What do you think about Olympus 4/3 camera? What's your impression of OM's camera? Not that professional comparing with Nikon and Canon? I really wonder...:scratch
The Olympus E-620 can certainly be used for professional applications, and the build quality is somewhat above other manufacturers' entry level cameras. The E-620 has a wireless flash master built into the camera, allowing wireless remote control of an external and off-camera flash, and I don't think any other entry level camera has that feature. It also has built-in stabilization and a very effective anti-dust capability, things any professional would appreciate.
By the time you get to the Olympus E-3, there is no doubt about build quality and durability. The E-3 is a very durable and professionally featured camera.
Olympus also has some of the fastest zoom lenses in the industry, and the fastest in all of photographic history, and their best lenses come with professional price tags too.
Try to compare a Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm, F2.0 SWD, with an effective focal length of 28-70mm on a FF 35mm format camera, with a standard zoom from "any" other manufacturer. It is indeed a faster constant aperture than either Canon's or Nikon's best standard zoom lenses.
Or look at the Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm, F2.0 or Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm, F2.8.
Yes, you can build an extremely "professional" system in the Olympus brand. We even have at least one Olympus professional in our ranks. Jonathan Swinton, our "swintonphoto", has been using Olympus professionally for years now.
Ziggy really nailed it. Also, many would argue that Oympus has the best lenses on the market. While that's subjective, what isn't is that almost all of the reviews you can find will place the Olympus kit lenses (14-42mm and 40-150mm) as the best kit lenses for a dSLR of any brand. dpreview, for example, raves about the 14-42.
Another thing that I would add is with the latest generation of sensors (12.3 MP, E-30 and E-620), Olympus has a usable ISO of at least 1600, and in my experience, using LightRoom 3 Beta 2 makes even ISO 3200 very usable and clean. Also, much of the banding issues from previous sensors is nonexistant in the current generation.
One more thing is that Olympus has some of the best out-of-camera jpegs for any system. The TruePic III+ processor takes full advantage of the sensor.
Finally, for the professional, the camera system is just a tool. If you needs are not met by one system, then it's not the proper tool. Olympus makes a great system with great lenses, but it isn't a system for everyone.
I love them, and now that I have a E-620 it really is an amazing system
The E-420 was great but there are lots of little touches they did to the body itself making it stronger (and just to note the E-420 for a consumer model feels very well built).
I did a shoot yesterday with the Fuji S5 and D700 and wish I brought the Olympus a few times for certain shots.
What I tell people if you are not doing anything that pushes low light abilities (say concert photography) and are in the entry level go with Olympus. They give you more features, provide cheaper and higher quality lenses as weird as that sounds (the IS is in the body so the lens can be less complicated, their base telephoto 40-150 (80-300) is actually smaller and lighter than a 18-55 VR Nikkor!). Plus they have mid tier lenses which is something no one else really offers. These are fast lenses with a slightly variable aperture but still very low and around the price you would pay for a Sigma/Tokina on another system but much better quality and weather sealed.
Olympus cameras and lenses have certain strengths that are unique to the brand, due to the unique construction of the lenses and the sensors. The trick is playing to those strengths. I know there are plenty of shots that a D700 could get that my E3 would have a hard time with, but there are plenty of shots in the E3's sweet spot that many other cameras would struggle with.
Yeah, but have all you guys ever heard someone who is using Canon or other brands likes saying some offensive to Olympus user? Like handicapped AF in low light, unacceptable DOF comparing with FF, unusable high iso because full of ugly noise...I am not trying to put up a brand fight but it's really my experience...perhaps Olympus is really not that mainstream, perhaps Olympus user deserve to take these words.
No, Olympus does not deserve to be maligned, and neither do Olympus owners deserve to be maligned.
(You should know that better than most since it appears that you shoot with an Olympus E-510. )
Yes. Olympus is a classic camera company that understands what they are doing - one of my favourite cameras from years ago was an Olympus Trip! When I stepped up to SLR I would have gone with Olympus but my dealer had a great Minolta 85 mm prime (second hand) so I went with a Minolta body instead.
