Why Olympus DSLR

[bill_poupore]

As the subject states why Olympus for a DSLR? I know about the 4/3 system, or

perhaps more correctly know of the 4/3 system but beyond that know little about

the current Olympus line up of bodies and leses. I'm not one to just jump on

the Caon/Nikon bandwagon just because they are the biggest and I'd like to know

what Olympus has to offer. Can anyone help?

 

 

Bill

[puck]

The body is as small as you will find in a dslr mount. nothing in the market compares to it in terms of size and weight. you'd have to get a digital rangefinder like epsom rd1 panasomic lunix 1 or leica m8 to get a quality camera smaller than a latest olympus dslr.

 

the zuiko lenses are as good, if not sharper than nikkor or canon offerings. you would also be able to use leica lenses for the panasonic lumix should you wish to try something 'supposedly' better than zuiko.

 

on the downside, the bodies seem to be just a little slower in focusing than the rebel xti. if you have enjoyed the om bodies the the olympus dslr bodies like e300, e410 would be of interest to you.

[tommyinca]

On the plus side Olympus is first to.

 

Bodies:

 

a. Sensor dust control. b.Live view on a DSLR

 

Lens: One stop faster then everybody else. e.g: FOV 70-200mm f2, 300mm f2

 

On the down size, sensor noise is higher too. That kind of negate the faster lens advanage. I supose there are no free lunch in optical physic.

 

I would think the live view plus smaller pixel pitch could make it a cool camera for macro.

[jim_covill]

I was a dedicated OM user for nearly 25 years (OM1, 1n, 2, 2Sp) and own many Zuiko Optics but felt abandoned when the OM 3 and 4 were priced simply too much for me to justify. Not to mention the unreliability of same. Then the optics started getting overly priced and very limited in selection.

 

Honestly I jumped ship - fool me once shame on you - and well I don't fooled a second time often. I figure OM will once again drop the ball and bail prematurely.

 

For what it's worth I opted for Nikon. IMHO if you want leading bleeding edge go Canon but if you want done right wait for Nikon (and pay a very slight premium).

 

Jim

[richard_oleson]

Like Jim, I am an old OM user since 1978. My short list for digital were the Olympus E-500 and the Canon XTi. Both are very compact, both have sensor dust control. For the same money (when I was looking) you could get either the Canon with the standard kit zoom or the Olympus with both the standard kit zoom and a tele zoom.

 

I felt the build quality seemed very similar between the two, and performance seemed very similar in reviews... but where there were slight differences, the Canon generally seemed to have the slight edge. I ended up opting for the Canon, and I have not been disappointed, but had I gone with the Olympus I would have that tele zoom that I don't have. The build quality and feel of the Olympus lenses is a notch above the Canon, but the Canon's optics are quite good - I don't know if the Olympus optics would be better or not.

 

My take would be if you think the 2-lens package is all you're going to need, the Evolt is a good choice.... if you're going to be hunting for more lenses, the Canon has the advantage of a whole bunch of lenses available on the used market from the 35mm EOS cameras. Both are limited in the wide angle area, there is no cheap way to get wider than the kit zoom gets you.... The Evolt's 2x crop factor hurts a little more here in terms of adapting 35mm lenses to it.

 

On that subject, both cameras will accept a good variety of 35mm lenses with adapters: I use OM, Nikon and M42 screw lenses on the Canon, and I think you can get the same adapters and maybe more for the Oly. The small screens are no fun to focus on, and as I recall from the camera store the E500 screen was even a hair smaller than the XTi's, but you can get used to it with time. Olympus makes a magnifying eyepiece called the ME-1, which I recommend getting: I use on on my Canon, which it fits with a bit of persuasion from a Dremel, and it makes manual focusing a bit easier.

 

I did not consider Nikon in my choice, because I have a lot of old Nikkor lenses that I want to keep using. The Canon and the Evolt both allow that with little inconvenience, using inexpensive adapters; Nikons, up through the D80 model, will not meter light through a manual focus Nikon lens, so it's more convenient to use a Nikkor on a Canon (or Olympus) than on a Nikon. I know the Nikons are very good cameras though, and this issue would not apply to most people like it does to me.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

unfotunately there is about zero DNA in common between Oly's digital efforts and the near perfect OM system, the brainchild of Olympus camera designer Maitani.

