neild Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Bas, the lenses are fine - OK, you see vignetting with the wide-angle lenses, but the resolving power of old lenses is quite fine for FF. Examples appropriate for this forum: I have used the 8mm and 16mm Olympus OM fisheyes on the 5D and they are 100% fine. The 18mm and 21mm f/2 are also fine, but they do give corner darkening. Don't believe what people tell you about needing digital lenses for use on digital cameras - it's just plain wrong (but don't take my word for it either: test it out at the shop - take some OM lenses to try out). The old lenses are fine for the 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The quality is fine, that is not the problem. The 24-70/2.8 weighs a tonne and costs over a grand, that's the problem! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 But there are other lenses. I guess I must be lucky being happy to use prime lenses rather than zooms (OK, I have the 16-35, but it's quite light and not too large - a bit pricey, although I've always tried to put most of my $$$ into the glass - up until the problem of buying dSLRs that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Definitely other lenses available but I (and many like me) just like zooms, with 90% of my images taken with a standard zoom, and the cheaper/lighter consumer ones just aren't good enough. I liked my OM primes, as they were so nice and small they fit in a coat pocket. I found the Canon ones just a bit too large for that and got tired real quick of changing lenses while out strolling around some foreign city. With the E-1 and excellent 14-54, I can just walk around all day without changing lenses, very liberating. As I have said many times before, I would still be a Canon user - probably with a 20D - if Canon only made an EF-S 17-65/4L. (or faster, they could opt for 2.8-3.5 like Oly does) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 There's no need to build a faster one for full / half frame use, as the larger sensor and better high ISO performance offers shallower DOF and better low light images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Like-wise, if they built a faster one with that focal length range, just imagine what it would cost, how heavy it would be and how big a front element it would have to have. The 17-40 f4L was right at as heavy a "prime" zoom as I would have wanted on my 10D. I know what the 16-35/2.8 cost as I considered it before settling on the 17-40, so I can only image what a fast 17-65 (or 85) L series would have cost, and you know, Bas, it woulda been waaaay heavier than you would have wanted to tote around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
df-gallery Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Certainly some interesting points made. Thanks to all. I shoot mainly documentary, architecture and macro subjects at this present moment. So a greater and lesser DOF is required. But I agree with the point that a 50/2.0 will have a pretty shallow DOF already, and considering the basic zooms 14-54/2.8-3.5 compared with my 17-40/4 might have similar DOF. So almost a moot point. From my perspective, I am trying to move away from lens optical quality as such. I assume from experience that all companies can make a decent lens, it is all a matter of how much one wants to spend. However, I am moving more towards ergonomics and economics (overall). Rather than 'better lenses', or 'higher resolution'. Like many, I have decided that the 10-12 MP is my sweet spot. What I intended to do in the comparison was to show a similar set of Canon lenses that matches the focal length range with the Olympus system was heavier, costlier and slower. What this meant to me, was that, if the cameras were equal, say 350D vs E500, or even the (future) E2 vs 5D/1DsII,etc, that the Olympus would give an advantage in terms of cost, weight and aperture speed. Now, my question was wanting to know about people's experiences with the Olympus system and a second/third/opinion, in this, whether or not this was an unrealistic suggestion, or whether or not there are other things that should take into account. On the note of system orphaning... I have a large range of Contax gear that is sitting in a camera bag. In addition, I also have some Film Hasselblad. All of which is orphaned. But I know that these will continue to work in the next 10 or 20 years. Would the Olympus DSLR be like that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 A DSLR has far fewer moving parts than most any film camera I can think of, so why wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 So wait, fast and sharp zooms with a decent focal lenght range on APS-C and FF sensors are big, heavy and expensive? Thanks guys, you have just proven my point! Oh well, I am off again on another holiday with nothing more than my E-1 and 14-54. Just image what I would have needed to bring if I owned a 10D: body, 17-40, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and I would have been changing lenses all the time. Been there, done that. No, thanks, FourThirds is just the ticket for me. See you next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 <i>"So wait, fast and sharp zooms with a decent focal lenght range on APS-C and FF sensors are big, heavy and expensive? Thanks guys, you have just proven my point!"</i> <p> No, I think you are comparing apples and oranges: these are the zoom lenses made by Canon, but they are not characteristic of zooms needed for FF. Afterall, the old OM zooms were made for FF and they were small and light. If Olympus made a digital range based upon FF then I'm sure that they could make things small and light. <p> 4/3 is small and light, and is fine if you like the small sensor (which you obviously do). This does not mean that FF needs big and heavy lenses. Don't condemn the FF format based only on the very few examples available at present. <p> By all menas use your 4/3 and be happy doing so. I just don't see the reason for all the point scoring that goes on. My OM lenses on my 5D give me a compact camera (not as compact as the E-1, nor as compact as my OM-1n, but still fine; BTW, the viewfinder in the Canons are very poor as compared to the OM cameras - I do miss those superb cameras). