Just an opinion about the High ISO complaints on the E3. As mentioned previously, I use the E500. It is a camera that many said the high ISO was its major flaw. However, if you visit my site: http://jswinton.smugmug.com and view the England gallery, nearly every photo was done at ISO 400+ with the E500 and many at ISO 800 and 1600. They were all handheld with the 14-54 2.8-3.5, and I got great results. The E3 is supposed to be miles better at high ISO than the E500. SO, I wouldn't make the ISO an issue. I think you will be amazed at how good it is in the E3.
Just an opinion about the High ISO complaints on the E3. As mentioned previously, I use the E500. It is a camera that many said the high ISO was its major flaw. However, if you visit my site: http://jswinton.smugmug.com and view the England gallery, nearly every photo was done at ISO 400+ with the E500 and many at ISO 800 and 1600. They were all handheld with the 14-54 2.8-3.5, and I got great results. The E3 is supposed to be miles better at high ISO than the E500. SO, I wouldn't make the ISO an issue. I think you will be amazed at how good it is in the E3.
Lovely shots! Thanks for the comment.
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.
**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.
Some reviews at http://www.wrotniak.com/. I have not found that reviews are few and far between. Look also at 4/3 photo forum (Tony Spore). He has just done one on the 14-35/2SWD, plus earlier on the 12-60 and I think more. By the way, the 35-100 isn't SWD. Bokeh on the two f/2s is said to be superior even to the other two SWDs.
If you want superb quality of image, the ultra-pro line (7-14, 14-35, 35-100, 90-250) won't disappoint you. BUT even if you lighten your wallet without complaint, what about freighting these sacks of potatoes up hill and down yon dale? (I'm saving to buy an E-3 and though the first purchase will be the kit 12-60, I have my greedy eyes on the ultra-pro quartet.
But for him, all-around practicality would be the 12-60, 50-200, and maybe one of the two multipliers. I have two pictures gleaned from another forum that are intended to display the 50-200's prowess with the EC-20 (2x doubler) shot at 200 setting. No flies on that combination! And if he would like to go really wide-angle sometimes, he can consider the petite 8mm fisheye. With photoshop you can "de-fish". But several folks have demonstrated that if you just learn to use the thing properly, your photos come out just fine as-is. I have a whole folder full of gleanings to help me better understand how to use it properly myself. I want one of those too!
One thing I'd caution him, though, is to stay with Olympus glassware--at least for the present. You cannot update the software of the various brands of 4/3 lenses except using that same brand of body--for now.
They're all great cameras. Go to the camera store and hold them all in your hand. When it comes down to it, the ergonomics have a great deal to do with how I select my gear. See what feels best in your hand. Which one has the buttons in all the right places for you.
Just an opinion about the High ISO complaints on the E3. As mentioned previously, I use the E500. It is a camera that many said the high ISO was its major flaw. However, if you visit my site: http://jswinton.smugmug.com and view the England gallery, nearly every photo was done at ISO 400+ with the E500 and many at ISO 800 and 1600. They were all handheld with the 14-54 2.8-3.5, and I got great results. The E3 is supposed to be miles better at high ISO than the E500. SO, I wouldn't make the ISO an issue. I think you will be amazed at how good it is in the E3.
Have been a little tardy in responding to latest posts, got my E-3 and too busy enjoying it. I shoot a lot of natural light, indoors and out, so get fair share of darker detail areas, and do see noise there. I haven't shot anything over ISO 800, and little over 400, but considering the amount of low light detail often encountered, not surprised with noise level. I had Oly Svc Ctr check sensor, and they say it's up to spec. I'm using primarily 12-60 SWD, and sometimes f/2 50 macro (mostly for high-bokeh portrait). I'm finding excellant sharpness, just my impression, nothing lab tested, and beautiful bokeh with both. I'm very comfortable with ergonomics, rarely if ever have to dig down through menus. Overall, the E-3 spends more time on my shoulder than back home on the shelf than C/N would have given same glass quality/speed/reach (4/3-specific glass just is smaller/lighter/faster at comparable quality levels), so right choice for me.
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.
They're all great cameras. Go to the camera store and hold them all in your hand. When it comes down to it, the ergonomics have a great deal to do with how I select my gear. See what feels best in your hand. Which one has the buttons in all the right places for you.
cheers,
Trish
Please see response to swintonphoto. All the things you mention were taken into consideration, and have held their water. Thanks.
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.
Have been a little tardy in responding to latest posts, got my E-3 and too busy enjoying it. I shoot a lot of natural light, indoors and out, so get fair share of darker detail areas, and do see noise there. I haven't shot anything over ISO 800, and little over 400, but considering the amount of low light detail often encountered, not surprised with noise level. I had Oly Svc Ctr check sensor, and they say it's up to spec. I'm using primarily 12-60 SWD, and sometimes f/2 50 macro (mostly for high-bokeh portrait). I'm finding excellant sharpness, just my impression, nothing lab tested, and beautiful bokeh with both. I'm very comfortable with ergonomics, rarely if ever have to dig down through menus. Overall, the E-3 spends more time on my shoulder than back home on the shelf than C/N would have given same glass quality/speed/reach (4/3-specific glass just is smaller/lighter/faster at comparable quality levels), so right choice for me.
