[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Honestly I don't know enough about the Olympus and Nikon catalogs to do a dueling lens riff with you. You picked two lenses from Nikon that were cheaper based solely on focal length and aperture. I'm not sure you can go strictly by the focal length and f-stop and make a fair comparison. How do the lenses compare in terms of sharpness, contrast, color correction, distortion?

The Olypmus lens you quote is super high grade - top of the line. It is the best optics Olympus produces. Is the Nikon lens on the same level? I honestly have no idea but in order to compare the two you would need to do more than look at the specs on paper.

Also, you are correct that the Olypus is double in terms of 35mm equivalent, but I believe for Nikon it should be a 1.5 multiplier. So a 14-24 equivalent for the Nikon would be 10-16 which would give you a 15-24mm focal length 35mm equivalent. n

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, you are correct that the Olypus is double in terms of 35mm equivalent, but I believe for Nikon it should be a 1.5 multiplier. So a 14-24 equivalent for the Nikon would be 10-16 which would give you a 15-24mm focal length 35mm equivalent. n

With the Nikon lenses (unless they say DX) they are designed for 35mm, so the focal length they say is what they are. If you happen to use them on a 1.5x crop sensor, then you get the crop effect, but they can equally be used on 35mm film or Nikons Full Frame digital.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif With the Nikon lenses (unless they say DX) they are designed for 35mm, so the focal length they say is what they are. If you happen to use them on a 1.5x crop sensor, then you get the crop effect, but they can equally be used on 35mm film or Nikons Full Frame digital.

Thanks for helping to educate me on the Nikon full frame cameras. From what I see only the two top models are FX, the D700 and the D3, both of which were out of my price range so I did not research them. The D700 is about $1800 and the D3 is about $5000. If you're going to use the lenses you listed on these cameras then yes it would be the same as for 35mm film camera. If you use them on the D40 through the D300 then there is a 1.5x crop factor. It certainly does make it a bit more complicated to compare lenses.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for helping to educate me on the Nikon full frame cameras. From what I see only the two top models are FX, the D700 and the D3, both of which were out of my price range so I did not research them. The D700 is about $1800 and the D3 is about $5000. If you're going to use the lenses you listed on these cameras then yes it would be the same as for 35mm film camera. If you use them on the D40 through the D300 then there is a 1.5x crop factor. It certainly does make it a bit more complicated to compare lenses.

It's true that focal length comparisons are a bit tricky, but FX lenses do have their benefits on APS-C sized DSLR's. Namely, DX sensors don't take advantage of the full 35mm frame coverage FX lenses provide. Therefore, a lens' image border - its least sharp area - is cropped off by the camera's sensor, leading to generally sharper images all around. I'm not necessarily implying that Olympus lenses are poorer, but Nikon and Canon do have a slight advantage in being able to utilize only the best of their FF lenses.

 

[erikzen]

This thread definetly did not go the way I had intended. In my opinion - and my experience in digital SLRs is admittedly limited - the Olympus represents a fantastic value. The lenses available are of the finest quality and while there are not as many as there are available for Nikon and Canon the range is very streamlined both in focal range and price. I haven't seen a bad review yet on Olympus glass but I do understand some people's trepidation about using the four thirds system. I understand that if you are a long time Canon or Nikon user and you have a collection of lenses, then sticking with that line is a no-brainer. The same holds true for Sony if you have Konica/Minolta glass.

I do think that the Four Thirds sensor is a bit behind in low light situations and shooting at high ISOs, but dollar for dollar, Olympus buys you more camera for your money. On the flip side, the four thirds system means the cameras are smaller and lighter making them a better choice for photography of outdoor activities such as biking, skiing and mountain climbing. For the amateur photographer who is traveling or doesn't want to lug around a heavy bag of lenses and a bulky body, this is also a great system. That's not to say if you don't photograph strenuous outdoor activities or don't travel a lot that you shouldn't consider Olympus. I think there are people out there that dismiss Olympus out of hand just because it does not have the name Canon or Nikon.

