HELP! Anyone have anything good to say about Olympus? :)

[Anewman]

I disagree that lenses are more important than ISO performance when considering a system to buy into.

OK, Your opinion and I respect it.

But would you buy a system that had no available 2.8 zooms or fast primes???


No need to answer, it is just rhetorical. After all Canon is widely regarded as having the best ISO performance.

 

[Groucho]

OK, Your opinion and I respect it.

But would you buy a system that had no available 2.8 zooms or fast primes???


No need to answer, it is just rhetorical. After all Canon is widely regarded as having the best ISO performance.

??????????????????????????

You really confuse me.

What the heck (to put it kindly) does Canon have to do with this? ISO performance is pretty much a wash with all DSLRs except for the Olympus, whose sensor is notably smaller - note the square mm measurement in the graphic I posted.

What system does NOT have F2.8 zooms or fast primes available? (None, so far as I know.)

I get the feeling that you're really interested in baiting me tonight and I don't know why. But I'd appreciate it if you'd knock it off.

 

[ukcatfan]

OK, Your opinion and I respect it.

But would you buy a system that had no available 2.8 zooms or fast primes???


No need to answer, it is just rhetorical. After all Canon is widely regarded as having the best ISO performance.

To put it into perspective based on your Canon statement, think of it like this in high ISO quality:
1. Canon
2. Nikon
3. Pentax
4. Sony
5. Olympus

The difference between 1-4 is not even worth considering IMO, but there is a leap from 4 to 5 due to the smaller sensor. It seems that Oly has recently bumped up the NR to make up for the noise, but that only makes the image softer.

Kevin

 

[Anewman]

What the heck (to put it kindly) does Canon have to do with this? ISO performance is pretty much a wash with all DSLRs...

I agree that ISO performance is pretty much a wash, I actually stated something to that effect in the post you disagreed with.

I can see how everyone gets caught up in the high ISO noise issues and it is important, but pretty much all DSLRs deliver usable ISO 1600 images if you are going to print small

Since we agree that it is a wash, I stand by my opinion that this realization puts more importance on the availability of fast lenses when making a camera system choice(where low light shooting is a priority).

I understand that you feel Olympus is far below the others, but regardless of sensor size I have seen samples that appear to be usable in small prints and the OP feels it may actually yield slightly better results than the other camera being considered. Hence I suggested lens selection should be given consideration.

What system does NOT have F2.8 zooms or fast primes available? (None, so far as I know.)

From what I can tell Olympus makes 1 fast prime under $1000(50mm F/2.0=100mm 35mm eqiuv) and NO OTHER fast primes or zooms under $2000(per BHphoto site).

I get the feeling that you're really interested in baiting me tonight and I don't know why. But I'd appreciate it if you'd knock it off.

I get the feeling you need to reread this thread.

 

[Anewman]

To put it into perspective based on your Canon statement, think of it like this in high ISO quality:
1. Canon
2. Nikon
3. Pentax
4. Sony
5. Olympus

The difference between 1-4 is not even worth considering IMO, but there is a leap from 4 to 5 due to the smaller sensor. It seems that Oly has recently bumped up the NR to make up for the noise, but that only makes the image softer.

Kevin

I agree 100% Kevin, but my point was that they all deliver acceptable images at high ISOs when printed at 4x6(even Oly). So if one system has the advantage(or lack of) in the lens department IMO that would trump the pixel peeping.

Same way that if one shoots sports if two systems are equally capable in the speed department, it would become an issue of which has more ideal lenses. But I understand not everyone would agree...

EDIT=

Yes the sensor on the Oly is smaller but maybe not as small as one might think...

372mm = Sony A100
328mm = Canon Xti
243mm = Olympus E510

So if the The Canon Xti sensor can be 44mm smaller than the Sony sensor and still be clearly superior in terms of high ISO noise, it is possible for the Olympus sensor to be 83mm smaller than the Canon and be considered at least adequate. I mean all APS-C DSLRs are about 500mm smaller than Canon full frame DSLRs but they still yield acceptable noise levels.

 

[Master Mason]

I

Everytime you post this, I think. Wow, then Canon wins because they are the only one making Full Frame Digital Cameras

Anyway, IMO

You can't go wrong with Canon, Nikon, Pentax. The only reason I don't include Sony or Olympus on that list is I know little to nothing about them, except for the fact that the people that have them enjoy them.

