Big dilemma: Invest more in Olympus, or turn to Nikon/Canon?

RovingEyePhoto · June 8, 2010

I don't mean to argue the point as to what Oly execs are thinking. Their products speak for themselves, and suggest they've lost interest in the high-end SLR user.

I'm an older guy, shoot an E-3, all mid-wide/short-tele (roughly 28-100 equiv), mostly on-location/hand-held/natural light, mostly living-subjects/not-candid/up-close/intimidating/personal, near-zero interest in anything else. My Flickr page (and to lesser degree SmugMug) tells the whole story, over 25 modeled sets at Flickr, 2,000+ shots, some even pretty good.

My E-3 never has been sterling at ISO 800 and above. I've sent it and my primary lens into Oly tech twice over the past two years, according to them all is in spec. And I'm current on all firmware updates, although there have been so few I can't even recall them. Anyway, I've been researching and planning a way out of this ISO problem for quite a while, and finally was about to give up my charge card for the uniquely spectacular Oly/Zuiko f/2 14-35 (28-70 equiv), when a bell goes off in my head: wouldn't this $2,000 be better invested (along with a good bit more, lol) in another manufacturer, one visibly committed to the high-end SLR user, and at the same time providing double or quadruple the sensor square size and a significantly more competent and better maintained processor? Makes total sense, right?

Well, pot holes all along the way. First, image stabilization is essential to my mostly hand-held/natural-light style, so is critical in anything I would change to. I know many of you shoot without it, to me it's essential. And since I wouldn't risk myself again to a smaller player, we're talking only Nikon or Canon, so right off the bat this becomes a search for the right high-quality VR/IS lens. Well, guess what? Nikon makes zero "standard" zooms with image stabilization, regardless of quality, while Canon makes only one, its APS-C EF-S 17-55mm f-2.8 IS USM. Not what I expected, thought this would be like being a kid in a toy store, but at least there's one, so I'm still on track.
<o:p> </o:p>
So OK, lets consider the 17-55. Looks like APS-C will be around a while, so apparently no problem there. And although the 17-55 is well and positively reviewed, I think I've rationalized its two obvious drawbacks: helical zoom exposing innards to dust and grit, and a full stop loss compared to the Oly/Zuiko. As to the former, I'll just have to be especially careful in handling; as to the latter, I'm confident the greater processor capability will make-up the difference. The one thing I'll permanently lose is f/2 bokeh, no way around that outside of half-way-good in post, and not enough hours in the day to handle that considering the number of shots I already process anyway. If I go the 17-55 route, I’ll probably back-up with an f/2 or faster wide prime for when super-bokeh needed. A relatively small extra package, and I’ll just have to suck up not having image stabilization, shoot that many more to achieve the keepers.

So in putting all this together, I seem to boil down to the EF-S 17-55mm f-2.8 IS USM as an alternative to investing more in Oly, which I’d couple with the 7D. Great kit, I know, but again, big investment beyond the Oly/Zuiko f/2, so want to be reasonably certain my thinking's on sound ground. So first question, am I missing something in the Nikon/Canon lens lines that argue against the Canon 17-55, especially if something internally zooming? Second question, do the independent lens manufacturers offer high-quality alternatives to the 17-55 matching either the 7D or Nikon's D300s/D700? Third question, is there anything on the Nikon/Canon drawing boards so significant that it's worth delaying for (like improved dim-light auto focus)? And finally, am I misreading Oly's capability and commitment in high-end SLR, am I being enticed by the "grass is greener", am I nuts in thinking a brand change makes sense given all I've described?

BTW, I'm excitedly watching the micro EVF revolution, both in 4/3 and APS-C. I don't see it impacting my current dilemma, but what great prospects for a walk-around/travel camera!

Many thanks for taking the time to read, and for whatever assist you can provide. I've found that dgrinners share a serious commonality for sensible photographic thinking, so will consider whatever you say closely and without "taking it personal". Dissect away, I’m thick skinned, this is long-range stuff.

Again, many thanks ...

Don Kondra · June 8, 2010

Hopefully you will get some comments from those that Have switched from Olympus to Nikon/Canon.

I made my decision to stay and bought a E-30, I'll consider the Ex once it's released

A comment and a suggestion.

I watched the slideshow of your snugmug account and enjoyed it, the models are attractive and I was pleasantly surprised to see the "concept" works well.

