I see the old 'Canon is the brand used most by professionals- should I therefore be using Canon?' notion has appeared again. Does the lack of a 'pro' model Olympus make the brand any less desirable for amateur/enthusiast photographers? Does the fact that Canon have cornered most of the sports pro market  with their to end, expensive models,have that much relevance to the average hobbyist? Do you ever feel you have to justify your use of Olympus amongst all those Canikon users?

---

a few mediocre pics

I think with newer entrants into the world of photography there is an ignorance of the size and competence of the competition to Canikon. It's a 'I have a Nikon D200, so it must be the best' type of thing. And to these the likes of Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc. don't get a look in because they perceive that they would be buying second best, which is a pity because I do believe that there is no way they could tell the difference in the results from any of them, and so they are doing themselves out of a choice of ergonomics, features, size, looks etc. by limiting their choices to 2 brands.

Then there was the letter by Harry Bristow in last month's mag in which he said  about the Olympus 4/3 system '.. I can't see how a system that isn't a mainstream brand can possibly be considered a good investment'. (His view that Olympus isn't a mainstream brand is an example of the above).Well people were very skeptical about the 35mm film format when it first came out because of its small size and therefore its capability of producing grainless, sharp enlargements against the established norm. Didn't stop that from being a success though. But the 4/3 system does produce spectacular results and I doubt if anyone could tell the difference looking at a photograph. Honestly, give the best photographer on this site (won't call names) a few dslrs and tell him/her to take the same picture with each one and I bet the differences would be so subjective as to be irrelevant.

To my mind the biggest step up is to a dslr, not which brand.

Sorry folks, I've rambled a bit.

Guy

---

My DCM Gallery

One thing that's rather amusing is the way some Olympus users look for faults in the system. Noise used to be the big issue - deal with that, and it's dynamic range that lets them down! It is very difficult to recommend a camera to anyone unless you know exactly what the wants and needs of the potential buyer are. Some are definitely better for some things than others. And I have used a fair few! I suppose the term 'investment' could refeer to buying lots of expensive lenses for a system that's going nowhere. But a large proportion of lower end DSLR buyers probably never buy more than the kit lenses or the odd budget lens so that should'nt be an issue. At least Panasonic and Leica are using 4/3 now - more options, more lenses - can't be bad!

---

a few mediocre pics

Morning Sue, just wondering how the 42-54 lens is performing, thinking of getting one, already checked this shot in your thread and looks to give quite a W/A too. would be obliged on some feedback on it, Regards Donny

Sorry Sue, should read 14-54 lens. im getting worse by the day..lol Donny

The 14-54mm is very good if you want the extra the f.2.8 gives and the weatherproofing. As might be expected, it's good edge to edge and wide open. A definite step up from the 14-45mm I found. I don't actually have mine any longer. I use the 50-200mm f2.8/3.5 most of the time and selling the 14-54 gave me a good part of what I paid for my 510. The 14-42mm that came with that is perfectly adequate for what I want in a short zoom. The concensus seems to be that the new 14-42mm is a bit better than the old 14-45mm [closer focussing for one thing] but the old 40-150mm might still be a tad better than the new model in some respects [and slightly faster]. I rather fancy one of the new 40-150 models simply because they're so tiny and, used on the e-400, there would be no excuse for not taking out a camera because it's too big and heavy!

If the range of the 14-54mm is what you want then I'd recommend it as a nice lens to use - 11-22mm is an indulgence I'd like but can't afford!

---

a few mediocre pics

Thanks Sue for the info, appreciated and noted. 11-22 would be nice, need a lottery win though..lol. Will be looking into the 14-54 me thinks , so once again my thanks. Donny

sue allen:

 11-22mm is an indulgence I'd like but can't afford!

Ahh but you would not think it a indulgance once you were using it Sue

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full

My Photo Galleries
My Flickr

sue allen:

Do you ever feel you have to justify your use of Olympus amongst all those Canikon users?

I use Canon, and won't hold back what I think about the DSLR I use. However, I much prefer to let the photos speak, as opposed to saying "I USED THAT BODY WITH THAT WHITE LENS, BECAUSE THE CHROMATIC ABBERATION AND...etc... ISN'T THE CAMERA BRILLIANT? AREN'T I CLEVER FOR CHOOSING THIS CAMERA? I'M ONE OF YOU GUYS, ISN'T THAT GREAT?".

