Canon 2000D vs Olympus E-400

The Canon EOS 2000D (called Canon T7 in some regions) and the Olympus E-400 are two digital cameras that were revealed to the public, respectively, in February 2018 and September 2006. Both are DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) cameras that are based on an APS-C (2000D) and a Four Thirds (E-400) sensor. The Canon has a resolution of 24 megapixels, whereas the Olympus provides 10 MP.

Below is an overview of the main specs of the two cameras as a starting point for the comparison.

Headline Specifications

Canon 2000D		Olympus E-400
Digital single lens reflex		Digital single lens reflex
Canon EF mount lenses		Four Thirds lenses
24 MP, APS-C Sensor		10 MP, Four Thirds Sensor
1080/30p Video		no Video
ISO 100-6400 (100-12800)		ISO 100-1600
Optical viewfinder		Optical viewfinder
3.0" LCD, 920k dots		2.5" LCD, 215k dots
Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)		Fixed screen (not touch-sensitive)
3 shutter flaps per second		3 shutter flaps per second
500 shots per battery charge		500 shots per battery charge
129 x 101 x 78 mm, 475 g		130 x 91 x 53 mm, 435 g

Going beyond this snapshot of core features and characteristics, what are the differences between the Canon EOS 2000D and the Olympus E-400? Which one should you buy? Read on to find out how these two cameras compare with respect to their body size, their imaging sensors, their shooting features, their input-output connections, and their reception by expert reviewers.

Body comparison

An illustration of the physical size and weight of the Canon 2000D and the Olympus E-400 is provided in the side-by-side display below. The two cameras are presented according to their relative size. Three consecutive perspectives from the front, the top, and the back are available. All width, height and depth dimensions are rounded to the nearest millimeter.

If the front view area (width x height) of the cameras is taken as an aggregate measure of their size, the Olympus E-400 is notably smaller (9 percent) than the Canon 2000D. Moreover, the E-400 is markedly lighter (8 percent) than the 2000D. In this context, it is worth noting that neither the 2000D nor the E-400 are weather-sealed.

The above size and weight comparisons are to some extent incomplete since they do not consider the interchangeable lenses that both of these cameras require. A larger imaging sensor will tend to go along with bigger and heavier lenses, although exceptions exist. You can compare the optics available for the two cameras in the Canon EF Lens Catalog (2000D) and the Four Thirds Lens Catalog (E-400).

The adjacent table lists the principal physical characteristics of the two cameras alongside a wider set of alternatives. If you want to switch the focus of the display and review another camera pair, just select a new right or left comparator from among the camera models in the table. Alternatively, you can also move across to the CAM-parator tool and choose from the broad selection of possible camera comparisons there.