What I did notice is some of the shots are in hard light and the backgrounds are blown. With all due respect I don't think another system will cure that, again, maybe someone who has switched can comment on the difference in dynamic range and control of the highlights but I would think it still comes down to technique.

If you are indeed just looking over the fence and seeing the greener grass I suggest you rent a body and lens for a week or so and satisfy your curiousity.

I eventually managed to silence my little nagging voice by comparing body/lenses sizes, features and costs for the work I do. I also spent a lot of time looking at images from other brands and discussing the merits of Nikon in particular with a professional photographer friend.

The "cost" of switching brands wasn't a consideration, Olympus equipment generally sells for 3/4 of new price and you have to expect to eat that for the use you've got out of it.

Looking forward to others comments but I won't be sitting on the edge of my chair in anticipation the way I used to

Cheers, Don

ziggy53 · June 8, 2010

Don's suggestion to rent a system, or borrow a system if you know someone locally, is the very best way to gauge whether the change would be a significant improvement.

I personally doubt that you would see a level of magnitude improvement but you might see a modest improvement switching to a Canon 7D or Nikon D300. Partly it depends upon how much you crop and to what crop ratio as well.

A more significant improvement in noise levels comes with the larger imager formats. Perhaps try a FF body first to see if the lack of IS has the impact on your work that you think it will have. Maybe try a different lighting technique that allows shorter exposures?

If you want truly amazing bokeh, along with the responsibilities of accurate focus, try an 85mm, f1.2 on a FF body, or a 135mm or 200mm, f2.

A "standard" zoom of 24-70mm at f2.8 on a FF body should be similar DOF and similar bokeh to an Olympus Zuiko 14-35mm, f2.0 ED SWD wide open.

Need2Ski · June 8, 2010

You're asking hard questions without easy answers. The different systems do offer different limitations and advantages. The current Olympus dSLRs do not match the Nikon/Canons with respect to high iso performance. I have an e620 and don't find it that problematic but ... And Oly has seemed to really improve the processor performance in the new Pens, the EPL-1 especially. But the smaller sensor will almost always keep Olympus behind the market leaders on that score. Olympus has typically not released new bodies frequently. OTH, the zoom lenses compare very favorably in almost every category. The mid grade zooms are generally faster, sharper, and less expensive than anything available from Canon/Nikon. And the super high grade lenses, although expensive, are stellar. That coupled with in body image stabilization helps offset the poorer noise performance at higher isos. Oly has typically not released updated bodies with the frequency of their larger competitors. A lot of time passed between the E1 and E3 though there certainly has been a dearth of activity with respect to standard 4/3 cameras of late. I don't think anyone outside of Olympus really has reliable information regarding plans for future cameras in the system. If you think you're going to jump you might as well jump before investing $2k in a lens. But in terms of current systems I think you have to consider the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each and work within the limitations of whichever you choose.

RovingEyePhoto · June 8, 2010

Don Kondra wrote: »

I watched the slideshow of your snugmug account and enjoyed it, the models are attractive and I was pleasantly surprised to see the "concept" works well.

What I did notice is some of the shots are in hard light and the backgrounds are blown. With all due respect I don't think another system will cure that, again, maybe someone who has switched can comment on the difference in dynamic range and control of the highlights but I would think it still comes down to technique.

Hey Don, thanks for taking the time. I've actually used a 7D, no question, fine box, and am confident Nikon's 300s and 700 are equally fine. And being used to 4/3, the 7D jump in sensor size was a nice plus. Without IS, though, I suffered. Much of what I do is shot from unstable positions, and I'm getting pretty ancient to be manhandling gear the way I do anyway, so hand shake, the bad kind of blur, is equally as concerning as bokeh, the good kind. Faster glass, of course, is a contributing cure for both, but Oly's commitment to high-end SLR would be the biggest cure, would go a long way to the confidence I'll need to send another $2,000 their way. It seems a long time since I've heard anything from them dealing with anything other than lower-end SLR and Micro and P&S, and my cards being called right now. So it'll be interesting to see what I get from friends here and elsewhere, not having much luck nailing down a stand myself.

