glenbarrington

Of course, I'll wait till we start getting some feedback from real users. But it certainly SOUNDS like it's even fatter and more bloated than V4. It's become the Marlon Brando of photo editors.

 

Remember in that Western, 'Missouri Breaks'; Brando was so fat he wore what looked like a moo-moo or a night gown underneath his gun belt? That's what's happening to PSE, it won't come in a shrink wrapped box, the packaging will be 'loose' and 'comfortable'. And like Marlon in that movie, they'll have to resort to resort to special effects to make it LOOK like it can get up on a horse and ride away!

I think it's a mistake to think of it as an alternative to Photoshop, or any editor, for that matter. If you look at it's functionality, it is above all else, a high end Photo organizer. (and 'workflow manager', is just a fancy term for organizer) Like most organizers, it can do simple editing, printing, categorizing, and a variety of display functions such as a slide show, etc. And like most organizers, it is attempting to become a RAW development platform as well.

 

Now, I do see Lightroom cutting into the sales of Photoshop, but not because photographers won't need an editor. Instead, I predict that photographers won't need the kind of editor that Photoshop has become. (i.e. a huge piece of software designed more for the publishing and advertising industry than for photographers.)

 

Instead, you may find editors becoming smaller, perhaps more modular, and designed with the idea of a seamless integration with the base organizer. The new ACDSee standalone "Editor V4' (formerly fotoCanvas) is an excellent example.

 

I've been testing it out. It works seamlessly with ACDSee and ACDSee Pro, and provides virtually all the things 90% of the photographers out there will need. But I've also been testing it with Lightroom and it works pretty well with Lightroom too. It isn't quite as seamless with LR as it is with ACDSee, but it isn't any worse than CS2 with LR or PSE 3 with LR. And at $90 a copy, it is significantly cheaper than CS2 and a bit cheaper than PSE4. I like it better than PSE3 although there are things I wish it did better, such as 'save for web'. (Resizing in general seems accurate but not that convenient)

 

Anyhow, back to the point. After spending $200 - $300 on Lightroom, photographers aren't going to want to spend another $600 for duplicate and possibly less effective (probably no better) features found in CS2 (or CS3). I think Adobe wil be forced to produce a leaner editor that provides only the editing functions that phtographers will need.

 

In effect Photoshop will likely be split up into a photographic tools module and a Publishing tools module. Perhaps Bridge will also be spun off as an alternative organizer for those who prefer something other than Lightroom. You could reconstruct the original Photoshop by buying all the modules. Who knows, by breaking up PS into separately priced components Adobe might keep or even improve their income.

 

With Lightroom in the product mix, I just don't see a single, huge, multipurpose editor being practical or cost effective for most photographers. This also provides opportunity for other editor publishers to grab some market share from Adobe. (Which may be why ACDSee revived an all but dead editor product)

I'm quite fond of ACR used with PSE3. I've been experimenting with the Lightroom Beta and I think it's Raw conversion is VERY good. BOTH work very well with mt E500

Interesting article! Thanks. I found the comments below the article to be most revealing as to where working photographers, both amature and pro, are on this issue. I also found it interesting that the LR project was on the verge of being killed when Aperture was released.

 

I agree with the sentiment that Lightroom will significantly reduce the need for Photoshop. Personally, I think this is a good thing, PS is really aimed at the publishing/Art Director crowd, and not really at the photog. You may see a new generation of Editors appear that ARE aimed at the photographer.

 

I've been using Lightroom beta on my Toshiba laptop and comparing it to ACDSee V8. Clearly, ACDsee is a far more mature product and is more stable than LR.(never thought you'd hear someone say ACDSee is STABLE, did you!?! Compared to Lightroom, it is). However once I maxed out the RAM on my A75, LR got much more stable. And it IS a Beta product.

 

I must say, I like Lightroom well enough that I will consider moving to it if the V1 product is reasonably reliable. There are things I miss in ACDSee though. Speed, of course, ACDSee is a better organizer in general,I think. Its much better at dealing with keywords and searching than LR.

 

Also with ACDSee, if you can SEE an image, you can work with it in ACDSee, no need to import photo to work with it. This is useful in that my wife often asks me print photos taken with her Kodak for her, and I would like to print, burn to a CD and get them off my Toshiba.

 

But on the whole, the beta of Lightroom shows a great deal of promise. I look forward to seeing how the first commercial version shakes out!

I really enjoy using my E500. I've been using SLR's for over 40 years. This is a good SLR of very high quality. The viewfinder is small, but not too small, the kit lenses are VERY good when comared to the Canon & Nikon kit lenses.

