Nikon-Canon, Nikon-Canon, but what about Olympus?

[Lovin]

Hey guys,

In every magazine you keep seeing reviews and tones of debates about Nikon and Canon. What about other brands?
Anyway, I want to start saving some money for a new camera, because on this one, I can't update the firmware and I don't know if the new lenses will work properly on it.
Now, my question is what camera?
I was thinking "big" and aiming for Olympus E3, for a lot of reasons. I searched the internet for reviews, the reviews are very good, and amazing about Zuiko lenses. The advantage for me is that Zuiko lenses are a bit cheaper than Nikkor or Canon, and the quality, as the professional photographer were saying ,is the same, amazing quality.
Now I have the E30 option, that is cheaper than E3, but should I go with Olympus, or switch to other brand?
I like Olympus, but my worries are about the noise on hight ISO, because of their smaller sensor.
Did anyone worked with an E3?
I mean how bad is the noise on high ISO? If I wanna take pictures of the sky in the night, or to a sunrise it's gonna look fine or... ?


Thank you !

http://www.olympuscanada.com/e3/index.asp

http://www.olympuscanada.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1430&fl=4

[Lovin]

I'm wondering if it's better to switch to Nikon or Canon ?

...

[Barefoot]

I know the Canon shooter will be offended, but the general consensus is that the newer Nikon models are now the benchmark in High ISO performance.

Have a look at this site:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

[Iguanasan]

I think you'll find that this is another one of those small "r" "religious" wars -- a bit like Windows vs Linux or Windows vs Apple. Canon and Nikon are the two front-runners and each tends to do a little better than the other in certain areas so it depends a bit on what you like or are familiar with or what aspects of the camera are most important to you. If High ISO performance is a requirement because you do a lot of low light shooting then maybe Nikon should get the nod. If you are doing a lot of well lit studio work then I doubt it matters much as you would not likely go above 200 ISO.

The best advice I have heard about going Canon or Nikon instead of the "other" brands is that 90% of your photography clubs and/or courses, etc. tend to focus on one brand or the other and if you are not one of them then you may have to do a fair bit of learning about your camera as well as learning about the photography. If you share the same brand then it's easier for someone to show you how to use a particular feature.

[tirediron]

Don't be so quick to discount brands outside the "Big two". The Olympus line is generally regarded as being very good, and, as mentioned has outstanding, and (relatively) reasonably priced optics. One consideration with the 4/3 format is the crop factor. It's 2:1 vice 1.5:1, so your 50mm lens gives a FOV equivalent to that of a 100mm lens on a full-frame sensor. Great if you're doing tele work, not so much if you're doing wide-angle stuff. I can't comment on the noise aspect, but I suspect some on-line research at 'sites such as DPReview will give you some answers.

Pentax and Sony are both good names as well; Pentax is one of the original 'big names' in the consumer camera world, and their current line up is top-notch. As with Nikon and Canon, there is a vast array of legacy lenses, many of which can be aquired very cheaply, that you can use.

Your best bet is to figure out what your top two, three priorities are (eg low noise, high frame-rate, etc), determine a budget, and head down to your local camera store. Give the sales clerk the info and play with the different models that he shows you; ergonomics are very important, so DON'T buy one that you haven't played with. Once you've narrowed the field down to one or two, go home and spend a few days doing research before finalizing your decision.

[jjeling]

