Options
Finally jumping SLR to DSLR, Canon/Nikon or Olympus?
RovingEyePhoto
Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
This is my first dgrin post, so please bear with me. I’m finally making the leap from decades of film SLR and advanced digital P&S to DSLR, and that’s a subject I expect most of you know something about. I’m a serious hobbyist, understand most of the physics, and have the dollars saved to do about what I want. Just left with the age-old question, what do I want?
I posted a rather long discussion on another forum that basically said (i) I like the idea of in-camera IS working on ALL my lenses (have tripods, but shoot mostly handheld on-the-run, mostly wide to short-teles); (ii) I like the idea of an articulating LCD (shoot a lot of weird perspectives, and articulation should help with my admittedly-wanting wannabe street-shooter efforts); (iii) I like a wide selection of high-quality, fast, crop specific glass (shoot for accurate images at lowest possible dimension/weight at mostly available light); (iv) I like tank-like build and weather sealing (who doesn't?); (v) I prefer processor quality of focus and capture over fps speed (anything over 3 fps probably fast enough for my shooting); and (v) I like the best physical manageability available (the smaller the dimension/weight of the whole package, taking into account preference for fast quality glass, the better). All that said, funny how I end-up pretty near the exact feature and quality set as the new Olympus M3 and its vaunted Zuiko Lenses. Obviously not a coincidence! So in my selection process, I've placed the ME3 right up there alongside Canon’s 40D and Nikon’s D300 as my DSLR systems-of-choice. Tough company! I’m thinking, though, that the physics-based give-ups inherent in the E3’s smaller sensor and MP count probably would be worth trade-off for the indicated “likes” I’d be gaining. After all, the E3 4/3 sensor size and MP count are fairly close to 40D/D300 figures, the M3 body’s built to pro specs, and Olympus is long-revered for its quality and innovation, so how much am I really at risk? Price-wise, the three systems would end up about the same (a lot!), so from that perspective alone I’d certainly expect the E3 to stack up. Any comments?
As a practical matter, I’d probably use mostly EF (or Nikon equivalent) glass on the 40D/D300, not their smaller and lighter crop-specific lines. I’m not that well acquainted with Nikon, but Canon is very sparse in its EF-S line-up, and even more sparse in IS wide to mid-teles. Olympus, on the other hand, has a fairly full line of high-quality, fast, crop-specific glass, and in-camera IS makes them all IS. So although the E3 body is about the same size/weight as the 40D/D300 bodies, working glass would be smaller, lighter, and in almost all cases faster, and is purported to be at least of equal quality. I await more comprehensive and independent reviews and field tests than at present to prove or disprove that point. Yes, I’d be giving up the wider projected sweet spot of using FF lenses on 40D/D300 crop sensors, but IMHO would be gaining much more than I’d lose in faster maximum apertures, hand hold capability through universal IS and smaller dimension/weight, and added body toughness. Sounds like a win/win to me. Again, comments?
Relative overall quality of Canon/Nikon/Olympus can be argued all day. Considering they all have high-end reputations and considerable followings, I probably can consider overall quality somewhat a wash, and focus instead of three key conditions: (i) what kind of excursions would I most often be likely to make, in-studio, target locations, carry-around, vacation, family, or what; (ii) how much of the kit might I practically be expected to physically lug around on planned excursions, or maybe more importantly on random excursions, the theory being that gear I leave it at home is gear I don’t have with with me to use(duh!); and (iii) what profile of equipment would most likely allow my humble talent (the true source, of course, of all worthwhile images) to be captured in high-quality resolution, color, contrast, bokeh, and all other matter of image measure? As to conditions (i) and (iii), I think the 40D/D300/E3 would all be acceptable, the D300’s processor and other tech gains maybe having an edge; the E3’s faster glass, in-body IS and articulating LCD maybe having an edge; the 40D huge lens selection maybe having an edge; but all three being practically acceptable. Condition (ii), however, would seem to point decidedly to the E3, favored again for its faster glass and more reasonable physical manageability, associated with in-body IS and articulating LCD. How’s that for a summation? Again, all comments appreciated.