The main reason most people go with Nikon or Canon is, like me today, they prefer to play a bit safe. The system investment is a big one and can last for many years - I used my Minolta prime for 25 years and still use it occasionally on the old body when feeling nostalgic. (Minolta is a memory in case you didn't know - they got taken over and my favourite lens is obsolete)
The reason I am now with Canon is practical. I have friends who will lend me a lens on occasion. I am confident that new software will support my Canon RAWs from day one. I know that Canon won't go the way of Minolta. Technically Canon is great too. I am sure that Olympus is technically strong also. Another friend shoots Olympus DSLR and he always looks at me like a guy with a BMW looks at someone driving a Ford. I don't care, my Canon 40D gets me where I want to go.
Yeah, but have all you guys ever heard someone who is using Canon or other brands likes saying some offensive to Olympus user? Like handicapped AF in low light, unacceptable DOF comparing with FF, unusable high iso because full of ugly noise...I am not trying to put up a brand fight but it's really my experience...perhaps Olympus is really not that mainstream, perhaps Olympus user deserve to take these words.
I have never met anyone like that, and they sound like the camera equivalent of squids (inexperienced riders on sport bikes) who would talk trash about some old or non-sport bike when they can't even get 5% out of the one they own.
If someone said that to me I would either roll my eyes, or if they were not overly nasty about it tell them I am using the Olympus camera OVER my D700 at the time.
Yeah, but have all you guys ever heard someone who is using Canon or other brands likes saying some offensive to Olympus user? Like handicapped AF in low light, unacceptable DOF comparing with FF, unusable high iso because full of ugly noise...I am not trying to put up a brand fight but it's really my experience...perhaps Olympus is really not that mainstream, perhaps Olympus user deserve to take these words.
I've run into those types of people in the real world, as well as in online forums. Forums trolls are easier to deal with since all I have to do is post some pics I've taken to prove the system is capable.
The real world is harder, but those people don't take their cameras out of auto 98% of the time anyway. I just ignore them most of the time. The most memorable time that someone talked down to my camera was when I went into a camera shop in Moab, UT looking for some gear as I was going to hike around Arches NP the next morning. The clerk asked what I shot and got the reply of "Olympus." "Why," was the word out of his mouth in a condescending tone. I looked him in the eye, then left. Something like that happened in a shop in Ogden, UT as well. My reaction was the same.
At the time I was debating a switch to Nikon, and was ready to buy from their shops. Their arrogance against a brand (any brand) lost them business.
Olympus is not mainstream. They're an optics company first and foremost (lots of medical devices). Camera manufacturing is only a natural extension of that research.
The latest generation of sensors has a very usable high ISO (especially with the lightroom 3 beta 2 software). DOF arguments are bullcrap. A blurred background does not make a good photograph, as some hacks would like to believe.
The latest generation of sensors has a very usable high ISO (especially with the lightroom 3 beta 2 software). DOF arguments are bullcrap. A blurred background does not make a good photograph, as some hacks would like to believe.
On the DOF arguments I would not go too far, 4/3 is a great system and I love it for macro and landscapes but for portraits the D700 is coming out for that narrow DOF which can really help when on locations that have amazing foregrounds but you want to blur that background out completely .
But the Nikon is my last choice strangely, it does everything well but only low light amazingly. The color from Fuji/Olympus blow it away and make post processing a lot easier. It is interesting that the 2 best JPEG engines are in black sheep of the DSLR world.
On the DOF arguments I would not go too far, 4/3 is a great system and I love it for macro and landscapes but for portraits the D700 is coming out for that narrow DOF which can really help when on locations that have amazing foregrounds but you want to blur that background out completely .
Well, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't lust after the SHG 35-100 f/2 (she will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine). Same field of view and DoF of a 70-200 @ f/4 on a full frame... but two stops lower ISO
For the DoF arguments, I was more inferring to the people who's only metric to a good protrait, or other photographs, is bokeh. The more the better.
