Does Olympus 4/3rds offer me a real alternative?

[derek_linney]

First of all let me say that this is not a troll. I am a Canon user (for the

last ten years) but for 30 years I used OM gear (mainly OM-1) and liked the

Zuiko lenses. I moved to Canon primarily because Olympus abandoned its film SLR

user base at that time and also my last SLR the OM-SP2 proved unreliable.

<p>

While I have a considerable investment in Canon bodies (5D, 30D and 10D) and in

Canon glass I also face the prospect of wanting more weather-sealed bodies and

need at least one longer lens (100-400mm equivalent). I am considering therefore

a move to 1D-III or possibly 1Ds-III and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS. BUT this

is expensive and also is a very heavy set of kit. So I am considering

alternatives. I have always preferred to support the less fashionable (shall we

say) manufacturers - e.g driving Saabs for many years rather than BMW /

Mercedes. But, as with cars (I now drive a BMW) I worry that the smaller / niche

players struggle to keep up with the advances of the big boys.

<p>

Now, my question: I shoot a mixture of travel / landscape (usually using an L

zoom - e.g. the 24-120 f4 IS) and events (weddings, baptisms, graduations etc -

but informally not professionally) for which I really like using fast primes

(35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, 135mm f2) for their combination of natural light shooting

(in low light, with the exceptional high ISO performace of the 5D) and the

creative options of very shallow depth of field. I can see how the E-3 12-60mm

combination offers me a great travel solution my concern is about those fast

primes. Given the inherent greater DoF with the shorter focal length 4/3rds

lenses and the lack of really fast lenses I am concerned that I will simply find

myself too compromised for this type of shooting.

<p>

Are my concerns well founded or is the E-3 4/3rds system likely to be able to

offer me an acceptable compromise?

[ronald_moravec1]

It depends on how large you make your prints. 4/3 is probably good to 8x10 or a little

bigger. Sensor is still small.

 

If you like to isolate subjects with f 1.4, this is not the camera. Although you can get a

25mm 1.4, it will not behave the same as 50 1.4. Photoshop is good for bluring

backgrounds, but it is a fair amount of work to do well. You have to select the

background in some way, then apply gaussian blur.

 

Full frame Canon`s are simply too big for travel. We will have to see what Nikon`s

offering is. Canon wide lenses are not known for being the best quality either. I am not

thrilled with my Nikon stuff either. Wait for Leicas new R10 next Oct. My leica glass is

better than my Nikon by a mile. Problem has become cost. I am glad I own what I want

now. It has simply gotten outrageous.

[skip_williams]

If you are in love with fast primes, razor-thin DOF, high-ISO shooting, and big prints (>16x20), then the 4/3 system will probably not meet your requirements in the short term. The lack of fast lenses aside from the Sigma 30/1.4 and Leica 25/1.4 is a real PITA. I'd love for them to introduce a 16/1.4, but no plans exist now. OTOH, the E-3 or E510's IS will certainly help with low light shooting.

 

The two fast lenses mentioned above will mimic your 50/1.2. The DOF will be greater on the 4/3 camera, which may or may not be what you want. I disagree with Ronald, as I think that the 25/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4 will be quite similar, with the DOF and perspective differences that are inherent in the focal lengths. Equivalent focal length lenses will give you ~double the DOF on 4/3 vs. full-frame cameras.

 

On an E-3: 25/1.4 DOF at 10': 2.07 feet

On a 5D: 50/1.4 DOF at 10': 1.02 feet

 

The 12-60 is a nice, fast focusing lens, but it's not a speed demon at f/2.8-4.0. The 14-35/2.0 might be THE lens, but not cheap or lightweight, nor available yet.

 

For travel, it's hard to beat the E510, but it's not a pro or pro-spec camera. The E-3, which I spent a fair amount of time with this weekend, is a superior camera, IMO, esp with it's IS.

[akochanowski]

Skip, when you have a minute, what are your impressions of the E-3?

[richsimmons]

I have an E500 and I print very large prints with no problems and no discernable noise (large as in up to 36 by 48 inches). It all depends on how well the shot is set up.

 

The line of lenses you can use is here

 

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

 

You'll see a new 14-35 f/2.0 in there. With the fixed aperture, maybe that can close the gap a little for you. I also have a 35/3.5 lens that I've been happy with as well.