Appreciate your comment about my modeled-street sets. There's a photographic slant in what you see, and an arty slant. The latter is what the harsh/burnt highlights you noted are mostly about. Sometimes just bad exposure, but mostly for the art. The overriding theme is modeled/candid/catchy/big-city/urban, a mixture of fem/reality and grit. The mods and candid surround sell the fem/reality, the brash harshness helps sell the grit. I actually have processed HDR on a sampling of shots, not expert at it, but good enough to know the concept holds. Maybe not in all cases, but certainly in most, at least to my eye. You're right in concept, though, I shoot/process burnt highlights, no gear change will remedy that.

Thanks again for taking the time.

RovingEyePhoto · June 8, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

Don's suggestion to rent a system, or borrow a system if you know someone locally, is the very best way to gauge whether the change would be a significant improvement.

I personally doubt that you would see a level of magnitude improvement but you might see a modest improvement switching to a Canon 7D or Nikon D300. Partly it depends upon how much you crop and to what crop ratio as well.

A more significant improvement in noise levels comes with the larger imager formats. Perhaps try a FF body first to see if the lack of IS has the impact on your work that you think it will have. Maybe try a different lighting technique that allows shorter exposures?

If you want truly amazing bokeh, along with the responsibilities of accurate focus, try an 85mm, f1.2 on a FF body, or a 135mm or 200mm, f2. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif" border="0" alt="" >

A "standard" zoom of 24-70mm at f2.8 on a FF body should be similar DOF and similar bokeh to an Olympus Zuiko 14-35mm, f2.0 ED SWD wide open.

RovingEyePhoto · June 8, 2010

Need2Ski wrote: »

Oly has typically not released updated bodies with the frequency of their larger competitors. A lot of time passed between the E1 and E3 though there certainly has been a dearth of activity with respect to standard 4/3 cameras of late. I don't think anyone outside of Olympus really has reliable information regarding plans for future cameras in the system. If you think you're going to jump you might as well jump before investing $2k in a lens. But in terms of current systems I think you have to consider the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each and work within the limitations of whichever you choose.

Many thanks for taking the time. You're right, of course, when Oly introduces, it really introduces! But since E-3, nothing in high-end SLR. And I'm not talking bodies, I'm talking cpu. I discussed long and hard with an Oly tech about what's in the rumor mill or being floated around the water cooler, and again, nothing. That $2,000 I talked about would go a long way in lessening the blow of shifting camps. Still hate to do it, only the single lens in the whole Nikon/Canon world to choose from, and helical zoom at that. So you're absolutely right, lots to consider.

Anyway, take a look at my responses to Don's and Ziggy's comments, they answer also some of your thoughts. We'll see where this goes.

Again, thanks for taking the time.

fldspringer · June 8, 2010

Just how invested are you in Oly equipment? It has alot to do with the question.

Just by glancing through your galeries, the thing that I see you gaining by going to a larger format is a bit more subject separation than with your current system. Given your shooting style and the focal lengths you choose, if a normal zoom is all your invested in, well, if it were me I'd be gone. If I could pull off full frame, I'd try. It just matches what your shooting so well. Sony, Nikon and Canon all offer nice larger sensor cameras and a normal zoom wouldn't kill you that much. This is my opinion, of course, but keep in mind I'm a happy Oly E-3 shooter. I just use my camera much differently than you do.

If your going to expand the Oly system, the first lens I'd add is the Panny-Leica 25mm f1.4 and I think you will love it. It lacks the ability of zoom, but the extra stop will help with backgrounds.

I have the 35-100 and I would recommend it, but the weight may be an issue for you. Its stellar and I love the lens. Bokeh is great and its a little longer if you wanted to do more in the up-close and personal portraits.

The 14-35 may be a bit short for subject separation unless your quite close to the subject.

jmphotocraft · June 9, 2010

Keep in mind that as the sensor gets smaller, you get more depth of field at a given f-stop, and at a given field of view. It is commonly mentioned in Canon conversations that APS-C cameras gain a stop's-worth of DOF compared to full frame. That is, f/2.8 on APS-C has the DOF of about f/4 on FF. My own experience agrees with this.

So my point is, you shouldn't lament losing your Zuiko f/2.0 that much. Moving to a 7D and an f/2.8 lens, you're going to a lager sensor, so you'll get some of that bokeh back.

I had a 40D and a 17-55/2.8 IS and it was a great combo. The lens is spectacular. Keep a good UV filter on it to minimize the dust issue. It would be worth a B+W.