Ok, as a Sony(gift) and Pentax(k110d as soon as it was released) owner myself, I would never purchase a Canon or Nikon. Just my opinion. I know that they have the largest selection of OEM lenses available and great sensors but those should not be your only determining factors. The single most important part of your camera is the lens. Regardless of the sensor, your lens is really what takes the image. Good glass will make or break any image.
With Pentax being the original SLR, they still use the same lens mounting system as they always have. Any lens with the Pentax name on it will work regardless of the age and will mount onto any of their cameras. Not only that, they transmit 98% of all light coming through the lens. Higher than any other camera lens manufacturer. This is from their time spent focused solely on optical systems and means a more sharp and vivid image. It is easily noticeable when comparing them to other brands. Although they do not have as many lenses available, they have the most widely used lenses, so unless you are really planning on going to the extremes, Pentax offers everything you will probably need. The glass is a little more expensive than Canon or Nikon but you get what you pay for. I have also noticed that the Pentax is very well balanced compared to my Sony. Although more comfortable in my hand, the Sony is not balanced as well and shakes more than the Pentax.The image stabilization offered on the Sony is needed to achieve the same shots as the Pentax. Also, having such a high quality piece of glass on the front, faster shutter speeds, higer f-stops, and lower iso's can be used. I will honestly never buy another brand other than Pentax. Also, Pentax also uses AA batteries. This is good and bad. Bad, they dont last long. If you use your camera as much as I do, then even rechargable batteries last only a year, and a couple hundred shots to a charge. It forces you to keep several sets with you. On the plus side, if your on a shoot and run out, finding more is never a problem. The reason they are not as common as Canon or Nikon is because of marketing and price points. Ask around and find a few Pentax users, they are the most dedicated users will never suggest anything else.
The Sony I have is nice, but nothing too impressive. It was given to me as a gift, and I would never be uspet with a free camera. They come with a standard 18-70mm lens while most other manufacturers supply 18-55mm. With Sony purchasing Minolta for the technology in the camera's the older Minolta lenses will work for Sony as well. This makes the camera from the box a little more versatile. As always, the battery is propietary. Good and bad to this as well. Bad first, they are EXPENSIVE! And you must buy the current ones. I have the same battery from an old Sony camcorder that will not work since it is not the newest and latest. On a good side, you can pull some 700-800 shots on one charge. Sony cameras are good, but I have always hesitated with them. To me a company that gets into everything will never be great at anything. This might be a little different with camera's since the camera is basically a Minolta with a Sony name on it but it seems a company such as Pentax, Canon, or Nikon, who specialize in one industry will always produce the best in that field.
These are my experiences between the two different cameras I own. It helps to be able to use two different cameras over an extended period of time to allow you to fully compare. Either way, in no way am telling anyone to avoid Canon, Nikon, or Sony. They are great camera's and have a following for a reason. The best thing you can do is research before you buy

[Iguanasan]

Don't hold back jjeling, tell us how you really feel ;)

Seriously, though. Thanks for the input!

[tirediron]

... With Pentax being the original SLR, they still use the same lens mounting system as they always have...

Ummm, sorry, going to challenge both of those points. Pentax may have been the first, successful, Japanese, widely-marketed 35mm SLR, but it was by no means the first. The Exakta line is generally given this credit (though there are a couple of other eastern European brands which claim even earlier ancestory) and second, Penxtax has most definitely changed their lens mount, their original was the M42 thread mount, later supplanted by the Pentax bayonet (or 'K' mount).

[jjeling]

You are correct. But, the M42 mount is long gone. Any used camera store you go to will have nothing but K mounts. The K mount has been standing for well over 50 years. Much longer than the rest of the other manufacturers. As far as Exakta taking credit that is fine, but Pentax is the first company to truly perfect the mass produced 35mm SLR. That is the reason why the Asahi 1000 to the day remains the most popular camera ever used. More of those units have been sold than any other camera, including the digitals. And the lenses from them, all K mounts, can be used on todays digital Pentax lenses.

[Lovin]

Don't be so quick to discount brands outside the "Big two". The Olympus line is generally regarded as being very good, and, as mentioned has outstanding, and (relatively) reasonably priced optics. One consideration with the 4/3 format is the crop factor. It's 2:1 vice 1.5:1, so your 50mm lens gives a FOV equivalent to that of a 100mm lens on a full-frame sensor. Great if you're doing tele work, not so much if you're doing wide-angle stuff. I can't comment on the noise aspect, but I suspect some on-line research at 'sites such as DPReview will give you some answers.

****

Your best bet is to figure out what your top two, three priorities are (eg low noise, high frame-rate, etc), determine a budget, and head down to your local camera store.

I already searched on internet some reviews about Olympus E3, and it seems that E3 is better than Nikon D300, up to ISO 800. The stabilization system in E3 makes the shooting way easy, like zooming at max and your hand shaking very smooth, you can take the picture with no problem.
Now, the dust reduction is the best on Olympus, E3 got also 11 full twin-cross points, and many other features.
I saw professional photographers using E3 in studious, Eli Reeds has an E3 for his outdoor assignments (wow).
My concern about what to choose, was because in every magazine about photography they recommend Nikon, Canon, and now also Pentax (because of the new line), Sony but not Olympus. Like Olympus should be your last choice. And I said to myself : what is wrong with Olympus ?
And that's why I was so confused.
Because the software from my E500 it's not working properly ( I can't update firmware) I'm afraid that maybe I can't use lenses from the new line.
I want to buy a lens, but what if it's not working?
Also, I'm starting saving money for a new camera, and my target still is the E3, and it costs a lot of money (for me) - $1,799 - body.

