Olympus E 620 Body

I am currently looking for a new Camera. I have outgrown my current camera, a Canon S3IS, and would like to move to something more advanced. I'm looking for something around $650 Cad, and I would very much prefer something with an In-body image stabilizer.

It has to be something that will last me a while, and won't be completely outdated in a year or so, but it doesn't have to be something new to the market. I would like to have lots of lens options, and I am planning on getting some sort of telephoto lens eventually, but I don't want to have to worry about paying for the stabilizer in every lens I get (which is why I'd like an in-body stabilizer).

Cameras I have been looking at:
-Canon Rebel XS (no in-body stabilizer)
-Olympus Evolt E-620 (expensive)
-Sony Alpha A-350 (In-body stabilizer!)
-Sony Alpha A-230 (In-body stabillizer!)
-Olympus Evolt E-520 (In-body stabilizer!)

Feedback on any of these cameras is greatly appreciated, and any other suggestions are great as well.

Thanks in Advance :)

Pentax also has in-body IS.

At http://www.dpreview.com you can easily compare all the cameras you listed.

2009-11-07 12:37:10 by ♥ Buster & Sadie ♥

swburl.com Olympus E-620 Body Only compact size and light body smallest DSLR with image stabilizer www.ShopWatchBuy.com

It's my 1st SLR, and I only have around 700 to spend.
I've narrowed it down to a few possibilities:
Sony Alpha a330 or a350
Olympus E-620
Canon Rebel XSi
Nikon d5000

I'm looking to buy the camera body with the kit lens. Please give reasons why you would choose one or the other. Thanks

You have personalised it somewhat by asking which camera I'd get - so this will be more biased than I normally am.
1) Sony a350. 350 over 330 because you should really spend up to your limit for quality/features benefits. Sony because:
a) In-body Anti-Shake - all future lens purchases are stabilised
b) I'm a long-term Minolta user, so I'd gravitate towards Sony
c) Sony's (actually Minolta's) reputation for good colour rendition lives on
d) It's too damned small for my hands. Oh, sorry, best Live-View implementation of the bunch.
2) Canon Rebel XSi.
a) Excellent image quality - competes with Sony at low ISO, hammers it at higher ISO.
b) Faster and more responsive than Sony
c) Almost as good a control layout as Sony
d) I don't think they're as reliable as Canons of old.
3) Nikon D5000.
a) Again, too small for my paws, but generally well laid out - menu drilling is second only to Sony.
b) Faster and more responsive than Sony.
c) Image quality is better at higher ISO's.
d) Don't know.
4) Olympus.
a) I'm am not a fan of the 4/3 system. Reducing the size of the sensor, imo, is not conducive to good photography. Packing more pixels into a smaller area does, indeed, make for a small (too small) camera and lenses but you lose image quality. The whole point of higher-end (read: higher than compact classes) is to improve quality and aesthetics and smaller sensors is not the way to go. Even the venerable Sony alpha900 with a full frame 24MP sensor is a victim of pixel-cramming - an 18MP Canon f/f laughs at Sony's image quality when you ramp up the ISO - and I'm not even talking about silly ISO's. ISO 100 and there's almost nothing comes close to the Sony, beyond ~400 and the Canon (and Nikon) take over - and they have millions fewer pixels.

2010-01-06 15:13:16 by Ryan W