Olympus E3 vs Canon 5D mk II ; Confessions of a Switcher

Note:  This is long.  Sorry.  Get a cup of coffee and settle in.  

What am I crazy?!?!  I can already see it now.  I'm going to get so much hate mail.  It is interesting in photography how we have so much brand loyalty to the point where people will call you interesting non-Christian names when you choose a brand that is different from their choice.  So in advance, to all the Olympus shooters that are going to call me a traitor and all the Canon shooters that are thinking Olympus is trash (and all Nikon shooters that think I've missed the boat entirely), just remember you don't have to agree with me and the sky isn't falling just because I'm sharing an opinion.

Good, now that we've cleared that up here is a little background.  My first dslr was a Panasonic L1.  I chose the L1 mostly because my first 'serious' camera was a Panasonic FZ50 superzoom, which I liked and when I became serious about photography I went with what was familiar.  Plus I was enchanted by the Leica looks of the Panasonic camera and the functionality of the shutter speed dial and aperture rings on lenses (I still prefer that setup over anything I have now).  When I outgrew the L1 I had a stable of very good lenses and financially it didn't make a lot of sense to jump brands.  Panasonic had put out the L10, but I wasn't impressed so I started eying up the Olympus E3 as it shared the four thirds mount and was truly a professional camera.  I had been considering throwing my hat in the crowded arena of professional photography, and with the E3 I thought I would get legitimacy and pro quality.  Little did I know that Canon and Nikon shooters would think I had bought a useless toy.

So in all fairness I didn't really choose the E3 so much as pick it as a logical upgrade.  I quickly entered into many different types of photography including shooting for the local newspaper, portraits, weddings, products, commercial events and kept up my hobby photography as well.  At some point in my professional development I decided to narrow my focus and stick with only weddings, portraits and events (as well as occasional newspaper work if it suited my fancy) and I started noticing the shortcomings of my equipment in dark indoor areas when shooting weddings and events.  At that point I started considering my options.  I figured that shooting ISO 3200 clean would be helpful and Olympus was quiet about whether they would replace the E3, seeming to concentrate on micro four thirds.  Panasonic had exited the dslr game completely.  I came to the reluctant conclusion that I needed a full frame sensor and would have to start acquiring lenses of a different brand.  I considered Nikon, Sony and Canon and I wanted a camera that filled the holes where the E3 was weak, namely high ISO and resolution.  Nikon was the king of high ISO as far as I could tell, but the 12 mp limit of its D3 (the D3X wasn't out yet) didn't give me the resolution advantage that I thought I might at times need.  I also considered that with a full frame sensor I wouldn't get much reach with my lenses any longer and would need to crop relentlessly which wouldn't be great starting out at 12mp.  The Sony A900 was tempting but I didn't think it gave much, if any, of an ISO improvement over the Olympus camera.  That left me with the Canon 5D mk II which I thought was an economical alternative the the 1Ds mkIII.  And that started my life as a bi-brand photographer and had me using both the Olympus E3 and Canon 5D mk II on a regular basis.  They share a bag, share jobs, and their files get processed by me side by side every week.

After I bought the Canon 5D mk II I mentioned it to a hobbiest photographer I know and happened to mention that I still liked my Olympus E3.  He immediately went on this rant about how it was about time I switched and passionately told me that once I got used to the 5D I'd see what a piece of trash the E3 was.  I hope he doesn't read this because I'm about to burst his bubble.

So, this article is about what I see as the real life, working photographer nuts and bolts advantages to both sytems, the Olympus and Canon cameras.  I'm certainly a gear geek, but this isn't about test charts and dynamic range tests that nobody understands.  For that you can go to a dozen techno-geek websites. If you are a Canon shooter and are curious at all about alternatives, or an Olympus shooter that has been eying up the mighty green grass on the other side of the fence then I intend this blog post to be about my real life working impressions as I myself make the switch.