 

[donaldduck1967]

To the OP, if you really want to know what the E510 can and can't do, do yourself a favor and go to dpreview and read their Olympus forum. You'll get the answers you're looking for from people that actually use the system and not from people spectulating what the camera can or can't do.

 

[donaldduck1967]

From what I can tell Olympus makes 1 fast prime under $1000(50mm F/2.0=100mm 35mm eqiuv) and NO OTHER fast primes or zooms under $2000(per BHphoto site).

Not to start a whole new war here but Olympus does have a 50-200 f/2.8 -f/3.5 sub $1000.00. Now also going by B&H and I am going to use Canon only because they seem to be the majority of cameras on here. According to B&H, and I don't know what you consider a zoom lens, Canon has no zoom lens'. Again this isn't to start a war because that's been played out more then enough around here.

 

[Master Mason]

According to B&H, and I don't know what you consider a zoom lens, Canon has no zoom lens'. Again this isn't to start a war because that's been played out more then enough around here.

???

A zoom lens in any lens that is not a fixed focal length, so I am not sure what you mean here.

 

[donaldduck1967]

???

A zoom lens in any lens that is not a fixed focal length, so I am not sure what you mean here.

The reason I asked was he said Olympus had NO zoom'z under $2000.00 which is not true. So I was wondering what he considered a zoom.

 

[write2caro]

I got these figures from dpreview. They haven't reviewed the E510 so I showed the E410. My understanding from what I have been told/researched is that they are almost the same except for lack of IS in the E410 (E410 is lighter, too and offers an underwater case - not important to me ) - please correct me if I'm wrong on that!

What I am confused about is sensor size as it correlates with image quality. Nikon sensor area: ~370, Olympus sensor area: 243, yet per this review they tie in image quality. Am I misinterpreting this, or are you guys mostly talking about LOW LIGHT IMAGE QUALITY (which I am so concerned with ), where this review is looking at it OVERALL?

Is this worth putting any stock in? Found it on a dpreview forum: http://www.jdpower.com/util/ratings/results.aspx?study_id=901&vertical=&v1=$600%20or%20more

 

[donaldduck1967]

The E-410 is smaller and lighter. The E-510 has IS and uses a larger battery and I read it has some additional features. What they are I don't know, I read it on another forum.

 

[ukcatfan]

I got these figures from dpreview. They haven't reviewed the E510 so I showed the E410. My understanding from what I have been told/researched is that they are almost the same except for lack of IS in the E410 (E410 is lighter, too and offers an underwater case - not important to me ) - please correct me if I'm wrong on that!

What I am confused about is sensor size as it correlates with image quality. Nikon sensor area: ~370, Olympus sensor area: 243, yet per this review they tie in image quality. Am I misinterpreting this, or are you guys mostly talking about LOW LIGHT IMAGE QUALITY (which I am so concerned with ), where this review is looking at it OVERALL?

Is this worth putting any stock in? Found it on a dpreview forum: http://www.jdpower.com/util/ratings/results.aspx?study_id=901&vertical=&v1=$600%20or%20more

I was just commenting on this on another thread, but I do not put too much weight on the DPReview opinions anymore. He is just too inconsistent. I don't know if it some sort of brand loyalty, he is in over his head, or just in a bad mood on some reviews, but it just does not make sense sometimes. Plus, he is part of Amazon now, so I am a little concerned about his intentions.

As for low light, you are going to need a fast prime. That is pretty much accepted by everyone. With Oly, you are going to have to spend $400 and you will have to deal with the effective focal length of 100mm instead of the effective ~75mm on a C,N,P, or S. I personally think 75mm is a bit restrictive and plan to buy a prime a little wider when I can afford it. Only you can decide if this is a problem for your style. Then the other brands are less than half the cost for a 50mm.

As for the ISO, it is still a DSLR, so it will blow away a p&s, but it just will not get as good as the other brands with larger sensors. It is a matter of physics. It seems that Oly is addressing this by increasing the NR to make it appear less noisy, but you loose detail doing that. Look at the samples and see if it is good enough for you.

There are also a couple more unique things with the 4/3 system that I see as an annoyance, but you might actually see as a benefit. The DOF is always going to be larger on this system because of the smaller sensor. If you like isolating your subjects, this could be a problem. If not, it could be a benefit because it gives a little more room for error if you miss the subject on the focus lock. I cannot stand that it is in a 4x3 aspect ratio. I know that you said that cropping is not a big deal, but you are going to have to think that way when taking the shots or you will end up missing shots that you think were good because the crop ruins it.