Yes, there are some compromises but I think they are blown out of proportion a bit. The four thirds system is fairly new but is still developing. Olympus has shown great improvement from the E-500 to the E-510 to the current E-520. Compared to the top of the line E-3 the E-510/520 offers many of the same features. There was a lot of time between the release of the E-1 and the E-3 but I believe that Olympus will continue to improve the sensor and no one is questioning the quality of Olympus lenses. The E-3 with SWD lenses is supposed to be the fastest focusing DSLR out there.

Knowing that my lenses outperform the cameras sensor to me is reassuring. If I continue to grow as a photographer I know my lenses are futureproof. When I swing for a better body like the E-3 or whatever its successor is, I'll be all set with top quality glass.

I hope that if there are any Olympus fans in the Head-Fi community that we can use this thread to share experiences, equipment notes and maybe even some shots.

If not, then I guess this thread will wither on the vine because it is not my intention to keep defending Olympus. I just want to put on my UM2s, pick up my camera, and shoot some photos!

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope that if there are any Olympus fans in the Head-Fi community that we can use this thread to share experiences, equipment notes and maybe even some shots.

I wonder if you're the only person who uses an Olympus DSLR on this forum.
My guess is that you are.

Either way, I hope to see some great pictures in this thread. Should be interesting to see what an olympus can take. Just how close can it get to the big 2?

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder if you're the only person who uses an Olympus DSLR on this forum. My guess is that you are. Either way, I hope to see some great pictures in this thread. Should be interesting to see what an olympus can take. Just how close can it get to the big 2?

Unfortunately, I'm a new photographer in the digital realm and have only had my camera since May. I feel like I'm still learning its capabilities and limitations and if I'm the only one at Head-Fi using an Olympus I'm somewhat reluctant to post some photos for fear that my lack of photographic skills will serve as an indictment of the Olympus products.

However, I'll go out on a limb and post a couple of shots that I took while still learning to use the camera. For the hot dog shot, I had literally just gotten the camera.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2225/...8b9df955_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/...46886f63_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/...ed508d78_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3193/...d71beea1_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/...eb1a965e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/...0a952a5e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/...69084423_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/...28a55f03_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/...26399c9f_b.jpg

 

[erikzen]

Here's what a professional can do with the E-520:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...ime=14&way=asc

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I wasn't going to play the lens game with you. It's hard to compare focal lengths and focal length and aperture are only part of the story. Good quality lenses are expensive no matter who makes them.

That being said I couldn't resist.

I just got the Olympus Zuiko 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 ED for $325 for an upcoming trip to Cape Cod. I'll be sure to post some images.

I'm trying to find an equivalent lens from Nikon but you can't even find a zoom telephoto that has an effective focal length of 600mm (35mm equivalent).

Remember that the Olympus has built in image stabilization so I should be able to hand hold this lens pretty much throughout it's entire focal length. It is light also at 1.3 lbs and is only 5 inches long. On my camera, it fits in my regular holster case, although just barely. This is going to make a great travel set. I'm going to throw a high quality circulat polarizer and I'll be all set for my whale watching cruise.

Nikon has a 70-300mm lens with VR that's at least $100 more. If you go to the 80-400 you're looking at $1200.

 

[Towert7]

For some reason internal stabilization is said to be not as effective as optical stabilization (for what ever reason). At best, I think you can expect an average of 1-2 stops saved thanks to internal stabilization. With the Nikon's and Canon's, they are still very usable at higher ISO's, so you can bump that up 1-2 stops. That's affording you a faster shutter speed, not shake reduction. One gives you internal image stabilization, the other affords you a higher ISO and thus shutter speed.

So you're looking at an effective 140 - 600mm. That's cool. When I use my 70-300G on my 1.5x D50, I get about 100-450mm. To get to that extra 600mm, I'd have to crop a bit.

