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

[donaldduck1967]

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.



My fault, sentence should have been worded better.

When I print @ home yes.

I was using clubphoto.com to do most of my printing They had a 4xd format they had a 4xd format that would resize them automatically. They went out of business and I haven't tried any online sites yet.

 

[Anewman]

When I print @ home yes.

I was using clubphoto.com to do most of my printing They had a 4xd format they had a 4xd format that would resize them automatically. They went out of business and I haven't tried any online sites yet.

Ok that means you are NOT altering aspect ratio.

What everyone means is that you must crop(or alter aspect ratio) to print at standard sizes such as 4x6, but you are not exactly printing at 4x6 so no you dont need to crop in that case.

 

[ukcatfan]

When I print @ home yes.

I was using clubphoto.com to do most of my printing They had a 4xd format they had a 4xd format that would resize them automatically. They went out of business and I haven't tried any online sites yet.

I know that almost any processing center "can" do it in the correct size, but many times you would need to do it in person and then find someone working there that has a clue. Our Wlamart has done it correctly for me, but then the next time I went, the person working said that he had no idea what I was talking about. Most people working for those places are not educated photographers, they are just $6/hr. people shown how to use a machine. Ritz seems to specialize in unique sizes, but their prices are not always the best.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

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.

FWIW, I never said that Olympus is far below the others. From what I've seen, it certainly does suffer more from noise than DSLRs with APS-sized sensors, but it's hardly unusable and certainly way beyond any PnS.

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).

This I did not realize, in which case I would agree that this makes the Olympus line-up less attractive. However, supposedly the 4/3rds mount is the most interchangable of any DSLR mount, allowing you to use all manner of other lenses on them - yes, in manual focus only, but that is still a valuable tool. The 2x crop is certainly going to hurt though, making the common and high-quality 50mm lenses be a longish 100mm - the 75mm on a 1.5x crop body is already plenty long for what they're used for.

I do find it amusing that we seem to be agreeing that we wouldn't recommend the Olympus line but for different reasons.

As for the other comment, I would just ask that you not think about what camera I use when it has no place in whatever thread we're working in. The Canon comment seemed like a shot as well as I'm not exactly a fan of theirs, and I certainly don't agree than they are "clearly" better at high ISOs than their competition. (It sounds like you were making that because Canon's sensors are slightly smaller, but I had no idea that that was your point.) It's also not true that the K10D has poor jpg performance, it has a specifically-chosen jpg performance which was designed for a different look (more film-like and less artificially sharpened) than other cameras. Those settings can also be changed, which Phil apparently decided not to do, but instead to turn it into the DSLR version of the phantom Audi "unintended acceleration" of the '80s. (Just because it's repeated often doesn't make it true.) It's also rather silly as anyone with a camera as advanced as the K10D is doing themself a disservice by not shooting in Raw mode.

And as for DPReview's numerical ratings themselves, I don't think those are anything to go by. Something as intangible as image quality can't really be tossed in a number, and the ratings certainly aren't consistent - a Fuji F30 gets an 8.5 in IQ from them - does anyone really expect it to be match those DSLRs or be better than the A100 or K10D? And the Fuji S6000 with exactly the same sensor gets an 8.0 in IQ - It's kind of like how Roger Ebert always hated having to give number ratings for movies, they were not a good way or judging whether or not a movie was any good. Similarly, cameras cannot be easily broken down into a specific numbers, either.

 

[Anewman]

As for the other comment, I would just ask that you not think about what camera I use when it has no place in whatever thread we're working in.

You are free to ask me not to think about what camera you use, but I really dont think I brought up Pentax in this thread. And just to clarify, it is ok for you to bring up Pentax, but not ok for me to???

I think you feel every comment I make is a shot at your brand, I assure that is not the case. But dont you feel insulted when we read the same into some of your comments?

The Canon comment seemed like a shot as well as I'm not exactly a fan of theirs, and I certainly don't agree than they are "clearly" better at high ISOs than their competition.

Not a shot, just that by your assertion that HIGH ISO should be of utmost consideration for low light shooting, Canon should jump towards the top of that list IMO.

But of course you dont agree that Canon is recognized as having the best high ISO noise levels. Just as some of the assertions you make about a certain brand being "widely regarded" as tops in certain areas can also be subject to disagreement.

It's also not true that the K10D has poor jpg performance, it has a specifically-chosen jpg performance which was designed for a different look (more film-like and less artificially sharpened) than other cameras. Those settings can also be changed, which Phil apparently decided not to do,

Ok maybe not "poor" just not as good as the others, you can call it a "different look" all you want but if the RAW file is nice, sharp and colorful and the jpeg is not, IMO it equals less than perfect jpeg processing. I can not see any reason for default in camera processing to soften and desaturate a nice sharp vivid image as evidenced by the k10d raw files. It should be the other way around where default settings are Perfect and can be tweaked for that "different look."

And Phil is not the only review to notice this, but if Pentax users are upset he did not tweak the settings for his comparison shots I ask them one question... Did Phil tweak the settings on all the cameras he compared the K10d jpegs with?