I do not think any of us are saying that OLY is a bad brand. We are just saying that it has certain unique features due to the design and some do not like it because of that. Others like it because of those things, so you have to decide what is important to you.

Kevin

 

[donaldduck1967]

I've been reading alot where people say you have to crop when printing. That's not necessarily true. Resizing is an option as well, that's what I do.

 

[Anewman]

The reason I asked was he said Olympus had NO zoom'z under $2000.00 which is not true. So I was wondering what he considered a zoom.

The actual sentence was "NO OTHER fast primes or zooms", Note the "fast" part. I guess I should have used the word twice but I assumed everyone would understand. But I will rephrase that.

Olympus does not make any FAST ZOOMS with 2.8 aperture throughout the entire focal range anywhere under $2000.

Give me a little slack please, English is my second language.

 

[Anewman]

I got these figures from dpreview. They haven't reviewed the E510 so I showed the E410. My understanding from what I have been told/researched is that they are almost the same except for lack of IS in the E410 (E410 is lighter, too and offers an underwater case - not important to me ) - please correct me if I'm wrong on that!

What I am confused about is sensor size as it correlates with image quality. Nikon sensor area: ~370, Olympus sensor area: 243, yet per this review they tie in image quality. Am I misinterpreting this, or are you guys mostly talking about LOW LIGHT IMAGE QUALITY (which I am so concerned with ), where this review is looking at it OVERALL?

Is this worth putting any stock in? Found it on a dpreview forum: http://www.jdpower.com/util/ratings/results.aspx?study_id=901&vertical=&v1=$600%20or%20more

I do think that those numbers are overall image quality(not low light) straight out of camera(jpegs) within other cameras in that price range. It does not mean the one with the highest(or lowest) IQ rating is actually the best, but at its price point it usually is. And I actually think this IQ ratings are accurate, it is no secret that the Pentax K10d has poor jpeg proccesing in camera. Of course shooting raw could change the ratings all around but that is not really reflected in ratings since results would vary depending on skill of person processing.

Same with the Performance(speed rating), if you notice all the camera rated in your diagram are comparable in speed(3fps unlimited jpegs, etc...) yet the ratings differ. It has some to do with prices at time review, example if a camera shoots at 5fps but is priced and compared with a bunch of cameras that shoot 10fps(at review time) it would get a speed rating even lower than these 3fps cameras even if it is actually faster.

Yes I believe in the JD power ratings, most Oly shooters are very happy with their system. Without looking at ratings for other makers I would assume that Pentax also ranks near the top while Canon and Nikon rank near the bottom. Imo it is not so much an indicator of camera quality as much as it is a reflection of the customer base. While most Oly and Pentax purchasers do some research or have some knowledge b4 purchase, Canon and Nikon sell so well based on brand recognition that they are bound to have more uneducated novices that soon realize they are over their heads.

 

[Anewman]

I've been reading alot where people say you have to crop when printing. That's not necessarily true. Resizing is an option as well, that's what I do.

So you alter the aspect ratio?

 

[donaldduck1967]

So you alter the aspect ratio?

I don't know if that's considered changing the aspect ratio or not but before I print a pic i'll change the image size to 4" height and the width automatically changes to 5.33". Maybe that's considered changing the aspect ratio I hoestly don't know.

 

[donaldduck1967]

The actual sentence was "NO OTHER fast primes or zooms", Note the "fast" part. I guess I should have used the word twice but I assumed everyone would understand. But I will rephrase that.

Olympus does not make any FAST ZOOMS with 2.8 aperture throughout the entire focal range anywhere under $2000.

Give me a little slack please, English is my second language.

I was not giving you any slack. I didn't know you meant 2.8 thruout. Sry for any confusion.

 

[Anewman]

I don't know if that's considered changing the aspect ratio or not but before I print a pic i'll change the image size to 4" height and the width automatically changes to 5.33". Maybe that's considered changing the aspect ratio I hoestly don't know.

So are you printing 4x5.33(which would give white borders on the 2 short ends)?

Many times when you upload and image to a lab, they auto crop for you.

I was not giving you any slack. I didn't know you meant 2.8 thruout. Sry for any confusion.

My fault, sentence should have been worded better.