Jump to content

Why Olympus?


mrdavson

Recommended Posts

Hi all. I was wondering why you have all chosen to go down the Olympus or four thirds road. I mean, Canon & Nikon

are the "industry standard" for editorial and sport etc and there seems to be an arrogance away from Olympus. I got

into Olympus when a novice, not knowing or really appreciating what four thirds really meant. I bought the E500 and

found it to be a great camera. But now I have the E-3 and have found it to be a lot of bang for my buck that's for

sure. I use it for editorial and for sport too! Yes, the ISO capabilities let it down a bit in low light, but so far I have

been pleasently surprised on more than one occasion with how nicely the E3 attached to my 50mm-300mm 2.8-3.5

lens has performed.

 

Anyway, what do you all have to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention: think what swung me in the end was that the four thirds format gives me greater flexability when cropping, the colour is fantastic, the E3 is weather resistent and the Zuiko glass is very very good even at the cheaper end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bought E500 because of the price and then got a lot more lenses. In the learning curve liked the camera and the colors. Auto white balalnce and custom white balance are very good. ISO performance of E500 is not good, but thats better in the E3. The IS gives it advantage over others, and cleaning system works excellent.

 

The question that I am looking answers for are the CF and the ISO performance in the next models. From what i read the CF of D300 and canon is better, but I wouldn't know, I have only OLY. I am waiting for the April release of the EXX otherwise I will go for E3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me and my family have used many Olympus digicams, I now use the E-410.

 

What got me to here.....

The features, the small size, the price, the reputation of Olympus glass, my 35 years of experience with the company's products that have never let me down, and the possibility of using my old Zuiko lenses on a digital body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

I started out in 35mm photography with an OM-1 way back in college. I chose it because of the size and range of lenses

available. Cranked out a lot of slides and prints over the years. My wife has had 2-3 Olympus 35mm point and shoot -

always got sharp pictures and good exposures.

 

So when the time came to go digital, I started with Olympus - again because of the size. I saw people carrying around

the huge Canon and Nikon bodies and just didn't want to lug those through the woods. I've got the E510 with the 14-

54mm and 50-200mm lenses and have found it fits my needs just right.

 

Only learned about 4/3 format when I started looking at the Olympus. I like the 2x magnification from 35mm, and the

perspectives I get on the images. It does seem the cropping I do from 4/3 results in more pleasing images than the

ones I do from 35mm slides, but that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most have overlooked Olympus and even Pentax is simply because the is a presumption that Nikon and Canon will perpetuate, and hence their platform will have longevity... outside of that I think there is no reason why not Olympus or Pentax...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used older Leica rangefinders for many years. At present, it was taking me quite a while to finish a roll, and processing sites are gradually disappearing. I wanted to go digital, but the Leica M8 was way beyond my budget. After a lot of on-line research, I chose the Oly E-510 and the 14-54 Zuiko lens as my kit. For my purposes, it has worked out beautifully. I get great images immediately, whether I shoot two or fifty. I am now using an M42 to 4/3 adapter to experiment with my Pentax SLR images, and they also produce great images. For now, I am happy. A 50-200 would be nice, as would a Sigma 30/1.4, but those can come later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started out with the E-500 and kit lenses for the great price, small size and dust removal feature. Moved up to E-510 (kept E-500)

and some more lenses. Now own E-3 (still kept E-500 and E-510) and 6 Zuiko Digital lenses, 2 Sigma 4/3 and 1 OM lenses and

could not be more happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot weddings and portraits professionally and have a Canon set-up. But I also have a Panasonic DMC-L1 with the

14-150mm lens which I bought for my own hobby use, mainly for landscapes and wildlife. I also have the 14-50mm

lens that was a part of the original kit that I bought. I've had some cracking landscapes at A3 size from RAW images

and as is so often the case, if you are familiar with your system and know what its capabilities/limitations are then of

course great results are always possible.

 

I haven't been at all disappointed in my choices with 4/3; the only comment being that it was a lot of cash to shell

out initially given the spec at the time compared to the competition (probably due to the Leica association). However,

I love the manual controls (traditional shutter and aperture selections) and this is what attracted me - I started

photography with an OM-1n (which I still have) and believe it to be the ideal camera in so many respects, despite

using various other makes and film formats over the years (including Rolleiflex, Canon, Fuji, Bronica and Mamiya). In

recent times I kept saying 'if only the OM-1n was digital'.