If I did people more, I'd certainly start budgeting for a FF system.
Well, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't lust after the SHG 35-100 f/2 (she will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine). Same field of view and DoF of a 70-200 @ f/4 on a full frame... but two stops lower ISO
For the DoF arguments, I was more inferring to the people who's only metric to a good protrait, or other photographs, is bokeh. The more the better.
If I did people more, I'd certainly start budgeting for a FF system.
I almost got the E-30/35-100 combo last year, I just couldn't lift the bloody thing but it is an amazing package. With the D700 I find myself going to F4 or above a lot of the time with 2.8 lenses so it really does help to bridge the gap for those types of shots.
I have been an avid Olympus user for many years now and have run a successful photo studio with their DSLRs. I actually use the E-620 with the battery grip as my main camera. It is very feature packed and is easy to carry around for 10 straight hours of shooting. I think the quality of the cameras rivals that of any other manufacturer. I think their lenses are frankly the best in the business. So, I am a testament that they can produce high quality results that clients are extremely pleased with. Feel free to visit my sites for examples:
Last week I attended a photography workshop in Yosemite. One of the guys in our group had an Olympus micro-4/3 camera, the EP-2. It was an impressive little thing, and he was getting great shots with it. I'm sure the full-4/3 cameras are good too.
I had thought I would be the only person in the workshop weird enough to be shooting old manual-focus lenses on a modern digital camera (I was shooting Nikkor AI and AI-S lenses on a Canon 5D Mark II), but the Olympus shooter was using an old Canon FD 80-200mm f/4L (effectively, 160-400mm, and with in-body stabilization!). He really liked it. One of the minor pluses of 4/3 (and even more so, micro-4/3) is that the flange distance is shorter than average for 35mm SLR systems, so you can mount quite a variety of lenses on it with suitable adapters.
Yes, another Olympus fan here. I would caution that your end points in terms of what you want to achieve matter though since these may determine that you need better ISO performance or better resolution than Olympus can currently deliver (thinking in terms of 5DmkII/D3 territory).
I love Olympus dslrs, they have a more rugged build and feel good in my hands. I recently bought a Canon 50d but I think I probably should have stuck with Olympus. Oh well so I guess now I shoot with Canon and Olympus gear.
Yes, another Olympus fan here. I would caution that your end points in terms of what you want to achieve matter though since these may determine that you need better ISO performance or better resolution than Olympus can currently deliver (thinking in terms of 5DmkII/D3 territory).
This pretty sums up who I recommend to 4/3.
If you are an enthusiast who will never spend 2,000 dollars on a lens (even though you can on 4/3) and wont be making huge prints Olympus is great.
12MP is enough resolution for most things, and the cameras are very well equipped, plus they offer the mid grade lenses with fast but variable apertures. People see the flagships from other brands and link that to them (which of course is part of their purpose) but I know many Canon/Nikon owners who actually would be better served with 4/3 since they talk about features they wish they had which are offered in the high end Canon/Nikon bodies.......but the consumer 4/3 ones comparable to their DSLR's have them as well.
I have some pretty lengthy write ups on the sister site ADVrider about this.
I am just thinking why Canon and Nikon can be the mainstream, why they can get such big pie of the market but Olympus can't? Techology lagging or marketing problem? But no matter what, Olympus camera can produce great picture is true but whether it can project professional image is a point that sometimes(most of time) really not that certain. As all you guys know Canon and Nikon are always the weapons of sports photographer or journalist, somehow such impression can really help to build up a professional image of those brands. Why all those guys NEED Canon or Nikon rather Olympus? The answer is simply because they need more reliable gear to get the shot which is about their job, their money, their honor...is that the reality?
If you are an enthusiast who will never spend 2,000 dollars on a lens (even though you can on 4/3) and wont be making huge prints Olympus is great...
