hello y'all~
im planning to get my first digital SLR camera. Im thinking about getting Olympus Evolt E-500. Do you guys recommend any other DSLR cameras?? thx~
I seriously don't believe you can go wrong with either the Olympus E-500 or for instance the Nikon D50 or the Canon Digital Rebel 300XT. They all are nice cameras, that can offer a lot to someone new to a DSLR.
The question is: what do you want to shoot now, and eventually? After all, buying a DSLR also means investing in lenses for a certain system. If you do that, you'd best prepare in advance if that system will be the one you can be using now and in future.
All cameras and systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, but only when we know what you want to do could give some decent advice.
I seriously don't believe you can go wrong with either the Olympus E-500 or for instance the Nikon D50 or the Canon Digital Rebel 300XT. They all are nice cameras, that can offer a lot to someone new to a DSLR.
The question is: what do you want to shoot now, and eventually? After all, buying a DSLR also means investing in lenses for a certain system. If you do that, you'd best prepare in advance if that system will be the one you can be using now and in future.
All cameras and systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, but only when we know what you want to do could give some decent advice.
I couldn't agree more with this. Keep in mind that I'm a Nikon shooter but dabble with other brands from time to time. A friend of mine just bought a E500 package so I'll be playing with that some soon. I tried to talk him into the Nikon system but only because I like the lens lineup so much. Really for his specific needs the Oly was the better choice.
You really need to think about what you want to do specifically. You can hardly go wrong with any DSLR on the market right now (possible exception Konica Minolta) so looking at the lens lineup and how it fits your needs and budget is the most sensible thing to do IMO.
If you do not already have lenses for another system then I'd hartily endorse the Olympus. I have an E500 and my wife has a C4040Z. We're an all Olympus family and it was an Olympus OM1 film SLR before that. NO PROBLEMS --- EVER.
You will find that the Zuiko lenses for the 4/3 imaging system are quite expensive (other than the 14-45 (28-90 equiv) and the 40-150 kit lenses) but the kit is a good deal and the camera is excellent. It offers everything that an advanced photographer could want including a depth of field preview. It also syncs my Vivitar 285 at 1/200th sec. A few pros around here are using them and half of the the staff at Henry's where we shop are shooting with Olympus.
Sigma is making lenses for the 4/3 system at a very rerasonable price. I have a Sigma 55-200 f4-5.6 (110-400mm equiv) and I think it's every bit as good as the Zuiko's and it has a faster auto focus response.
Image quality is excellent up tp 400 ISO, good at 800 ISO and "iffy" at 1600.
If I had a complaint it would be that there are only 3 selectable AF points and they are not moveable --- a pain when you're on tripod.
Over all I'm can highly recommend the E500. It fits me well. It's a little heavy but not overly so and very well built. Far better build quality than equally priced Canons. Better than a D50 and probably as good as a D70s.
If you do not already have lenses for another system then I'd hartily endorse the Olympus. I have an E500 and my wife has a C4040Z. We're an all Olympus family and it was an Olympus OM1 film SLR before that. NO PROBLEMS --- EVER.
You will find that the Zuiko lenses for the 4/3 imaging system are quite expensive (other than the 14-45 (28-90 equiv) and the 40-150 kit lenses) but the kit is a good deal and the camera is excellent. It offers everything that an advanced photographer could want including a depth of field preview. It also syncs my Vivitar 285 at 1/200th sec. A few pros around here are using them and half of the the staff at Henry's where we shop are shooting with Olympus.
Sigma is making lenses for the 4/3 system at a very rerasonable price. I have a Sigma 55-200 f4-5.6 (110-400mm equiv) and I think it's every bit as good as the Zuiko's and it has a faster auto focus response.
Image quality is excellent up tp 400 ISO, good at 800 ISO and "iffy" at 1600.
If I had a complaint it would be that there are only 3 selectable AF points and they are not moveable --- a pain when you're on tripod.
Over all I'm can highly recommend the E500. It fits me well. It's a little heavy but not overly so and very well built. Far better build quality than equally priced Canons. Better than a D50 and probably as good as a D70s.
Happy imaging
Bob
I've played with one now and don't see any advantage in build quality between the D70S or D50. It's a nice camera all the same but now that I've looked at pricing on some of Oly's better glass (limited offerings), I'm not so sure I shouldn't have tried to talk my friend into the Nikon camp a little harder. The one thing I did like is the fact that in A,S, or M the shutter was not disabled just because the body does not detect a lens. I'll have to research the mount a little more and see just how useful that might be.
now that I've looked at pricing on some of Oly's better glass (limited offerings)
That's funny: I went with an Olympus, just because the middle range of the lenses: they are optically very good, weather sealed, relatively lightweight, and available for very decent prices. Which lens would you prefer over the 14-54 2.8-3.5 weather sealed lens (28-108 35mm FOV) in the Nikon range? Or the 50-200 2.8-3.5 weather sealed lens (100-400 FOV)? I also very much love my 50 f2 macro lens, which isn't very cheap, but also not very expensive, and of astonishing quality. If that's too pricey, there's a very nice 35mm 3.5 macro lens out now, that is pretty cheap compared to other offerings. The 11-22 2.8-3.5 (22-44 FOV) is a very good wide angle, and comes at a decent price. In the mid range, Olympus is competitively priced.