 

So for me, I wanted a camera that had a traditional feel (and for me intuitive) with less emphasis on the use of

menus; combined with an acceptable level of spec for me as a photographer. Combine this with the quality Leica

lenses available and the choice of other Oly lenses should I want them it was a done deal with the L1. I also

appreciated the concept of several manufacturers working to the same standard with integrated items. The 'A'

automatic settings on the shutter dial and aperture rings is also a great feature on the L1 and very intuitive in use. It's

a pity that the 4/3 system is so often underrated and compared negatively to Nikon/Canon etc because it's actually a

great little system that can work very well for most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started out with the E500 and two lens kit. Since I mostly do landscapes the high iso issue is not an issue with me as I very rarely go past 100. I now have the E3 and am very happy.

 

I went with Oly because I was not predjudiced over brands and simply looked at features/performance for the $$ I had to spend. I'm very glad I did as more than anything, the Oly glass makes up for any lack in the cameras (which are few). I've had my E3 with Zuiko 11-22 completely submerged under water at the ocean with sand in every hinge, dial, and button but another rinsing with fresh water at home and the camera is fine. I would not expect that good of an outcome with any Canikon setup.

 

For an upcoming show, I have three 30x40 stretch canvas prints that look fabulous. At first I was apprehensive going that large but now that I've seen them, I have no issues printing that large with 4/3 format.

 

As technology gets better so will the 4/3 format, all to our benefit.<div>00RDTm-80455684.thumb.jpg.f928417e7e6925b4bba15dfed6f8f350.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My E510 is my third Olympus. I started with a C4040Z then an E300. I like the idea the the 4/3 sustem was developed from the ground up. The light weight camera and lens are great for travel, and the image quality is very fine. Olympus has been know for it's optics for yeard in the science community and the digital cameras are a great extension of that know how.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got into the using the 4/3 system in the summer of 2007. I have a Sigma system and it is still my primary system. But I wasn't relishing taking it on a trip my wife and I took to Italy last summer. The camera and EX lenses are bit heavy and the primary reason for the trip was to just enjoy it, not necessarily to take photos (although I took hundreds of them). I decided to take advantage of the fire-sale price of the E-330 two-lens kit. I got it for $ 520.00 from Olympus on their ebay auction. The kit lenses offer a good range and for kit lenses they are very good. It's a lightweight setup that worked well. The E-330 is a joy to use.

 

I had intention on expanding the system. Of course I did exapnd it anyway. I've since picked up a good used E-510 (for the image stablization), the 14-54mm Zuiko, and a 50-500mm Sigma EX DG HSM lens. Next will be the Metz AF-420 and eventualy an E-3 or the "tweener" camera Oly will introduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my e510 two lens kit because it seemed like the best bang for the buck, it wasn't as big as others

(although I wouldn't mind it being smaller & lighter - I take it mountain biking and skiing), and the in-body IS.

Not having to buy the IS mechanism over and over in lenses is important to me, even if just by principle.

My first SLR was a Pentax ME Super back in college and the e510 is my first DSLR. I'm very happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<P>I think the Big Two have done a marvellous marketing job, differentiating their models by features rather than

price, and convincing people that they need, or should aspire to, very big sensors and amazing high-ISO

performance.</P> <P>As a photographer with a couple of dozen years film experience, I knew I rarely used faster

than ISO400 film, and very rarely printed larger than 10x8, so I was interested in an SLR that performed well within

those parameters at a price I could afford. The Oly 4/3 range was therefore interesting. Several people have

mentioned the phrase 'best bang for the buck' and this is what I felt. But it's not simply a bargain basement product

range - these are very good cameras, and the kit lenses, which is what most of us start with, are clearly head and

shoulders above the C & N offerings.</P> <P>My choice was an E-410 with the 14-42mm zoom. One short range

zoom is all I need because the E-410 also accepts all of my old manual focus lenses. My eyesight is not too bad

and manual focusing is surprisingly easy on the 410. Most of my shooting is aperture priority so stop-down metering

is no big chore.</P> <P>And despite mutterings on the net about how old manual lenses wouldn't work so well with

digital, or would only work at some apertures, my results have been entirely satisfactory.</P>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been shooting 4x5 for the last two years, almost exclusively. I was ready for a DLSR a couple months ago and after much research discovered that Olympus was the only system that was designing high quality lenses specifically for their camera format. NO other camera maker is making excellent optics for the APS-C sensor in the range of focal lengths that I wanted. I got an E520 and a 12-60 which suits my style of shooting with 4x5. I can't get that type of zoom from ANY other manufacturer and that 12-60 glass is freaking amazing! 28mm-e is just not wide enough for me.

 

See, I didn't want to spend that much for the camera, I'd rather spend it on the lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a carefully considered choice. I got my first digital camera in the form of an Olympus C 5050. I was

and stilll

am really impressed by this solidly built quality camera and delighted with the results from its 5 megapixel

sensor. When digital reached 5 megapixels it covered my basic needs for the type of work I do and the prints I might

make. I began to go in for more internet album shooting anyway. I was impressed with the fast 5050 1.8 lens also. So

I started to wonder curiously what Olympus was going to do in the SLR business for interchangeable lens models.