Build Quality:

This is going to be a slam dunk win for Olympus.  It is much much more robust than the 5D mk II from Canon.  Canon might argue that the 5D was never meant to compete with a professional camera on build quality and the E3 should be compared to its 1D series and they'd be right except that the 5D series is heavily used by pro's and the 1D series is about 4 times the cost of an Olympus E3 when they were brand new on the market.  The 5D mk II is about double the cost of the Olympus.  The E3 feels more robust, better built (all subjective) and from a user that has had one for a couple years I can vouch for its weather seals and ability to stand up to constant use and abuse.  The 5D benefits from some weather sealing as well, but I leave mine at home on rainy days.  In fact today I have an assignment to shoot a parade for the newspaper and given that it is raining, the choice of gear is easy.  I'll give credit to Canon that its eyepiece rubber cup is much better than that on the Olympus.  The E3 one tends to slide on and off too easy and I've lost one already.  Canon cheaps out though and doesn't include a hot shoe cover for its camera.  The moveable lcd screen on the Olympus seems like a natural weak point, but I haven't had any trouble with mine and I like that I can flip it backwards to protect the screen against the body when not in use.  The battery door and CF card door on the 5D feel flimsy and breakable.

I've put the E3 in snow, on ice, used it in rain, gotten it dirty and dusty and it never missed a beat.  The Canon impresses with good build quality, but not amazing build quality, and not near E3 build quality.

Handling:

The lcd screen on the Canon is much larger, much brighter, and much more detailed.  It wins hands down.  Both have small information lcd screens on the top of the camera.  The Olympus rear screen can move and rotate though so for live view product shooters on a tripod that might be a huge advantage, but not for me.

Both cameras have plenty of buttons and dials for getting at controls like ISO and white balance quickly without menu diving.  Canon's menu system is easier to use and understand.  Olympus improved their menu's by allowing the user to change some settings from the lcd info screen.  I prefer the dual dial setup on the Olympus over the single dial in front and big flat wheel on the back of the Canon, but I suspect many will disagree with me.  The Olympus also has an easy to get at auto exposure lock button.  The Canon uses a joystick like thing on the back to move between menus and the Olympus uses arrow buttons.  Both work well.  Overall I'm more comfortable with knowing my Olympus buttons but I can honestly say that is because I've used the camera for a very long time for many thousands of photos.  The Canon is laid out better and will have a shorter learning curve.

Memory Cards:  The Canon has one CF card slot which is accessed by a rather flimsy door.  The Olympus uses a single CF card slot as well as a secondary XD card slot.  XD cards are terrible.  They are slow and don't hold much information, but Olympus gets huge points for having dual card slots here. Canon must leave this out on purpose to encourage upgrades to its 1D series camera, but that is pretty lame.

Grip and feel:  Both cameras have nice grip and feel to them.  They feel great in the hand, are well balanced and have curves and rubber grips in all the right places. Both cameras are similar in size and weight.  This is honestly a tie.

Viewfinder:  Both are nice and bright.  Both make it easy to see information on the bottom of the viewfinder.  The Olympus gets a slight edge as it has the 100% field of view.

Flash:  The flash system on the E3 is better.  Much better.  It has built in wireless TTL flash that works very well and that seals the deal for me.  I understand that that has been incorporated in the 7D though.  I will say that the build quality of the Canon flash is much better (I can't figure out why the Olympus flashes aren't weather sealed and the Canon one is).

Image stabilization:  Simply put, I prefer it in camera like Olympus, Pentax and Sony have it.  I've tried both, and buying it in each lens (and weirdly enough Canon doesn't have it in most of their lenses anyway) is expensive and presents no advantage to me.

General Use:

Sports photography isn't something I do a lot of anymore but each camera wins here for different things.  The Olympus 2x crop factor is pretty nice for outdoor sports (I still prefer the crop sensor for framing subjects, it is just what I am used to) where you need all the reach you can get.  There is no need typically for high ISO's when shooting outdoors so the Canon doesn't present a big advantage there.  Yes you can crop in the 21 mp files of the Canon and get the same resolution as the 10 mp Olympus files, but I find that makes it harder to frame while in use, framing for a crop.  The Olympus shoots 5 frames per second which is a big advantage over the roughly 3 frames per second of the Canon.  The Olympus focuses well with its SWD lenses, but otherwise the Canon is generally faster to focus when using continuous autofocus and a dead heat tie otherwise.  For indoor sports you just can't get around the high ISO advantage of the Canon.  It makes it much easier to achieve faster shutter speeds when you can crank your ISO up to 3200 or 6400 vs the 1250 I limit myself to on the E3 due to image quality issues.  So if you are strictly an outdoor sports shooter, then I'd say the Olympus has the advantage, but indoors the advantage swings firmly over to Canon.  As a final note I will say that the Canon gets a shallower depth of field due to its sensor size, and this can be both good and bad for sports.  Sometimes you want to really blur out the crowd behind an athlete which is great, other times you want more than one player in focus and the shallow depth of field hurts.  It is times like this when you have to close down your aperture and raise your ISO that the Olympus shines over the Canon and the DOF advantage is actually a disadvantage.  Also, the built in image stabilization of the Olympus comes into play here if you don't use a monopod for sports and you don't have an image stabilized lens.