...I know many Canon/Nikon owners who actually would be better served with 4/3 since they talk about features they wish they had which are offered in the high end Canon/Nikon bodies.......but the consumer 4/3 ones comparable to their DSLR's have them as well...
So I'm potentially one of these people. I'm considering switching from my current dSLR (an old Digital Rebel) to a GF1, with the pancake kit lens.
Has anyone made such a switch? If so, what has your experience been? Does the GF1 take decent low-light pictures? Is it small enough to be easily luggable? Is it reasonably sturdy? Is it a decent-enough camera to be a substitute for your dSLR?
So I'm potentially one of these people. I'm considering switching from my current dSLR (an old Digital Rebel) to a GF1, with the pancake kit lens.
Has anyone made such a switch? If so, what has your experience been? Does the GF1 take decent low-light pictures? Is it small enough to be easily luggable? Is it reasonably sturdy? Is it a decent-enough camera to be a substitute for your dSLR?
TIA.
m4/3 is a little different but the main question is what are you looking for? I hear the GF1's optional viewfinder is not to the level of the EP-2's, but it has great AF and a sharp sensor.
The EP-2 is basically an improved version of the E-620 I just got so I got to give it a I tried it out and really liked the feel of the EP-2 with the viewfinder, just a great feeling and usable package.
As for the image quality, either will probably have better IQ than your current camera. The big question is what are you going to be shooting?
m4/3 is a little different but the main question is what are you looking for? I hear the GF1's optional viewfinder is not to the level of the EP-2's, but it has great AF and a sharp sensor.
Thanks for the info.
I actually have a really hard time using a traditional viewfinder, one of the other reasons that I'm looking to switch away from a dSLR, although I guess more and more of those have Live View these days. The GF1 appeals partly because I could compose shots using Live View, and skip the viewfinder altogether.
I shoot a combination of landscapes and portraits. I'm getting more into portraiture lately, though. Some of the more personal stuff I shoot, like portraits of our family, is indoors, so low-light performance is somewhat important to me.
I am just thinking why Canon and Nikon can be the mainstream, why they can get such big pie of the market but Olympus can't? Techology lagging or marketing problem? But no matter what, Olympus camera can produce great picture is true but whether it can project professional image is a point that sometimes(most of time) really not that certain. As all you guys know Canon and Nikon are always the weapons of sports photographer or journalist, somehow such impression can really help to build up a professional image of those brands. Why all those guys NEED Canon or Nikon rather Olympus? The answer is simply because they need more reliable gear to get the shot which is about their job, their money, their honor...is that the reality?
The pro market is not likely to change quickly - it took Canon years and massive investments in technology and marketing to catch up with Nikon. Now it is even harder to break into the pro segment without a clear technical or price advantage which 4/3 does not have, outside special actions on price.
Olympus know this. They recently announced that their future is with micro 4/3 and the middle segment of the volume consumer market. They have very innovative products and do a lot of "creative" processing in-camera - the kind of stuff most grinners are doing in post but the average consumer does not know how to do for themselves. It is the market segment they know best - for 50 years. They won't invest technically to displace Nikon and Canon in the high-end - they cancelled their dividend last year and cannot afford to even if they could.
I suspect they need some pro representation to support their brand image - "better than the rest for creative people". I guess they will be pitching to pros to have Olympus as a second camera and will be subsidizing the price. Good deals will be on offer, maybe individually. They will sponsor star names to use and promote Olympus - I guess. They may even troll forums like this although subtly.
The market position has nothing to do with "reliability". Olympus make good stuff and everybody knows it. Actually there are no unreliable suppliers - they would quickly go bust in the modern era. Nobody can afford to make unreliable products.
I actually have a really hard time using a traditional viewfinder, one of the other reasons that I'm looking to switch away from a dSLR, although I guess more and more of those have Live View these days. The GF1 appeals partly because I could compose shots using Live View, and skip the viewfinder altogether.
I shoot a combination of landscapes and portraits. I'm getting more into portraiture lately, though. Some of the more personal stuff I shoot, like portraits of our family, is indoors, so low-light performance is somewhat important to me.