Also, a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS is rumored to be imminent, if you require the sealing.

RovingEyePhoto · June 9, 2010

fldspringer wrote: »

Just how invested are you in Oly equipment? It has alot to do with the question.

Just by glancing through your galeries, the thing that I see you gaining by going to a larger format is a bit more subject separation than with your current system. Given your shooting style and the focal lengths you choose, if a normal zoom is all your invested in, well, if it were me I'd be gone. If I could pull off full frame, I'd try. It just matches what your shooting so well. Sony, Nikon and Canon all offer nice larger sensor cameras and a normal zoom wouldn't kill you that much. This is my opinion, of course, but keep in mind I'm a happy Oly E-3 shooter. I just use my camera much differently than you do.

If your going to expand the Oly system, the first lens I'd add is the Panny-Leica 25mm f1.4 and I think you will love it. It lacks the ability of zoom, but the extra stop will help with backgrounds.

I have the 35-100 and I would recommend it, but the weight may be an issue for you. Its stellar and I love the lens. Bokeh is great and its a little longer if you wanted to do more in the up-close and personal portraits.

The 14-35 may be a bit short for subject separation unless your quite close to the subject.

Thanks for taking the time.

Yes, a super fast 35-50mm equiv prime is something I have in mind if I stay with Oly, would use same as I indicated having a fast mid prime if I were to change camps to Canon, just have Oly's in-body IS to help me along. I haven't looked at specifics, but the panny sounds first class! Haven't considered non-Oly glass for my Oly up till now, is there anything I need know re full compatibility?

Subject separation is a big thing in the genre I shoot. Believe it or not, I'm rarely if ever more than 3-8' away from the mod subject. Reason is three-fold. First, it's how I keep the facial prominence so necessary to getting the point across I'm going for. Second, it's how I keep up a constant flow of coaching/cajoling/demonstrating, essential to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along nature of the thing. Third, people very often wander in between if separation is greater, or stand poised at the edge, leaning forward impatiently (we've all been there, lol), making the whole process impossible in terms of concentration/communication and multiple positions/poses/catches.

If I could find a FF Canon/Nikon fast standard zoom with IS/VR, that's a route I'd consider. I agree, FF is tailor made for this stuff. And I hesitate to again go with another of the "other guys", just not worth the risk. I've tried without image stabilization, doesn't work for me shooting this kind of stuff. See some of my earlier responses, I talk about that.

Again, many thanks. Helps to talk this stuff through, tests what I think I know and don't know, very helpful.

RovingEyePhoto · June 9, 2010

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Keep in mind that as the sensor gets smaller, you get more depth of field at a given f-stop, and at a given field of view. It is commonly mentioned in Canon conversations that APS-C cameras gain a stop's-worth of DOF compared to full frame. That is, f/2.8 on APS-C has the DOF of about f/4 on FF. My own experience agrees with this.

So my point is, you shouldn't lament losing your Zuiko f/2.0 that much. Moving to a 7D and an f/2.8 lens, you're going to a lager sensor, so you'll get some of that bokeh back.

I had a 40D and a 17-55/2.8 IS and it was a great combo. The lens is spectacular. Keep a good UV filter on it to minimize the dust issue. It would be worth a B+W.

Also, a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS is rumored to be imminent, if you require the sealing.

Hey Jack, if a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS is imminent, then my thinking shifts back to FF! Other responders have reminded me of the DOF point you made, and I appreciate it, hadn't fully thought that through. Yes, the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS on a 5DMkII (presumably) would be an expensive and heavy outfit, but I can handle those if the payback is right, and that just could be the case here.

BTW, just happened on a couple used 14-35 f/2's for sale, so if condition is good and price dips low enough, maybe I do sink more $'s into Oly, but at a price I'm pretty sure of recovering if I do ultimately switch camps.

Appreciate your comment on the 17-55. I'm a little confused, not sure a UV filter would assist in avoiding dust/grit entering around the lower flange of the extending tube. Am I missing something here. I do use a UV filter in the ordinary course, although pin-sharp eye focus is so pivotal in modeled-street that I sometimes sometimes it. Everything's a compromise ...

Thanks for taking the time.

jmphotocraft · June 9, 2010

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Hey Jack, if a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS is imminent, then my thinking shifts back to FF! Other responders have reminded me of the DOF point you made, and I appreciate it, hadn't fully thought that through.