The pro line-up (7-14 f4 (14-28 FOV); 150 f2 (300 FOV); 35-100 f2 (70-200 FOV), 90-250 f2.8 (180-500 FOV) and 300 f2.8 (600 FOV) are pretty expensive, but you should really compare the FOV to compare. Take the most expensive, the 300 f2.8, which has a FOV of 600mm. So compare it to a Nikon 400 f2.8 to get the same reach, and take a look at that price... I can understand where the Zuikos are more expensive. It's simply a question of selling less, so to get some profit out of the research and development, the price per lens would be a bit higher. But the pro lens lineup is targeted at a market, where people should be able to earn their income with their camera bodies and lenses. Price still is important there, but less differentiating than in the consumer market. What Olympus does need is a successor to the E-1 to go with all those pro lenses. And that is -according the rumor mills- in the works. An announcement might be made at PMA this month, and an introduction at Photokina later this year?
I'm just a hobbyist, and for people like me I'd wholeheartedly support a choice for the Olympus E-system. They shouldn't even have to go to the mid range lenses (that I love so much): the kit lenses of the Olympus (the 14-45 (28-90 FOV) and the 40-150 (80-300 FOV)) are of pretty good optical quality, and dirt cheap.
The only thing you'd really miss in Olympus lenses, is image stabilization (as in IS or VR). That I'd really like to see in future, and if that's important to anyone, that could be a decisive factor. Speaking about what the future might bring.... let's wait what PMA has to offer this month. Perhaps somebody else (Panasonic/Leica?) will come with a nice trick up their sleeves.
Where the lenses are linked in this post, you'll be linked to lens reviews of that lens on Photozone.de, where they use German "Gründlichkeit" to test lenses (not just Olympus...). You'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion on the quality of the Digital Zuikos.
This is an excellent, informative post about Olympus -- a brand we don't hear much of with the Nikon/Canon market leaders. I didn't know a lot about what you've posted, so thanks for taking the time!
That's funny: I went with an Olympus, just because the middle range of the lenses: they are optically very good, weather sealed, relatively lightweight, and available for very decent prices. Which lens would
Are all of them weather sealed? I was playing with my friends lenses last night (the E500 kit with the 14-45 and 40-150) and really couldn't tell. Are all Zuiko's weather sealed? I have to say that while it may be the kit we are talking about, I was wholly unimpressed with the build of them for all the press I've read. Now I know it's a different story with the pro level lenses but honestly they were no better than the 18-55 Nikor kit and definitely not as good as the 18-70. As far as the optics I've been seeing alot of photos lately with some of the better (pro) ones that showed troubling bokeh. I'm not sure if any it's a charecteristic of certain Oly's or just backgrounds that were so bad that any lens would have had problems but it's just what I've seen. The limited offerings in fast glass (I don't consider a 2.8 zoom fast) troubles me also. You can simply chalk that up to different needs though I guess.
relatively lightweight, and available for very decent prices. Which lens would you prefer over the 14-54 2.8-3.5 weather sealed lens (28-108 35mm FOV) in the Nikon range?
For $500 I would like a constant 2.8 at a minimum vs. a compromise. Personally I'd rather have the 18-70 kit with AFS. Personally I'd just rather have some primes that are even faster so I can have more choices in low light or to limit DOF when necessary.
Or the 50-200 2.8-3.5 weather sealed lens (100-400 FOV)?
Personally I don't own alot of telephoto lenses as they don't suite my needs. I do like my old Nikon 50-300 f/4.5. I also think that there are alot of choices out there for much less than $1000 that will get you to the 400mm equivalant focal length.
I also very much love my 50 f2 macro lens, which isn't very cheap, but also not very expensive, and of astonishing quality. If that's too
That's actually one of the more interesting offerings in their lineup IMO. For what most folks do with a macro the pricing seems a bit out of touch with reality. Consider the Tamron 90mm 2.8, Nikon 60mm 2.8, Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 (yes in Nikon mount) or some of the other offerings on the market. Now for me it would make sense since I love doing macro wide open. For what I do though any system that allowed shutter release with a lens that didn't communicate with the body would be fine so I don't see any advantage, only another limitation.
that's too pricey, there's a very nice 35mm 3.5 macro lens out now, that is pretty cheap compared to other offerings. The 11-22 2.8-3.5 (22-44 FOV) is a very good wide angle, and comes at a decent price. In the mid range, Olympus is competitively priced.
The 35mm actually seems reasonably priced although for my needs I'd want it faster than 2.8 even considering the short focal length.
The pro line-up (7-14 f4 (14-28 FOV); 150 f2 (300 FOV); 35-100 f2 (70-200 FOV), 90-250 f2.8 (180-500 FOV) and 300 f2.8 (600 FOV) are pretty expensive, but you should really compare the FOV to compare.
This is where (no offense) I would be most interested in what Oly has and where I think Oly is most out of touch with reality. Now let's not play that equivalant game. I've been working all day and hate doing math in my free time. There are some things that there is no equivalant focal range match for Nikon vs. Oly and the same for Oly vs. Nikon. It's the pricing that really would kill my enthusiasm if I were on the market of those specific lenses. And the fact remains that Nikon has a host of pro level primes that can be had for a song in comparison. Nothing against Oly but it's the advantage of a mount that has change little since before I was even born.
Where is the Oly 50mm 1.4D? 85mm 1.8D? 35mm 1.4AIS? 135mm 2.0AIS? 105mm 2.0 DC? I could go on and on but it would be pointless. The coverage is there but the pricing just isn't IMO.
can understand where the Zuikos are more expensive. It's simply a question of selling less, so to get some profit out of the research and development, the price per lens would be a bit higher. But the pro lens lineup is targeted at a market, where people should be able to earn their income with their camera bodies and lenses. Price still is important there, but less differentiating than in the consumer market.