Camera Body Specifications

	Camera Model	Camera Width	Camera Height	Camera Depth	Camera Weight	Battery Life (CIPA)	Weather Sealing (yes/no)	Camera Launch (announced)	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price (USD)	Used Price (USD)	Camera Model
	Canon 2000D»	5.1 in	4.0 in	3.1 in	16.8 oz	500	n	Feb 2018	449			Canon 2000D
	Olympus E-400«	5.1 in	3.6 in	2.1 in	15.3 oz	500	n	Sep 2006	699	-		Olympus E-400
	Canon 4000D« »	5.1 in	4.0 in	3.0 in	15.4 oz	500	n	Feb 2018	399			Canon 4000D
	Canon 77D« »	5.2 in	3.9 in	3.0 in	19.0 oz	600	n	Feb 2017	899			Canon 77D
	Canon 200D« »	4.8 in	3.7 in	2.8 in	16.0 oz	650	n	Jun 2017	549	-		Canon 200D
	Canon 800D« »	5.2 in	3.9 in	3.0 in	18.8 oz	600	n	Feb 2017	749			Canon 800D
	Canon G9 X Mark II« »	3.9 in	2.3 in	1.2 in	7.3 oz	235	n	Jan 2017	529			Canon G9 X Mark II
	Canon M100« »	4.3 in	2.6 in	1.4 in	10.7 oz	295	n	Aug 2017	499			Canon M100
	Canon 1300D« »	5.1 in	4.0 in	3.1 in	17.1 oz	500	n	Mar 2016	449	-		Canon 1300D
	Canon 750D« »	5.2 in	4.0 in	3.1 in	19.6 oz	440	n	Feb 2015	749	-		Canon 750D
	Canon 760D« »	5.2 in	4.0 in	3.1 in	19.9 oz	440	n	Feb 2015	649	-		Canon 760D
	Canon 1200D« »	5.1 in	3.9 in	3.1 in	16.9 oz	500	n	Feb 2014	449	-		Canon 1200D
	Olympus E-420« »	5.1 in	3.6 in	2.1 in	15.5 oz	500	n	Mar 2008	599	-		Olympus E-420
	Olympus E-410« »	5.1 in	3.6 in	2.1 in	15.3 oz	500	n	Mar 2007	699	-		Olympus E-410
	Olympus E-510« »	5.4 in	3.6 in	2.7 in	19.0 oz	750	n	Mar 2007	799	-		Olympus E-510
	Olympus E-500« »	5.1 in	3.7 in	2.6 in	16.9 oz	750	n	Sep 2005	599	-		Olympus E-500
	Panasonic L10« »	5.3 in	3.8 in	3.1 in	19.6 oz	450	n	Aug 2007	599	-		Panasonic L10
Convert to Metric
Note: Measurements and pricing do not include easily detachable parts, such as interchangeable lenses or optional viewfinders.

Any camera decision will obviously take relative prices into account. The retail prices at the time of the camera’s release place the model in the market relative to other models in the producer’s line-up and the competition. The 2000D was launched at a markedly lower price (by 36 percent) than the E-400, which puts it into a different market segment. Normally, street prices remain initially close to the MSRP, but after a couple of months, the first discounts appear. Later in the product cycle and, in particular, when the replacement model is about to appear, further discounting and stock clearance sales often push the camera price considerably down. Then, after the new model is out, very good deals can frequently be found on the pre-owned market.

Sensor comparison

The imaging sensor is at the core of digital cameras and its size is one of the main determining factors of image quality. All other things equal, a large sensor will have larger individual pixel-units that offer better low-light sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller pixels in a sensor of the same technological generation. Moreover, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more control over depth-of-field in the image and, thus, the ability to better isolate a subject from the background. On the downside, larger sensors are more costly to manufacture and tend to lead to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses.

Of the two cameras under consideration, the Canon 2000D features an APS-C sensor and the Olympus E-400 a Four Thirds sensor. The sensor area in the E-400 is 32 percent smaller. As a result of these sensor size differences, the cameras have a format factor of, respectively, 1.6 and 2.0. The sensor in the 2000D has a native 3:2 aspect ratio, while the one in the E-400 offers a 4:3 aspect.

Technology-wise, both cameras are equipped with CMOS (Complementary Metal–Oxide–Semiconductor) sensors.

With 24MP, the 2000D offers a higher resolution than the E-400 (10MP), but the 2000D has smaller individual pixels (pixel pitch of 3.72μm versus 4.74μm for the E-400). However, the 2000D is a much more recent model (by 11 years and 5 months) than the E-400, and its sensor will have benefitted from technological advances during this time that enhance the light gathering capacity of its pixels.

The resolution advantage of the Canon 2000D implies greater flexibility for cropping images or the possibility to print larger pictures. The maximum print size of the 2000D for good quality output (200 dots per inch) amounts to 30 x 20 inch or 76.2 x 50.8 cm, for very good quality (250 dpi) 24 x 16 inch or 61 x 40.6 cm, and for excellent quality (300 dpi) 20 x 13.3 inch or 50.8 x 33.9 cm. The corresponding values for the Olympus E-400 are 18.2 x 13.7 inch or 46.3 x 34.7 cm for good quality, 14.6 x 10.9 inch or 37.1 x 27.8 cm for very good quality, and 12.2 x 9.1 inch or 30.9 x 23.2 cm for excellent quality prints.