Yep. At the extreme end, this is why point-n-shoots have waaaay more DOF than DSLRs.

Appreciate your comment on the 17-55. I'm a little confused, not sure a UV filter would assist in avoiding dust/grit entering around the lower flange of the extending tube.

I think you're right, I don't think it would. But it does protect against dust getting sucked in the front. It helps. I went filterless full time and paid the price. I've read of others who religiously used a filter and had much less dust. It never affected my IQ, it was just unnerving to see it in there. Even so I was still able to sell it for a nice return.

My 5DII and 24-70L are my walk-around now and I love it. I don't mind the weight. It seems quite light after handling the 1D and 300/2.8 for a game.

cmason · June 9, 2010

Its very hard to deny the physics of a 4/3 sensor vs the APC/APS or especially full frame. Canon has had a lead in high ISO for a long time, and I have enjoyed my 40D and lust after a 7D. But, these do not hold a candle to the Nikon D700. My brother has one, and it is jaw droppingly stunning at how sensitive it is and the kinds of low light it can shoot in. I struggled to take shot of a basketball game with my 2.8 lens and ISO 1000, he shot at IS0 8000 (as well as 25000 just to show off) and his images blow mine away.

If it is low light you are after, the D700 is, IMHO, the absolute King...and thats coming from a Canon shooter. I am sure the higher end bodies from Canon and Nikon are better, but don't feel as if that is an option you are looking into.

fldspringer · June 9, 2010

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time.

Yes, a super fast 35-50mm equiv prime is something I have in mind if I stay with Oly, would use same as I indicated having a fast mid prime if I were to change camps to Canon, just have Oly's in-body IS to help me along. I haven't looked at specifics, but the panny sounds first class! Haven't considered non-Oly glass for my Oly up till now, is there anything I need know re full compatibility?

Any four thirds mount will be fully functional. That is NOT the same as micro-four-thirds. That Panny-Leica lens is an outstanding lens. Sigma also makes a 30 f1.4 and a 50 f1.4 in that mount.

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Subject separation is a big thing in the genre I shoot. Believe it or not, I'm rarely if ever more than 3-8' away from the mod subject. Reason is three-fold. First, it's how I keep the facial prominence so necessary to getting the point across I'm going for. Second, it's how I keep up a constant flow of coaching/cajoling/demonstrating, essential to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along nature of the thing. Third, people very often wander in between if separation is greater, or stand poised at the edge, leaning forward impatiently (we've all been there, lol), making the whole process impossible in terms of concentration/communication and multiple positions/poses/catches.

If I could find a FF Canon/Nikon fast standard zoom with IS/VR, that's a route I'd consider. I agree, FF is tailor made for this stuff. And I hesitate to again go with another of the "other guys", just not worth the risk. I've tried without image stabilization, doesn't work for me shooting this kind of stuff. See some of my earlier responses, I talk about that.

Sony has full frame cameras starting at $2000 and they all have in-body stabilization. There is a Carl Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 made for it. You may want to talk to someone more familiar with the system, as I've never even touched one, but it would take care of the stabilization issue.

RovingEyePhoto · June 9, 2010

fldspringer wrote: »

Any four thirds mount will be fully functional. That is NOT the same as micro-four-thirds. That Panny-Leica lens is an outstanding lens. Sigma also makes a 30 f1.4 and a 50 f1.4 in that mount.

Sony has full frame cameras starting at $2000 and they all have in-body stabilization. There is a Carl Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 made for it. You may want to talk to someone more familiar with the system, as I've never even touched one, but it would take care of the stabilization issue.

If I stay in 4/3, I'll want a super fast prime in the 35-50mm equiv. The panny certainly fits. I understand that otherwise everything in the Oly will be fully functional, you seem to have confirmed that? How about panny firmware upgrades, do they become a problem uploading through the Oly body? Do you know?

I'm aware of the Sony, but doubt that I'd change from Oly to another of the "other guys". If Canon brings out an IS version of its EF 24-70 f.2.8 L, that coupled with a 5DMkII could be my ticket out of the Oly quandary. The 17-55 is all that's available right now from either Canon or Nikon, so APS-C was the only alternative to look at.

Again, thanks for the assist.