I just can't understand it myself. I feel Oly should sell certain prestige lenses at no profit even if it helps get users married to their system. Then the volumes will allow reasonable pricing. The funny thing is I know of no pros that don't consider the price of things. The justification of it's a pro targeted lens just doesn't make sense to me. I'd say most of the profit is towards well heeled amateurs for the most part when talking about high end lenses. For those price may not matter.
What Olympus does need is a successor to the E-1 to go with all those pro lenses. And that is -according the rumor mills- in the works. An announcement might be made at PMA this month, and an introduction at Photokina later this year?
I agree and actually think the successor might be relevant/competitive. I don't believe in waiting though. I've seen too many folks play the waiting game while the rest of us were out taking photos with what we actually needed/ wanted.
I'm just a hobbyist, and for people like me I'd wholeheartedly support a choice for the Olympus E-system. They shouldn't even have to go to the mid range lenses (that I love so much): the kit lenses of the Olympus (the 14-45 (28-90 FOV) and the 40-150 (80-300 FOV)) are of pretty good optical quality, and dirt cheap.
That's the thing, the kit lenses of the Nikon (18-55 and 55-200) are pretty cheap and pretty good also. The upside is you can then expand into either pro level zooms OR primes OR macro lenses and not be rather limited in choices. I know how my buddy is. He's the same way with every hobby like this he starts. He'll be buying some expensive lenses pretty soon so hopefully his needs can be filled within the system. Personally (if for nothing but macro choices) I wouldn't have felt bad if I had gotten him to choose a D50 instead.
The only thing you'd really miss in Olympus lenses, is image stabilization (as in IS or VR). That I'd really like to see in future, and if that's important to anyone, that could be a decisive factor. Speaking about what the future might bring.... let's wait what PMA has to offer this month. Perhaps somebody else (Panasonic/Leica?) will come with a nice trick up their sleeves.
Where the lenses are linked in this post, you'll be linked to lens reviews of that lens on Photozone.de, where they use German "Gründlichkeit" to test lenses (not just Olympus...). You'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion on the quality of the Digital Zuikos.
1. I don't need IS or VR for what I do. I prefer fast glass and see VR or IS of only limited usefullness in comparison.
2. Who knows what Nikon may do at PMA. I don't know why this wait and see attitude though. I'd just buy what I wanted. All I know is that the most interesting thing I've seen in months is the Zeiss announcement of new f-mount glass from them. Not in 4/3 mount though.
3. I'm not a fan of Photozone.de. I know that is tantamount to blasphemy on most photo forums but I just don't see it as useful in the face of reality when it comes to lens performance.
No offence meant in any of this. I'm just of the opinion that for the moment Oly is a limited system even if you have an unlimited budget. As far as meeting the needs of an amateur I'd agree they seem to have all bases covered. If I didn't want to do more later on though I don't think I'd have ever even bought a DSLR.
On the point of weather sealed lenses, Oly seems to love overadvertising this feature. Nikon has weather and dust sealed lenses but don't talk about it incessantly as if no one else does that. I fail too see the point regardless. How many folks have you ever heard of having a lens fail just because it wasn't weather sealed? I've personally gotten quite a few of my weather and non-weather sealed lenses wet before and didn't see problems with either. The need for weather sealed lenses is sort of like the need for a UV (protection) filter in the front of a lens IMO. It's something that people have been made to believe they need so they'll spend money they don't necessarily need to spend.
I might have to break this up into mulitple replies.
Are all of them weather sealed? [...] I was wholly unimpressed with the build of them for all the press I've read.
The mid range lenses and up are weather sealed. The consumer lenses (14-45, 40-150, 35 macro, 18-180) are not weather sealed. The people moving up from the kit lenses to the midrange not always feel the sharpness of the lens etc. improves a lot, but they do all praise the feel of the midrange lenses. I have no personal experience with the kit lenses, so I can't really judge their build quality.
As far as the optics I've been seeing alot of photos lately with some of the better (pro) ones that showed troubling bokeh.
Yeah, the bokeh on my 50-200, especially with the (weather sealed ) 1.4 extender, isn't always too pleasing ot my eyes as well. I've found that it totally depends if there are reflected highlights in the background. For example, the bokeh of leaves that have spaces showing bright light might be much less pleasing (many circles of light) than without the light. Also radiating heat can have a negative effect on the bokeh. See the following image as an example.
Naturally, the shallow DOF is harder to obtain with the 2x FOV factor of the Olympus lenses anyhow, since a normal FOV of 50 will require a wideangle of 25, with all wideangle characteristics regarding DOF. The 50 f2 has great bokeh, but that's what you'd expect from a macro lens.
The limited offerings in fast glass (I don't consider a 2.8 zoom fast) troubles me also. You can simply chalk that up to different needs though I guess.
Yes, I agree. Olympus is building their system, so I can see why they go with the big movers (zooms) first, before developing fast primes. But there are many that would like to see them. I don't miss them much, although I'd like to have one 14-ish f1.4 or so to have a fast small wide angle around town. The rumors I've read about Panasonic/Leica coming in (Digilux 3 in a 4/3 mount?) could mean good news, but I'm not sure, as it is with rumors.
Personally I'd rather have the 18-70 kit with AFS.
It's a nice lens, but for my needs (shooting a lot in Africa and other places where sand has a free game) the weather sealing of the 14-54 is a big plus. Different tools for different needs I guess.
Personally I don't own alot of telephoto lenses as they don't suite my needs.
Same here. I have the 50-200 and the extender for on safari, but I hardly use it at home. The 14-54 is on my camera 85% of the time, 10% for the 50, and only 5 for the 50-200. The 50-200 can be had for much less than $1000 nowadays btw.
For what most folks do with a macro the pricing seems a bit out of touch with reality.