When time shows itself, I'll figure out how to do that. Care to give a quick walk through? Just being lazy, sure I'll work it out.
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.
OK, making big jump and uploading pic at 146kb. Using what appears to be simpler "attachment" route, will graduate to "gallery" when I have time to learn process. Had to turn on its side because wouldn't upload at 800 x 400, only 400 x 800. Sure it's my mistake. Looks sharper in original, this is less than 50% quality in PS's "Save for web..." pop-up. I'll immediately follow this with another upload showing different style. Both are in NYC, this one in harsh mid-day sun at Central Library park, second indoor near Columbus Circle. Both are photoshopped just through ACR, learning as I go. Gotta' work on those white fore arms. Nothing clipped, just didn't bring out life in them. Comments?
If pics don't appear, I probably did some dumb thing wrong. Will try again tomorrow.
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.
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.
Getting cocky, here's third shot at 132kb. Looks sharper in original, this again is less than 50% quality in PS's "Save for web..." pop-up. Shot in depth of NYC subway. Wouldn't upload at 800 x 400, so again had to turn it on its side to upload at 400 x 800. Something to figure out. Comments?
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.
Sounds like you need a Smugmug account
Or Flickr Pro but for the money, a Smugmug account does a good job of all the re-sampling stuff, makes a better job of the presentation (now with more size options) and will make it a lot less effort for you to post images here (including the orientation of the image).
BTW, nice photos. I like number 2 with its interesting reflections.
The E-3 is an interesting beast, perhaps a little on the large side for my taste but the quality of its out of camera JPEGs can save a lot of PP effort for many photos.
I've read the posts below. Lots of good advice there. In the end the choice will be yours alone. Become a knowledgeable shopper (sounds like you've done that).
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'm about where you are, though I think you're somewhat ahead of me.
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?
Lot of info there. As has been already mentioned, the sizes of 4/3 and APS-C are quite similar. The real difference is from APS-C to FF. As to image quality, Olympus has been compelled to make better-quality glassware because of the smaller pixel size of its sensors. On the whole, I think you'll find that Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, and Sony lenses (that is, the better examples of each line) are pretty par as to the results produced. All lines are rapidly evolving. Were it possible to rank all the brands' comparable models, I think the next generation of the "worst" one would be superior to the "best" one of this generation. And as you have observed, each has something enviable; each lacks something desirable. A tradeoff.
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?
With Nikon, I think "G" is the equivalent of Canon's "L". Sony seems also to be using that designation; not to mention Karl Zeiss. Pentax, I forget, but their equivalent ends in a *. When you say lighter and smaller, you have singled out Olympus/Panasonic as they use the smallest sensor on SLRs. For long shooting, a 600mm is selected by many wildlife photographers. For APS-C the same "reach" comes from a 450mm; 4/3 a 300mm. Naturally the shorter the actual focal length, the greater the depth of field. And some of that gain can be converted to faster glass (f/2 in zooms) with still very good IQ. As to articles, you just haven't been around. The ones I like best are done by Tony Spore, head of 4/3 Photo Forum: http://fourthirdsphoto.com/ and by Andrej Wrotniak: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/index.html
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.
You're too wrapped up in the nitty-gritty. Have you gone to a store and *felt* of each body you contemplate? Only then do you look at some of the rest. But that manic comparison of small features will drive you insane. Not to say you shouldn't compare; but you seem to have carried it to an obsession. Hope I'm wrong about that. But to take one thing as a starting point: the flexible LCD: Far as I know only Olympus' E-3 has it. But Sony is about to come out with one too. Surely the others can't be far behind. Some have a flexible, though not articulating LCD. Might that be enough for your needs? Fast zooms: Olympus is so far the leader, but with the furious competition afoot, that won't stay that way for very long.
Just as reference: I am a former owner of both Canon and Nikon cameras, and I have no end of respect for them. But when it came time to decide (late last year), I wandered over to Olympus owing to some of these very features, the chiefest of which is ample depth of field. Today if I were to look with an eye to Photokina, the choice might be different. I am indeed watching progress on all fronts.
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.
Comments
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Lovely shots! Thanks for the comment.
Some reviews at http://www.wrotniak.com/. I have not found that reviews are few and far between. Look also at 4/3 photo forum (Tony Spore). He has just done one on the 14-35/2SWD, plus earlier on the 12-60 and I think more. By the way, the 35-100 isn't SWD. Bokeh on the two f/2s is said to be superior even to the other two SWDs.