 

There is almost no reason to choose Olympus at this point. Canon and Nikon both make very nice digital cameras, and superb lenses.

 

You will be happy with the following from Nikon, depending on your needs:

D40, D80 or D200.

 

And the following from Canon, Rebel XT, 20D or 5D.

 

As for Olympus being so small, the Rebel XT and the Nikon D40 are as small or smaller and lighter than any Olympus dslr, so that is a moot point. Also, bear in mind that with Oly, you will not get real manual focus, but "fly by wire" manual focus, and that is next to useless.

 

I wish camera makers still put the aperture ring on the lens.

[paulh]

<I>I wish camera makers still put the aperture ring on the lens.</I><P>

 

At least one of them still does. And it is a 4/3 system...<P>

[peter_free]

Hi Bill,

 

Having owned an Olympus E-500 two-lens kit for eighteen months, I agree especially with Jim Covill and Claude Batmanghelidj. I would recommend against buying into an Olympus 4/3 system today. The below comments are based on well over fifty years in photography.

 

MY PRIMARY CRITICISMS - USING THE E-500 AS EXAMPLE

 

(1) Difficult and Inconsistent Focus

 

The E-500 has an atrocious viewfinder. (Living in a rural area at the time, I had to buy the camera sight unseen.) Although it's bright enough, it's small and lacks the granularity necessary to check focus or to manually focus with consistent accuracy under a wide range of lighting. That would be acceptable, if the auto-focus function worked properly. But it doesn't.

 

As example, and as another Photo-Netter has commented in regard to the E-1, the central auto-focus spot is rather large. It tends to focus through objects smaller than it is. This makes achieving focus on small details in the foreground impossible (eyelashes, pupils, tree leaves, small birds). The viewfinder is so bad that I have not been able to detect these errors until too late.

 

I've also noticed that the camera body appears to allow "single shot" shutter release even when nothing in the picture is in exact focus.

 

Contributing to the focus difficulty, the zoom kit lenses (14-45mm and 40-150mm), not surprisingly, lack distance scales. This means I can't scale focus. The system's lenses also have electronically controlled manual focus rings. The focus rings twirl without stops in both directions. That means one cannot focus by feel in the dark (as I used to do with Canon and Nikon manual focus lenses on film cameras in the past).

 

(2) Useless Matrix Metering.

 

Compared to Canon and Nikon film cameras, the E-500's matrix metering is terrible. I count on it only to get me within 1 to 1.5 stops of proper exposure on "average" scenes. I understand from other camera reviews that this problem is common among a wide range of less expensive dSLRs. Exposure errors obviously can be corrected with the following exposure (using histograms or the LCD screen), but the camera's metering inaccuracies lose a high percentage of "just this once" pictures.

 

(3) Kit Lenses Are Not So Great

 

Reviews thought highly of the 14-45mm and 40-150mm kit lenses. My sample of the 14-45mm is not very good. The Olympus 40-150mm is better, though very soft at the long end.

 

(4) Manufacturing Quality and Consistency May Be Questionable.

 

The sensor and viewfinder in my E-500 body are not properly aligned and my viewfinder appears to be asymmetrically distorted from side-to-side. I have to move my head back from the body to see that it is properly horizontal or vertical. At first I attributed this to my difficulty in using the tiny viewfinder. Now I recognize that it's just an example of cost-cutting.

 

Noise, as all the reviews indicated is a problem. I take noise less seriously than many in ordinary picture-taking, but my sample of the E-500 shows so many hot pixels in 30 second pictures that they literally look like falling snow, no matter what ISO is set.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Jim is correct. Olympus dropped the ball in the past. I think they'll do it again -- in part because I have difficulty seeing how they will overcome the engineering constraints imposed by the 4/3 sensor.

 

My guess is that Olympus will focus on digicam users who want "just a bit more." They'll have trouble even with that market segment because, as Claude indicates, it's difficult seeing what substantive attractions Olympus brings to the table that Canon, Nikon (and Pentax) do not.