[john_hermanson2]

I handled the E-3 at the NYC PhotoPlus Expo show last week. Focus's very fast, BIG viewfinder. A little weighty but once you use it, I think you wouldn't find much wrong with it. It's 10 meg and you can easily get 13x19" prints. I've gotton beautiful 13x19 from my old 4 meg E-10. With upsampling, you are not limited. Olympus regularly displayed 30-40" prints from 3 meg point and shoots. The "have to have lots of megs resolution" is a fallacy. Unless you're going for bragging rights. John, www.zuiko.com

[tim_huggins]

I have to concur with Rich and John regarding the sensor size/pixel count hype. To base any digital camera purchase on this criterion shows a person needs to do more research. Olympus proved over 40 years ago with the PEN's that print size/enlargement was more a function of the quality of the camera, especially the optics, than the size of the "negative". This is even more true now with cameras that are really computers with lenses.

 

Your desire for shallow DOF seems a strange requirement for travel/landscape or event photography. However, the whole range of Zuiko OM lenses provides an wide assortment of choices. These are readily available and quite a bargain. Presumedly, neither the manual focus or aperture would be a problem when your goal is to isolate a single subject.

 

I have to ask - what is the 510 lacking, that makes a camera "... pro or pro-spec ..."?

[derek_linney]

Thanks for the input which was useful; I had forgotten about the Leica 25mm f1.4 and also found the link to the 4/3rds site helpful.

<p>

I will await test reports on the E-3 with interest.

[shadow-island]

Tim, when side by side comparsions are done...it certianly seems the 510 meets the criteria of being a pro/spec camera. I think the hang up is mental in that it has a triple digit numerical name which is a camera symbolic with todays point and shoots. Maybe if Olympus would have called it the E-5 or my favorite E-O5, it would have more favorable appeal to the "gotta have the name thing" shooters. I have a Fuji S5pro and bought the 510 for backup. However, It has quickly become the camera of choice.

[ilkka]

"I really like using fast primes (35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, 135mm f2)"

 

Not a strong point for 4/3s.

 

"exceptional high ISO performace of the 5D"

 

Another weak point for the 4/3s

 

"creative options of very shallow depth of field"

 

Again, not with 4/3s.

 

If you want to support 'smaller' manufacturers, why not consider Pentax or Sony? Their newest bodies are weather sealed and not that big and work really well. But really, if you worry about reliability and want weather sealing, you need to buy more than one body anyway, plus a set of lenses. I cannot see how you could possibly save money by straying away from your current Canon system.

[kyle_jones2]

Keep your Canon gear; Oly's stuff can't touch it for high ISO shooting or shallow DOF. But

Canon's offerings can't touch the Zuiko 50-200 for speed, reach and portability all rolled into

one. I shoot Canon and Olympus gear to combine the strengths of both and it's a good

combination. The E-3 and the upcoming SWD version of the 50-200 look quite promising

for what you want. Much lighter, much smaller, much larger aperture and a normal zoom

ring instead of the push-pull thing Canon uses.

[derek_linney]

Kyle, Thanks for your suggestion I will look into this once the E-3 reviews start coming through as a combined outfit might be the best solution for me.

[akochanowski]

I think many of us have a combined outfit. Mine's an Oly for small, portable street shooting and a Nikon for more robust portfolio work or sports. I too want to see the actual files from an E-3, as on paper it doesn't really give me a good enough reason to switch from a D200. It's a bit disappointing that Oly essentially duplicated the size and weight of the Nikon intermediate gear. Nikon still gives me the option of fast, smallish AF or MF primes, while Oly doesn't. But the IS and new 12-60 sounds very nice.

[bruzy]

I don't know if this helps you decide but I did get to play with an E-3 briefly and looked at

very high ISO shots (over 2000) and they were shockingly low in noise when viewed on a big

monitor.

[._._z]

Oly's e-3 press release touts "a new state-of-the-art amplifier circuit to eradicate noise" -- sounds lovely, but means little. Forthcoming tests will reveal how the Olympus's sensor relates to competitive cameras like the significantly less expensive 40D, or Nikon's D300 or Sony's A700.