[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That was shot at ISO 200 1/500sec, with no NR applied either in camera or out of the camera. I have no idea what NR you are seeing..............

I think I know enough, already.

I did ask if it was jpg source or raw. you didn't answer. that tells me most of what I needed to know.

I'll stop here.

OP: don't be turned off by slr snobbery. a high-end PS cam is likely better for you than a lower end slr.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did ask if it was jpg source or raw. you didn't answer. that tells me most of what I needed to know.

Oh, you're fresh!
Do me a favor and don't direct your messages at me in the future, because I'm sick of your childish attitude.
You've still got some attitude changes to come in life.

 

[linuxworks]

tower: let me explain it to you (why raw vs jpg was at issue).

nikon tried to quiet their sensors. they don't have the low noise levels canon does (for example) and they get beaten up on it all the time. both companies have totally different looks; canon has blotchy color (that is easily fixable, btw) and nikon has luma (not chroma) noise which is more like film grain; but its not as fixable without smearing.

nikon's jpgs are processed (they all are when they go thru the jpg route). I noticed some harshness in the tonality and I was guessing it might be due to jpg 'aggressiiveness' in the engine, to try to get a more punchier consumer look.

if you think I'm 'childish' so be it. so far, I've given far more reasons behind my thinking than you have and I have not once called you a child (even though its starting to seem more and more fitting).

btw, how old *are* you? just curious. and how long have you been photo shooting?

 

[dj_mocok]

Hang on hang on, lemme get me popcorn ready for this SLR Vs Point&Shoot debate. It's always a good read especially when you got nothing to do.

But if I could offer my personal experience, P&S is not that bad at all and now they are not as slow as what they used to be.
Something like Panasonic FZ18 (or FZ20 the one I used to use), can give you excellent picture quality. I have printed large A4-sized prints from that 5MP (I think?) FZ20 and the result is beautiful.

Macro wise, I think it's easier and practical if you are using a Point&Shoot that can do decent macro compared to DSLR.
If you are not planning to do flashless night photography, and just after a decent general purpose lens, there's nothing wrong in buying a decent P&S.

By the way, P&S is also capable of displaying sharp, tiny hair pictures. I experienced this first hand before switching to DSLR.
But if you don't mind switching lens around and to pay more for a better quality picture in general (but you have to know what you really need), then go DSLR.

Now about Canon and Nikon is crap unless you go pro-grade, I think I have to disagree with that in regards to Nikon. Their kit lenses are great apart from the build quality. Canon kit lens? Yes I heard they are crap but never used one though.

 

[Rav]

To the OP:

If you plan on doing a lot of photography in low light, then a DSLR will give you less noisy images at high ISO settings, that's a fact of the superior sensor. The thing is though, how often will you be looking at an image at full resolution? I've taken 9mp images in low light at ISO 800 on my 'toy' camera (Fuji Finepix S9600) that, while noisy at 100% crop, are fine at the kind of real world resolutions that i will use - and that's before i do any kind of post processing. If you're the kind of person that likes to count pixels at 100% then you'll probably be more satisfied with a DSLR.

For the money, I'd say a superzoom will be much more versatile, and if you never plan on upgrading the lens then a standard kit lens might start to get restrictive, although you'll always have the option of upgrading later, as an when you can justify the outlay.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif One is a real camera, the other still just a toy.

Why the hate?

 

[dj_mocok]

I made lots of nice pictures with my toy camera back then.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should learn to accept that they're are worthy solutions outside of Olympus and just because it's your favorite doesn't necessarily make it the best.

Since linux and I seem to be the only ones who favor Olympus I thought I would chime in. I wouldn't say Canon and Nikon suck. They obviously make some very nice cameras. I've used my father's D80 and Canon 40D and I liked them both. They both take very nice photos. When it came time for me to buy I considered those brands but found that Olympus was more to my liking for the extra features it had and for the ergonomics. It just felt right in my hand.

I agree that features don't take photos, except when they help you take better photos. In the case of the IS built into the Olympus bodies, it really allows you to take some nice shots under challenging situations.