 

Olympus has been dragging its "innovation feet" for so long, that I do not think the company can recapture the market appeal it gained with the introduction of the E-500. It is not a good sign that the company's professional pretender, the E-1, has not been updated.

[davidlong]

I'll throw in my opinion and say that it depends on what you want. If you're a professional, or planning to become one soon, then there's no question: buy Canon or Nikon. Technically I don't think they're really any better than anyone else, but there is more support. If nothing else, the ability to rent equipment in many cities would be a significant factor. If you're not a professional, then I think you have some additional reasonable options: Olympus, Pentax, and Sony.

 

If you want the ultimate in size, then the newly-released Olympus E410 is the smallest you'll find: 430g vs. 520g for a Nikon D40 or 560g for a Canon 400D.

 

If you value compatibility with old lenses, then one of the Pentax models would probably suit you. There are adapters available to stick most lenses onto a 4/3 body, but you'll have to use manual focus. Manual focus through one of the low-end Olympus viewfinders is difficult unless you replace the focusing screen. However, if you don't mind using the live view mode that Olympus has on some models, it may well be easier than on other DSLRs.

 

If you want in-body image stabilization, either Pentax or Sony offer it. The Olympus E510 will also offer it, but it won't be available for another month or two. Nikon and Canon will sell you stabilized lenses, but they aren't cheap.

 

Dust control on the Olympus cameras seems very good. The one semi-objective test I've ever seen concluded that it was in effect the only one that actually worked.

 

For me personally, I wanted good ergonomics, build quality, and a reasonable viewfinder. I wound up buying an Olympus E1 a little while ago. They currently go for fire-sale prices because of the planned introduction of the new Olympus pro body late this year. The other cameras I considered before buying the E1 were the Pentax K10D and the Nikon D200. The K10D and the D200 are both modern cameras. But I got the E1 for $430, vs. about $850 for the K10D and $1300 for the D200. The K10D and D200 are better cameras, but for me, they weren't _that_ much better. Image review on the E1 is slow enough that it will drive you nuts if you chimp constantly, but if you don't, it's very responsive. The reliability is legendary, and I like the way that it renders colors. I've been very happy with it, to put it mildly.

[shadowfox]

Good question and especially relevant this year.

 

With the newly released E-410 and soon to be released E-510, you are at the right time to consider the newest offerings from Olympus.

 

For your research, check out http://fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=12 which has test images, discussions, and reviews on both the newer bodies and lenses.

 

As far as experience, I have an E-300. Pros? excellent build quality (better than the similar cameras from Canon), been happy with the results as well, especially when combined with my OM Zuiko lenses (now those are serious glasses with "real" manual focusing :)

 

Cons: not small, hate the control everything dial (need an extra click to set shutter speed, why??), and small viewfinder, although not much smaller than the ones on similar Canon models, but I'm spoiled by the OM-1 :p

 

I am evaluating which one will replace my E-300. Based on the test images that I've seen from the E-410, it looks like Olympus managed to improve the noise handling using the new image processing engine.

 

I am eager to see the E-1 replacement, and probably settle with E-510 :)

[GerrySiegel]

A fair question,but its going to be a pros and cons free- for- all as usual with no hard and clear easy sell choice of the top names. If you are worried/uncomfortable/dissuaded by some reviewers about the allegedly small sensor size, don't buy anything less than full frame,frankly. If you like the feel and handling of the E-1,you will know it after you try it,a 'je ne sait quoi' (if one has to use French says Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson,it has got to be tough call!:-). If you need a large and more diverse SLR system with umpteen flash choices and radio control flash, don't buy Olympus. If build and waterproof and dust control and fine optics are important, consider E system,but try one out first. If you feel safe to go with the crowd and why NOT feel safe,or thought the OM cameras were the superduper ultimate,or think Olympus was slow or unreliable in getting out new products (arguable)you might well be disappointed with the E "system." And you will find that some aftermarket outfits just don't build their gizmos to fit Olympus,not yet...

 

But you got to give Olympus some modest credit for breaking a path into what was a pretty established marketplace. New mount,new size. And for adding some really no junk items like dust reduction that works and not just market tease. And lenses that are water sealed and optically yummy.