And they surprised us all/

 

The news of starting with a fresh format that also happened to be my preferred 4:3 appealed . Ultimately I held

an E-1 and it felt right. I like some heft in my cameras and this one was also solid and reassuringly balanced in

my grip. I also reqlly liked the choice of lenses that came out at the time (seems like ages ago huh just four

years or so). They met 95% of my shooting needs. I also shoot at relatively low ISO and am a habitual flash user

when I need a little more light. So I took the leap as some would say and shifted from a thirty year affair with

Canons. I never went to an EOS because I thought the L lenses I really wanted were big and costly.

 

Like fellow poster Laurent I have found Olympus lenses to be exceptional in quality and those are the things that

last and last. I still use the 14-54 but I can see the 12-60 is a brilliant optic. The weather resistance is

comforting for both lenses and high end bodies. I just don't have enough use for the E-3' s clever features at

this point and still prefer optical mirror systems. Oh yes, I would hate a camera that had to have its sensor

cleaned,dirty sensor is no no for me. That has been a great benefit at the outset. Any regrets you ask?. Not yet.

 

It is just a camera and I use a Nikon Coolpix for my carry around and I am just tickled with what Sony and others

have done. Can't own them all though.. So I say " Why not Olympus? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first Olympus camera was the OM-2 with an f1:2 lens. That was more than 30 years ago. When I went digital, I settled with the E-10 and E20n. When Olympus introduced the 4/3 E-series, I waited for the E-500 and now the E-510. The medium-format Bronica is on display in my office while the E-510 has become my wedding and portrait DSLR. I've recently incorporated an adapter to fit the Hassleblad/Carl Zeiss lens. The images are awesome... absolutely awesome! I've researched the Nikons and Canons. What I have invested in the E-series, includings lenses and flash equipement (Metz), I will be faithful to the 4/3 for years to come. atlantaMAXphoto.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one has stated they bought 4/3rds for 'the telephoto effect the 2x multiplier gives to lebnses' nor do they hanker after the doubling of the DOF.

 

Think about it... no-one bought 4/3rds for the properties of the 4/3rds system, they all, and I include myself in this, bought 4/3rds because of economic or other more practical matters. In fact, it wouldn't matter to many of this community if the 4/3rds sensor was APS in size and/or 3:2 in shape.

 

Just thinking aloud...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I was also impressed by a European web site by the company early on that allowed a virtual

hands on operation of the controls and it probably did the best to close the deal re my choice. It looked, acted,

felt like the solid cameras I have grown to love over the years. That includes the Canon FD series F-1 and the

Bronica SQ which are widely different formats but have something in common- great optics. I found in 35mm that I

also grown to appreciate zoom lenses.

 

It was only later that I learned from a few photo net wise owls that, shucks, I had a smaller sensor than APS-C,

oh good grief. Didn't I know that I might never be able to shoot in the dark of the moon or without flash? These

kibbitzers said, in effect, "Come to your sensors! (:-)" Many of the community do love the 4/3 aspect ratio I

submit. And when you use the lenses you know that they are built to the highest standards available in today's

popular zooms. Even the lowly teleconverter has 6 elements and latest glass. And built to a high standard. If

there is anything I miss it is the inability to focus without turning on the camera power on the two lenses I

have. Correct me,but I think Olympus has fixed that in the SWD series. The 4/3 is a viable-no eccentric- choice

and deserves a place in the glass display cabinets. Ritz has finally got together with the company after some

broohahah I heard about and will display Olympus product. Good. Why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an EOS3 user looking to move into digital, the Olympus system seems very inviting. Plan was to upgrade lenses to Canon L variety and come retirement to invest in a Pro body. Reality probably means 1DIII (or 1DIV or even 1DV) but for that price I can get 5DII (3D?) for landscape and portraits and a 50D (70D?) for wildlife and sports. But neither would give the same weather protection as my current body and I could get 2 * E-3 and a fair bit of change instead.

 

I haven't found any negatives for Olympus glass, unlike the variability of some of the Canon models so an E-3 with 50-200 might seems a better option than a 50D with 100-400.

 

But I'm struggling with the landscape/portrait scenario as bigger seems to be better in terms of sensor size. Maybe keep film for now or even a Sigma SD15 out of left field.

 

Maybe I'll wait and see what the E-5 has to offer; as retirment seems so far away at the moment.

 

BobN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I chose 4/3 on price and uniqueness. I love my E-300 and will continue using it until it dies! :) That said I do keep my eyes on what's going on elsewhere. Even if I go with another camera system I plan to keep a 4/3 body in the stable.

 

Jesse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...