 

No regrets here.

I certainly hope Olympus doesn't go the way of Minolta. They bring a unique perspective to the marketplace. I know I really enjoy using my E500 and I'm reasonably certain I wouldn't enjoy a Canon or Nikon in the same way.

 

Now that being said, I've tried to look back and approach the question from a sort of historical activity perspective to look for clues as to Oly's overall health. If you recall, Minolta practically stopped releasing cameras, They didn't even seriously update existing models. Minolta gave up long before they quit.

 

That doesn't seem to be the case for Oly. They continue to release new cameras, new stuff. They are still in the game. They don't appear to have reached the decision point where they don't want/can't spend any more money. so that is a good sign I think.

 

BUT. . .If they want to be taken seriously, they NEED a pro level camera in the marketplace. It doesn't have to be wildly popular and sell millions of bodies. It just has to be there and offer some interesting concepts notavailable in other competing cameras. The public's opinion of a company's overall technology has to be positive for them to sell cameras, and unfortunately, the public judges the technology on the high performance products, not the cameras THEY can afford to buy.

 

That is Oly's weak spot, they have produced some incredible, quirky, and brilliant consumer grade cameras with no high performance cameras anchoring them.

They might work for you. The thing is, no two products are going to have the exact same feature set and the features they do share aren't necessarily going to work exactly the same way. The 'free' version of Lightroom is a BETA product and it is very rough. It is for experimenting with and not for integrating into what you do for money.

 

You need to understand exactly what it is you like about Extensis before you can judge between the candidates. If you don't already know a given product, it becomes more dificult. I would start with the cheapest first, download the free trial programs (they all have them) and systematically test them out.

No one has announced anything. I really like my G3, but the lack of an upgrade path or even a serious competitor, caused me to go to the Olympus E500. I have found that it provides a very satisfactory traditional DSLR experience. I'm not getting rid of my G3 however!

The Ricoh certainly Sounds like what you are looking for! But it IS pretty much a one trick pony.

Answer to question 1: YES if you are as good as the pro photographer why bother to use him/her at all?

 

Answer to question #2 Olympus E500 2 lens kit about $700 USD Olympus FL50 electronic flash about $400 USD.

 

Answer to question #3 The books can only take you so far, it takes experience to go beyond that point. I just don't see you getting enough out of a book quick enough to make a difference.

 

I think instead of spending money on a camera, why don't you contract with a photographer in those locations. For publication credit and say, the right to keep photos not used, You might even be able to work out a deal that won't cost too much money.

Why not buy PSE and use the savings to buy more RAM? No matter WHAT editor you use, 256meg of RAM is simply not enough, especially for BIG files.

 

Alternately download a free Editor from www.freeserif.com and buy more ram. Serif's PhotoPlus is a PS work alike and it isn't half bad. The price is right.

Bill,

 

The Panasonic L1 is a 4:3s mount DSLR similar in design to the Olympus E330, using many of the same components. It uses the same lens mount as the Oly and as such the new 'Leica' branded Anti-shake lenses can be used on any 4:3s mount camera, and of course vice versa. In addition, all 4:3s legacy lens adapters produced for the Oly will work on the Panasonic. So you would be able to use Minolta, Nikon, and Pentax lenses on any 4:3s camera (In manual mode of course).

 

From what I've been reading of the reviews though, both the L1 and the A100 seem somewhat disappointing to me. They aren't the breakthru cameras I had been hoping for.

I have the E500, I like it a lot.

 

First of all, this camera has its faults. But it IS a very good camera, and at the price that Olympus has been selling the 2 lens kit for, well. . . you get a lot for the money.

 

Right now, it is the lightest DSLR on the market. A major selling point to me. I'm sick of lugging of what seems like a couple of extra tons around when I go shooting, and every little bit helps.

 

When it comes to comfort and ergonomics, i think it's OUTSTANDING! To me, it FEELS like a quality camera, and my hand didn't feel cramped like it did with the Canon. While I would rate the Nikon D70 was almost as good in this category, I'd give the Oly E500 a slight edge, it felt 'right' the minute I picked it up.

 

Menus and manual controls are well placed and made sense to me. Learning to use the camera was quick and easy. I came from the Canon G3, and I never feel lost in the menus the way I did with the Canon even after 3 years!

 

The viewfinder is a weak point for some, but not me. It is a small viewfinder compared to the Canon or Nikon. But as compensation, I felt it worked the best with my eyeglasses. The image is bright and clear and there is no fall off in the corners of the frame.