You do know it's weather sealed? I agree, it's a bit pricey, but as I explained, you can't expect Olympus with their smaller sales to compete on price level when it goes beyond the consumer lineup. The quality of the lens is addictive though.
The 35mm actually seems reasonably priced although for my needs I'd want it faster than 2.8 even considering the short focal length.
I didn't get it either, and went with the 50. Others love the fact that you can get really close with the 35, that it offers 1:1 enlargement without an extension tube etc. I'm not really a macro guy, so I don't really know.
This is where (no offense) I would be most interested in what Oly has and where I think Oly is most out of touch with reality.
They're in their infancy stage in building the system. The question is: do you believe they can make it into a totally viable third or fourth mount (after Canon, Nikon and perhaps Sony/KM). I believe so, especially after the success of the E-500, and the rumored entrance of Panasonic. But it's a bit of a gamble. To get a complete system, they do have quite some work ahead. And I agree on the FOV calculation: it's a quick and dirty route, but for some consequences (like DOF), it's not true. For total reach (as in tele lenses) it works though.
I just can't understand it myself. I feel Oly should sell certain prestige lenses at no profit even if it helps get users married to their system.
True. The pro line as is, is a no go area for me. But that wouldn't be different in the Nikon or Canon lineup. There's only so much I want to spend on a hobby. But I know many who can shoot as bad as I do with much more expensive gear, and are happy to pay that. I'd say: go for them!
I agree and actually think the successor might be relevant/competitive. I don't believe in waiting though. I've seen too many folks play the waiting game while the rest of us were out taking photos with what we actually needed/ wanted.
That's why I like shooting with my E-1 better than dreaming about an E-3 that is not announced. It fits my needs, and more would be better, but I'll live for another few years if necessary. I can't say that I completely understand Olympus, but I thought the same of Nikon that did 3+ years on bringing the D200, and it's quite a marvel. Let's hope Olympus can pull a similar trick.
That's the thing, the kit lenses of the Nikon (18-55 and 55-200) are pretty cheap and pretty good also. [...] Personally (if for nothing but macro choices) I wouldn't have felt bad if I had gotten him to choose a D50 instead.
Back to the beginning: I totally believe that we worry to much about brands. Any brand can take you about anywhere right now. Just buy something, and go from there. For most photography, Olympus is a fine choice. Even for macro. See the site by my countryman Daan Kalmeijer for many Olympus macro shots. But... if you have very specific needs (like you shoot mainly high ISO, or need the speediest autofocus out there) that might mean other brands might be a better choice.
On the point of weather sealed lenses, Oly seems to love overadvertising this feature.
Let's say it made me sleep better in my African cabin, knowing that my lenses and camera body were weather sealed, and I could change lenses without worrying about dust. The system has its advantages there, and there is what I bought it for primarily. To me it's not about needing this, but about seeing this as an advantage.
No offence taken whatsoever. It's just that, as Owen stated, Olympus is not spoken about a lot in here, so I took my time to explain a few things about the system. Of course, for specific needs people might find other brands a more logical choice. But I believe that for many amateur, even advanced amateur needs, there's not a lot an Olympus couldn't achieve. May be not if you prefer fast primes over zooms. May be not if you live for the shallowest DOF ever. But for general usage, the Olympus will fulfill almost all needs. In the more exotic needs sometimes at a premium price but that's what you get when you're the odd duck. Any Apple user could confirm that.
Thanks for taking your time to explain what you meant about your doubts that you helped your friend to a E-500. As a blank statement, I worried about the implications. Now I see a lot of thinking went into that. And as stated: different needs, different tools. I hope your friend still will have fun with the E-500. And if he really wants to spend money, have him look at the 7-14 ultra wide, and the 50 with the EX-25 extension tube.
The mid range lenses and up are weather sealed. The consumer lenses (14-45, 40-150, 35 macro, 18-180) are not weather sealed. The people moving up from the kit lenses to the midrange not always feel the sharpness of the lens etc. improves a lot, but they do all praise the feel of the midrange lenses. I have no personal experience with the kit lenses, so I can't really judge their build quality.
Yeah, the bokeh on my 50-200, especially with the (weather sealed ) 1.4 extender, isn't always too pleasing ot my eyes as well. I've found that it totally depends if there are reflected highlights in the background. For example, the bokeh of leaves that have spaces showing bright light might be much less pleasing (many circles of light) than without the light. Also radiating heat can have a negative effect on the bokeh. See the following image as an example.
That's exactly what makes me wonder. That's just the sort of troubling background that I don't think any lens (zoom or prime/ Nikon, Oly, ect.) could handle. I've got someone on another forum that's pretty deep it would seem in both systems so I'm planning on picking his brain on this.
Naturally, the shallow DOF is harder to obtain with the 2x FOV factor of the Olympus lenses anyhow, since a normal FOV of 50 will require a wideangle of 25, with all wideangle characteristics regarding DOF. The 50 f2 has great bokeh, but that's what you'd expect from a macro lens.
The DOF issue is one I think may actually be advantageous for what I like to spend alot of time doing. That would be high speed macro with old industrial lenses of f/1.1 apeture or faster. I've got a few converted (Canon XI 77mm f/1.1, Kowa 77mm f/1.1, Kowa 55mm f/1.1, JML Optical f/1.2, Rodenstock TV Heligon f/0.75) but still have atleast twice that many that I need to convert. The DOF with these is razor thin and would be almost unuseable (my opinion) on a 35mm DSLR. They are tough on a 1.5 crop DSLR. I'm thinking a 2 crop Oly might be the perfect thing.
I've also been made aware of these today. http://cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm
The fact that I can continue to convert these lenses with inexpensive Nikon t-mount and macro adapters and still use them with the Oly or possibly do a custom mount on my own for less repro ratio really intriques me! There's also the Oly astro scope adapter but no one I've found actually seems to own it.