My priorities are landscapes, urban and later portraits.

Thank you for your advices Tirediron,
and thank you all for your advices !

Now it's better, I'll stick to Olympus, until I'll be so good that I'll need a Nikon D3 :) lol long long way :)

[Travis]

I already searched on internet some reviews about Olympus E3, and it seems that E3 is better than Nikon D300, up to ISO 800. The stabilization system in E3 makes the shooting way easy, like zooming at max and your hand shaking very smooth, you can take the picture with no problem.
Now, the dust reduction is the best on Olympus, E3 got also 11 full twin-cross points, and many other features.
I saw professional photographers using E3 in studious, Eli Reeds has an E3 for his outdoor assignments (wow).
My concern about what to choose, was because in every magazine about photography they recommend Nikon, Canon, and now also Pentax (because of the new line), Sony but not Olympus. Like Olympus should be your last choice. And I said to myself : what is wrong with Olympus ?
And that's why I was so confused.
Because the software from my E500 it's not working properly ( I can't update firmware) I'm afraid that maybe I can't use lenses from the new line.
I want to buy a lens, but what if it's not working?
Also, I'm starting saving money for a new camera, and my target still is the E3, and it costs a lot of money (for me) - $1,799 - body.

My priorities are landscapes, urban and later portraits.

Thank you for your advices Tirediron,
and thank you all for your advices !

Now it's better, I'll stick to Olympus, until I'll be so good that I'll need a Nikon D3 :) lol long long way :)


The bulk of your research seems to be directed towards the body. IMO the current body should equal maybe 25% of your research. Choosing a system should really represent the difference. The body is often obsolete by the time you've saved up for it.

How many lenses are available (new and on the used market)?

What is the range of the lenses? Can you go 500mm if you want to? Macro? Tilt shift for your landscapes?

How do these lenses hold their value?

How quickly can you get rid of them?

Does the system you are eye balling have a comprehensive flashing system?

When sports pro's started moving to Nikon because of Canon autofocus issue's they were able to dump their sack full of lenses on the market, get good value on them, and sell them quickly.

When 3rd party lens makers like Sigma introduce a new 70-200 2.8 what mounts do you think are issued first?.... Canon, Nikon... then wait a while... Pentax... then wait more and maybe Olympus....

When 3rd party software developers release software and/or updates I can guarantee you the Olympus Raw developer will not be included until a later patch is out..

Want a Stofen flash diffuser for your flash head? Your local camera shop will most likely be stocking the Canon and Nikon.... but back of the bus on the order list if you want one for Olympus. Frustrating if you shoot on a daily or frequent basis.

This is why (to answer your original question) many pro's/amateurs stick with Canon and Nikon.

You can make great images with any of the systems (as Tirediron mentioned). IMO it's more about each systems strengths and weaknesses and how they suit up to your style and needs.

[Travis]

Not only that, they transmit 98% of all light coming through the lens. Higher than any other camera lens manufacturer. This is from their time spent focused solely on optical systems and means a more sharp and vivid image. It is easily noticeable when comparing them to other brands. A

I never see light transmission as a commonly measured aspect. Care to share some reference sources?

[Barefoot]

I already searched on internet some reviews about Olympus E3, and it seems that E3 is better than Nikon D300, up to ISO 800. The stabilization system in E3 makes the shooting way easy, like zooming at max and your hand shaking very smooth, you can take the picture with no problem.
Now, the dust reduction is the best on Olympus, E3 got also 11 full twin-cross points, and many other features.
I saw professional photographers using E3 in studious, Eli Reeds has an E3 for his outdoor assignments (wow).
My concern about what to choose, was because in every magazine about photography they recommend Nikon, Canon, and now also Pentax (because of the new line), Sony but not Olympus. Like Olympus should be your last choice. And I said to myself : what is wrong with Olympus ?
And that's why I was so confused.
Because the software from my E500 it's not working properly ( I can't update firmware) I'm afraid that maybe I can't use lenses from the new line.
I want to buy a lens, but what if it's not working?
Also, I'm starting saving money for a new camera, and my target still is the E3, and it costs a lot of money (for me) - $1,799 - body.

My priorities are landscapes, urban and later portraits.

Thank you for your advices Tirediron,
and thank you all for your advices !

Now it's better, I'll stick to Olympus, until I'll be so good that I'll need a Nikon D3 :) lol long long way :)

It would seem as though you’ve already sold yourself on the E3 or E30 and that’s all well and good especially if you already have a bag full of Oly lenses and media cards compatible with those models. I think the old saying goes something like “You dance with the one that brought you”.