If you want superb quality of image, the ultra-pro line (7-14, 14-35, 35-100, 90-250) won't disappoint you. BUT even if you lighten your wallet without complaint, what about freighting these sacks of potatoes up hill and down yon dale?
But for him, all-around practicality would be the 12-60, 50-200, and maybe one of the two multipliers. I have two pictures gleaned from another forum that are intended to display the 50-200's prowess with the EC-20 (2x doubler) shot at 200 setting. No flies on that combination! And if he would like to go really wide-angle sometimes, he can consider the petite 8mm fisheye. With photoshop you can "de-fish". But several folks have demonstrated that if you just learn to use the thing properly, your photos come out just fine as-is. I have a whole folder full of gleanings to help me better understand how to use it properly myself. I want one of those too!
One thing I'd caution him, though, is to stay with Olympus glassware--at least for the present. You cannot update the software of the various brands of 4/3 lenses except using that same brand of body--for now.
cheers,
Trish
Have been a little tardy in responding to latest posts, got my E-3 and too busy enjoying it. I shoot a lot of natural light, indoors and out, so get fair share of darker detail areas, and do see noise there. I haven't shot anything over ISO 800, and little over 400, but considering the amount of low light detail often encountered, not surprised with noise level. I had Oly Svc Ctr check sensor, and they say it's up to spec. I'm using primarily 12-60 SWD, and sometimes f/2 50 macro (mostly for high-bokeh portrait). I'm finding excellant sharpness, just my impression, nothing lab tested, and beautiful bokeh with both. I'm very comfortable with ergonomics, rarely if ever have to dig down through menus. Overall, the E-3 spends more time on my shoulder than back home on the shelf than C/N would have given same glass quality/speed/reach (4/3-specific glass just is smaller/lighter/faster at comparable quality levels), so right choice for me.
Please see response to swintonphoto. All the things you mention were taken into consideration, and have held their water. Thanks.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
When time shows itself, I'll figure out how to do that. Care to give a quick walk through? Just being lazy, sure I'll work it out.
How to ...
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1083138
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=79781&postcount=13
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If pics don't appear, I probably did some dumb thing wrong. Will try again tomorrow.
Or Flickr Pro but for the money, a Smugmug account does a good job of all the re-sampling stuff, makes a better job of the presentation (now with more size options) and will make it a lot less effort for you to post images here (including the orientation of the image).
BTW, nice photos. I like number 2 with its interesting reflections.
The E-3 is an interesting beast, perhaps a little on the large side for my taste but the quality of its out of camera JPEGs can save a lot of PP effort for many photos.
I'm about where you are, though I think you're somewhat ahead of me.
Lot of info there. As has been already mentioned, the sizes of 4/3 and APS-C are quite similar. The real difference is from APS-C to FF. As to image quality, Olympus has been compelled to make better-quality glassware because of the smaller pixel size of its sensors. On the whole, I think you'll find that Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, and Sony lenses (that is, the better examples of each line) are pretty par as to the results produced. All lines are rapidly evolving. Were it possible to rank all the brands' comparable models, I think the next generation of the "worst" one would be superior to the "best" one of this generation. And as you have observed, each has something enviable; each lacks something desirable. A tradeoff.
With Nikon, I think "G" is the equivalent of Canon's "L". Sony seems also to be using that designation; not to mention Karl Zeiss. Pentax, I forget, but their equivalent ends in a *. When you say lighter and smaller, you have singled out Olympus/Panasonic as they use the smallest sensor on SLRs. For long shooting, a 600mm is selected by many wildlife photographers. For APS-C the same "reach" comes from a 450mm; 4/3 a 300mm. Naturally the shorter the actual focal length, the greater the depth of field. And some of that gain can be converted to faster glass (f/2 in zooms) with still very good IQ. As to articles, you just haven't been around. The ones I like best are done by Tony Spore, head of 4/3 Photo Forum: http://fourthirdsphoto.com/ and by Andrej Wrotniak:
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/index.html
You're too wrapped up in the nitty-gritty. Have you gone to a store and *felt* of each body you contemplate? Only then do you look at some of the rest. But that manic comparison of small features will drive you insane. Not to say you shouldn't compare; but you seem to have carried it to an obsession. Hope I'm wrong about that. But to take one thing as a starting point: the flexible LCD: Far as I know only Olympus' E-3 has it. But Sony is about to come out with one too. Surely the others can't be far behind. Some have a flexible, though not articulating LCD. Might that be enough for your needs? Fast zooms: Olympus is so far the leader, but with the furious competition afoot, that won't stay that way for very long.
Just as reference: I am a former owner of both Canon and Nikon cameras, and I have no end of respect for them. But when it came time to decide (late last year), I wandered over to Olympus owing to some of these very features, the chiefest of which is ample depth of field. Today if I were to look with an eye to Photokina, the choice might be different. I am indeed watching progress on all fronts.
Good show.
I agree wholeheartedly on all counts!!!