Concerning the 50mm f/2 Oly, I'd say that the samples I've seen show some pretty good bokeh. I wouldn't say that good bokeh is automatic with a macro lens though. I've got one that is pretty well know (Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro) that while razor sharp can show some pretty troubling bokeh stopped down. I've got a lesser well known Nikon macro (Nikon 120mm f/4.5) that while simpler in design and of limited apeture gives slightly better bokeh (although still troubling).
Yes, I agree. Olympus is building their system, so I can see why they go with the big movers (zooms) first, before developing fast primes. But there are many that would like to see them. I don't miss them much, although I'd like to have one 14-ish f1.4 or so to have a fast small wide angle around town. The rumors I've read about Panasonic/Leica coming in (Digilux 3 in a 4/3 mount?) could mean good news, but I'm not sure, as it is with rumors.
It does make sense. I am more of a prime user myself but I have to admit that I'm in the minority when it comes to that. Witness (a move I despise) Nikon abandoning manafacture of most of their AIS primes as announced recently. Concerning Panasonic/Leica, that would be all it would take (with some Leica primes) to finally convince alot of folks that 4/3 isn't just another good idea that Oly might eventually abandon again. Personally I don't worry about that. I'd even buy a Konica Minolta even though they are abandoning the market if I could find a killer deal.
It's a nice lens, but for my needs (shooting a lot in Africa and other places where sand has a free game) the weather sealing of the 14-54 is a big plus. Different tools for different needs I guess.
Same here. I have the 50-200 and the extender for on safari, but I hardly use it at home. The 14-54 is on my camera 85% of the time, 10% for the 50, and only 5 for the 50-200. The 50-200 can be had for much less than $1000 nowadays btw.
You do know it's weather sealed? I agree, it's a bit pricey, but as I explained, you can't expect Olympus with their smaller sales to compete on price level when it goes beyond the consumer lineup. The quality of the lens is addictive though.
I didn't get it either, and went with the 50. Others love the fact that you can get really close with the 35, that it offers 1:1 enlargement without an extension tube etc. I'm not really a macro guy, so I don't really know.
1. My most expensive and best optical zoom (17-55mm) hardly ever gets any camera time anymore. Most days I end up with a 50mm 1.4D, 10.5DX Fisheye or 85mm 1.8D, and one of my macro lenses in my bag. As you can see I agree, different needs.
2. The 35mm seems sort of odd. I know with a 60mm on a 1.5 body lighting is a problem alot of times because of the short working distance. It would seem that 35mm on a 2 crop body wouldn't be much better while the 50mm would be noticeably better.
3. Quality is addictive. Once you've had it, it is hard to go backwards any.
They're in their infancy stage in building the system. The question is: do you believe they can make it into a totally viable third or fourth mount (after Canon, Nikon and perhaps Sony/KM). I believe so, especially after the success of the E-500, and the rumored entrance of Panasonic. But it's a bit of a gamble. To get a complete system, they do have quite some work ahead. And I agree on the FOV calculation: it's a quick and dirty route, but for some consequences (like DOF), it's not true. For total reach (as in tele lenses) it works though.
I think it can work but even if it won't long term I still wouldn't let it keep me from buying something that fits my needs now.
True. The pro line as is, is a no go area for me. But that wouldn't be different in the Nikon or Canon lineup. There's only so much I want to spend on a hobby. But I know many who can shoot as bad as I do with much more expensive gear, and are happy to pay that. I'd say: go for them!
That's why I like shooting with my E-1 better than dreaming about an E-3 that is not announced. It fits my needs, and more would be better, but I'll live for another few years if necessary. I can't say that I completely understand Olympus, but I thought the same of Nikon that did 3+ years on bringing the D200, and it's quite a marvel. Let's hope Olympus can pull a similar trick.
I don't think Olympus will wait as long and Nikon did. Keep in mind that I think Nikon made a huge mistake in waiting so long to release a D100 successor. I'm sure they lost a host of die hard Nikon customers to Canon over that.
Back to the beginning: I totally believe that we worry to much about brands. Any brand can take you about anywhere right now. Just buy something, and go from there. For most photography, Olympus is a fine choice. Even for macro. See the site by my countryman Daan Kalmeijer for many Olympus macro shots. But... if you have very specific needs (like you shoot mainly high ISO, or need the speediest autofocus out there) that might mean other brands might be a better choice.
Let's say it made me sleep better in my African cabin, knowing that my lenses and camera body were weather sealed, and I could change lenses without worrying about dust. The system has its advantages there, and there is what I bought it for primarily. To me it's not about needing this, but about seeing this as an advantage.
I agree about worrying about brands. Just saying that for what I think my friend will do he might have been better off in the Nikon camp. By the same token I've got some specific needs that might be better served by a Oly it seems.
I hear you about advantages. Just wanted to clarify that Oly wasn't the only company to offer weather sealed lenses or weather sealed bodies although I admit you pay considerably for any of the weather sealed bodies from Nikon.
No offence taken whatsoever. It's just that, as Owen stated, Olympus is not spoken about a lot in here, so I took my time to explain a few things about the system. Of course, for specific needs people might find other brands a more logical choice. But I believe that for many amateur, even advanced amateur needs, there's not a lot an Olympus couldn't achieve. May be not if you prefer fast primes over zooms. May be not if you live for the shallowest DOF ever. But for general usage, the Olympus will fulfill almost all needs. In the more exotic needs sometimes at a premium price but that's what you get when you're the odd duck. Any Apple user could confirm that.
