sue allen:

OK, if you;re a top wildlife photographer you're going to use the best for the job and the top end Canons - or Nikons - are tailor made for you. But if you're a hobby photographer wanting the best for your money it's not quite the same and many people just buy a kit and that's it - they don;t want a huge lens range or to spend a fortune. 

Putting Olympus out of the question when it comes to being a top wildlif photographer and limiting Olympus to the hobby photographer.
 

eddo123:

i agree, i never recommend a canon or a nikon. People ask me what i use to take my photos, and 9 times out of 10, when i say olympus they sound suprised. And when people ask me, ill always tell them that my olympus works well for me, because the menus are simple, and the quality is excellent.

Maybe it's just me (you see I am weird) but it isn't 'I'll tell them that Olympus make  first rate cameras and optics and I bought it out of preference to Canikon because it is a better system that has been designed from the ground up to get the best performance from digital photography'.

polysum:

Unless you have the cash to splash on a 35mm sensor at the very least,

Firstly is this necessarily true? My understanding is that the 4/3 forum did a lot of research and concluded that light had to fall perpendicularly (or as near as possible) onto a pixel for it to perform properly. This led to a sensor size/lens mount size combimation in which the mount is large enough to alow the newly designed lenses to bend the light so that it falls on the sensor at rright angles, thereby giving the best prssible results from edge to edge.

For this to be achieved on a full frame sensor you would have to have a much bigger lens mount and all new lenses, which Canikon do not, and their lenses will always compromise their sensors as a result.
Secondly as we all know Olympus are dedicated to 4/3 does this comment not imply that if you aspire to having the best one day you are better off with Canikon because at least your lenses will work when you finally upgrade to full frame, which you will never be able to with Olympus?

Pete McCall:

Correct They are all made to a Price

Some Olympus lenses are made to a price as are all other manufacturers, because they have to cater to consumers on a budget, but the budget Olympus lenses out perform everyone elses. Their top pro range are made to the best standard possible and many are the only lenses made by anyone that are  as wide/ bright etc.and cost a fortune.

polysum:

Comparing the pictures from a E410 or 510 sensor to those of a D5 or H3D for example, is like comparing APS film to 35mm or medium-format film. You can stick any optic you want on the front of a small-sensor DSLR and it won't make up for the fact the sensor is unable to capture as much detail as the larger, more expensive ones. Where the E3 comes in I don't know - I believe it has a 17x10mm sensor which is the same as E-410/510, so I fail to see where the extra image detail will come from.

Again is this true? (I don't know.) The technology between film and sensor is different so the comparison might be flawed. Different manufacturers have different approaches - Sigma have the fovian sensor which is supposed to emulate film by stacking the pixels like film emulsion. In that case you could have a 4/3 sensor with 30 mp all the same size as the 10mp pixels. Fuji vary the size of their pixels, etc.
To my mind Olympus have started from a well conceived point by wiping the slate clean and looking at the technology fresh and trying to figure out how to get the best from it from every angle. As technology moves on a pace I do not think the 4/3 sensor will hold them back.
Lets face it Canikon couldn't start again as they would disenfranchise all the press photographers etc. who had invested masses of money in lenses with their film cameras, so they were stuck.

Rant over, hope no one is too upset
Guy

---

My DCM Gallery

Nobody is ranting, it's an interesting discussion. I agree with everything you say up to a point, but I feel the limitations of the 4/3 system is the size of the sensor, which I don't think can be as good at gathering light as a larger sensor - at least, not with technology as it stands now. I may have underestimated the importance of having the light strike the sensor at 90 degrees. I certainly agree the Olympus system is better for the cheaper cameras which is what I said all alone, but is it truly the best you can get? Hopefully somenbody who understands the physics can give us an answer!

Can I just say as an EX Fuji Pro / Nikon D100 user I have just recently stated using an e-500 Kit Bought at a bargain Price I can see no difference in performance & if any thing the E500 have a few plus points , the fact you are not cleaning the sensor every other day ( as was the case with the Pro S1 & S2 )

---

All the Best

Peter M McCall

You only clean it every other day?! Buy a 350D and you have to clean the sensor every time you get the camera out the bag

Which is why my 410 is so much nicer. The system is not infallible though, a sthere are a few specks showing up at f22 - not that I use f22 often.

Now heres a new question: What happens when the sticky dust-catcher thingy gets full?! Do we have to bin the camera?!

It's good to debate!

My point re top wildlife [etc.] photographers was just to point out that Canon and Nikon are, at the present moment, the only mainstream manufacturers to offer a very expensive high spec, very fast etc.etc. model to suit the needs and pockets of those pro shooters. The E-3 seems destined to compete with the D300 and to lesser extent the 40D [not quite a comparison as the 40D is'nt weatherproof] - more than good enough for us mere mortals! To tell someone that it's only worth considering Canon or Nikon seems to infer that other systems can't compete on that amateur/semi pro/pro on a budget [!!] level. If you have several thousand to spend on a camera body then Canon or Nikon is the way to go.

Why do i change systems? Just get bored I suppose! I never invest in a system - never buy flashes etc. and have'nt used filters for years. I usually buy lenses second hand - my Zuiko 50-200mmf2.8/3.5 was bought at a good price, used for 9 months and sold for around the same - not a bad rental! So my current use of Canon does'nt mean that's how it will stay - although the 40D is a more than capable camera that I'll never be good enough to get the maximum out of. I'm sure it would fetch a reasonable price next year ..............

 

---

a few mediocre pics

sue allen:

It's good to debate!