My father and I both shot my daughter's dance recital from about 30 rows back in a dark theater. I had the E-510 and he had the D80. Because of the IS built into my camera I could zoom in closer and shoot at a slower shutter speed. I ended up with more useable shots(none were fantastic but I few I took were good enough to print 4x6 for my daughter's photo album). His camera cost 50% more than mine. His high ISO performance is better than mine but because I can shoot at slower shutter speeds with excellent results. Of course motion blur can be an issue but everything is a tradeoff, right?

The kit lenses for Olympus seem to be better, both from my limited experience and from reviews I've read. If you're going to stick with kit lenses and want a DSLR why would you dismiss Olympus out of hand?

You want to shoot macro? The Olympus Live View feature is invaluable. Not only can you set up your camera on a tripod and not have to try and peer through the viewfinder, but you can also magnify the view so you can make sure your focus is exactly where you want it.

Sensor size? Well, I've already addressed that in a previous post. I think the argument is overblown. Plus with the smaller sensor size the lenses are not quite as big with greater reach. I am able to shoot with my 70-300mm zoom (140-600 35mm equivalent) hand held, without feeling like my arm is going to fall off and get decent sharpness.

I am not bashing Canon or Nikon. I think they both make great cameras and lenses. Why are they more popular than Olympus? Part of why they are popular is due to quality, part of it is due to brand name and part of it is due to the fact that people have been using their SLR products for many years. That doesn't make Olympus a bad camera and should be considered especially at the entry level.

 

[philodox]

Not sure how much credit DP Review gets around here, but I thought that this was an interesting comparison given the prices of these two cameras when purchased new.

[First score D40, Second score FZ50]
Build Quality ---> 8, 9
Ergonomics & Handling ---> 8.5, 9
Features ---> 8, 9
Image Quality ---> 8.5, 8
Performance (Speed) ---> 9, 8
Optics ---> 8.5 [this score is only for the FX50]

When you factor in the cost to outfit the D40 with a bunch of comparable quality lenses that cover the same range as the Leica glass on the FZ50, it starts looking like a pretty good deal. They mention in the review that anything over ISO 800 starts getting noise, but that seems to be the only big downside as far as I can see. The screen on the Panny is only 2" compared to 2.5", but it is also adjustable for different viewing angles. Oh, and it does 16/9 30fps video as well.

Battery life is not really in the DSLR range on the FZ50, but that's not an issue if you charge it regularly. I do realize this will bother some people though.

 

[Rav]

What kind of battery life do you get out of the average DSLR (if there is such a beast)? My S9600 takes 4 AA's, and with 2500mAh Ni MH i get easily 400 shots, and a spare set in my pocket.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since linux and I seem to be the only ones who favor Olympus...

I think Olympus' C-8080 is a great camera. Olympus has always been one of the best choices for point and shoots. But as it stands now, a lot of their line is getting long in the tooth. For a few bucks more, the Panasonic is better than any of Oly's current offerings.

For a DSLR, Oly just isn't a contender, mostly because of its four thirds sensor, but also because of lenses. There are so many Nikon and Cannon lenses and third party alternatives, you can always find a better bargain for the same quality or better. Olympus makes fine cameras that are capable of taking great pictures, but right now they don't have anything competitive. Perhaps if new models come out they'll catch back up.

See ya
Steve

 

[linuxworks]

actually, its the glass that oly *shines* at (grin)

people seem to buy 4/3 bodies *because* of wanting to get into the oly glass system.

4/3 is not dead. its not that much noisier or even smaller than aps-c.

in fact, oly is much much larger in europe than the US. must have to do with brand recognition and marketing (figures..)

what in N or C land can equate to the 'outdated' e3? who has live view, flip lcd, FULL sealing/protection? a guy on another forum I visit has both the nikon d3 ($5k) and the oly e3 ($1.5k) system. he regularly switches between them. they are equivalent to me, except for some rare shots where the d3 is needed for super super high dyn range or high iso. other than that, you NEED to step up to $5k d3 to 'beat' the lowly e3.

same kind of deal in the canon camp. you have to buy their top models (not even mid-grade, really, for them) to beat what oly has.

if you want value, then I'd suggest pentax. they are not quite up to oly body strength and sealing but they are great *values* and still offer more for the money than N or C does.