I agree with all of your points in this but just wanted to point out that I find it very odd that we don't hear more about the Oly system. I've seen some stunning work done with them. They are certainly as capable as the photographer it would seem. I've also run into just as many folks using the Oly's as Nikons (although most I run into with a DSLR have one of those Canon thingies, I guess you could call them cameras.)
Thanks for taking your time to explain what you meant about your doubts that you helped your friend to a E-500. As a blank statement, I worried about the implications. Now I see a lot of thinking went into that. And as stated: different needs, different tools. I hope your friend still will have fun with the E-500. And if he really wants to spend money, have him look at the 7-14 ultra wide, and the 50 with the EX-25 extension tube.
No problem. As far as those lenses go, I can guarentee he'll decide he needs them within a month from now.
Sure hope this doesn't turn into an argument. When I said that I thought the E500 was better than a D50 perhaps I should have made it clear that I don't think that Nikon makes an inferior camera. We all know Nikon's reputation and they simply are not capable of making a bad product. What I meant was that the D50 has too much functionality (of the sort that's important to me, at least) buried in the menus whereas the Olympus has most of the good stuff accessable via dedicated buttons or, at the very worst, on the first menu page.
It's a close horse race but with Sigma and Panasonic and Fuji getting involved in the 4/3 system it could be interesting to watch. Lens availability will be a bonus. I'd love to see what Panasonic can do with some Lieca offerings in the 4/3 system.
It seems to be a tendancy of mine that I don't go with the flow. I could have bought a D70s and had a very excellent camera for a little more money but I'm happy with my choice and it'll be interesting to see how
Olympus develops this fledgling of theirs.
I don't see this as an argument. Happily not. If I would have thought mynakedsoda was looking for an argument, I'd not have replied. We're just working out the (dis)advantages for us in diverse systems, that's all. And agreeing that most systems can do almost anything. It's fun talking Olympus for a change in here. I'm sorry that we detoured the original question, but hopefully there's some stuff that interests someone looking into the Olympus system in our posts.
I don't see this as an argument. Happily not. If I would have thought mynakedsoda was looking for an argument, I'd not have replied. We're just working out the (dis)advantages for us in diverse systems, that's all. And agreeing that most systems can do almost anything. It's fun talking Olympus for a change in here. I'm sorry that we detoured the original question, but hopefully there's some stuff that interests someone looking into the Olympus system in our posts.
I agree with this. I certainly don't see any argument in our discussion. My comment before was only pertaining to perceived build quality concerning D50 and E500. I've actually enjoyed this discussion. It's got me doing some research in the Oly system and is one of the very few I've ever seen with two brands discussed that didn't break down into an outright flame war. It's always fun when I feel I've learned something new. :
Comments
The question is: what do you want to shoot now, and eventually? After all, buying a DSLR also means investing in lenses for a certain system. If you do that, you'd best prepare in advance if that system will be the one you can be using now and in future.
All cameras and systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, but only when we know what you want to do could give some decent advice.
You really need to think about what you want to do specifically. You can hardly go wrong with any DSLR on the market right now (possible exception Konica Minolta) so looking at the lens lineup and how it fits your needs and budget is the most sensible thing to do IMO.
You will find that the Zuiko lenses for the 4/3 imaging system are quite expensive (other than the 14-45 (28-90 equiv) and the 40-150 kit lenses) but the kit is a good deal and the camera is excellent. It offers everything that an advanced photographer could want including a depth of field preview. It also syncs my Vivitar 285 at 1/200th sec. A few pros around here are using them and half of the the staff at Henry's where we shop are shooting with Olympus.
Sigma is making lenses for the 4/3 system at a very rerasonable price. I have a Sigma 55-200 f4-5.6 (110-400mm equiv) and I think it's every bit as good as the Zuiko's and it has a faster auto focus response.
Image quality is excellent up tp 400 ISO, good at 800 ISO and "iffy" at 1600.
If I had a complaint it would be that there are only 3 selectable AF points and they are not moveable --- a pain when you're on tripod.
Over all I'm can highly recommend the E500. It fits me well. It's a little heavy but not overly so and very well built. Far better build quality than equally priced Canons. Better than a D50 and probably as good as a D70s.
Happy imaging
Bob
The pro line-up (7-14 f4 (14-28 FOV); 150 f2 (300 FOV); 35-100 f2 (70-200 FOV), 90-250 f2.8 (180-500 FOV) and 300 f2.8 (600 FOV) are pretty expensive, but you should really compare the FOV to compare. Take the most expensive, the 300 f2.8, which has a FOV of 600mm. So compare it to a Nikon 400 f2.8 to get the same reach, and take a look at that price... I can understand where the Zuikos are more expensive. It's simply a question of selling less, so to get some profit out of the research and development, the price per lens would be a bit higher. But the pro lens lineup is targeted at a market, where people should be able to earn their income with their camera bodies and lenses. Price still is important there, but less differentiating than in the consumer market. What Olympus does need is a successor to the E-1 to go with all those pro lenses. And that is -according the rumor mills- in the works. An announcement might be made at PMA this month, and an introduction at Photokina later this year?
I'm just a hobbyist, and for people like me I'd wholeheartedly support a choice for the Olympus E-system. They shouldn't even have to go to the mid range lenses (that I love so much): the kit lenses of the Olympus (the 14-45 (28-90 FOV) and the 40-150 (80-300 FOV)) are of pretty good optical quality, and dirt cheap.
The only thing you'd really miss in Olympus lenses, is image stabilization (as in IS or VR). That I'd really like to see in future, and if that's important to anyone, that could be a decisive factor. Speaking about what the future might bring.... let's wait what PMA has to offer this month. Perhaps somebody else (Panasonic/Leica?) will come with a nice trick up their sleeves.
