Camera gear (DSLR - Olympus talk)

[Robert]

I am just a hobby photographer, and I have a cheap Olympus E-410. I have the cheap kit lens which is okay, and then I got a telezoom a while ago, and it's really nice for the money. I am able to take more than decent photos with my gear. But the grass is often greener on that other side, ya know?

Long story short - I did a lot of research and I was thinking about the benefits of switching to Canon or Nikon. After much thought, I decided to stick with the Olympus gear, because at my level of photography, I don't think switching brand is going to make much difference. In fact, Olympus have some fantastic lenses and cameras, it's just that Canon and Nikon are more often the professionals' choice and have more lenses available too. I am not afraid to be a little different. :bootyshake :french

So, with that in mind, I ordered a 50mm macro lens that will show up next week. Then I'll take some cool close ups of my guitars, amps and other gear! :AOK
I am also looking out for an E-620, a newer camera than mine which has image stabilization built in to the body, plus a bunch of other cool features. It is also a very solid camera that will take great shots - a step up from my E-410.

There you go, just felt like telling someone. :pancake

[markb]

If you've bought the 50 f2, stick with Olympus. The 620 is a really nice camera. My only digi is an e-520 that I got for a stupidly low price. Other than that I wouldn't have a dSLR or I'd buy something used and obsolete. IS is great when you need it and with an Oly it's built into the body. no need to pay extra for image stabilised lenses. You'll read a lot about Olympus' poor low light performance but most stuff shot at high ISO looks bad anyway unless it's noise reduced to death.

Here's some stuff from Kirk Tuck, a pro who's gone through the high-end Nikon thing and is quite happy with cheaper equipment.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/search/label/cameras

[luvmyshiner]

I have to admit, most of collection is still old school film cameras. My first digital was an Olympus C-3000 zoom that I paid too much for, but certainly got my money's worth out of. Unfortunately I bought it over ten years ago, before DSLR's came out, and before they were making digital cameras with interchangeable lenses.

Having said that, I absolutely have fallen in love with the Nikon D3000 CB gave me for my birthday. It has more bells and whistles than I will ever figure out how to use, but I can bypass everything and have complete control, just like my old school film cameras.

[Robert]

Thanks Markb, that is a really interesting blog. The guy is a great photographer too, not doubt!

Most DSLR's today are great, really. I guess it's a just preference in the end.

[sunvalleylaw]

I am sure it is preference. I don't have a DSLR, but do have a SLR. I started with an Olympus, but switched to a Nikon because I preferred how the body of the camera fit in my hands, and how the controls were accessed by my hands. The Canons of the day had too many buttons for me. (this was back in '81). Olympus cameras are great, and I think great values. If it fits you and you like it, I am absolutely sure you will get great service out of it. Congrats!

[otaypanky]

I'd venture to say it's a bit like a guitar. Put a garden variety guitar in the hands of a gifted player and you're gonna hear something good. With the level of quality of today's even less expensive cameras, someone with a good sense of subject, composition, lighting, etc. will get some great results. I remember seeing an Olympus somewhere recently and thought what a lot of camera for the price

[Spudman]

Here's some stuff from Kirk Tuck, a pro who's gone through the high-end Nikon thing and is quite happy with cheaper equipment.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/search/label/cameras

This stuff is great. Thanks for the link and heads up. I'm learning a lot from his blogs.

[Robert]

Yeah, that is a very good blog. I learned lots reading it.

I am looking forward to my new macro lens! It should be here on Monday... and then you can expect some close ups of guitars, amps, pedals, noses... oh no, wait, that last one is somebody else's department! :D

[markb]

It's a great lens at normal distances too, Robert. Ideal for portraits and fast enough for moving objects (kids, say).

[Robert]

Thanks mark, I hope it will work well for me. It seems very versatile as you mention, and it is supposedly very sharp.