And Yes I agree any DSLR user benefits most from shooting raw, and even the default JPEGS are very usable but when you pixel peep they do not stand up to the competition while the RAWs do.


Now getting back to the subject you disagreed with...

How can one consider HIGH ISO noise levels to be relatively equal at the current DSLR level, and still consider this more important than lens selection where it is obviously not as equal.

 

[ukcatfan]

Those settings can also be changed, which Phil apparently decided not to do, but instead to turn it into the DSLR version of the phantom Audi "unintended acceleration" of the '80s. (Just because it's repeated often doesn't make it true.)

That is too funny. I was just talking about the Audi thing yesterday with my wife I had an Audi as my first car and you had to have the brake pressed to start the car as a new safety feature do to the "unintended acceleration".

And Phil is not the only review to notice this, but if Pentax users are upset he did not tweak the settings for his comparison shots I ask them one question... Did Phil tweak the settings on all the cameras he compared the K10d jpegs with?

Yes, but other reviewers did tweak them, so I consider Phil to have not done as good of a review due to that. I could care less about the scores, but the reviews are intended to help the users decide what to buy and how best to use it after purchasing. He did not do that IMO and that goes to support my opinion that he is in over his head and just does not have the time to devote to individual reviews that he should. Did anyone notice that he put out about five job postings about the same time Amazon bought him? Maybe things will get better down the road?

Kevin

 

[donaldduck1967]

Ok that means you are NOT altering aspect ratio.

What everyone means is that you must crop(or alter aspect ratio) to print at standard sizes such as 4x6, but you are not exactly printing at 4x6 so no you dont need to crop in that case.

That makes sense. It's not A true 4x6 so the aspect ration doesn't change. Thanks for helpong clear that up.

 

[donaldduck1967]

I know that almost any processing center "can" do it in the correct size, but many times you would need to do it in person and then find someone working there that has a clue. Our Wlamart has done it correctly for me, but then the next time I went, the person working said that he had no idea what I was talking about. Most people working for those places are not educated photographers, they are just $6/hr. people shown how to use a machine. Ritz seems to specialize in unique sizes, but their prices are not always the best.

Kevin

That's what I liekd about clubphoto, as long asyou chose a 4xd print they did the resizing for you. One time Ordered some prints I chose 4x6 and well.... ooops cropped pics. Oh well.

 

[Anewman]

Yes, but other reviewers did tweak them, so I consider Phil to have not done as good of a review due to that. I could care less about the scores, but the reviews are intended to help the users decide what to buy and how best to use it after purchasing. He did not do that IMO...

OK I understand your point about how to best use it after purchase, and he did go on to show the RAW conversions that which I think we can all agree makes the best use of it after purchase.

But in comparison shots where one is comparing per pixel sharpness(among other things), you want Phil to turn in camera sharpness to max on the K10d while all other cameras being compared have sharpness at default settings. If you say others did do that and still prefer their testing methods, interesting IMO.

Any brand loyal fan can go back to any of his reviews and say "he should have amped up sharpness, contrast and saturation levels so the jpeg could have scored higher!" As a matter of fact it does happen when ever a camera gets a less than perfect score.

 

[ukcatfan]

But in comparison shots where one is comparing per pixel sharpness(among other things), you want Phil to turn in camera sharpness to max on the K10d while all other cameras being compared have sharpness at default settings. If you say others did do that and still prefer their testing methods, interesting IMO.

Maybe you did not mean it, but I think that was very rude. I think I know why Groucho thought you were trying to get him going now. Also, you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said those things. Maybe you should read a little closer before you post things like this?

Yes, but other reviewers did tweak them, so I consider Phil to have not done as good of a review due to that. I could care less about the scores, but the reviews are intended to help the users decide what to buy and how best to use it after purchasing. He did not do that IMO and that goes to support my opinion that he is in over his head and just does not have the time to devote to individual reviews that he should. Did anyone notice that he put out about five job postings about the same time Amazon bought him? Maybe things will get better down the road?

Any brand loyal fan can go back to any of his reviews and say "he should have amped up sharpness, contrast and saturation levels so the jpeg could have scored higher!" As a matter of fact it does happen when ever a camera gets a less than perfect score.

You completely missed my point with your comments. I could care less about scores. I could care less about how the reviewer tweaked the shots and then used those modified shots to compare to other brands. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said. If you check, Jeff at DCResource did count the bad JPG against the K10D, but he then went into how you can change the settings to get better performance. He did not use those images to compare to other brands.

I was only talking about how Phil's reviews are just that, basic technical reviews. They seem to be inconsistent sometimes, but all are still just basic reviews. I really appreciate someone that is willing to spend a few extra minutes to give some very beneficial advice. It also has nothing to do with brand loyalty, the K10D just happens to be a good example, but I prefer many other people's reviews to Phil's these days for any brand. Steve's have a more personal feel even if they are a little non-technical. Jeff's are the best all around IMO, but he does not do all the technical stuff. I think for that stuff, Phil's are still useful, but Imaging Resource does a better job at that.