Where the lenses are linked in this post, you'll be linked to lens reviews of that lens on Photozone.de, where they use German "Gründlichkeit" to test lenses (not just Olympus...). You'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion on the quality of the Digital Zuikos.
Personally I don't own alot of telephoto lenses as they don't suite my needs. I do like my old Nikon 50-300 f/4.5. I also think that there are alot of choices out there for much less than $1000 that will get you to the 400mm equivalant focal length.
That's actually one of the more interesting offerings in their lineup IMO. For what most folks do with a macro the pricing seems a bit out of touch with reality. Consider the Tamron 90mm 2.8, Nikon 60mm 2.8, Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 (yes in Nikon mount) or some of the other offerings on the market. Now for me it would make sense since I love doing macro wide open. For what I do though any system that allowed shutter release with a lens that didn't communicate with the body would be fine so I don't see any advantage, only another limitation.
The 35mm actually seems reasonably priced although for my needs I'd want it faster than 2.8 even considering the short focal length.
The 11-22 almost seems reasonably priced. Almost.
Where is the Oly 50mm 1.4D? 85mm 1.8D? 35mm 1.4AIS? 135mm 2.0AIS? 105mm 2.0 DC? I could go on and on but it would be pointless. The coverage is there but the pricing just isn't IMO.
I just can't understand it myself. I feel Oly should sell certain prestige lenses at no profit even if it helps get users married to their system. Then the volumes will allow reasonable pricing. The funny thing is I know of no pros that don't consider the price of things. The justification of it's a pro targeted lens just doesn't make sense to me. I'd say most of the profit is towards well heeled amateurs for the most part when talking about high end lenses. For those price may not matter. I agree and actually think the successor might be relevant/competitive. I don't believe in waiting though. I've seen too many folks play the waiting game while the rest of us were out taking photos with what we actually needed/ wanted. That's the thing, the kit lenses of the Nikon (18-55 and 55-200) are pretty cheap and pretty good also. The upside is you can then expand into either pro level zooms OR primes OR macro lenses and not be rather limited in choices. I know how my buddy is. He's the same way with every hobby like this he starts. He'll be buying some expensive lenses pretty soon so hopefully his needs can be filled within the system. Personally (if for nothing but macro choices) I wouldn't have felt bad if I had gotten him to choose a D50 instead. 1. I don't need IS or VR for what I do. I prefer fast glass and see VR or IS of only limited usefullness in comparison.
2. Who knows what Nikon may do at PMA. I don't know why this wait and see attitude though. I'd just buy what I wanted. All I know is that the most interesting thing I've seen in months is the Zeiss announcement of new f-mount glass from them. Not in 4/3 mount though.
3. I'm not a fan of Photozone.de. I know that is tantamount to blasphemy on most photo forums but I just don't see it as useful in the face of reality when it comes to lens performance.
No offence meant in any of this. I'm just of the opinion that for the moment Oly is a limited system even if you have an unlimited budget. As far as meeting the needs of an amateur I'd agree they seem to have all bases covered. If I didn't want to do more later on though I don't think I'd have ever even bought a DSLR.
On the point of weather sealed lenses, Oly seems to love overadvertising this feature. Nikon has weather and dust sealed lenses but don't talk about it incessantly as if no one else does that. I fail too see the point regardless. How many folks have you ever heard of having a lens fail just because it wasn't weather sealed? I've personally gotten quite a few of my weather and non-weather sealed lenses wet before and didn't see problems with either. The need for weather sealed lenses is sort of like the need for a UV (protection) filter in the front of a lens IMO. It's something that people have been made to believe they need so they'll spend money they don't necessarily need to spend.
The mid range lenses and up are weather sealed. The consumer lenses (14-45, 40-150, 35 macro, 18-180) are not weather sealed. The people moving up from the kit lenses to the midrange not always feel the sharpness of the lens etc. improves a lot, but they do all praise the feel of the midrange lenses. I have no personal experience with the kit lenses, so I can't really judge their build quality.
Yeah, the bokeh on my 50-200, especially with the (weather sealed
Naturally, the shallow DOF is harder to obtain with the 2x FOV factor of the Olympus lenses anyhow, since a normal FOV of 50 will require a wideangle of 25, with all wideangle characteristics regarding DOF. The 50 f2 has great bokeh, but that's what you'd expect from a macro lens.
Yes, I agree. Olympus is building their system, so I can see why they go with the big movers (zooms) first, before developing fast primes. But there are many that would like to see them. I don't miss them much, although I'd like to have one 14-ish f1.4 or so to have a fast small wide angle around town. The rumors I've read about Panasonic/Leica coming in (Digilux 3 in a 4/3 mount?) could mean good news, but I'm not sure, as it is with rumors.
It's a nice lens, but for my needs (shooting a lot in Africa and other places where sand has a free game) the weather sealing of the 14-54 is a big plus. Different tools for different needs I guess.
Same here. I have the 50-200 and the extender for on safari, but I hardly use it at home. The 14-54 is on my camera 85% of the time, 10% for the 50, and only 5 for the 50-200. The 50-200 can be had for much less than $1000 nowadays btw.
You do know it's weather sealed?
I didn't get it either, and went with the 50. Others love the fact that you can get really close with the 35, that it offers 1:1 enlargement without an extension tube etc. I'm not really a macro guy, so I don't really know.
True. The pro line as is, is a no go area for me. But that wouldn't be different in the Nikon or Canon lineup. There's only so much I want to spend on a hobby. But I know many who can shoot as bad as I do with much more expensive gear, and are happy to pay that. I'd say: go for them!