Neither of those need the fastest AF so I would try the EP-1 with the latest firmware the AF is supposed to be a lot better than originally. Plus it is cheap now and has IS built in which would be a big help even with the pancakes.
I am just thinking why Canon and Nikon can be the mainstream, why they can get such big pie of the market but Olympus can't? Techology lagging or marketing problem? But no matter what, Olympus camera can produce great picture is true but whether it can project professional image is a point that sometimes(most of time) really not that certain.
...
?
It all depends on whether your definitions of capable or professional are about the pictures a photographer takes or the cameras he or she is seen wearing. Which is your choice?
Dale B. Dalrymple
"Give me a lens long enough and a place to stand and I can image the earth."
...with apology to Archimedies
The truth is there is probably no "practical" reason not to use Olympus dSLRs in a professional setting for many applications.
I read somewhere on another forum about a stock agency that had set a minimum pixel count criteria that would exclude anything that Oly offer. Also, some pros rely on lens rental arrangements where Canon and Nikon are the only realistic choice. Other professional outfits are no doubt predicated on certain lens mounts.
That's not to say that there is anything inferior about Olympus cameras and lenses. Just the commercial realities.
Comments
Cheers, Don
Product Photography
My Acreage Bird Photographs
By the time you get to the Olympus E-3, there is no doubt about build quality and durability. The E-3 is a very durable and professionally featured camera.
Olympus also has some of the fastest zoom lenses in the industry, and the fastest in all of photographic history, and their best lenses come with professional price tags too.
Try to compare a Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm, F2.0 SWD, with an effective focal length of 28-70mm on a FF 35mm format camera, with a standard zoom from "any" other manufacturer. It is indeed a faster constant aperture than either Canon's or Nikon's best standard zoom lenses.
Or look at the Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm, F2.0 or Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm, F2.8.
Yes, you can build an extremely "professional" system in the Olympus brand. We even have at least one Olympus professional in our ranks. Jonathan Swinton, our "swintonphoto", has been using Olympus professionally for years now.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Another thing that I would add is with the latest generation of sensors (12.3 MP, E-30 and E-620), Olympus has a usable ISO of at least 1600, and in my experience, using LightRoom 3 Beta 2 makes even ISO 3200 very usable and clean. Also, much of the banding issues from previous sensors is nonexistant in the current generation.
One more thing is that Olympus has some of the best out-of-camera jpegs for any system. The TruePic III+ processor takes full advantage of the sensor.
Finally, for the professional, the camera system is just a tool. If you needs are not met by one system, then it's not the proper tool. Olympus makes a great system with great lenses, but it isn't a system for everyone.
http://silversx80.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-M5, 12-50mm, 45mm f/1.8
Some legacy OM lenses and an OM-10
The E-420 was great but there are lots of little touches they did to the body itself making it stronger (and just to note the E-420 for a consumer model feels very well built).
I did a shoot yesterday with the Fuji S5 and D700 and wish I brought the Olympus a few times for certain shots.
What I tell people if you are not doing anything that pushes low light abilities (say concert photography) and are in the entry level go with Olympus. They give you more features, provide cheaper and higher quality lenses as weird as that sounds (the IS is in the body so the lens can be less complicated, their base telephoto 40-150 (80-300) is actually smaller and lighter than a 18-55 VR Nikkor!). Plus they have mid tier lenses which is something no one else really offers. These are fast lenses with a slightly variable aperture but still very low and around the price you would pay for a Sigma/Tokina on another system but much better quality and weather sealed.
No, Olympus does not deserve to be maligned, and neither do Olympus owners deserve to be maligned.
(You should know that better than most since it appears that you shoot with an Olympus E-510.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yes. Olympus is a classic camera company that understands what they are doing - one of my favourite cameras from years ago was an Olympus Trip! When I stepped up to SLR I would have gone with Olympus but my dealer had a great Minolta 85 mm prime (second hand) so I went with a Minolta body instead.
