One of these days (not soon) I’m going to have to get a new digital camera. Right now all I have is a Nikon CoolPix L1. It has a leak in the viewing screen, but still works. The problem is that I like to take close-ups and it’s pretty useless for that. So I’ve been looking at the Nikon D90 and the Olympus Pen EP-2.
Cost
D90: $1,149
EP-2: $882
Image size
Both are 12.3 MP
Sensor size
D90: 15.8 x 23.6mm
EP-2: 13.0 x 17.3mm
Focal length
D90: 18 to 105mm
EP-2: 14-41 mm
Video
D90: D-Movie Mode; Cinematic 24fps HD with sound
EP-2: HD w/audio
Feel free to point out other specs you feel are noteworthy.
I like the size of the PEN. The D90 seems like a ‘more serious’ camera. My 35mm collections includes a Nikon FM-3a and an Olympus OM-1N (and a Canon AE-1 Program and a Pentax K-1000 and a couple of others). Many of the photos I want to take are of details. e.g., wristwatches, stampings on firearms, and other small items. I also like taking pictures of aircraft and architecture.
My interests lie more with motion pictures. To that end I have a Panasonic AG-DVX-100A digital video camera and a pile of 16mm movie cameras, one of which is an Aaton LTR-54 super-16 with a matte box and follow-focus. Both the D90 and the PEN have video capability, but I doubt I’d use it for anything ‘serious’. For still images, I’ve described the kind of photos I’d like to take. But there are many times when I’ve wished I had a camera (other than the crappy one on my phone) so I could take a photo of something that’s not a ‘usual suspect’ (or ‘subject’).
I’m kind of leaning toward the PEN because it’s smaller and less obtrusive. It’s also a couple of hectobucks cheaper.
Doper Photographers: I’d really appreciate your opinions on these two cameras. Also, I know nothing about the Micro Four Thirds format.
Yes, the D90 is bigger and cost more, but you also have to figure in lenses. You’re just using a single lens choice in your comparison, and the whole point of cameras with interchangeable lenses is what you can do with them. The PEN camera has a 2x crop factor so that 14-41 lens acts like a 28-82. The D90 has a 1.5x crop factor, so that lens works like a 28-150, a much more useful range. Neither kit lens is fantastic, but either will get you started. Eventually you’ll want to buy additional lenses.
With a bigger sensor, the D90 has better image quality. Whether it enough to be noticeable will depend on the lens you match with the camera and what you plan on doing with the images. The lack of an optical viewfinder on the PEN would be a problem for me, I can’t stand composing images in the LCD or the (optional) electronic viewfinder. But that may not be an issue for you. For action shots it’s a major hassle.
For either camera you’ll probably want a dedicated macro lens if you really want to take lots of closeups.
I’m a little dubious of digital cameras, since the technology changes so rapidly. With 35mm, there’s really nothing new under the sun. So while I have different lenses for my 35mm, I’m unlikely to get many for a digital camera. I’m partial to 28mm lenses (on a 35mm camera), and the ‘kit’ lens on either camera would be fine. Most of the time I don’t need a long lens, but there are times that I do. So for either camera I’d probably use the lens that comes with it most of the time, and get a macro lens for close shots. I might consider buying a longer lens for such things as fly-bys.
Even my CoolPix makes pictures of sufficient quality for me. IANA professional photographer, and do not want to use the camera commercially. I’ve shot weddings on DV, and if I were to do that again I’d stick to videography and let someone else do the stills.
I was trying to shoot a couple of fly-bys with my CoolPix last month. It was impossible using the LCD. I found myself trying to look through the non-existent viewfinder. What’s wrong with an electronic viewfinder? I use the one on my DV camera, and it’s fine.
Yes, that’s what I meant. My film cameras are already ‘obsolete’, and digital cameras are still improving. So while I can continue taking film shots with the 35mm cameras and not have to worry about the camera being replaced by something better, a digital camera bought now will be a dinosaur in a few years.
The technology changes rapidly, but it doesn’t make the camera you have now stop working (and it’s not changing NEARLY as rapidly now as it was 5-10 years ago). My oldest digital SLR is a Canon EOS-10D. It came out in 2003. It still takes just as good of pictures today as it did when I bought it seven years ago (and they’re pretty darned good). If the pictures the camera takes are good enough for you today, next year’s camera shouldn’t change that.
Also, if you buy into Nikon or Canon, the lenses will work on a new model if you upgrade, so even if you WERE upgrading with every new release, I don’t think that’s really an argument against buying lenses…
I looked at the comparison images on that page, and I’m not seeing a great difference. To my eyes, the Olympus images look better. But I’m very unlikely to blow up bits of an image like they did. If I want to get something far away, I’d probably have a long lens to capture it. On the high-ISO images, the Nikon definitely looks better.
I really like the size of the Olympus. But it doesn’t have a flash, and the view finder sits on the flash mount. So… You can have a view finder or you can have a flash, but not both? The Nikon has a pop-up flash and a built-in view finder. Those are very strong points.