That's why I like shooting with my E-1 better than dreaming about an E-3 that is not announced. It fits my needs, and more would be better, but I'll live for another few years if necessary. I can't say that I completely understand Olympus, but I thought the same of Nikon that did 3+ years on bringing the D200, and it's quite a marvel. Let's hope Olympus can pull a similar trick.
Back to the beginning: I totally believe that we worry to much about brands. Any brand can take you about anywhere right now. Just buy something, and go from there. For most photography, Olympus is a fine choice. Even for macro. See the site by my countryman Daan Kalmeijer for many Olympus macro shots. But... if you have very specific needs (like you shoot mainly high ISO, or need the speediest autofocus out there) that might mean other brands might be a better choice.
Let's say it made me sleep better in my African cabin, knowing that my lenses and camera body were weather sealed, and I could change lenses without worrying about dust. The system has its advantages there, and there is what I bought it for primarily. To me it's not about needing this, but about seeing this as an advantage.
No offence taken whatsoever. It's just that, as Owen stated, Olympus is not spoken about a lot in here, so I took my time to explain a few things about the system. Of course, for specific needs people might find other brands a more logical choice. But I believe that for many amateur, even advanced amateur needs, there's not a lot an Olympus couldn't achieve. May be not if you prefer fast primes over zooms. May be not if you live for the shallowest DOF ever. But for general usage, the Olympus will fulfill almost all needs. In the more exotic needs sometimes at a premium price but that's what you get when you're the odd duck. Any Apple user could confirm that.
Thanks for taking your time to explain what you meant about your doubts that you helped your friend to a E-500. As a blank statement, I worried about the implications. Now I see a lot of thinking went into that. And as stated: different needs, different tools. I hope your friend still will have fun with the E-500. And if he really wants to spend money, have him look at the 7-14 ultra wide, and the 50 with the EX-25 extension tube.
The DOF issue is one I think may actually be advantageous for what I like to spend alot of time doing. That would be high speed macro with old industrial lenses of f/1.1 apeture or faster. I've got a few converted (Canon XI 77mm f/1.1, Kowa 77mm f/1.1, Kowa 55mm f/1.1, JML Optical f/1.2, Rodenstock TV Heligon f/0.75) but still have atleast twice that many that I need to convert. The DOF with these is razor thin and would be almost unuseable (my opinion) on a 35mm DSLR. They are tough on a 1.5 crop DSLR. I'm thinking a 2 crop Oly might be the perfect thing.
I've also been made aware of these today.
http://cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm
The fact that I can continue to convert these lenses with inexpensive Nikon t-mount and macro adapters and still use them with the Oly or possibly do a custom mount on my own for less repro ratio really intriques me! There's also the Oly astro scope adapter but no one I've found actually seems to own it.
Concerning the 50mm f/2 Oly, I'd say that the samples I've seen show some pretty good bokeh. I wouldn't say that good bokeh is automatic with a macro lens though. I've got one that is pretty well know (Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro) that while razor sharp can show some pretty troubling bokeh stopped down. I've got a lesser well known Nikon macro (Nikon 120mm f/4.5) that while simpler in design and of limited apeture gives slightly better bokeh (although still troubling).
It does make sense. I am more of a prime user myself but I have to admit that I'm in the minority when it comes to that. Witness (a move I despise) Nikon abandoning manafacture of most of their AIS primes as announced recently. Concerning Panasonic/Leica, that would be all it would take (with some Leica primes) to finally convince alot of folks that 4/3 isn't just another good idea that Oly might eventually abandon again. Personally I don't worry about that. I'd even buy a Konica Minolta even though they are abandoning the market if I could find a killer deal.
1. My most expensive and best optical zoom (17-55mm) hardly ever gets any camera time anymore. Most days I end up with a 50mm 1.4D, 10.5DX Fisheye or 85mm 1.8D, and one of my macro lenses in my bag. As you can see I agree, different needs.
2. The 35mm seems sort of odd. I know with a 60mm on a 1.5 body lighting is a problem alot of times because of the short working distance. It would seem that 35mm on a 2 crop body wouldn't be much better while the 50mm would be noticeably better.
3. Quality is addictive. Once you've had it, it is hard to go backwards any.
I'd mirror that sentiment. Lol!
I don't think Olympus will wait as long and Nikon did. Keep in mind that I think Nikon made a huge mistake in waiting so long to release a D100 successor. I'm sure they lost a host of die hard Nikon customers to Canon over that.
I agree about worrying about brands. Just saying that for what I think my friend will do he might have been better off in the Nikon camp. By the same token I've got some specific needs that might be better served by a Oly it seems.
I hear you about advantages. Just wanted to clarify that Oly wasn't the only company to offer weather sealed lenses or weather sealed bodies although I admit you pay considerably for any of the weather sealed bodies from Nikon.
I agree with all of your points in this but just wanted to point out that I find it very odd that we don't hear more about the Oly system. I've seen some stunning work done with them. They are certainly as capable as the photographer it would seem. I've also run into just as many folks using the Oly's as Nikons (although most I run into with a DSLR have one of those Canon thingies, I guess you could call them cameras.)
No problem. As far as those lenses go, I can guarentee he'll decide he needs them within a month from now.
It's a close horse race but with Sigma and Panasonic and Fuji getting involved in the 4/3 system it could be interesting to watch. Lens availability will be a bonus. I'd love to see what Panasonic can do with some Lieca offerings in the 4/3 system.
It seems to be a tendancy of mine that I don't go with the flow. I could have bought a D70s and had a very excellent camera for a little more money but I'm happy with my choice and it'll be interesting to see how
Olympus develops this fledgling of theirs.