I keep coming back to it - N and C are fine as long as you are ok with spending a lot. if that's ok, then go N or C and you'll be with the rest of the pros. but go into it knowing that N and C will require serious spending and if you dare go full-frame, the lens prices are outrageous (but required to get to the FF level).

I actually had a lot of legacy nikon glass from my 35mm film days but I chose to not get back into nikon for various reasons and I still don't regret it.

one huge diff in the N/C vs 'the rest' is that the rest don't have history in OIS (opto image stab.). this is the 'pay again and again' camp where you rebuy the same stab. tech and have it be present in each and every lens you buy.

the opposite camp (sony, pentax, oly) is to have a 'sensor shaker' where the IS is inside the body (IBIS) and each and EVERY lens (even very old manual ones) get the multistop advantage of IS. I really liked the economy of that.

people who buy N or C find that they have to spend x% more on each lens to have that OIS stuff built in. on the plus side, OIS helps aim the camera and keep it framed better thru the finder. IBIS does not help with the finder - only the picture taking part (sensor).

buying an IS mech. once makes sense to me. that was one reason I had to rule out N and C.

 

[bigshot]

Well, if you compare a consumer four thirds camera to a professional FF camera, naturally the FF camera is going to seem expensive. But those are two entirely different animals. I carry a pocket point and shoot along with my D200, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing as the D200. Compare the D90 to the Olympus E3 and you start getting a little more of apples to apples. The D90 is the camera I'd buy if I was starting out today. It's a tremendous bargain and a great camera.

I bought a tack sharp Nikon 18-55 VR at eBay reconditioned for $120. Image stabilization isn't expensive. The sharpness at wide apertures and exotic focal lengths is what costs the big bucks.

See ya
Steve

 

[erikzen]

linuxworks, forget it man. I tried to start an Oly appreciation thread and it turned into 10 pages of me saying how much I liked my camera and what a great bargain it was and everyone else telling me why it was so much worse than Canikon. No matter what I threw at them - better glass, more bang for your buck, image stabilization, live view, form factor, beautiful photos under harsh conditions - I got back small sensor, expensive and limited line of lenses, lack of dynamic range, noisy at high ISO.

I just wanted to point out for the OP's sake that there are other cameras than Canikons and they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

 

[erikzen]

I just found this article and thought it was pretty interesting, well written and informative. It might make some good reading for someone who is torn between a super zoom and a DSLR.

» IQ: The 3 Things

I particularly liked the ending:

Quote:

Remember the old adage? The customer says he wants a car that is 1) fast, 2) cheap, and 3) reliable. The car expert replies that he can only get 2 of these. The same is true for cameras. Some common desires are mutually exclusive. As examples, a fast lens is not light in weight; a high IQ camera is not small; a big sensor is not cheap. A good way to be permanently unhappy is to have impossible expectations.

I think I'm going to put that last line in my Head-Fi sig.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif No matter what I threw at them - better glass, more bang for your buck, image stabilization, live view, form factor, beautiful photos under harsh conditions

D90

better glass (18-55 VR $150 / Oly 14-42 $250) Nikon wins
more bang for your buck (d90 $1000 / e3 $1700) Nikon wins
image stabilization (d90 stock with kit lenses / e3 in body) tie
live view (both have it) tie
form factor (Nikon has much clearer menus and better auto functions) Nikon wins
beautiful photos under harsh conditions (like in a hurricane?) Olympus I guess

The D90 does everything that matters better. Is weather proofing worth $700 plus the drawbacks of a small, overpriced lens line?

Olympus definitely makes better point and shoots than Nikon does. That's where their strength lies.

See ya
Steve