I would like to see the link to a review that indicates the E3 is better than the D300 in the ISO ranges you mentioned. Everything I’ve seen contradicts that assertion. In fact, I haven’t seen it said anywhere that the E3 is as good as or better than even the D90 in terms of high ISO performance.

Anyway, no big deal. Something that did make me scratch my head was the comment that the lens is the most important part of the system. You’d have gotten no argument from me in the day of film, but with the differences in technology among the many manufactures today I’d be more inclined to believe that it’s at least a 50-50 proposition.

In the late ‘80s if you had dropped identical rolls of film in the three best bodies available at the time and put the same lens (for the sake of argument let’s say a Sigma 24mm 2.8) on those bodies with the setting matched a closely as possible, you might not have seen any appreciable difference the quality of the respective images produced by those three brands. But today, if you put that same model lens from Sigma on the EOS-40D, D300, and E3 and tried to match their settings, I expect you would be able to see an appreciable difference in the quality of the respective images produced by those three brands. The best glass available attached to a D40 won’t give you the same image as it will if attached to the D3x. Today’s sensors are yesterday’s film and they’re not all created equally.

Someone help me out here. If there’s a flaw in that logic, I need to know what it is so I’m not laboring under false impressions.

[Lovin]

Ok, first the link for Barefoot:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_E-3/outdoor_results.shtml

Indeed the lenses are not everything, but when you can get a good lens cheaper than Nikkor or Canon it's a good deal.
But, now after last 2-3 posts I think that Nikon or Canon are better options.
I think I'll go for a Nikon D300 (if is not too "high" for me).
Today I was wondering , for example, me and my wife wanna go next year to Brazilian Carnival, and my question is if I could take pictures of the dancers at 9:00 PM without needing a tripod? I mean at a higher ISO to choose a faster shutter speed. With E3 I have some doubts, but I guess that with a D300 or a Canon (I don't know which one - I know nothing about Canon) it wouldn't be a problem.

I'll study Canon also. So far Nikon looks like Gods camera(for me) :) because I know this brand since I was a child, I mean I know about their tradition. But now I found out that actually Canon got huge tradition as well.

Anyway I'll keep searching until I'll have the money.
Any advices are welcome anytime !


Thank you again!

[tirediron]

...
Today I was wondering , for example, me and my wife wanna go next year to Brazilian Carnival, and my question is if I could take pictures of the dancers at 9:00 PM without needing a tripod?

You'd definitely have no problems with a D300

Shot hand-held with a D300 and 50mm 1.4 (http://www.johnsphotography.ca/Images/South_Korea/slides/ROK%20(19).html)

[Barefoot]

You'd definitely have no problems with a D300

Shot hand-held with a D300 and 50mm 1.4 (http://www.johnsphotography.ca/Images/South_Korea/slides/ROK%20(19).html)

Very nice shot. Do you recall the ISO setting?

I’m curious. In the link provided by Lovin, I noticed that Camera Labs made it perfectly clear that the D300 was made to perform more like the E3 by having it produce 4:3 shaped images with 10.8 Megapixel resolution rather than the 12.3 Megapixel, 3:2 shaped images it would normally shoot.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this methodology employed in reviews. Did doing this have an impact on the quality of the image that D300 users typically enjoy?

[jjeling]

Travis, unfortunately the figure I had given cannot get backed up through Pentax's website. It was some information about lenses my instructor had given me sheet in a recreational photography class I took last year. I especially remember it being an exciting fact being a pentax owner. Anyways, I did a google search as 'pentax 98% light transmission' and it brought several links up. Didnt look too far but found this and several others like it. Not that you would be familiar with it, but he owns two stores, Castle Photo, so I gave him some credibility. He was a Nikon guy himself, but admitted to pentax having the best lenses. He said minolta or someone else had lenses that transmitted the same percentage as well, only remember pentax since i am an owner.

http://www.telescopeshop.co.uk/en-gb/dept_160.html

[Travis]

Very nice shot. Do you recall the ISO setting?

I’m curious. In the link provided by Lovin, I noticed that Camera Labs made it perfectly clear that the D300 was made to perform more like the E3 by having it produce 4:3 shaped images with 10.8 Megapixel resolution rather than the 12.3 Megapixel, 3:2 shaped images it would normally shoot.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this methodology employed in reviews. Did doing this have an impact on the quality of the image that D300 users typically enjoy?