Portrait photography is an area where I think I would have been happy to stay with Olympus.  At first glance you might consider that the Canon's shallow depth of field is a huge advantage, but the Olympus gets great shallow depth of field when needed and the only Canon advantage would be the ability to have such a narrow depth of field that you would have only an eyelash in focus and nothing else which doesn't often make for a saleable image.  The Olympus file size is fine for even large prints,  I rarely print billboard size images for portraits so I don't see a 21 mp advantage here either.  Also portraits are usually lit or in good natural light, so high ISO's aren't a big deal.

Weddings and events are where the Canon shines.  I've shot weddings with my Olympus using flash and outdoor ceremonies are captured beautifully with my E3.  But when that pastor comes up to you in a church and says "no flash allowed" or when you are faced with a dark reception hall or conference centre for an event and you don't want all flash photography the usable ISO 6400 on the 5D mk II is wonderful.  I still try and keep the 5D at ISO 3200 or lower as there is noise in the files, but that beats the heck out of the ISO 1250 limit I find acceptable on the E3.  Having said all that, I really enjoy working with both a crop sensor and a full frame sensor camera in tandem at a wedding for different looks.  I tend to shoot the 5D with natural light and the E3 with flash, so again, I get different looks.  Should I ever move entirely away from Olympus I'm sure I'll keep one crop sensor camera, possibly the 7D or 1D mk IV.

I'm not the most well versed photographer with landscapes, birds, fashion, food or product and commercial photography so I won't pretend like I have all the answers as to the strengths and weaknesses of both systems for those types of photography.  There are plenty of photographers out there that I'm sure can speak better on those subjects.  For you HDR buffs out there though, in my humble opinion the exposure bracketing on the E3 is much better than the Canon.  Canon doesn't seem to be that interested in HDR with the setup they have.

The Olympus doesn't do movies.  The Canon does.  This is going to be a deal breaker for some people but for me, honestly, I've turned on movie mode one time on the Canon just for giggles.  It is clunky and not easy to use, but the quality is amazing.  It's not my thing so there is no use me sharing my opinion about it.

The RAW files:

I've processed a lot of images from both cameras.   I'm not a jpg shooter, I love RAW.  I have heard that Olympus' jpg files are the best in the business, and that may be so, but frankly I don't care.  I refuse to give up the latitude I get from shooting RAW.  A few things I've noticed about each camera and working with their files:

The Olympus RAW files come out in Lightroom looking good by default for the most part, but not terribly sharp sometimes.  There is never an issue with vignetting with any of the lenses I use.  Noise becomes apparent at ISO 800, though very easily managed if so desired.  The files quickly come apart at ISO 1600 and unless the image has been well lit, in my opinion ISO 1250 is the limit for good files from this camera even with noise reduction.  There isn't a lot of latitude in the Olympus RAW files either.  If you miss your exposure don't expect to be able to yank the exposure slider more than one stop if you are lucky in Lightroom and still get a good result.  Being a 10 mp sensor, my iMac easily handles the images and I can move quickly when editing.  I have printed easily 24 by 36 inch prints from my E3 files with amazing, detailed sellable results.  I could print larger for sure.

The Canon RAW files are often kind of flat to my eye when I look at them at first.  I do occasionally notice some vignetting in images.  The file sizes are huge but my iMac handles them well except when it comes time to export them to Photoshop or for saving at which time things get noticeably slow.  I also have to downsize the images when using some programs like my photo book designer for instance as it can't handle the large file size.  The files up to ISO 1600 are really nice.  At 3200 ISO you get a file that has noise but is easy to clean up if so desired.  At ISO 6400 there is very apparent noise that can be cleaned up somewhat if you hit your exposure properly.  This is nice as there are very few situations where I feel I can't handle the light and still get an image without using flash.  I'm not in love with shooting at ISO 6400 though and want to avoid it if I can.  I do tend to shoot at a higher ISO with the Canon just to keep my shutter speed up as the lenses I own do not have image stabilization.  There is a great deal of latitude in the Canon files.  In Lightroom I can positively abuse the files and still get a usable image.  This is great as I'm not a purest when it comes to photo editing.  Pixels are changed freely and without regret in my post processing workflow.  I am glad however that I have a Drobo for storing those files as they would eat a hard drive in short order.  My workflow is to dump the RAW files on my iMac hard drive, and when I'm done editing I then move them over from within Lightroom to my Drobo. I have considered lowering the quality size that I shoot at with the 5D mk II just to save room and speed up my post processing, but haven't so far.  At this point I just don't need 21 megapixels.