NikonsandVstroms · June 10, 2010

I shoot with Olympus and Nikon (D700, S5 Pro, E-420/620) so here are my thoughts on the systems.

In good light I like the quality of the Olympus images more than Nikon, the colors are just spectacular and it is also a lot easier in post processing.

The D700 obviously wins in low light ISO 800 is like ISO 6400 but the D300 is not that big of a jump from my experience.

Also there are countless rumors floating around currently so if you can wait till September I would do it. Digital photography is constant leap frogging and we should get a good view of Olympus's path there.

RovingEyePhoto · June 10, 2010

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

I shoot with Olympus and Nikon (D700, S5 Pro, E-420/620) so here are my thoughts on the systems.

In good light I like the quality of the Olympus images more than Nikon, the colors are just spectacular and it is also a lot easier in post processing.

The D700 obviously wins in low light ISO 800 is like ISO 6400 but the D300 is not that big of a jump from my experience.

Also there are countless rumors floating around currently so if you can wait till September I would do it. Digital photography is constant leap frogging and we should get a good view of Olympus's path there.

2,488 miles, that's a lot of miles. I'm of similar philosophy, bet I've burned at least 2,488 miles of shoe leather shooting modeled-street here in Chicago! That's lots of times around!

Your comments are very helpful. I have no problem shooting my E-3 in bright, even harsh light environments, sharp is sharp, colors are vibrant or nuanced or whatever I want them to be. it's anywhere near "dim" that gets me, just can't use those higher ISO's, the processor's not there.

I'm curious, how is Oly easier in post than your Nikon? I've been using ACR in PS C3, not the Oly RAW converter, maybe I'm missing something.

Time and patience I've got, Sep is only a few months away. Till then I'm sort of short handed, but will make do.

Many thanks for taking the time.

fldspringer · June 11, 2010

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

If I stay in 4/3, I'll want a super fast prime in the 35-50mm equiv. The panny certainly fits. I understand that otherwise everything in the Oly will be fully functional, you seem to have confirmed that? How about panny firmware upgrades, do they become a problem uploading through the Oly body? Do you know?

.

As to the firmware, I know you used to need a Panny body, but I think I rember that that issue was corrected in some way. I don't know for certain. You will want to find that out, as finding a buddy with a Panasonic body would be difficult

ziggy53 · June 11, 2010

For Olympus body owners, refer to this page which describes update procedures for:

http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/software/firm/e1/index.cfm

Updating Olympus lenses.
Updating Panasonic lenses.
Updating Sigma lenses.

For Panasonic body owners, refer to this page which describes update procedures for:

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/fts/

Updating Panasonic lenses.
Updating Olympus lenses.
Updating Sigma lenses.

RovingEyePhoto · June 11, 2010

ziggy53 wrote: »

For Olympus body owners, refer to this page which describes update procedures for:

http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/software/firm/e1/index.cfm

Thanks, Ziggy, great assist.

InsuredDisaster · June 13, 2010

You know, if you got the D3s, you could probably not need to worry much about IS, VR ever again. Just crank that ISO up to 1 million and blast away.

RovingEyePhoto · June 13, 2010

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

You know, if you got the D3s, you could probably not need to worry much about IS, VR ever again. Just crank that ISO up to 1 million and blast away.

Very good! For that kind of money, I'd hire a pro ...

NikonsandVstroms · June 13, 2010

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Very good! For that kind of money, I'd hire a pro ...

I have a D700 and am open for hire

But seriously the D700 is a good pick, you need to work your images more than Olympus but the high ISO performance is just crazy.

Basically I can sum it up this way if you want to go full frame do it, APS-C just isn't enough of a jump from 4/3 to justify it especially when you could get Olympus's F2.0 zooms.

AlbertZeroK · June 15, 2010

You may consider Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 - I love mine and I think it's superior to Canon's own 50mm f/1.4. - But Sigma sometimes has quality issues, I am checking mine out for focus issues, some sigma buyers send their lens into sigma for a calibration right after they get them.

We use Olympus at work, it works OK, but I like the flexability of my canon setup and all the options it has with it. I currently shoot with a 50D and T2i, and have shot the 7D. I don't think either of them will really FIX the ISO issue.

RovingEyePhoto · June 21, 2010

AlbertZeroK wrote: »

You may consider Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 - I love mine and I think it's superior to Canon's own 50mm f/1.4. - But Sigma sometimes has quality issues, I am checking mine out for focus issues, some sigma buyers send their lens into sigma for a calibration right after they get them.