 

So innovation is not gone w the wind or Older OM series even. No regrets here with my now old E-1 and the well used 14-54. So what is your venture,Bill, or rather what are your expectations?. Every model is a compromise huh. Can we optimize the whole works? Maybe Olympus made the compromises right. Let's see. GS

[jacob_brown]

If you're shooting at low ISO, at moderate and not large print sizes, and especially if you're shooting extreme telephoto, Olympus is a contender.

 

If you need low-noise at high ISO, or want to print larger than 8x10, or want the fastest autofocus, the Olympus system struggles.

[GerrySiegel]

Compromises,compromises. For instance""Also, bear in mind that with Oly, you will not get real manual focus, but "fly by wire" manual focus, and that is next to useless." I can't rebut this contention,because I don't know what the commentator means by useless.

( I hope Boeing superjet has all cable rudder control, sportsfans,- fly by wires are SO useless and take away so much from the experience of flying.)

The connection to the camera by manual is electronic. There is a feedback feel to this system that works for me when I am doing closeups. Otherwise, I find that the autofocus-even with three points, and I use center focus usually-works pretty well. I sometimes give it a little manual tweak,but it rarely needs that touch. PS: With all its shortcomings somebody somewhere is buying those E 500s. And the next pro model will be delivered this calendar year. Tell them you heard it here...happy trails. GS

[jacob_brown]

"somebody somewhere is buying those E 500s"

 

Only at clearance sale prices. buydig is selling it for $415.

[GerrySiegel]

One real downside to the last three E volt series is the unfortunate loss of luminosity in the finders. ( I could extend this to the digicam loss of any finder in some models,but that would be a digression from the topic here) This "brighness gap," a real con item, is due to engineering design, clearly a compromise to lower retail cost for entry folk. Even the solid built Panasonic L-1 is not so great for eyeballing the image via its mirror box,shared with the E 330 design I recall. The E-1 is bright enough,though smallish,having a pentaprism at least.

 

The upcoming 410 and 510 have yet to make their mark. But if Olympus is going head to head with the latest Nikon offerings,I think serious amateurs will expect brighter viewfinding, not just live view LCD viewing. For the new SLR buyers, live view may be more important.

[glenbarrington]

I've been shooting with SLR's since 1967. I'm a middle-aged guy with typical middle-aged eyesight. I recognize that my E500 viewfinder is somewhat dimmer than the Nikon. However it is only a bit dimmer, and well within the limits of usability, even for a guy like me. Viewfinder brightness is a red herring argument.

 

The E500 and the upcoming E510 represent an incredible bargain in DSLR cameras. With Excellent image quality, great ergonomics,and unique features coupled with an extremely competitive price. But that doesn't make it right for YOU.

 

The simple truth is, ANY DSLR from one of the major manufacturers will be a VERY good camera. You could walk into a camera store blindfolded, be led to the DSLR section, and buy the first camera you came across and likely be quite happy with your purchase when it comes to the kind of stuff people post about.

 

Your choice of a camera is going to be a very personal thing, and will involve decisions that none of US can understand. We can't tell you why you should buy an Olympus. Only YOU can tell you why. If you have to ask us, than maybe it isn't right for you.

[jacob_brown]

"However it is only a bit dimmer"

 

I've played with the 330 and 500 and find it dramatically smaller and dimmer than a good pentsprism finder, even something like the old Canon 10D.

 

"The simple truth is, ANY DSLR from one of the major manufacturers will be a VERY good camera"

 

All DSLRs are compromises, some better bargains or better compromises than others. It's simplistic to say that a 330 is equally a "very good camera" compared, say, to a D40.

[glenbarrington]

"I've played with the 330 and 500 and find it dramatically smaller and dimmer than a good pentsprism finder, even something like the old Canon 10D."

 

"All DSLRs are compromises, some better bargains or better compromises than others. It's simplistic to say that a 330 is equally a "very good camera" compared, say, to a D40."

 

Clearly, your experiences are different from mine. Have you posted any photos so we can evaluate?