A long lens doesn’t help you when you want a wide angle of view on a large print. Those enlargements aren’t supposed to simulate cropping to use only that part of the image; they’re intended to give you an idea of the quality of the image beyond what you can see in a normal screen-sized image. Those quality differences can have a very visible impact on prints, depending on the size, and sometimes with larger photos on-screen. I don’t know much about those two cameras, and I only took a quick glance at the page, so I won’t guess as to what size you’d start seeing differences at, or how significant they’d be. But don’t dismiss differences just because you don’t expect to crop…
Your existing lenses might work just fine on a digital SLR. What do you have? Good lenses will still work, the camera bodies change rapidly but (with some exceptions) will not the mount.
If you have Nikon or Canon lenses it may be worth staying with those brands so you can continue to use all your old glass.
I own a D90, and have read the dpreview.com review of the Olympus… but it’s been a few months and I’m not motivated to go review it right now. So, I’m working from memory here.
You probably won’t see an important difference in quality between the two until you either:
A: Shoot at ISO 800 or above (with a big difference at 1600 and 3200).
B: Crop 1/4 of the picture to fill an 8x10.
For everyday shooting, you won’t notice.
Other differences:
–The Nikon will shoot 4.5 frames per second. The Pen probably closer to 2.
–The Pen will probably do better microphotography. A small, hi-resolution sensor gives wonderful depth of field that the bigger cameras can’t match without a bellows or a tilt lens.
–The D90 is a big camera. It’s small compared to a full frame pro DSLR, but compared to most film SLRs it’s a honker.
–The Nikon will let you shoot a thousand pictures on one charge… if you use the viewfinder rather than the LiveView LCD. The Pen is LCD dependent and might only get a couple hundred.
The DSLR is going to focus (and follow moving objects) a whole lot faster than the Pen. Maybe 3x as fast?
As far as video goes, right now the Canon Rebel T2i is the value/function leader there. It allows manual controls and has an input for a external stereo mic.
Yeah, I got that. Only, there’s a time or two when I’ve cropped an image and blew it up so that I could have a picture of what I wanted. If I do that, then it is what it is. I (unsuccessfully) posted a couple of different ideas that were in my head simultaneously.
This is the biggest think in favour of the Olympus. It’s smaller. I’ve just taken the motor drive off of my FM-3a, and replaced the 28-85 mm lens with the 50 mm one. I like small.
I read that the Olympus’s AF is ‘leisurely’. Not a huge issue, since I like MF anyway.
When I sold one of my Rolexes, I could not for the life of me get any good shots with the little camera I had at the time (some sort of Olympus compact digital). A friend took some macro shots with a Canon EOS (no tilt or bellows) and they came out great. I suspect the D90 would do just as well… Will it?
Well, everythings a tradeoff, innit? My Panny GF-1 has an onboard flash and a mount that can take a viewfinder. The price there is lens image stabilization not body. It’s also reported to be a faster focuser than the Oly. On the down side the VF that Panny currently makes is not highly regarded, but I expect a revamp is in the pipeline.
For me, one of the huge advantages Nikon hold is in their flash technology. The D90 can wirelessly control innumerable Speedlights in three or four banks plus the on camera flash, all from a menu on the camera. That may or may not appeal to you, but it’s pretty cool and you can emulate pro lighting on a tiny budget. If that’s interesting to you at all, you should check out strobist.com, a site primarily dedicated to discussing and promoting sophisticated but inexpensive lighting techniques.
I don’t have a need for multiple strobes. I have a Lowel DP Kit and a Lowel ViP kit, so if I need lighting I use one of the kits and light like I’m lighting a film.
Based on the responses in this thread, I’m now leaning toward the D90. My ‘starving student’ friend might need a loan in a month or so, so either way I’ll have to wait a while for a new camera.
BTW, Pork Rind, I’ve been impressed by your photos – and not just because of the subject matter.
That’s because I’m a vicious editor. I take a zillion shots and delete the .99 zillion that sucked. But I do love my D80 and my 18-200VR. If I took just a little more care with composition, my keeper rate would go way up. I’ve been playing with large format recently to try to teach myself to slow down, but I used up the last of my beloved Polaroid Type 55 and am lost.
BTW, whatever you choose, I highly recommend the new version of Lightroom for post-processing images and managing your collection. In particular, the noise reduction tools are now flat out astonishing.
As always… it depends. The D90 will be fine, but in bright light a camera with smaller sensor will give better depth of field. The whole beetle might be in focus, rather than just its antennae.
–If the lens quality is equal and they both focus equally close, the smaller sensor is better.
An unaugmented DSLR will do fine shooting something essentially flat straight on. If you shoot a coin straight on it will look fine, if you shoot it an angle a P&S will put more of it in focus.
Some P&S cameras don’t focus very close. Some don’t have a great lens. Not every picture gets taken in light that lets you shoot at ISO 200 or lower.
Oh… another advantage of a bigger sensor – and this is sort of the inverse of the macro photography issue-- is that you can get less depth of field in portraits. That’s usually regarded as a good thing. If you put a $110 50mm 1.8 lens on a D90 you can shoot at f2.5 and the background will be very pleasantly out-of focus.
It’s very hard to get out-of-focus backgrounds with a P&S. The Pen would between that and the D90.
If you want to do anything resembling shooting action, manual focusing on the Olympus is going to be a bit of a bitch, as you’re using an electronic viewfinder with so-so resolution for this sort of thing.
You might also want to consider the Nikon D5000 for something a little less expensive in the Nikon line-up.