The Canon EOS 2000D has a native sensitivity range from ISO 100 to ISO 6400, which can be extended to ISO 100-12800. The corresponding ISO settings for the Olympus E-400 are ISO 100 to ISO 1600 (no boost).

Consistent information on actual sensor performance is available from DXO Mark for many cameras. This service determines an overall sensor rating, as well as sub-scores for low-light sensitivity ("DXO Sports"), dynamic range ("DXO Landscape"), and color depth ("DXO Portrait"). The table below summarizes the physical sensor characteristics and sensor quality findings and compares them across a set of similar cameras.

Many modern cameras are not only capable of taking still images, but can also record movies. The 2000D indeed provides movie recording capabilities, while the E-400 does not. The highest resolution format that the 2000D can use is 1080/30p.

Feature comparison

Apart from body and sensor, cameras can and do differ across a range of features. The 2000D and the E-400 are similar in the sense that both have an optical viewfinder. The latter is useful for getting a clear image for framing even in brightly lit environments. The viewfinders of both cameras offer the same field of view (95%), but the viewfinder of the 2000D has a higher magnification than the one of the E-400 (0.50x vs 0.46x), so that the size of the image transmitted appears closer to the size seen with the naked human eye. The adjacent table lists some of the other core features of the Canon 2000D and Olympus E-400 along with similar information for a selection of comparators.

The 2000D writes its imaging data to SDXC cards, while the E-400 uses Compact Flash or xD Picture cards. The E-400 features dual card slots, which can be very useful in case a memory card fails. In contrast, the 2000D only has one slot.

Connectivity comparison

For some imaging applications, the extent to which a camera can communicate with its environment can be an important aspect in the camera decision process. The table below provides an overview of the connectivity of the Canon EOS 2000D and Olympus E-400 and, in particular, the interfaces the cameras (and selected comparators) provide for accessory control and data transfer.

It is notable that the 2000D offers wifi support, while the E-400 does not. Wifi can be a very convenient means to transfer image data to an off-camera location.

The 2000D is a recent model that features in the current product line-up of Canon. In contrast, the E-400 has been discontinued (but it can be found pre-owned on eBay). As a replacement in the same line of cameras, the E-400 was succeeded by the Olympus E-410. Further information on the two cameras (e.g. user guides, manuals), as well as related accessories, can be found on the official Canon and Olympus websites.

Review summary

So how do things add up? Is there a clear favorite between the Canon 2000D and the Olympus E-400? Which camera is better? Below is a summary of the relative strengths of each of the two contestants.

Arguments in favor of the Canon EOS 2000D:

• More detail: Offers more megapixels (24 vs 10MP) with a 58% higher linear resolution.
• Better image quality: Features a larger and more technologically advanced imaging sensor.
• Richer colors: The sensor size advantage translates into images with better, more accurate colors.
• More dynamic range: Larger sensor captures a wider spectrum of light and dark details.
• Better low-light sensitivity: Larger sensor produces good images even in poorly lit environments.
• Broader imaging potential: Can record not only still images but also 1080/30p movies.
• Larger viewfinder image: Features a viewfinder with a higher magnification (0.50x vs 0.46x).
• Larger screen: Has a bigger rear LCD (3.0" vs 2.5") for image review and settings control.
• More detailed LCD: Has a higher resolution rear screen (920k vs 215k dots).
• Easier file upload: Has wifi built in for automatic backup or image transfer to the web.
• Easier device pairing: Supports NFC for fast wireless image transfer over short distances.
• More affordable: Was introduced into a lower priced category (36 percent cheaper at launch).
• More modern: Reflects 11 years and 5 months of technical progress since the E-400 launch.

Advantages of the Olympus E-400:

• Greater peace of mind: Features a second card slot as a backup in case of memory card failure.
• More heavily discounted: Has been around for much longer (launched in September 2006).

If the count of individual advantages (bullet points above) is taken as a guide, the 2000D is the clear winner of the match-up (13 : 2 points). However, the relevance of individual strengths will vary across photographers, so that you might want to apply your own weighing scheme to the summary points when reflecting and deciding on a new camera. A professional wedding photographer will view the differences between cameras in a way that diverges from the perspective of a travel photog, and a person interested in cityscapes has distinct needs from a macro shooter. Hence, the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.