[jacob_brown]

The viewfinder issues are not a matter of prints or pictures. The noise issues wrt Olympus DSLRs are no phantom either. To equate ALL DSLRs sold as "very good" is simplistic.

[andrew robertson]

The Olympus cameras format was created to solve a problem that no longer exists. The

problem was that sensors were very expensive and yields were low. So the sensor was

made smaller.

 

Olympus also made much of the possibility of having smaller and lighter lenses compared

with an equivalent aperture 35mm lens, and much faster and sharper lenses because of

the reduced image circle. I don't think the Olympus lenses are small or light at all,

especially considering the tiny nature of the format. The Pentax 110 SLR's format was not

much smaller 4/3rds, and its lenses were made to be quite miniscule! The 4/3rds camera

bodies are also as large or more frequently larger than any of the compact 1.6x cameras

from the competition.

 

I feel that Olympus's promises about the 4/3rds system were not fully delivered upon.

There are only a precious few prime lenses. There are many 'fast' zoom lenses, as folks

are quick to point out, but what's 'fast' mean on 4/3rds?

 

If we compare the only fast normal lenses, the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 wide open on the

4/3rds has much more DOF (2.1' at 10') than a 35 f/1.4 would on a 1.6x DSLR (1.3 feet) or

a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera (1.1 feet). The DOF you would get on a typical 4/3rds

setup with the zoom lens is much deeper - compare the 14-54 at 25 wide open (5.2 feet)

to a 16-35 f/2.8 zoom at 31mm on a 1.6x crop camera (3.3 feet). To get the sliver thin

DOF that is possible with something like the 85 f/1.8 on a 1.6x camera, you would need a

40mm f/0.7 lens on a 4/3rds camera.

 

The other obvious problem with the format is the noise that one gets from using small

photosites. Even brand new E series DSLRs have problems competing with my old 10D, let

alone the newest 1.6x and full frame cameras. The noise issue is a serious obstacle for a

lot of photographers - you can't just blithely dismiss it with a wave of the hand because

you personally never shot film over 25ASA.

 

To compare the 4/3rds format and the E system to Maitani's cameras is lunacy. Unlike his

cameras, which were inspired, 4/3rds cameras were clearly designed by committee. And

Olympus had a truly extensive camera system in the OM days - suitable for any kind of

use. The old OM system had more macro lenses alone than the entire 4/3rds lineup!

 

Olympus clearly threw all their weight behind Maitani and he took advantage of every bit

of their support. The result was a staggeringly complete and truly professional camera

system. I'm just not sure that 4/3rds will cut it in the long run because of its serious

problems, and the fact that there is not much to show for the system despite it being

almost 5 years old.

[GerrySiegel]

Considering the relatively small size (a little below APS-C actually) of the E-1's 4/3 sensor and its small (and delightfully quiet) mirror,it is interesting-not as a basis for argument y'know- that the lens mount is large(supersized?) vis a vis the mirror and sensor.I surmise it has to do with the telecentric design spec made by Olympus, having to do with digital designed lenses light path. Clearly the size of the camera has some relationship to the size of the mount,which puts some limit on downsizing. I have read that the E410 will possibly be even too small for someone with fat hands like me. The 4:3 ratio which is separate but equal from the 4/3 opticon circle design is more appealing than 2:3. But that is a preference stroke for each independent minded folk...and I never dismiss the nightclub shooters that need ISO 1600. For them,go FF Canon...

 

I register independent when it comes to camera brands. Had every Canon model up to the underrated T90. At the time, it was considered Canon's last gasp to abandon FD series. I hold them no grudge. I went with the Olympus because it offered something fresh and appealing. I will not be buying their 150mm F2.lens,but I think the 14-54 with the 2X crop factor covers all the basis for me. DOF adjustment is manageable. The 50 mm macro with the EC 14 allows a blurred background for portraits. It's a tradeoff. Did I say something about compromise. Yeah I guess I did. For my next point and shoot, I may well return to the Canon brands. Whatever. So it goes in love and war. But it is fun to kvetch over the shortcomings of gear. Where, by the way, have all the fast primes gone? It must be a zoom culture.The 50mm, dear OP, is one nice piece of glass.