I think they just crop off the sides on the D300 so the image appears uniform with the 4:3 format

[tirediron]

Very nice shot. Do you recall the ISO setting?
Thanks - Not off hand; you should be able to pull the EXIF data off of the image (I can't do that at work)


I’m curious. In the link provided by Lovin, I noticed that Camera Labs made it perfectly clear that the D300 was made to perform more like the E3 by having it produce 4:3 shaped images with 10.8 Megapixel resolution rather than the 12.3 Megapixel, 3:2 shaped images it would normally shoot.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this methodology employed in reviews. Did doing this have an impact on the quality of the image that D300 users typically enjoy?

Interesting; I know nothing about this. Apparently more research is required. Tks!

[tomorrowstreasures]

One consideration with the 4/3 format is the crop factor. It's 2:1 vice 1.5:1, so your 50mm lens gives a FOV equivalent to that of a 100mm lens on a full-frame sensor.




TI - would you be interested in showing some images that would illustrate what these numbers mean? I am a visual learner and soooo do not get it. :(

[tomorrowstreasures]

You'd definitely have no problems with a D300

Shot hand-held with a D300 and 50mm 1.4 (http://www.johnsphotography.ca/Images/South_Korea/slides/ROK%20(19).html)
that image was amazing! It would look really cool as an hdr too!

[tirediron]

that image was amazing! It would look really cool as an hdr too!

Thanks!

ISO 1000, 1/50, f10 (Why f10 you ask? I have NO idea! :confused: )

[Lovin]

You took that one on manual or aperture priority ?

[tirediron]

You took that one on manual or aperture priority ?

It was shutter priority; what I meant was: I have no idea why I didn't notice my aperture was so needlessly high and dial down the other settings.

[Michaelaw]

My first ever digital camera was an Agfa 2.3 mp that blew up a month or two after I bought it....Worst camera in the known universe but it was only $200.00 and change. Next, a friend gave me a Minolta Dimage 4 mp and that hooked me but it was basically a point and shoot. I decided to buy a DSLR but had a lot of trouble swallowing the price tags of the Nikon's and Canons. I then found an Olympus E-500 8 mp camera with a two lens kit for $799.00 new and went for it. The old 500 was missing stuff like live view (which I rarely use) and OIS so I eventually moved up to the E-510 10.1 mp. Had I not been impressed with my 500, I would have probably jumped over to Nikon or Canon right there but I was hooked on the Oly line and still am. I've moved into the E-3 now and love it. Iv'e never had a speck of dust on a shot made with any of the E-system cameras, never had a failure in three years. The E-3 has gotten very wet at times as I shoot in the rain a lot. The E-3 articulating LCD is awesome,, no more laying on the ground to get that low shot. I've had one stuck pixel on the E-3 sensor but I ran pixel mapping on the camera and it's gone. I also have two remote flash heads, an FL-36r and an FL-50r which can be controlled wireless from the camera. The 4/3 system gives outstanding quality and sharpness edge to edge of the image. If you want to shoot high ISO images up to 3200 a lot, you may want to fork out for the Nikon as the OLY E-3 really doesn't like Much past 1600. I've seen some very good work at ISO 2000. For me, the E-3 is a truly outstanding camera at a reasonable price and you can't beat Zuiko glass either for quality or price. I won't lie though....If I had ten grand sitting around, I'd be picking up a Nikon D700, I know the body is only 4 grand, but I'd need my preferred three lens's too. Nope, I'm sticking with my E-3 for a good long while yet:goodvibes

[Lovin]

Thank you, Michaelaw.

[masp]

Travis, unfortunately the figure I had given cannot get backed up through Pentax's website. It was some information about lenses my instructor had given me sheet in a recreational photography class I took last year. I especially remember it being an exciting fact being a pentax owner. Anyways, I did a google search as 'pentax 98% light transmission' and it brought several links up. Didnt look too far but found this and several others like it. Not that you would be familiar with it, but he owns two stores, Castle Photo, so I gave him some credibility. He was a Nikon guy himself, but admitted to pentax having the best lenses. He said minolta or someone else had lenses that transmitted the same percentage as well, only remember pentax since i am an owner.

http://www.telescopeshop.co.uk/en-gb/dept_160.html

Hmm, too bad that link seems to be down. Pentax's 98% tranmission is a very interesting factoid though.

Being able to rent lenses, equipment or bodies is handy though, I imagine this is another reason why pros favor Canon and Nikon. The quality of the particular body is important, but it seems that the market is so competitive now that everything in this area is close to even.