I’m in process of learning Photoshop, using Kelby’s book and borrowed RAW images as a starter, and making pretty good process. Also pertinent is that I have only one lens good enough to carry forward from my old Canon kit, an Elan-IIE-vintage EF 85 f/1.8 Ultrasonic, so changing families to Nikon or Olympus isn’t a factor.
Sorry for running this so long. Probably can’t go wrong whichever way I choose, but as always, big decision and big adventure. Thanks for reading, and double thanks in advance for responding.
I posted a rather long discussion on another forum that basically said (i) I like the idea of in-camera IS working on ALL my lenses (have tripods, but shoot mostly handheld on-the-run, mostly wide to short-teles); (ii) I like the idea of an articulating LCD (shoot a lot of weird perspectives, and articulation should help with my admittedly-wanting wannabe street-shooter efforts); (iii) I like a wide selection of high-quality, fast, crop specific glass (shoot for accurate images at lowest possible dimension/weight at mostly available light); (iv) I like tank-like build and weather sealing (who doesn't?); (v) I prefer processor quality of focus and capture over fps speed (anything over 3 fps probably fast enough for my shooting); and (v) I like the best physical manageability available (the smaller the dimension/weight of the whole package, taking into account preference for fast quality glass, the better). All that said, funny how I end-up pretty near the exact feature and quality set as the new Olympus M3 and its vaunted Zuiko Lenses. Obviously not a coincidence! So in my selection process, I've placed the ME3 right up there alongside Canon’s 40D and Nikon’s D300 as my DSLR systems-of-choice. Tough company! I’m thinking, though, that the physics-based give-ups inherent in the E3’s smaller sensor and MP count probably would be worth trade-off for the indicated “likes” I’d be gaining. After all, the E3 4/3 sensor size and MP count are fairly close to 40D/D300 figures, the M3 body’s built to pro specs, and Olympus is long-revered for its quality and innovation, so how much am I really at risk? Price-wise, the three systems would end up about the same (a lot!), so from that perspective alone I’d certainly expect the E3 to stack up. Any comments?
As a practical matter, I’d probably use mostly EF (or Nikon equivalent) glass on the 40D/D300, not their smaller and lighter crop-specific lines. I’m not that well acquainted with Nikon, but Canon is very sparse in its EF-S line-up, and even more sparse in IS wide to mid-teles. Olympus, on the other hand, has a fairly full line of high-quality, fast, crop-specific glass, and in-camera IS makes them all IS. So although the E3 body is about the same size/weight as the 40D/D300 bodies, working glass would be smaller, lighter, and in almost all cases faster, and is purported to be at least of equal quality. I await more comprehensive and independent reviews and field tests than at present to prove or disprove that point. Yes, I’d be giving up the wider projected sweet spot of using FF lenses on 40D/D300 crop sensors, but IMHO would be gaining much more than I’d lose in faster maximum apertures, hand hold capability through universal IS and smaller dimension/weight, and added body toughness. Sounds like a win/win to me. Again, comments?
Relative overall quality of Canon/Nikon/Olympus can be argued all day. Considering they all have high-end reputations and considerable followings, I probably can consider overall quality somewhat a wash, and focus instead of three key conditions: (i) what kind of excursions would I most often be likely to make, in-studio, target locations, carry-around, vacation, family, or what; (ii) how much of the kit might I practically be expected to physically lug around on planned excursions, or maybe more importantly on random excursions, the theory being that gear I leave it at home is gear I don’t have with with me to use(duh!); and (iii) what profile of equipment would most likely allow my humble talent (the true source, of course, of all worthwhile images) to be captured in high-quality resolution, color, contrast, bokeh, and all other matter of image measure? As to conditions (i) and (iii), I think the 40D/D300/E3 would all be acceptable, the D300’s processor and other tech gains maybe having an edge; the E3’s faster glass, in-body IS and articulating LCD maybe having an edge; the 40D huge lens selection maybe having an edge; but all three being practically acceptable. Condition (ii), however, would seem to point decidedly to the E3, favored again for its faster glass and more reasonable physical manageability, associated with in-body IS and articulating LCD. How’s that for a summation? Again, all comments appreciated.