[markb]

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept - Henri Cartier-Bresson

[marnold]

My wife and I are looking at replacing our Canon PowerShot A80. It's been a fine still point-and-shooter, but the CCD seems to be going wonky on it. My wife would like to go up to an SLR. She was an art major for a while, so she enjoys artsy shots. The A80 couldn't do all the stuff she wanted. Even though the price has dropped, SLRs are still pretty expensive. We're looking at going half-way and getting a super-zoom, specifically a Canon PowerShot SX20 IS. Seems pretty sweet and it can even do pretty nice movies at 720p.

[Robert]

$429 for this Olympus E-520 10.1MP Digital SLR with 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital Lens
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=OME520KT

Which is a great camera with in body image stabilization. Comes with a decent lens too. That is a steal!

[markb]

Hmm, e-520 with 14-42mm? Yeah, they work OK.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2526/4116797438_7c24528ccb_o.jpg

If you were thinking of keeping the 410 as a second body you might prefer the 620 as it uses the same battery. I hate to have to carry different batteries and chargers on a trip.

[Robert]

Yeah I posted the previous post mostly for Marnold, and others who are interested in a good camera for $429. I will probably get the E-620 some day later on, but I'm okay with the E-410 for a while still.

Been wondering if the E-30 would be worth getting? Seems like a lot bigger and one review I read said the E-620 can do almost everything the E-30 can, while still being way cheaper. I kind of doubt the photos would like much different, but maybe the E-30 is more comfortable to those who are use to more "pro" cameras?

[markb]

Some people don't like smaller cameras, they just have to see that huge pro body and honking great fast zoom to take anyone seriously. It's a man thing, I understand :whatever:

[marnold]

I read up a bit on that Olympus and have a couple of issues. Two are minor:
1) I really like the articulating screen on the Canon. Very handy and keeps it from being scratched up to boot.
2) From what I read the Olympus has no movie mode? Not a surprise since that's not its reason for existence.

The bigger concerns from the reviews I read are these:
1) Complex/convoluted menu and control systems.
2) Higher-than-average noise at higher ISO settings, which would seem to defeat some of the purpose of getting an SLR.

[markb]

I read up a bit on that Olympus and have a couple of issues. Two are minor:
1) I really like the articulating screen on the Canon. Very handy and keeps it from being scratched up to boot.
2) From what I read the Olympus has no movie mode? Not a surprise since that's not its reason for existence.

The bigger concerns from the reviews I read are these:
1) Complex/convoluted menu and control systems.
2) Higher-than-average noise at higher ISO settings, which would seem to defeat some of the purpose of getting an SLR.

The e620 has a twisty screen if that's essential to you. SLRs have an optical TTL viewfinder for taking pictures. That's the whole point of using an SLR.

No video. Video mode in SLRs is a fairly recent addition to persuade people to upgrade from compacts. Like wise the use of slower SD cards in the new models. If I were you, I'd stick with a compact if that's important. They do it better.

How often do you change your camera settings? The Olympus menu system allows 3 completely different setups to be stored.

Noise is relative. How much do you shoot at high speeds? Noise is far less noticeable in prints than on screen and is easily managed with reasonably priced software. In-camera noise reduction smears detail, look at jpegs taken with a really small sensor to see this.
Any SLR has better noise performance than a compact, it's dependent on physical sensor size thus the (slightly) larger APS-C sensors in crop Canons handle noise better than the Olympus 4/3s. Up to ISO400 there's nothing in it unless you blow all your pictures up to 1000% and stick your nose against them. Most photo sites that offer ratings would reject many of the greatest photos ever taken for "noise" (actually film grain) and lack of sharpness if you applied today's criteria.

[Robert]

Any DSLR takes time to understand how to use if you are new to them, and my Olympus is very clear with it its menu system, once you understand the DLSR jargon (f stop, aperture, ISO, shutter speeds, etc, and how they work together).

The above average noise at higher ISO settings is a minor issue. I don't shoot much at higher ISO settings in low light, but it's a typical point of attack for those who want to criticize Olympus gear. It is much more important to buy quality glass. Olympus make great lenses, but there are fewer options than for Canon or Nikon, but the quality of the higher end Olympus lenses is stunning.