The main reason most people go with Nikon or Canon is, like me today, they prefer to play a bit safe. The system investment is a big one and can last for many years - I used my Minolta prime for 25 years and still use it occasionally on the old body when feeling nostalgic. (Minolta is a memory in case you didn't know - they got taken over and my favourite lens is obsolete)
The reason I am now with Canon is practical. I have friends who will lend me a lens on occasion. I am confident that new software will support my Canon RAWs from day one. I know that Canon won't go the way of Minolta. Technically Canon is great too. I am sure that Olympus is technically strong also. Another friend shoots Olympus DSLR and he always looks at me like a guy with a BMW looks at someone driving a Ford. I don't care, my Canon 40D gets me where I want to go.
I have never met anyone like that, and they sound like the camera equivalent of squids (inexperienced riders on sport bikes) who would talk trash about some old or non-sport bike when they can't even get 5% out of the one they own.
If someone said that to me I would either roll my eyes, or if they were not overly nasty about it tell them I am using the Olympus camera OVER my D700 at the time.
I've run into those types of people in the real world, as well as in online forums. Forums trolls are easier to deal with since all I have to do is post some pics I've taken to prove the system is capable.
The real world is harder, but those people don't take their cameras out of auto 98% of the time anyway. I just ignore them most of the time. The most memorable time that someone talked down to my camera was when I went into a camera shop in Moab, UT looking for some gear as I was going to hike around Arches NP the next morning. The clerk asked what I shot and got the reply of "Olympus." "Why," was the word out of his mouth in a condescending tone. I looked him in the eye, then left. Something like that happened in a shop in Ogden, UT as well. My reaction was the same.
At the time I was debating a switch to Nikon, and was ready to buy from their shops. Their arrogance against a brand (any brand) lost them business.
Olympus is not mainstream. They're an optics company first and foremost (lots of medical devices). Camera manufacturing is only a natural extension of that research.
The latest generation of sensors has a very usable high ISO (especially with the lightroom 3 beta 2 software). DOF arguments are bullcrap. A blurred background does not make a good photograph, as some hacks would like to believe.
http://silversx80.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-M5, 12-50mm, 45mm f/1.8
Some legacy OM lenses and an OM-10
On the DOF arguments I would not go too far, 4/3 is a great system and I love it for macro and landscapes but for portraits the D700 is coming out for that narrow DOF which can really help when on locations that have amazing foregrounds but you want to blur that background out completely
But the Nikon is my last choice strangely, it does everything well but only low light amazingly. The color from Fuji/Olympus blow it away and make post processing a lot easier. It is interesting that the 2 best JPEG engines are in black sheep of the DSLR world.
Well, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't lust after the SHG 35-100 f/2 (she will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine). Same field of view and DoF of a 70-200 @ f/4 on a full frame... but two stops lower ISO
For the DoF arguments, I was more inferring to the people who's only metric to a good protrait, or other photographs, is bokeh. The more the better.
If I did people more, I'd certainly start budgeting for a FF system.
http://silversx80.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-M5, 12-50mm, 45mm f/1.8
Some legacy OM lenses and an OM-10
I almost got the E-30/35-100 combo last year, I just couldn't lift the bloody thing
www.swintonphoto.com
www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
I had thought I would be the only person in the workshop weird enough to be shooting old manual-focus lenses on a modern digital camera (I was shooting Nikkor AI and AI-S lenses on a Canon 5D Mark II), but the Olympus shooter was using an old Canon FD 80-200mm f/4L (effectively, 160-400mm, and with in-body stabilization!). He really liked it. One of the minor pluses of 4/3 (and even more so, micro-4/3) is that the flange distance is shorter than average for 35mm SLR systems, so you can mount quite a variety of lenses on it with suitable adapters.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
You can see the original here: http://silversx80.smugmug.com/Sports/Roller-Derby/12218997_cGGeF#870372726_yu87Q
I will remove the "original" size option next week, FYI.
http://silversx80.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-M5, 12-50mm, 45mm f/1.8
Some legacy OM lenses and an OM-10
I now have adapters for Zuicko to MFT, EOS to MFT, and Canon FC to MFT bodies.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
This pretty sums up who I recommend to 4/3.