So has adopting Canon saved me?

I think it is easy to feel inferior if you shoot with a brand that doesn't say Nikon or Canon in a world that is dominated by them.  I have never once however had a bride or customer ask me about my camera brand in a way that would suggest they wouldn't hire me if I chose to shoot with a Sigma dslr.  They just care about the end product.  It is photographers that care about the name stencilled on their neck strap.

There have been a couple of huge disadvantages to me in shooting with two brands of camera.  The biggest is that my gear bag is heavy as I have to carry two lens lineups to a job that can't be used interchangeably.  That is a big problem and one that will likely ultimately see me pick up a second Canon body (or second Olympus body if Olympus ever gets off their collective butts and releases an E5).  Also I'm very used to the E3 and can work it blindfolded.  Adding another camera and a different brand to boot into the mix slows me down as they operate differently.

The move to Canon was important for me in a couple of respects.  I need to be able to deliver a product to a client no matter the situation I'm in.  If I am not allowed to use flash in a church I don't want to use that as an excuse not to deliver.  And if a client wants to print a billboard sized print I'm happy that I shot with 21+ megapixels.  The other thing that made me happy I bought into Canon was the assurance I had that Canon would continue to make products to support me.  There is some genuine concern rolling around the internet that Olympus is going to dump their dslr production in favour of micro four thirds.  I just can't afford to continue to buy $2500 Olympus lenses when I'm not sure if they are going to be usable in the long run.

All of the above is true for me.  It might not be true for the next guy.  Right now I'm very happy I'm a bi-brand shooter.  I took a break from writing this (very long) blog entry to run out and shoot the Empire Days parade for the newspaper today.  A quick glance outside showed that it was raining cats and dogs so I brought the E3.  No rain bag necessary.  I ran into another photographer shooting for a competing paper with a Nikon in a plastic bag.  The rain was dripping off my lens hood.  No problem, the camera was more comfortable than I was as my pants soaked through.

I sincerely hope that Olympus continues production of serious dslr's.  There are some real advantages of the system and they aren't all about the weather sealing.  Sometimes I enjoy the less shallow depth of field at larger apertures.  I love that the lenses are all sharp right to the corners.  I love that the natural crop of the four thirds sensor is closer to the most common enlargement print sizes like 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14.  If they don't continue I imagine that I'll keep the E3 for my hobby photography and for rainy day assignments.

In the meantime, I am glad I started the switch.  I know nearly 100% for sure that Canon will continue to support my growth as a photographic professional with new equipment as needed.  I love being able to handle darkly lit situations and still get the image for my client.  The Canon lenses are very good too.  Not as good as your average Olympus lens, but very good none the less.  And for all the size advantages we are promised with Olympus cameras and lenses, they don't really deliver as I find working with my Canon often to be lighter and less bulky.  Go figure.

E3 image from parade today in the rain

I know I've rambled somewhat, and maybe lost focus and not answered the question about which camera is better, but that is really what is intriguing about this for me.   In everyday working photographic use there is no clear winner here.  These are tools, and no matter how much someone will get their knickers in a knot each system has it's uses where the other is frankly much weaker.  Despite my love of photographic gear (I'm a confessed gear geek-a-holic) I feel I can relax with my current equipment and know that there are very few photographic situations that I could not handle.  If you are a current Olympus shooter and want to know if I think you should switch to one of the big two brands I'll just say this:  it has worked for me, and I'm happy where I'm at, but photography is an expensive habit and I don't think anyone should spend a dime until the camera they have will absolutely not do what they need it to do.  Then, and only then is the time to switch, not simply when you are tired of being harassed by others because of the name brand around your neck.