I’m in process of learning Photoshop, using Kelby’s book and borrowed RAW images as a starter, and making pretty good process. Also pertinent is that I have only one lens good enough to carry forward from my old Canon kit, an Elan-IIE-vintage EF 85 f/1.8 Ultrasonic, so changing families to Nikon or Olympus isn’t a factor.
Sorry for running this so long. Probably can’t go wrong whichever way I choose, but as always, big decision and big adventure. Thanks for reading, and double thanks in advance for responding.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
0
Comments
But allow me to ask you, what film SLR are you currently shooting with? And if you have lenses with that bod that you may consider using on the dSLR, just something else to consider.
I personally use Olympus because of the many benefits you mentioned in your post. Much has been said regarding the 4/3 sensor being smaller, but, it really isnt much smaller at all than the sensor in the 40D and the D300. I have been extremely pleased with the size of the 4/3 cameras, the quality of the great zuiko lenses, the innovation of their camera functions (in camera image stabilization, live view, dust reduction, articulating screens, etc. - all pioneered by Oly and adapted by others), and the extremely high customer satisfaction ratings. Oly Cameras won highest in customer satisfaction among cameras over $600 by JD Power and Associates. I am currently saving up to get an E-3.
As a proud Oly user I would tell you to swing that way. I know those of other camps will say the same regarding theirs. So, it leads me to this conclusion - all of them will be good. I have two photographer brothers. One uses a Canon 30D and LOVES it, the other uses a Nikon D80 and LOVES it. So, really you won't go wrong. All great cameras. If you like the feel of one over the other, go for it!
Good luck!
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Sony DSC-S85 (point and shoot)
Panasonic LX1
Olympus 770SW
In the market for a dslr
**Mind if I ask which Oly lenses you use? Reviews seem few and far between, so maybe you can help there. I've always shot fast, so even though undoubtedly quite expensive, the f/2.- SWD's are of great interest. As are others, so any input you can provide will be of value. Thanks very much for responding.
****As commented at bottom of my post, only lens good enough to carryforward is Canon-Elan-IIE-era EF 85mm f/1.8 Ultrasonic. A reasonably good lens, but not much of a tug in my decision.
Of the lenses you mentioned, are those crop-specific to the D300? Would be big help for me to know what designating letters I look for in identifying that group of Nikon crop-specific lenses. Also, can you advise what designations I look for in high-end Nikon lenses, like the L designation in the Canon family? Are any in that quality category crop to D300 size? Whatever you could provide would be a big help, and thanks for responding.
Thanks for the response. I considered the Pentax K10D for several of the same reasons applying to the M3, but doesn't seem as high-end in body, processor and lens selection as Olympus, and M3-type money is just about saved, so I don't want to select short (if you know what I mean). One thing I don't know is how fully-auto compatible Pentax and Sigma 4/3 lenses are with Olympus E3 (I think Sigma has some, right?), and visa versa. Do you have a feeling for that? Whichever route I go, I'd naturally want full aut0-compatibility of all box/lens features. Thanks very much for responding.
pentax currently offeres two high-end zoom lenses for it, a 16-50 and a 50-135, both f2.8. They have a lot of nice primes, but are lacking when it comes to longer zooms so you'd be stuck finding an older lens or using a sigma if that is what you want.
Its probably not as high end overal as the olympus, I just thought that if you hadn't looked at it, it might be worth doing so as many of the features are the similar:)
have fun, I'm really quite sure that you'll be delighted with any of these choices
have fun
Sony DSC-S85 (point and shoot)
Panasonic LX1
Olympus 770SW
In the market for a dslr
I really like my 7D's buil in anti-shake (IS)...butfor weddings I will shoot a lot off a tripod and I also shoot off tripod when doing nature and landscapes.......
Good Luck
**** Thanks for straightening me out on that. Will be interesting to see what you end up with, you said you're looking to move up. Good luck.
