OK: convince me [re: four thirds]

Ronald simply doesnt know what he's talking about.

 

These are the advantages/disadvantages.

Nikon -LOTs of lenses especially legacy. Good sensor and superior to Oly at high ISO. Disadvantage - oly blows oly away on legacy support. Larger conversion factor (a 300 on an oly gives you Longer tele range than a 400 on an oly/canon). Nifty new software innovations (color tracking). Long term gear value (Nikons hold their value better than anyone but leica). IS - in lens only which is a big disadvantage unless you have $$$. If money is no object Nikon/Canon beat oly here. Sensor cleaning -oly simply beats everyone.

 

Canon - Same as oly on most counts. The canon 400/4 is somewhat of a standard for nature photography though the oly 70/300 is about to give it a run for its money for 1/4 the price. Again the advantages with high iso and the disadvantage re in body vs in lens stabilisation. Please do note though - High iso capability is a big factor in favor of both nikon and canon which will probably exist for a couple years til the 4/3 sensor can match the larger sensors.

 

Oly- In body stabilisation. Excellent sensor cleaning. 2x zoom ratio makes an oly 300 slightly "longer" than a canon/nikon 400. You'll hear quibbling about this but its a fact. Lens quality - nobody beats zuiko. Period. Nikon has astonishing lenses and its old Nikor are as good as it gets but noone beats zuiko. If you buy a nikon/canon with the kit lenses you WILL be replacing them. Not so with the oly. Legacy support - if you can find a lens you can probably buy an adapter to make it fit the oly. In addition if you can mount a lens on the oly you have IS. That is pretty darn important. NOT so with nikon/canon et al. It is one of the 2 prime advantages of the 4/3 sensor. Cost - for the same $$$ you get a more capable system with oly DISADVANTAGES - High ISO performance. In bright light and certain conditions it isnt a disadvantage but as a rule you wont shoot the oly over 400 iso while the canons and nikons produce absolutely acceptable output at high iso. They blow the oly away. PRIMES - oly is severely lacking in primes of all varieties. You can buy multiple primes in multiple price ranges for canon and especially for Nikon. If i shot only macro, street and portrait id go with nikon or canon. Probably nikon.

 

Try all thee out. I like nikons for the nifty new functions though i hate the ergonomics. I like Canon for the sheer volume of lens choices ( i shot canon with film - badly but i shot it). If i were trying to impress camera snobs around me i'd get a d300. If i wanted to shoot nature but not oly, or wanted to do it professionally id probably go canon. For absolutely everything else id choose oly. (I take that back im not sure what id choose for scenic). I have to note in the end id probably stick with oly for the ergonomics, in body is, lens conversion factor.

 

All that said - you're NOT going to be unhappy no matter which route you go. All three are excellent and far better than our choices in the days of film.

dont know is anyones watchin this thread still but i am thinking of getting ithere a DMC-L1 or L10. I am a photo strudent and Alredy have a Minolta x700 with alot of rokkor lenses and I also have a canon FD 50mm 1.2 lens . love the idea of being able to use them on a 4/3 system. Saves me alot of money . I love all the manual controlls on the L1. Seems like it would be easy to use for me cuz of what i am use to but its only 7.5 mega pixls and the L10 has 10.1 and only a little under a hundred dollars more, but i dont know about the controlls. And now i have been shooting Fassion because the fashon club invites me to photograph back stage for the last 3 shows they had. so i hope the frame rate in raw is not too slow for eather. any advice on wich i should get?

The 2.6 MPx difference is only important if you are doing really big prints; some fashion photographers go straight for medium format.

 

The L1 is a more finished camera than the L10, for example with a faster, better kit lens with an aperture control ring.

 

Neither is too fast. For that, you will want an Olympus E-3.

The L1 has a six-frame RAW buffer, the L10 a three-frame RAW buffer. Neither are particularly fast on sequences in

RAW capture ... nor are they particularly fast on writes. For most things I don't find this to be a limitation with the L1, but

the L10's small buffer would get in my way.

 

If you need more speed and responsiveness, you would be well advised to look at the E-3 or E-520. The E-520's build

quality is quite good but it's not the finely made, magnesium shell body that the L1 or E-3 are: it feels a bit plasticky in

the hand.

 

Godfrey