Kevin

 

[Anewman]

And Phil is not the only review to notice this, but if Pentax users are upset he did not tweak the settings for his comparison shots I ask them one question... Did Phil tweak the settings on all the cameras he compared the K10d jpegs with?

Yes, but other reviewers did tweak them, so I consider Phil to have not done as good of a review due to that. I could care less about the scores, but the reviews are intended to help the users decide what to buy and how best to use it after purchasing. He did not do that IMO and that goes to support my opinion that he is in over his head and just does not have the time to devote to individual reviews that he should. Did anyone notice that he put out about five job postings about the same time Amazon bought him? Maybe things will get better down the road?

Kevin

But in comparison shots where one is comparing per pixel sharpness(among other things), you want Phil to turn in camera sharpness to max on the K10d while all other cameras being compared have sharpness at default settings. If you say others did do that and still prefer their testing methods, interesting IMO.

Maybe you did not mean it, but I think that was very rude. I think I know why Groucho thought you were trying to get him going now. Also, you are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said those things. Maybe you should read a little closer before you post things like this?

You completely missed my point with your comments. I could care less about scores. I could care less about how the reviewer tweaked the shots and then used those modified shots to compare to other brands. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.

...

 

[ukcatfan]

Anewman,

If you had even just peeked at the review in question, this could all could have been avoided. As far as I know, the DCResource reviews do not do any comparison shots between different cameras. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k10d-review/

Considering that you made no effort to acknowledge how I thought your comments were rude, but it might have been a misunderstanding, I will assume that you did mean to be rude... You could go spend more time over on the resorts and theme parks boards as rudeness seems to be a prerequisite over there. I will certainly try to avoid having any conversation with you in the future. Have a nice life.

Kevin

 

[Anewman]

Anewman,

If you had even just peeked at the review in question, this could all could have been avoided. As far as I know, the DCResource reviews do not do any comparison shots between different cameras. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pentax/k10d-review/

Considering that you made no effort to acknowledge how I thought your comments were rude, but it might have been a misunderstanding, I will assume that you did mean to be rude... You could go spend more time over on the resorts and theme parks boards as rudeness seems to be a prerequisite over there. I will certainly try to avoid having any conversation with you in the future. Have a nice life.

Kevin

Ok Your choice.

It matters not that I was clearly talking about COMPARISON shots in the post that you quoted directly, and you did not mention DCRESORUCE in that reply. But you are right, I just should have known exactly which was the review in question.

assume whatever you like and thanks for giving me permission to visit the resort boards

 

[Groucho]

Anewman, you're welcome to point out any time recently where I've shoehorned Pentax in where it doesn't belong. This thread had zero to do with it and it had no reason to be mentioned, you admit that you only brought them up because of me being a Pentax fan.

You're still not understanding what I said about high ISO. At this point, I don't expect that you will. But I'll try one last time. I never said that high ISO performance was the top item when considering a DSLR. However, it sounded like it was said that high ISO wasn't important if you use a fast lens.

THAT is what I disagreed with. If you have a fast zoom lens, you're still not going to be any faster than F2.8. F2.8 is not fast enough to not need high ISO at a Disney park. Heck, F1.4 is not fast enough to not need high ISO sometimes. Therefore, ISO performance is still important, no matter what lenses are available.

The 4/3rd sensors are markedly smaller than the sensors in all other DSLRs. Enough that it makes a visible difference in noise levels. Much more of a difference than you'll find between any other APS-sized-sensor DSLR. Somehow you took this as an opportunity to claim that Canon has the best high ISO performance, which is debatable, and even if you can find an agreement that it is, it is only by the slightest whisker. Much different than we see with the 4/3rds sensor.

This doesn't mean that they don't have good high ISO performance. But they are clearly working with a handicap in that arena - but that also means a smaller, lighter DSLR and smaller, lighter lenses, which certainly have their value.

As for the K10D, I wonder why you're bothering to try to bring that up. First off, it has no place but as a cheap attempt to take a shot at a Pentax. Secondly, it's a red herring and really only useful if you're trying to find something bad to find about a top-notch camera. Comparing RAWs to JPGs is not necessarily appropriate as the RAWs may be processed in another manner, such as with different sharpness levels, etc. Again, Pentax made a conscious choice to give advanced photographers a more film-like and less artifically-sharpened look, Phil didn't like it, and now it's often parroted without merit. Oh well... I'm done with this thread, I've made my points and am not interested with a silly and pointless debate with you.

 

[Anewman]

As for the K10D, I wonder why you're bothering to try to bring that up. First off, it has no place but as a cheap attempt to take a shot at a Pentax.

I mentioned Pentax in a reply to someone posting a chart with IQ ratings from dpreview where the K10d ranked lowest, I did not bother to bring them up just giving my view on said chart. I dont see how one can rationally consider that a shot at Pentax. And in that same post I mentioned Pentax and their users in a rather positive manor, but you did not reply to that part of my post.

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.

Good day.

 

[scottny]

i have the olympus evolt 500. if u r interested in seeing pics let me know i just got back from Disney on Monday and took about 1000 pics