[godfrey]

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/23-half.jpg"

target=new>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/23a.jpg"

border=0></a><br>

Elegant Grafiti #37, 2007<br>

<i>Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 + D Vario-Elmarit 14-50/2.8-3.5 ASPH<br>

ISO 100 @ f/7.1 @ 1/60 sec, Av, fl=22mm <br>

<br>

Click the image above for a larger version in a separate window.<br>

</i></center><br>

I'm disinclined to brand loyalty. I've owned every major brand system at one time in the

past 40 years. <br>

<br>

I was interested in the Olympus 4/3 System DSLRs at the same time I became interested in

the Pentax DSLRs. Although I felt the Oly E-1 was the best body available, I went with

Pentax because, in general, I prefer fixed focal length (prime) lenses and Pentax has an

excellent ... and expanding ... range of primes. That said, when I owned Olympus gear in

the past, the Oly lenses were always excellent performers. In particular, the Olympus Zuiko

11-22mm lens was/is extremely interesting. <br>

<br>

With Panasonic and Leica entering the 4/3 System, things became even more interesting.

The design of the PanaLeica L1/Digilux 3 is very compelling, and its Leica-designed,

image stabilized lens is superb. I thought the price was too high ... but recently the L1

has become available at prices barely more than the cost of the lens itself. And the

Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH lens is another draw. <br>

<br>

So I bought the L1 recently and am currently running it through its paces. I have a very

positive feeling from it so far. Add the Zuiko 35mm Macro, the Zuiko 11-22mm ... maybe

that Summilux D and/or (hopefully!) a Summicron-D 19mm f/2 ... and my lens needs will

be completely covered. <br>

<br>

That opens the way for an upgrade to the Oly E-3, E-510 and other bodies to extend and

enhance the kit. I am also quite happy with the fact that I can fit an adapter and use

excellent Nikon, Leica-R, Olympus, Pentax, Contax/Zeiss and other non-4/3 lenses with

these bodies. That offers a lot of options. <br>

<br>

There's too much noise about noise. For my shooting, ISO 400 is high sensitivity, I

normally keep my cameras set to the minimum for best quality. I did some testing at ISO

400 and 800 ... last two images in my test set <br>

<a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com/l1test/"

target=new1>  www.gdgphoto.com/l1test/</a><br>

and did not find objectionable noise to worry about, even in an 11x14 print. 7.5Mpixels

with 4/3 format nets me the same resolution as I get with the Pentax K10D as I normally

print to an 11x14 format, so if this is the noise I have to deal with, life is good. ;-)<br>

<br>

Godfrey<br>

<a href="www.gdgphoto.com" target=new>  www.gdgphoto.com</a>

<br>

[simon evans.]

If you're asking this question on an internet forum I take it you're not a seasoned pro or a dedicated sports/low light shooter looking for a range of f1.4 prime lenses. Neither are you someone who <i>"just *needs*"</i> a full-frame DSLR. So you're looking at consumer-level cameras.

<br><br>

To be honest they're all very, very good now. I've seen 6 megapixels used A4 - a cropped image from a Pentax *ist D <a href="http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=2383">here</a>,for example. The contents page pic in the same mag, <a href=" on Flickr</a>, was taken using an Oly E-400. Both look great.

<br><br>

You may prefer the 4:3 ratio unique to these DSLRs (it's also the shape used by most digital compacts). All other DSLRs use the more elongated 35mm-like 3:2 shape.

<br><br>

You should like the feel of the camera you choose, the controls and how it operates. This bit is really important, and was an important element of the popularity of the Olympus OM range.

<br><br>No-one can tell you which to buy. Read some reviews, try a few if you can and only decide to buy when you're sure you've picked the right one for you.

[glenbarrington]

If you haven't seen this review of the E410 by a current Canon user, I'd like to suggest you read it before making your decision. I think it is a very even handed review and a nice counterpoint to the tech oriented reviews of the hardware sites.

 

http://scaredofthedark.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/olympus_e410_re_6.html

[simon evans.]

Lots of E-system info at <a href="http://www.biofos.com/esystem/ebodies.html">John Foster's site</a>, including reviews and comparisons.