Don't overlook the value of renting, it can save you a ton of money, but only if it's available for rent. I had a project a month ago where I needed a fast zoom, so I rented the 70-200 mm f/2.8 AF-S for 10 days for $75. This lens is selling for over $1900 new on Amazon. The place I rent from only has Canon and Nikon gear, and in stores I've seen that have rented equipment (like Calumet), they have a really limited selection of equipment for other systems.
As new lenses are released, in-lens image stabilization is moving down-market. Now it's in both Canon and Nikon's cheap kit zooms.
**Thanks very much for the response. I think yo'll find the newly announced Olympus E3 has the in-body IS we're talking about, seems about the most advanced around. Give it a look see. Or if I'm wrong, please feel free and remind me.
The D300 really does look like a corker! I'm just so my much hand-holding and on-the-run that smaller crop-specific sized in-body IS makes more sense, and the E3 offers all that. Nikon and Canon don't, and I think one or the other eventually will to get a huge gain over the other, even at the expense of prior users having bought in-lens IS/VR. Will be interesting battle to watch.
Good luck on getting back into wedding shooting, and thanks for the response.
I currently have 2 E500 bodies that I use.
The lenses I have are:
14-54mm 2.8-3.5, 40-150mm 3.5-4.5, 35mm 3.5 macro, and the Sigma 135-400mm 4.5-5.6
14-54mm 2.8-3.5 ($420): This lens is fast, extremely well built, and an excellent size. The new 12-60mm 2.8-3.5 ($1000) lens is virtually the same lens with a slightly expanded zoom and Oly's new supersonic wave drive. I have not used one of these, but, Oly boasts that this and the other supersonic wave drive lenses combined with the E3 are supposed to have the fastest autofocus capabilities of any camera ever made by anyone. The 12-60mm is more than twice as expensive, but, if you have the budget it looks like a sweet lens. The new 14-35mm 2.0 lens looks amazing also. It is large, but has 2.0 through the entire zoom range. I don't think any manufacturer makes a zoom that does that. My 14-54 is fantastic. My favorite lens.
40-150mm 3.5-4.5 ($200): They don't make this one anymore, but you can still buy it. It was the kit telezoom lens I got with my first E500 kit. They have manufactured a smaller version of this lens for the E410 and E510, however the smaller one also is 4-5.6 instead of 3.5-4.5. So, if you need a good telezoom for a decent price this one goes for around $200. If I were buying a new lens in this range I would consider the 50-200mm 2.8-3.5 lenses. They sell one with the supersonic wave drive and one without. Again I have not used the supersonic wave drive one, but the one with the normal auto focus is extremely fast as is. The prices are about $800 w/o supersonic wave drive, and $1100 with supersonic wave drive.
35mm 3.5 macro ($180): This is the least expensive lens Oly makes. I was on the fence about getting this one as opposed to the 50mm 2.0 ($450). I don't do a lot of macro (though I do use it for portraits periodically), and so I went for the less expensive one. However, many users are extremely happy with the 50mm 2.0. It is said to be virtually flawless, with an excellent max fstop - would be a GREAT portrait lens. Both lenses are optically excellent because they are both primes.
Sigma 135-400mm 4.5-5.6 ($600): This lens is one I bought for a few specific uses. I use it primarilly when I have to stand at the back of churches for weddings, and for some sports photography. It is not super fast at focusing, but does ok. The price is really unbeatable for its range. Since I got this one Oly made a super telephoto zoom - the 70-300 4.0-5.6. I have no experience with this lens, but it is smaller than my 135-400mm.
So, all in all I am very happy with my lens lineup. The next purchases will likely be a wide angle, or one of the 50-200mm lenses. A great resource is:
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index.html
It is a site that details all the lenses currently available for Oly cameras. They should all be supported by the cameras, so the question about if sigma works with it - I think they all work fine. There is a cool "Matching Simulation" on the site where you can pick a body and put any lens on it and see what it looks like. This helps you see the size differences etc. of each lens on a given camera body.
