more to cameras than just LCDs.

vinzer

@SgtBeavis: well, this is MSRP, i think. the street price will be lower for sure. i'm guessing people who'd buy this would be buying it for the new sensor more than anything else. personally, panasonic's NMOS sensors thus far has been iffy in ISO values greater than 800.

vinzer

@everyxnewxday: the operative word is "right now". sensor tech will improve as years pass, just look at the old Kodak FF sensors compared to the newer crop sensors we have now.

and then there are those who prefer to lug around a lighter kit. as much as i want the better DOF control i could get with a FF camera, i certainly wouldn't be able to haul it (as well as a couple of lenses) around more often than i do my cropped DSLR with its made-for-crop-sensor lenses. of course, pros like you wouldn't mind the weight penalty.

agreed that each has their own needs, but there is still good reason to go into 4/3 cameras.

vinzer

@mconheady: maybe he's a canon fanboy who thinks canon is the end-all and be-all of cameras. unfortunately, a lot of people think DSLR systems are religions, with good and bad factions.

vinzer

@datafox:
I'm using a 16GB SDHC in an SDHC to CFII adapter in my E510 and E3. The adapter can be found cheap on eBay and works fine.

tech-tard

@vinzer:

If you don't care much about live view, then the screen really doesn't matter much. If you do a lot of LV shooting though, especially manual focusing in LV, having 900K px is essential. The D90/D300 and Canon 50D can get down to 1:1 screen/photo and beyond for PERFECT manual focusing. Once you've tried a 900K px screen, there's no going back, trust me.

DaveBSC

@tech-tard:

Yea, I know those exist but not really what I was responding to. It is not native SD use and I read some people have problems formatting with those devices.

datafox

@DaveBSC:
You can hit a button during a live view preview on an Oly camera that blows up and magnifies image details on the LCD for better focusing. I tried my buddy's Canon w/ the higher res LCD to frame a LV shot and the Oly feature seems to work better for me (plus I suspect the higher res LCD may drain more battery life than the current resolution). Also the swivel LCD actually is more compelling than the higher res screen for the shooting I do.

tech-tard

I own both Olympus and Nikon DSLR's Nikon D300, D200, D70 and Olympus E3, E520 and several lenses for both systems. I had heard the whole argument about the sensor size and I just don't buy it. I was using the D300 with the Nikon 24-70mm lens and was taking photos with the E520 with the kit 14-42mm lens. There was nothing scientific about the photos I was taking, just capturing my daughter running around in the back yard. I loaded the images into Aperture and just cannot tell a difference apart from the way the images were processed. The Nikon images were flatter, more neutral and the Olympus images were just popping off the screen with really nice bokeh. There were some real differences in how the cameras performed over the couple of hours I was shooting, however it had me questioning the decision I made in spending so much money on the Nikon system. I am not stupid and understand the benefits of the Nikon system over the Olympus E520, however more to the point I was blown away with the results out of the kit lens. I also tried the Olympus 12-60, 50mm macro, 70-300mm, 14-54 and 35-100 f2.0(amazing lens) and was totally amazed with the results. I printed some of them on A3 and let some friends and family look at them to tell me the images they preferred. Most of the time they pointed to the Olympus images. It was here that I wondered about the validity of an argument about sensor size. Surely it is all about the image as an end result. I still love my Nikon equipment, I just have a new found appreciation and respect for the amazing quality of the Olympus. After all the images starts with the lens.

OctaviusFelange