How about other alternatives? Do the specifications of the Canon 2000D and the Olympus E-400 place the cameras among the top in their class? Find out in the latest Best DSLR Camera listing whether the two cameras rank among the cream of the crop.

In any case, while the specs-based evaluation of cameras can be instructive in revealing their potential as photographic tools, it remains incomplete and does no justice, for example, to the way the 2000D or the E-400 perform in practice. User reviews, such as those found at amazon, can sometimes inform about these issues, but such feedback is often incomplete, inconsistent, and biased.

Expert reviews

This is why hands-on reviews by experts are important. The following table reports the overall ratings of the cameras as published by some of the major camera review sites (cameralabs, dpreview, ephotozine, imaging-resource, and photographyblog). As can be seen, the professional reviewers agree in many cases on the quality of different cameras, but sometimes their assessments diverge, reinforcing the earlier point that a camera decision is often a very personal choice.

Review Scores

	Camera Model						Camera Launch (announced)	Launch Price (USD)	Street Price (USD)	Used Price (USD)	Camera Model
	Canon 2000D»	o	-	3.5/5	-	3.5/5	Feb 2018	449			Canon 2000D
	Olympus E-400«	85/100	-	4/5	-	4/5	Sep 2006	699	-		Olympus E-400
	Canon 4000D« »	o	-	3.5/5	-	3.5/5	Feb 2018	399			Canon 4000D
	Canon 77D« »	-	82/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	4/5	Feb 2017	899			Canon 77D
	Canon 200D« »	+ +	78/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jun 2017	549	-		Canon 200D
	Canon 800D« »	-	80/100	4.5/5	4/5	4/5	Feb 2017	749			Canon 800D
	Canon G9 X Mark II« »	-	75/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	4.5/5	Jan 2017	529			Canon G9 X Mark II
	Canon M100« »	+	-	4/5	-	3.5/5	Aug 2017	499			Canon M100
	Canon 1300D« »	o	73/100	4/5	3.5/5	4/5	Mar 2016	449	-		Canon 1300D
	Canon 750D« »	-	75/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	4.5/5	Feb 2015	749	-		Canon 750D
	Canon 760D« »	+	77/100	4.5/5	4.5/5	4.5/5	Feb 2015	649	-		Canon 760D
	Canon 1200D« »	+	-	4/5	4/5	4.5/5	Feb 2014	449	-		Canon 1200D
	Olympus E-420« »	85/100	+ +	4/5	o	4.5/5	Mar 2008	599	-		Olympus E-420
	Olympus E-410« »	86/100	+ +	4/5	o	4.5/5	Mar 2007	699	-		Olympus E-410
	Olympus E-510« »	89/100	+ +	3.5/5	o	4.5/5	Mar 2007	799	-		Olympus E-510
	Olympus E-500« »	76/100	+ +	-	-	-	Sep 2005	599	-		Olympus E-500
	Panasonic L10« »	85/100	+	3.5/5	o	4/5	Aug 2007	599	-		Panasonic L10
Notes: (+ +) highly recommended; (+) recommended; (o) reviewed; (-) not available.

Care should be taken when interpreting the review scores above, though. The ratings were established in reference to similarly priced cameras that were available in the market at the time of the review. A score, therefore, has to be seen in close connection to the price and market introduction time of the camera, and comparisons of ratings among very different cameras or across long time periods have little meaning. It should also be noted that some of the review sites have over time altered the way they render their verdicts.

Other camera comparisons

Did this review help to inform your camera decision process? If you would like to see a different side-by-side camera review, just use the search menu below. There is also a set of direct links to comparison reviews that other users of the CAM-parator app explored.

Specifications: Canon 2000D vs Olympus E-400

Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specs of the two cameras to facilitate a quick review of their differences and common features.

Did you notice an error on this page? If so, please get in touch, so that we can correct the information.