If I had a lot of money and was just getting into the system I would get the following:
One of the fast standard zooms:
14-54mm 2.8-3.5
12-60mm 2.8-3.5 SSWD
14-35mm 2.0 SSWD
One or more of the fast telephoto zooms:
35-100mm 2.0
50-200mm 2.8-3.5
50-200mm 2.8-3.5 SSWD
90-250mm 2.8
One of the macros:
35mm 3.5
50mm 2.0
Others that are tempting depending on your needs:
Wide angles:
7-14mm 4.0
11-22 2.8-3.5
Telephoto:
150mm 2.0
300mm 2.8
Sigma 135-400mm 4.5-5.6
Sigma 50-500mm 4.0-6.3
The list could go on....
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
When looking at crop lenses, the "DX" in Nikon lenses is specifically designed for crop sensors and will vignette on FF sensors and film cameras.
"ED" is the Extra Dispersion glass that is used by Nikon on many of the high end lenses.
HTH...
Appreciate your comments about extensive product lines, 3rd party support, etc., that follow hand-in-hand with Canon's/Nikon's huge market shares. This has been my biggest wrestling match. Before the E3 and D300 showed itself, I was leaning toward FF with the Canon's 5D, about same dimension of 30D of that time (really quite close without vertical grip) and only somewhat heavier). Since lenses I had in mind were mostly bricks, EF 16-35 f/2.8 L, EF 17-40 f/2.8 L, maybe EF 24-105 f/4 L IS (but too slow for my taste), maybe EF 70-200 f/4 L IS (also kind of slow, but f/2.8 version is a brick's brick, too much even for my active imagination), plus not-so-bricks EF 50 f/1.4 and EF 100 macro, all bought piece-by-piece of course over time. Then the 40D/D300 were introduced with such ballyhoo over new procesors with far better noise control (among other improvements), especially the D300, so got me thinking of a more "physically manageable" package based on one of those bodies coupled with Canon/Nikon crop-specific glass to hold down total size and weight, with the PRIMARY GOAL of not having to leave so much behind at home when I go out on photo excursions, walk-arounds, vacations, or just random hike or bike jaunts. So I looked into it, and that's when I realized neither Canon nor Nikon offered much in terms of fast, L-quality, crop-specific glass, certainly not in the wide to short-tele FLs I mostly use (the EF-S 10-22 wasn't bad, but even it suffered a bit quality wise) and certainly not with IS/VR, the latter much in play at my age (not into my dotage, still in good shape and very active , but not the painless-backed stud muffin I used to be). So then out comes the Olympus E3, with its stellar line of Zuiko fast, apparently L-quality, all-FL crop-specific weight/size glass, and every lens is IS (thanks to in-body system), and all of a sudden my slide from FF to 1.5/1.6 crop took another drop to 2.0 crop, and I figured I'd found a breakthrough! And according to forum responses here and elsewhere and published independent reviews and field reports to-date, all HIGH QUALITY! Most of what I've received and read says that output, at least up to ISO 800 and probably further (way beyond where I generally went with film) and up to 13x19" print size (rearely have ever gone beyond that) is very high quality. And I've got Photoshop to help me (already own and in process of learning) when I dare to test the limits.
Anyway, that's how I got to where I am. Although I agree the D300 seems the strongest compromise out there right now to FF (considering both quality and cost), at only somewhat less MPs and smaller sensor size, the E3 also seems very strong, while providing more physical manageability and gadgets than the D3 that fit my particular wants and style (articulating LCD, pro build and weather seal, etc.) And unless I'm being grossly fooled, the Zuiko lens line, top to bottom, seems as high quality as Canon/Nikon, not as many iterations, but near equal quality. Wheh, what a tough market! And we think this is bad, wait till the new 5Dxx comes out, that promises to be a bear!
As for renting, being a hobbyist (serious, at leat in my own mind and time and effort), I've never had need for specific-one-time-situation lenses as would a pro, so haven't used rental. I do know it's there, and can see its advantages. Good to hear from someone who's actually gone that route, makes me feel more secure about it should the need arise.