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I find the 14-54 mm ED Zuiko to be small and light. And effective. In case David is interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 When Olympus decided to get back finally into the SLR business,I imagine someone asked "What size sensor should we use?" FF for pros, and charge 500000 yen,or APS,or ,lets be different and come up with a new size altogether and a sequel of components. They aim for what they always did,even in film, a modest share of the market. The future will depend on how much quality they can continue to squeeze out of the "small" sensor. The ads ad prospectus claim " as good as 35mm film." Have they achieved that? Within certain parameters, noise in blue skies at ISO 800, I believe Olympus has. But the beat goes on,dudes/dudesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Today I made it over to Arlngton Camera to get a preview of the lens I'm buying shortly after the 15th...the 7-14 f4 ZD. I didn't take my E-1 into the store, so they mounted it on an E-500. The view is one incredible look. I took it down to see where the stuff was on the sides of the view when looking through the camera at 7mm. On both sides the objects were literally a foot or so almost to my side, just slighly forward. When leveled off properly there was so little distortion it was hard to believe. An absolutely awesome lens. It also has the most imposing front element (and equally impressive front cap) you could imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emil_fray Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I am forever struggling over the decisions of which camera to get, which lens to get. In the past the talk was about which film is best,which has the best grain structure....and on and and onnnnnnnnnnnnn. Why don't we all just go out and get good images? Instead we sit and bother with all this crap. We sound like camera clubbers...Thanks for listening...Emil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Sure Emil. When I was a teen with a pawnshop special, my supervisor at the Boston Public Library sniffed when I told him I was using a half frame used camera with a rotary mechanical shutter. HE was a camera club member with a (genteel sneer) Linhof!!Achtung!. And now that I can afford a Linhof,( well I think) what would I do with it? We got to laugh at ourselves when we get into equipmant discussions,because although they seem useless we show each other we are frantically trying to keep up with at least a modicum of understanding of the technology..which raises ahead like a freight train.... And to Greg, I bet that is a wonderful hunk of ED glass. Use it in good health,sir. Olympus is designing some great ones,even if they don't yet have the Canon buffet of offerings. Their second and high end tier optics, boy, is the technological achievement that puts the brand up there with serious players. The Son of E-1 will come one of these days too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 If you think that comparing the image quality of the 5D is equivalent to the image quality of an Oly 4/3, then you might as well buy a digital point & shoot, as you probably won't notice that difference either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basscheffers Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Neil, I don't have much against Canon's FF offerings; they are fine cameras, backed up by a good lens system. Especially now that after only 19 years of the EF mount they decided to introduce a standard zoom that doesn't break your back or the bank. The 24-105/4L and 5D is a combo I could easily live with, other than it costing four times as much as an E-1 kit. And that difference becomes even more staggering when you want to add reasonably fast and sharp telephoto zoom capabilty to 400mm. That is an amount I wouldn't want to spend as I don't need the extra quality, which I think goes for many people, even if they don't realise it and are simply sucked into the megapixel/sensor size race when all they want is some good holiday and family shots. And while the price of FF bodies will plummet in the next few years (well, if someone else starts competing in that field anyway) , the price of the lenses won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It doesn't matter what is compared to what if the standard will be what result is good enough to do the job for most. New articles on pixel races ending suggest we are getting in that ballpark. Idea based on industry analysts is that 7-8 mp does the job for maybe 80% of shooters. Incidentally, I read in Yahoo that Reuters reports that Olympus is selling cameras briskly and getting on its financial feet. Could be their endoscope sales where they are market leaders, but puts away thoughts of the demise of 4/3 anytime soon. In about two weeks,at PMA,much will come to light about results of alliance with Matsushita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 <i><blockquote> Incidentally, I read in Yahoo that Reuters reports that Olympus is selling cameras briskly and getting on its financial feet. </blockquote> </i><p> If you pay attention to the specifics, you'd see that while Oly's profits are up, DSLR sales are only 5% of its digital camera sales, and we don't know how well the 4/3 cameras are currently selling. We do know that profits are up due to (1) reported high sales of endoscopes, firing of 4,000 employees, cutting back of advertising, and a weaker yen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now