Assuming you photograph in bright light, you'll have a lot of fun with that lens I'm sure. The reach must be cool.
I have a nikon 70-300G F/4-5.6 (130$), which is claimed to be just a rebadged sigma (probably) and I have a lot of fun with it even though it's my worst lens. As strange as it sounds, these budget 70-300 lenses usually don't have much in the way of corrective glass to create a sharper image. If that's the case, you can get an amazingly smooth bokeh!
Ex:

By the way, I noticed you added some more pictures up above. Very nice.
I see you are hosting them on flickr. If I may ask, what is your account name? I'd be interested to watch it.

 

[erikzen]

I've seen a lot of people comment that the in lens stabilization is far superior to the in body stabilization. In practice for enthusiasts, I suspect there is little difference. The end result is that you can shoot at least 3 stops lower. I can get usable shots down to about 1/5 although this is not ideal.

Where I could see it making more of a difference is in super long telephoto shots. The motion of the sensor necessary to compensate for camera shake would probably be difficult to compensate for on a really long lens, whereas IS on a long telephoto would handle it better.

Another point is that with in body stabilization you can't see the stabilization through the viewfinder.

Finally, image stabilization would never work for a film camera and since Nikon and Canon lenses work on both digital and film that's the only way they can go.

My excuse for buying this new lens is that we're going on a whale watching boat ride this weekend and I figured it would give me a better chance of getting a shot of a whale. The cruise will be in the middle of the day and considering I have two small children I'm only going to do this if the weather is good. It should be ideal conditions for this lens. I also picked up a circular polarizer so that should help too, especially if the whales remain under the water.

The Nikon you have looks like a pretty good deal. The Olympus has slightly better optics with 3 ED elements, but at 3 times the price. Still, if you want the image stabilization you need to spend more than what the Olympus costs. That's why in the long run I think the in body stabilization ends up costing you less if you're going to buy more than a couple of lenses.

All that being said, I don't think IS is the end all and be all of photography. While it's nice to have, my film camera never had it and I took plenty of great shots with it.

I like the look of that shot. I see what you mean about the bokeh. I get that with my 50mm f/2.0 macro with the aperture wide open. I was fooling around with a really small depth of field with that picture of the doll. That doll is only about 8 inches long.

My name on Flickr is the same as it is hear - erikzen. Feel free to browse. Do you have a Flickr account as well?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif My name on Flickr is the same as it is hear - erikzen. Feel free to browse. Do you have a Flickr account as well?

My flickr account is under towert7
Flickr: towert7's Photostream

 

[milkpowder]

I have little to offer in terms of experience with Olympus, but certainly considered their E-3 before I purchased my D300 (also looked at Sony alpha700, Canon 40D, 5D). The feature-set is incredible. I'm sure more people would use Olympus if Nikon and Canon weren't so dominant already. I've heard that Olympus make some of the nicest lens available, whether it's their entry-level kit lens or professional zooms. Sadly, people nowadays like to show of their purchases, and what better than to buy 'what the pros use'?

In today's world, that means Nikon or Canon. Maybe I succumbed to the same weakness, but it was hard to resist especially when the Nikon semi-pro/pro bodies were so hyped up at the time.

Btw, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is one of the most impressive lens in recent Nikon history. It has sharpness that matches that of primes and the only drawback being it doesn't accept any filters.

 

[evilmerlin]

Erikzen, you are NOT the only Olympus user on Head-fi. I too use the Olympus DSLR and started when they released the E-300 and have since upgraded to the E-510.

For what it's worth, Olympus dust reduction is industry leading. Many tests have been conducted comparing the dust reduction capabilities of the Olympus DSLRs with those of Canon and Nikon. It has been found that the Canon and Nikon ones were lacking behind what Olympus had to offer.

In body stabilisation for me was a fantastic feature of the E-510. I didn't need to worry about spending the cash on lens with VR or IS and feel that I'm missing something. Plus, with the superb 12-60 lens, you get an awesome combination in a camera. Light, superb reach of 24-120 (35mm terms), fast f/2.8 - 4 coupled with IS makes for a terrific walk about or travel lens.

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My flickr account is under towert7 Flickr: towert7's Photostream

Cool, you have some great shots there. Thanks for sharing.
I added you to my Flickr contact list.