We use Olympus at work, it works OK, but I like the flexability of my canon setup and all the options it has with it. I currently shoot with a 50D and T2i, and have shot the 7D. I don't think either of them will really FIX the ISO issue.

I'm hearing more and more that ISO issues, no matter how highly touted, are continuing problems for everyone. Probably plenty of argument from both sides on that. Physics certainly seems to favor larger pixel sites, of that there at least is broad agreement, so somewhere in my future undoubtedly lies FF.

I'm not getting much objective input in terms of Canon's coming out with an IS version of their 24-70 f/2.8. This is shooting season for the modeled-street genre I'm married to, so have to get on my horse soon one way or the other. Have a good line on a trade of my Zuiko 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 for their 14-35 f/2.0, still over $1,000 additional in to the Oly platform, but time is running. We'll see where this ends.

Thanks for info on the Sigma 50 f/1.4. If going FF, it's a sweet sounding piece of glass. I have no problem with immediate calibration if it does the job, kind of an integral part of the cost of the lens.

Thanks for taking the time.

RovingEyePhoto · June 21, 2010

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

I have a D700 and am open for hire

But seriously the D700 is a good pick, you need to work your images more than Olympus but the high ISO performance is just crazy.

Basically I can sum it up this way if you want to go full frame do it, APS-C just isn't enough of a jump from 4/3 to justify it especially when you could get Olympus's F2.0 zooms.

Ha ha, fine offer! A D700 coupled with a talented tog (that you?) would support a quality rate, trust you're getting it.

Although I was tickled by the Canon APS-C 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I'm pretty much in agreement that if jumping, FF is the place to jump. If I have it right, sq area increase is only 1.5 from 4/3 to APS-C, almost 4 to FF, and in lenses I'm considering, all are similarly sized tanks. Rumor mill isn't helping me much with objective info, so may end up putting prox $1,300 into trade of my Zuiko 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 for a factory refurb of their 14-35 f/2.0, pretty good deal, and probably would carry me a couple of years. Just have to live with using lower ISO's over that period, occasionally 800, but more typically 400 on down. I expect the 14-35 would hold its value really well, so a couple years from now maybe a jump to FF when more IS/VR is available won't be as devastating as originally thought.

Thanks for the time.

swintonphoto · June 22, 2010

I would invest in the new lens - optics over bodies for me any day. I use the E-620 and it is great at high ISO. I imagine the replacement for the E-3 will be even better. Just hold out - get a sweet lens and go photographing.

RovingEyePhoto · June 23, 2010

swintonphoto wrote: »

I would invest in the new lens - optics over bodies for me any day. I use the E-620 and it is great at high ISO. I imagine the replacement for the E-3 will be even better. Just hold out - get a sweet lens and go photographing.

Thanks for the thought. The more I listen to the rumor mill, the more I realize no one really has much of a fix on how long I might have to wait for an IS version of something like the Canon 24-70 f/28 L. Same as no one has much of a fix on how long it may be before Oly steps forward with a new E-3, lol. The one thing I can claim a pretty good fix on is the availabi8lity of used and refurbed Zuiko 14-35 f/2's, and that is a sweet, sweet lens! I'll make a decision somewhere along the way here, giving up a season of shooting time for what could be nothing isn't a very appealing plan.

20DNoob · June 23, 2010

I'm still waiting for the E-4.

ziggy53 · June 23, 2010

20DNoob wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the E-4.

Olympus took almost 4 1/2 years to produce the E-3 after the E-1. (There was no E-2.) Since the E-3 was introduced in Feb 2008, it could be another couple years to see the E-3 replacement.

Still, the E-620 sensor with a faster readout in a body with the features of the E-3 would probably be a good thing and shouldn't take too long to develop.

Internaut · June 26, 2010

It is a good time to wait
The rumours regarding Olympus (see the awful 4/3 rumour site that is wrong most of the time) have a certain gravity about them to my mind...... Olympus is ripe for a revolution in terms of the platforms it offers for its glass. Revolutions are good for some, not for others. Unless you have some urgent need, I'd say enjoy what you have and wait this one out for a few months.

Big dilemma: Invest more in Olympus, or turn to Nikon/Canon?

Comments