Are olympus digital cameras generally good quality?

Physical build quality or image quality? Oly's have proven tough and durable physically and most owners sell them to get newer models long before they take enough pictures to wear out them out.

Not sure about Fujifilm models although some Oly owners also like and own Fujifilm cameras like the X100 and X Pro 1.

 

Keep in mind you are asking this question to a bunch of folks who have spent their own money on Olympus cameras so yes, we are generally of the opinion that they are good quality cameras.

I'm on my 6th Olympus now and I've never been anything but completely satisfied with all of them. My very first camera was an Olympus D340R, followed by a D400Z (1999,) and those are the cameras that got me hooked on digital photography in the first place. I had an E20 that got me into the world of digital SLRs and I now have an E-PL1 and OM-D that I just received this afternoon. I can (and do,) highly recommend Olympus to anyone who asks me.

I've owned probably 35-40 digital cameras in the last 13 years and the Olympus cameras I've owned have been among the best.

 

You can't peg a brandname and ask if build quality is so and so...different ranges in the brand can take different levels of abuse. For instance the Olympus TOUGH can be dropped, stepped on, taken in the pool, etc.

The E-M5 for instance can be taken out in the rain (with a weatherproof lens), but other PENs shouldn't get wet.

All decent brands (Oly, Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, etc.) make equivalent quality cameras at equivalent price points.

 

YES.

 

A much more important issue you should be addressing is which one handles best for you. Next consider which one has the features that most meet your needs (within your price range) and which system (lenses, accessories and other bodies) best matches the way you forsee your photography developing. Take it as read that all modern cameras have satisfactory build quality and image quality within their price band. :smile:

 

If either Olympus or Panasonic were built poorly, they would not sell. But they do.

I own both. They're both good. It's more a matter of personal inclination.

 

Olympus is known primarily for the quality of their Zuiko glass (they are an optics manufacturer first and foremost), ingenuity, compact design, deep rich colors (seen not only in their digital bodies, but even just in the Zuiko glass itself - mounted on any camera), excellent accurate processing (fine JPG quality, AWB accuracy, etc.), and incredible weather proofing and tough builds.

Every camera maker and every camera model has its strengths and weaknesses, but those are some of the "generic" strength biases you tend to find under the Olympus name. Just keep in mind that these are all generalizations and may vary from model to model. Olympus has actually done a really good job of carrying forth the same types of engineering feats through all their lines from the film days to the digital era. What Olympus stood for in the Pen of 1959 for instance, is very similar to the concepts that stand behind the Digital PEN of 2009 (50 years later). Same thing with the OM of 1972 and the OM-D of 2012 (40 years later).