I appreciate you opinion on the 40D/D300, and would welcome back any thoughts relative to my contrary rants above. I can feel myself falling into the Olympus hype pool, and don't want to be making the decision based on that. Others experience is much more reliable. I of course have to get to the shop and put an E3 through its paces, but my mind works best when all talked through ahead of time. So feel free, you're doing me a big favor, and obviously are fully a part of the photography world.
Let me be sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying you don't see effect of IS through the viewfinder, which I understand would make long lens composition tough, especially with the 2.0 crop adding so much length. Or are you saying you actually lose IS when using the viewfinder? I can't imagine anyone buying in to the latter, so probably a dumb question, but just want to be sure.
As for in-lens IS/VR moving down market, I agree that's happening, but how about moving to wider FLs in up-market? The EF 24-105 f/4 L IS is the only wide/short-tele EF L I'm aware of that that has IS, but then I haven't looked lately. Do you hear anything along those lines?
On the subject of speed, I'm no maven, but seems that FF and crop 1.6 glass is just too technically challenging or expensive or heavy to make in F/2 zooms. Canon/Nikon offer f/2 and better in primes, of course, but only Olympus (haven't looked at Sigma, Tamron, etc), with its 4/3 size, offers constant-f/2 zooms. I'm sure they're expensive, just not sure how prohibitively. Looking very much forward to independent reviews. You seen any?
Many, many thanks for your comments.
First-class response! You've given me a roadmap that's just perfect. I'd already figured among most of these options, the big questions being cost/return of SWD (sounds incredible) and f/2.0 constant speed (has to be incredible!) I have the luxury of waiting till more independent comprehensive reviews on both these features come out. Your user experience on the line-up you use will be invaluable. Many, many thanks.
I've already bookmarked the four-thirds site and will take the time happily exploring.
Thanks again.
Almost had me thinking of giving it a go, that was till I priced out some of the glass.
I think I'll stick with my $3,600(used with acc.) 300 2.8L IS instead of the Oly $5,900 version.
Even still though, it should light a fire under the butts of Canon and Nikon and for that I thank Oly.
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
Many thanks. Never followed Nikon closely, so now have basics to key off of.
You have probably looked closer than the reviews than I have, but I would be really surprised if the E3 had better high-ISO performance than the 5D. Generally, if I need high ISOs, I'll use them and not think twice about it. It's easy to write a review comparing ISO performance because it's one of the easiest things to compare. But it may not reflect the real usage. You could buy a camera that has great performance at ISO 3200, but then only use it in daylight in ISO 100.
Sounds like your already pretty familiar with the Canon EF-S glass (the 10-22mm really is a great ultrawide on a 1.6x camera). You could look over the Nikon DX line and see what there is to your liking.
Even if you never need a specific lens that you wouldn't otherwise buy, renting is also useful for the case where you want to try before you buy. You'll never get the same experience snapping shots in a camera shop that you will from general use.
It also helps to have friends who are photographers as well. If you have a compatible system, you can borrow their gear and pool resources.
In-camera image stabilisation works by moving the sensor to keep it steady during exposure. By definition, this means it does not work through the viewfinder because it only stabilises the sensor, not the mirror. So the stabilisation effect only occurs once you press the shutter and the mirror flips up.
I'm sure it will inevitably spread to more and more lenses over time, but generally I would say that you don't really need it as much at shorter focal lengths. I've shot the EF-S 10-22 and 12-24 DX AF-S at night and never felt like I needed the IS/VR.
Definitely an advantage of the Olympus system. I don't think Nikon makes any DX lenses faster than f/2.8. Generally, fast glass is expensive, so in my mind, I appreciate the flexibility of a lens that can be used on both full frame and crop cameras. With a crop format, you also get the benefit of using only the center of the lens. Of course, you also end up with heavier gear, as you point out. It's a trade-off.
Input greatly appreciated.