Photographers should never have to justify their choice of equipment. Does the camera equipment deliver the photos, or is the camera being stuck on a pedestal for the magpies to feast upon?

---

Galleries: Monochrome : The best

Boltondave:

sue allen:

Do you ever feel you have to justify your use of Olympus amongst all those Canikon users?

I use Canon, and won't hold back what I think about the DSLR I use. However, I much prefer to let the photos speak, as opposed to saying "I USED THAT BODY WITH THAT WHITE LENS, BECAUSE THE CHROMATIC ABBERATION AND...etc... ISN'T THE CAMERA BRILLIANT? AREN'T I CLEVER FOR CHOOSING THIS CAMERA? I'M ONE OF YOU GUYS, ISN'T THAT GREAT?". Photographers should never have to justify their choice of equipment. Does the camera equipment deliver the photos, or is the camera being stuck on a pedestal for the magpies to feast upon?

Absolutely Dave!

---

My DCM Gallery

Boltondave:

sue allen:

Do you ever feel you have to justify your use of Olympus amongst all those Canikon users?

I use Canon, and won't hold back what I think about the DSLR I use. However, I much prefer to let the photos speak, as opposed to saying "I USED THAT BODY WITH THAT WHITE LENS, BECAUSE THE CHROMATIC ABBERATION AND...etc... ISN'T THE CAMERA BRILLIANT? AREN'T I CLEVER FOR CHOOSING THIS CAMERA? I'M ONE OF YOU GUYS, ISN'T THAT GREAT?". Photographers should never have to justify their choice of equipment. Does the camera equipment deliver the photos, or is the camera being stuck on a pedestal for the magpies to feast upon?

I could not agree more Dave.

One of the downsides of the digital age has been the influx of gearheads. Not at all like the old photographic community back in the film days - where anyone carrying a better camera actually loved the art of photography, and was only too willing to chat about it, regardless of what equipment you
might be using. Gearheads get downright hostile if your brand isn't their brand.

And any discusion is usally followed by the usual marketing banter, as if one buys a camera to study the market. I bought mine to take photographs.These days, I shrug off the gearhead attacks with a simple - 'it works for me'.

Like it or not, the camera itself doesn't make that much difference. It's the person behind the viewfinder that is still the most critical component. All systems have their limitations, it's a matter of knowing what one wants to accomplish, and what one has to do to achieve that shot. I'm still
learning. And probably will be on my deathbed - hold the camera up, I see a great shot of the ceiling tiles.

Gearheads rarely show their portfolio, because it consists mainly of credit card bills. What? Actually get creative? This isn't about photography, it's war! It's about justifying one's own judgment in how they squander money.
The last thing they want to hear is that after hours poring over spec sheets, they made the Wrong Choice. Camera companies must love people like this. Spending machines, I believe they're called.


The arrogant, rude gearheads? They should go back to audio gear.

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full

My Photo Galleries
My Flickr

Ah - but along with the age of the digital camera came the age of the internet - it was easier to shoose when you went along to your local camera shop to see what the best buy in an SLR was at the time! My first proper camera was a Nikon FG  - small, metal body,lovely shutter action - and if the battery failed you could still set 1/80 and snap away all day. Nobody told me it was either good or bad - I just used it - then, affordable AF came in ...and I could'nt resist! The difference back then was that 'upgrades' seemed to come along far less often. I must admit that my indulgence is having cameras that I enjoy handling and using!

---

a few mediocre pics

What were you pointing that olympus at this weekend? Nothing much happening around here - whats new!

---

a few mediocre pics

I went to Riverside Festival in Nottm with Browndog and Klockhart, there's a few pics up about the place, one more won't hurt

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

Sue - theat is a great picture of the Canada Geese, so sharp, and their reflections in the water, just superb. (Still a little large to see all at once though)

Veggie - lovely colours and detailing on the engine.

I've not been doing much, but took this this afternoon in between rain storms, of two wet Carib Grackles a.k.a. blackbirds

---

My DCM Gallery