[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure how many lenses you really need and a lot depends on how much money you really want to spend.

And that's really where the Olympus, Sony, and Pentax have their niche market.
My friend was strapped for money when he was looking for a dudget DSLR. He was comparing the features of the body much more than the possibility for lenses. At the time, the Pentax had a lot of things going for it, including weather sealing, internal shake reduction, plus a lot of interesting software features that the budget nikon's couldn't do. For someone like him, these 3 were probably the most economical choices. In hindsight he told me he wished pentax had a lens like the 18-200VR, or some other things, but he's still happy with his kit lens and his 50mm F/1.4.

The real value for nikon and canon come into play when you are very interested in their professional type lenses.
Even with my nikon, there have been times when I wish I purchased a canon so I could get a few mid level lenses that were not offered in Nikon.

Quote:

I agree and I think for my budget investing in Olympus is a good deal. Yes, the resale value is not as great but the initial investment isn't as large either.

Agreed.

Quote:

I guess I thought maybe there were a few more folks like me that recognized the value of Olympus. I will never be a pro photographer; I will never be a great photographer; I may never even be a good photographer, but for a reasonable price I can scratch the surface of what pro photography is all about.

I think this is a perfect summary of what market Olympus, Sony, Sigma, and Pentax are best positioned towards.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are many complaints about the focus of the E-500 but that wasn't on my list. The E-510 is an improvement over the E-500 and I've read good reviews of the E-520 being an improvement over the 510. I would have waited an extra 2 months to buy the 520 but I needed the camera for an event.

That's excellent! That was my biggest gripe with the E-500. If they have made it faster, then I can see the appeal to it much more.

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you're in the market for a low end DSLR I really don't think you can beat Olympus. You can find the E-510 for $500 and in some cases with kit 2 lenses for around $600. If you're going high end, then Canon and Nikon are probably better choices.

I think that summarizes the state of affairs. I would only add that if you have an existing lens collection, then it makes sense to go with that manufacturer also.

However, for most semi-serious photo geeks shopping for a brand-new, lower-end SLR system, and who will probably purchase no more than three or four lenses at most, the Olympus package deals represent a great value. Similiar statements could be said about the Sony and Pentax lines.

With the money you save, take a course in Photoshop to learn what you can do with your pics after you take them. Half of digital photography takes place on the PC anyway.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif With the money you save, take a course in Photoshop to learn what you can do with your pics after you take them. Half of digital photography takes place on the PC anyway.

And take a photography course, as well. The other 40% is the subject, composition and exposure. 10% is the camera.

You can give me 1D or whatever the top of the line in DSLRs is now and give my camera to a top professional photo journalist and who do you think will have the better shots?

 

[bigshot]

I have an old Olympus 3030 point and shoot. It's the sharpest 3mp camera I've ever used. Great color and always perfect auto settings. A photo I shot with it was blown up and printed as a poster by a pro musician friend of mine. You would never have guessed it was taken by a 3mp p&s. If I didn't already have Nikon equipment, I would have seriously considered going with Olympus when I got a DSLR just on the basis of this spectacular little camera.

See ya
Steve

 

[screwdriver]

the lenses are whats really limting people in buying the olympus . its very limited and expensive .

and to see people in the past have their niko and canon already - they wont take a chance getting into something new where they have to get a new everything altogether.

 

[dj_mocok]

I don't mind getting an Olympus Point&Shoot, but not DSLR system mainly as others have mentioned, because of the lack of lenses. Not only proprietary lenses, but also when you want to get an Olympus (or Pentax) mount from brands like Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina.

This is the only Olympus that I really like, even until now: Although it's so bulky and looks like a brick, but it feels so right on your hand.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

The problem I have with Olympus is its sensor: I just don't see the benefits of the four-thirds format. With the exception of the more recent low-end models, size has been comparable to other APS-C SLR's; yet dynamic range and High ISO performance are visibly inferior. Also, Olympus's lens selection, while of great quality, is lacking compared to Nikon and Canon; though you obviously understood and accepted this compromise.

That said, the Olympus Micro-Four Thirds format has me incredibly anxious and optimistic. Photographers generally dislike compact cameras for their lenses and ISO performance - in relative terms, I think the format will revolutionize the camera market, by delivering on the promise of size, flexibility, and overall image quality.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by screwdriver /img/forum/go_quote.gif the lenses are whats really limting people in buying the olympus . its very limited and expensive . and to see people in the past have their niko and canon already - they wont take a chance getting into something new where they have to get a new everything altogether.

That is the argument but I don't really buy it. Unless you are going to collect glass, why do you need more than the 35 or so that Olympus offers. They vary in cost from about $200 to $7000. Canon has a lot of lenses because in some cases they offer them with and without IS and there is a lot of overlap. Nikon has a lot of overlap too. Are you going to buy a 10mm, 14mm, 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, etc.? If you're a professional photographer shooting hundreds of shots every day, then maybe you may need a specialty lens for a very specific shot but even the most avid enthusiast doesn't need 4 wide angle lenses within 10mm of each other.

Your second point is very valid just as jpelg said. If you have legacy glass you're going to want to use it.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif The problem I have with Olympus is its sensor: I just don't see the benefits of the four-thirds format. With the exception of the more recent low-end models, size has been comparable to other APS-C SLR's; yet dynamic range and High ISO performance are visibly inferior.

The benefits of a smaller sensor are the smaller size necessary for the lenses, greater reach on telephoto lenses and better cropping on 8 x 10 and larger prints. Just like everything, and we know this from all trying to find the perfect headphone, there is a trade off and yes, a smaller sensor can mean more noise, especially in challenging situations.

Consider this, I just ordered the 70-300 lens for $325. The 2x EFL means I'm going to have the reach of 600mm in a 35mm equivalent. Coupled with the IS of the E-510 I have tremendous reach in a hand held camera Admittedly, this setup will only perform well in good lighting conditions but that's what I got it for.

 

[Towert7]

I just looked on bhphoto at the Olympus lenses.

They are actually quite expensive! Quite a few of them are more expensive than the Nikon equivalent.
Just as an example:
Olympus 7-14 (14-28 effective) 4/3-Limited F/4.0 for 1594$us
Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 for 1550$us.
The nikon is cheaper and will yield better low light performance.

And another:
Olympus 25mm (50mm Effective) F/2.8 243$us.
Nikon 50mm F/1.8 110$us.
The nikon is cheaper and will yield better low light performance.

etc.

I was under the impression that the olympus lenses would be priced relatively cheap similar to the Sigma lenses. I was surprised to see they are not though.

 

[dj_mocok]

Poor ISO performance is an instant deal breaker for many people - that's also why you don't see this system that popular.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Poor ISO performance is an instant deal breaker for many people - that's also why you don't see this system that popular.

That was the exact reason I didn't settle for a P&S megazoom and went with a budget DSLR.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Poor ISO performance is an instant deal breaker for many people - that's also why you don't see this system that popular.

That is if they knew what that was to begin with. Good ISO performance is relative. I think some DSLRs are still poor in high ISO but any are better than the small P&S.

Canon and Nikon are pretty large. I'm sure people sometimes buy just on name recognition and/or see that pros use them also so they got to be good.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good ISO performance is relative. I think some DSLRs are still poor in high ISO but any are better than the small P&S.

High ISO performance is relative. For a P&S, ISO 400 is 'high'. On a typical DSLR ISO 1600 is 'high'. Those few stops here and there sure make a difference.