You're right of course, never will get better high-ISO performance out of E3 than 5D. What I tried to say is that E3 ISO performance should be high quality in terms of my particular style and needs -- (i) rarely shot film at high ASAs and E3 apparently does a quality job up to at least ISO 800, which to me seems huge; and (ii) rarely if ever print over 13x19" where E3 apparently again provides for a quality job. Hell, 5D is where I started in this quest, wonderful camera, but have to get down to something I'll actually lug around, and crop-specific lenses seem to offer the most likelihood of having the most pieces with me, not left at home, at any particular time. When Canon/Nikon increase their EF-S/DX lines to include more iterations, L-quality and IS/VR, could be I'll run right back, but right now only Olympus seems to be offering this in DSLR crop formats (along with a few other goodies like articulating screen, weather seal, etc). So I'm a little trapped, unless I can be patient a while longer, and with all the time I'm putting into learning Photoshop, maybe I will be. Just have to see. Your comments are well taken, cause in my heart-of-hearts, the D300 with DX lenses seemed a winner, yet till there's a more varied glass and VR selection there, Olympus' universal IS and Zuiko's fast 4/3 quality are mighty enticing.
I haven't found many independent E3 or newer Zuiko reviews yet. That's the way it is with lower-market-share producers. They'll come, just have to wait them out.
Good point about renting as precursor to buying. I've had that suggested before, but with all the hubbub over formats, the concept kind of got lost. May have to try that, but then I expect not that much E3/Zuiko on the rental shelves.
Unfortunately, most of my friends are into golf, not photography. Wish that were different.
Again, many thanks for your assist. All good stuff.
E3, 12-60, 50-200, 1.4TC and you're covered from 24-560mm, all weather sealed and with IS.
Hard to beat that.
Also I tried an E3 (I own a 40D) with the 12-60SWD lens and in S-AF, center point only it had the fasted AF I've ever used.
Way faster than a 40D and 17-85IS and slighty faster than my 40D with 24-105IS.
Can't say anything about its continuous AF or tracking, but the shop owner told me it's better than the 40d or D300- he sells all brands.
Anyway, if I were buying from scratch today and my choices were from the 3 you have listed, I would go for the E3 and the lenses I mentioned.
Gene
That would be a sweet setup without tons of gear - nice recommendations. Makes me wanna trade for it! Anyone want to buy it for me?
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Very encouraging input. And thanks for the line-up suggestion. Based on whatever independent reviews might say, maybe the Zuiko 14-35 f/2.0 SWD slips in place of the 12-60, and the wide 7-14 (effective 14-28) f/4 gets added at the bottom. Pretty expensive I would guess, but I shoot a lot of wide, and just think of all that sweet, sweet speed!
Thanks for taking the time. Mind saying who your dealer is? Wouldn't mind talking to him.
Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for clarification on the E3 viewfinder/IS matter. Hadn't though it through, but the way you explain it makes perfect sense.
I hear what you say about IS on wide lenses, and I shoot wide lenses, but I also mostly shoot natural light, and in choosing between higher ISO or slower shutter, I'll take slower shutter unless subject movement absolutely dictates otherwise. Seems to me IS is just one of those new tools that has come "of age", will continue to improve but is accepted and entrenched (witness almost universal use on compacts, P&S's and top-of-the line DSLR glass), so like ED and USM, it's something one goes for if obtainable, something additional to help dig us out of those creative corners darkly we often paint ourselves into.
Up till just recently, I put a lot of emphasis on using FF lenses on crop bodies to drop those ugly edges outside the used image circle. Like you say, though, everything's a trade-off. Right now, assuming crop-specific E3 lenses produce high IQ for the way I shoot (rarely over ISO 800, printing up to 13x19"), I'll accept edge nasties every time as trade-off for that one extra photographic "thing" (lens, flash, minipod, whatever) the size/weight advantage casually leads me to throw into my carrykit. At least if it's with me, that "thing" can contribute, back home on the shelf it can't do a thing.
Thanks for responding. This string's been a big help in moving me along.
Glad I'm considering only shorter glass! Still will cost a bit, though. But hell, all the high-end stuff does.