If you are an enthusiast who will never spend 2,000 dollars on a lens (even though you can on 4/3) and wont be making huge prints Olympus is great.
12MP is enough resolution for most things, and the cameras are very well equipped, plus they offer the mid grade lenses with fast but variable apertures. People see the flagships from other brands and link that to them (which of course is part of their purpose) but I know many Canon/Nikon owners who actually would be better served with 4/3 since they talk about features they wish they had which are offered in the high end Canon/Nikon bodies.......but the consumer 4/3 ones comparable to their DSLR's have them as well.
I have some pretty lengthy write ups on the sister site ADVrider about this.
So I'm potentially one of these people. I'm considering switching from my current dSLR (an old Digital Rebel) to a GF1, with the pancake kit lens.
Has anyone made such a switch? If so, what has your experience been? Does the GF1 take decent low-light pictures? Is it small enough to be easily luggable? Is it reasonably sturdy? Is it a decent-enough camera to be a substitute for your dSLR?
TIA.
m4/3 is a little different but the main question is what are you looking for? I hear the GF1's optional viewfinder is not to the level of the EP-2's, but it has great AF and a sharp sensor.
The EP-2 is basically an improved version of the E-620 I just got so I got to give it a
As for the image quality, either will probably have better IQ than your current camera. The big question is what are you going to be shooting?
Thanks for the info.
I actually have a really hard time using a traditional viewfinder, one of the other reasons that I'm looking to switch away from a dSLR, although I guess more and more of those have Live View these days.
I shoot a combination of landscapes and portraits. I'm getting more into portraiture lately, though. Some of the more personal stuff I shoot, like portraits of our family, is indoors, so low-light performance is somewhat important to me.
The pro market is not likely to change quickly - it took Canon years and massive investments in technology and marketing to catch up with Nikon. Now it is even harder to break into the pro segment without a clear technical or price advantage which 4/3 does not have, outside special actions on price.
Olympus know this. They recently announced that their future is with micro 4/3 and the middle segment of the volume consumer market. They have very innovative products and do a lot of "creative" processing in-camera - the kind of stuff most grinners are doing in post but the average consumer does not know how to do for themselves. It is the market segment they know best - for 50 years. They won't invest technically to displace Nikon and Canon in the high-end - they cancelled their dividend last year and cannot afford to even if they could.
I suspect they need some pro representation to support their brand image - "better than the rest for creative people". I guess they will be pitching to pros to have Olympus as a second camera and will be subsidizing the price. Good deals will be on offer, maybe individually. They will sponsor star names to use and promote Olympus - I guess. They may even troll forums like this although subtly.
The market position has nothing to do with "reliability". Olympus make good stuff and everybody knows it. Actually there are no unreliable suppliers - they would quickly go bust in the modern era. Nobody can afford to make unreliable products.
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_top_photographers.htm
The truth is there is probably no "practical" reason not to use Olympus dSLRs in a professional setting for many applications.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Neither of those need the fastest AF so I would try the EP-1 with the latest firmware the AF is supposed to be a lot better than originally. Plus it is cheap now and has IS built in which would be a big help even with the pancakes.
It all depends on whether your definitions of capable or professional are about the pictures a photographer takes or the cameras he or she is seen wearing. Which is your choice?
Dale B. Dalrymple
...with apology to Archimedies
I read somewhere on another forum about a stock agency that had set a minimum pixel count criteria that would exclude anything that Oly offer. Also, some pros rely on lens rental arrangements where Canon and Nikon are the only realistic choice. Other professional outfits are no doubt predicated on certain lens mounts.
That's not to say that there is anything inferior about Olympus cameras and lenses. Just the commercial realities.
Alistair
http://alistairj.smugmug.com