My point re top wildlife [etc.] photographers was just to point out that Canon and Nikon are, at the present moment, the only mainstream manufacturers to offer a very expensive high spec, very fast etc.etc. model to suit the needs and pockets of those pro shooters.8-|]

 

I can think of at least one 'mainstream' rival - Sigma. I'm sure there are others. It really only depends on the lenses and unfortunately Olympus don't make a fast telephoto lens to match the Sigma & Canon. But I think their core market for these is sports photographers, as top pro wildlife photographers are few and far between and they tend to have very specific requirements, and would not be limited to one system.

I don't think Sigma make a camera to rival the top end Canikons - reports of the SD14 are mixed to say the least - more of a rival for the portrait work of the S5Pro. I'd agree their top end lenses are good though. I wish Olympus had got their 70-300 out a few years ago - great range and lightweight with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

a few mediocre pics

I should have said sports photographers really, but the original point was made because of a remark by a wildlife photographer.

---

a few mediocre pics

Good debate.... But.

Sue changes her camera kit...... I change my car every 2 years, I get bored, it costs a lot more than changing your camera., so what!!!

My Oly is better than my Fuji pro blah, blah...No it's not, it's different, a good compact takes fantastic shots.

I bought a Nikon D80 over a E-510, because it felt better to hold, do I think the Nikon takes better picture than the Oly? God no, but if I feel comfortable with it, so more likely to use it..

Olympus now have something to offer all levels of affordability with the new E-3, this looks fantastic, is it going to be better than the D300, 5D.. Who knows, but it gives consumers choice..

Going on about how cr-p Canon are etc, makes it sound like your really not too sure about the capability about your Oly after all..

Will I change to Olympus in the future..  Maybe, or Sony, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Lumix, Fuji, Sigma, Contax,  Mamiya, Leica, Samsung.... And any others too

---

Beefy

There are a couple of fairly long running discussions on the Four Thirds User website about whether four thirds has a future and whether magazine  reviewers are impartial.  Both were sparked off by a review of the new Panasonic L10 where the reviewer took the opportunity to wonder aloud whether four thirds has anything to offer. At least 3 staffers from the magazine concerned (AP) have been on to pop in their 2 penn'orth.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

veggiesosage:

There are a couple of fairly long running discussions on the Four Thirds User website about whether four thirds has a future and whether magazine  reviewers are impartial.  Both were sparked off by a review of the new Panasonic L10 where the reviewer took the opportunity to wonder aloud whether four thirds has anything to offer. At least 3 staffers from the magazine concerned (AP) have been on to pop in their 2 penn'orth.

 

Unfortunately DC have thought it unnecessary to provide a search function with this forum, so trying to find posts on specific topics is impossible. Can you recall where and when this discussion was had? I'd be interested to read it ..

I don't believe magazine reviews are totally impartial, because they are paid in effect by their advertizers, and losing the revenue from a company the size of Canon for example, would be on their minds. Even if they were imaprtial, it is still quite subjective as to whether one system produces better images. You can measure some things like speed, colour and light sensitivity, but you can't measure how good a picture is to look at. It will basically come down to how the camera feels in operation, and if the reviewer has been brought up with Nikon he is likely to want to see Nikon-esq features, and if he is unfamiliar with a camera he may well describe it as inferior.

If the user is familiar with the kit then it is so much easier to capture good images, because you can concentrate on the composition of the shot and not worry about camera settings. If your kit is easy to use and produces images you like, then that's as much as you can ask for.

 

polysum:

Nobody is ranting, it's an interesting discussion. I agree with everything you say up to a point, but I feel the limitations of the 4/3 system is the size of the sensor, which I don't think can be as good at gathering light as a larger sensor - at least, not with technology as it stands now. I may have underestimated the importance of having the light strike the sensor at 90 degrees. I certainly agree the Olympus system is better for the cheaper cameras which is what I said all alone, but is it truly the best you can get? Hopefully somenbody who understands the physics can give us an answer!

There is not a big amount of difference between  4/3rds and the APS sensors but there is a very large difference between a APS sensor and full frame..strange thing is everyone harps on about the difference between 4/3rds and APS but you never hear the APS owner crying woe is me my sensor is to small compared to full frame and the image quality is awefull

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full
My Pbase
My Zenfoliio

craftysnapper:

polysum:

Nobody is ranting, it's an interesting discussion. I agree with everything you say up to a point, but I feel the limitations of the 4/3 system is the size of the sensor, which I don't think can be as good at gathering light as a larger sensor - at least, not with technology as it stands now. I may have underestimated the importance of having the light strike the sensor at 90 degrees. I certainly agree the Olympus system is better for the cheaper cameras which is what I said all alone, but is it truly the best you can get? Hopefully somenbody who understands the physics can give us an answer!

There is not a big amount of difference between  4/3rds and the APS sensors but there is a very large difference between a APS sensor and full frame..strange thing is everyone harps on about the difference between 4/3rds and APS but you never hear the APS owner crying woe is me my sensor is to small compared to full frame and the image quality is awefull

You've completely missed the point of the discussion - this is not about 4/3 verus APS, it's about all small sensors - all 4/3 and APS size - versus 35mm and bigger sensors. The argument for 4/3 is that the system is based around light hitting the sensor at the optimum angle of 90 degrees, and so it may be just as good if not better than having a larger sensor where the rays it at diffeent angles.

I don't think Crafty has missed the point. The design aim for telecentric lenses was the factor that persuaded Olympus to go with the smaller sensor. Yet everyone has been banging on about how this supposedly cripples the system or is its 'built in disadvantage' in the words of AP's editor.

The discussion I referred to above wasn't on this site. As I said it was on the Four Thirds User site http://fourthirds-user.com/

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

But the original point was the way some people dismiss anything other than Canon or Nikon. A rather silly thing to do because the one thing my camera swapping has taught me is that, although any of the budget/mid range cameras will give good results, most of them have specific strengths which will suit some users more than others. Same goes for the available lenses.

---

a few mediocre pics