 

One problem I DON'T like, the exposure and other info is not very bright in the viewfinder and difficult to see, especially in bright light. It is irritating, but not a deal breaker for me; the camera's other qualities more than make up for this.

 

Image quality with Kit lenses - Very good with lenses stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so. A little soft with the lenses wide open, but better than the Canon lenses. Olympus has always had a reputation as one of the best of the Japanese lensmakers and these kit lenses continue to promote that reputation, I think. The kit Telephoto lens, a 40 - 150 (35mm equivalent to 80 - 300 mm) zoom is remarkably good. It may well be the best kit lens on the market.

 

The camera definitely has image noise issues starting at iso 800. However it is manageable with software like NoiseNinja and such. Also how many people shoot at iso higher than 400 anyway? On the other hand, if you intend to do something where noise is an issue like concert photography or astronomical phototography, this is probabaly not the camera for you. For everyone else, I would say don't worry about it.

 

Autofocus is about average IMO. As near as I can tell, there is no such thing as a GOOD autofocus. They ALL have their problems. Manual focus is pretty good, but the ground glass optical viewscreen really needs a split image for good focus. I've been taking to shoot in the auto-focus mode with manual assist. I shoot pretty slow anyway, so this isn't a major sacrifice for me. And good accurate focus is very important to me.

 

Exposure seems accurate I have no complaints at all.. I shoot raw mostly and the only exposure correction I've been doing is for effect only, not to correct any deficiency in exposure. All the detail is there in the file. Images are very sharp and Olympus cameras have a color . . .'quality' to them that is both unique and very pleasing.

 

I like it and would recommend it to anyone who doesn't intend to do a lot of low light shooting.

That surprises me. I bought my wife an Easyshare and it works fine with the HP software that came with her printer. Maybe HP took the time to do the extra programming that the Kodaks require.

 

But I agree a card reader is the better faster way to go. Plus it doesn't take any battery power from your camera.

It depends on your intended use. For action, it's the E500 all the way. However, I would probably select the S3 if I were on a hike, just because I hate changing lenses when enjoying the hike is as important as the photos. There are times when the 'hassle' and 'stuff' of an SLR just get in the way of a good time. But then, there are times when a P&S just can't give you the results you want.

 

In terms of 'lens reach' They are about the same when you do tha math. 12:1 on the Canon, and the 2 Oly lenses on the 2 lens kit provides roughtly an 11:1 reach. But in practical application terms, I think the larger sensor on the E500 will allow for a better image after cropping, so I actually think the E500 will provide you with better more satisfactory 'reach' overall.

 

I own the e500 and would not hesitate to recommend it. The focal length of the lenses you mention is not correct. The FL you cite is the approximate FF 35mm equivalent. The Olympus kit lens tele is actually a 40 mm to 150 mm FL lens which is equivalent to 80 to 300 mm in 35mm.

 

It has many features not found on other entry level DSLRs and not on P&S cameras either. The anti-dust feature WORKS. Dust just isn't an issue with this camera. If you doubt this, go to a hardware site Like DP Review and count the number of posts about dust in the Oly SLR forums compared to the number of posts in other SLR forums.

 

It also does pixel mapping so no more wories about hot or dead pixels.

 

As a Canon G3 user I can state the Olympus menuing system is much better than the G3's menu system. The G3 menus are prettier, I don't feel lost in the Oly menus the way I do with the G3.

 

The kit lenses are a bit better than what you will find on other makes and the 40 - 150mm lens is remarkably good. The 14 - 45 mm kit lens is OK not as good as the 14 - 55 mm that Olympus also sells, but definitely better than the Canon kit lens and a little better than the Nikon.

 

for 95% of your photos either will serve you well, but I think the E500 will serve you better for that final 5%.

Autofocus from any manufacturer has never been all that accurate in my opinion. And it seems to have gotten worse in Digital SLRs, again in all brands and in my opinion. They all seem quite easily fooled.

 

On my Olympus E500, I use autofocus with manual assist (S+AF+M in 'Olyspeak'). It is slower, but I'm shooting kind of slow anyway these days and I am much happier with my results (focus wise, that is!).

It's not clear to me that shooting in raw would tell you anything if the issue is focus. Your post is a bit confusing though since you start out talking about focus and then show us a resolution chart.

 

The chart did not look out of focus to me. The the edges do seem softer than the center. And a focus issue would provide more uniformity in the softness I think. Can you manually focus and get exactly what you want?

 

You say the image gets better as you stop down, I am reluctant to say it is a focus issue in spite of the increaased DOF, because resolution is also affected by aperture setting.

 

I'm not that familiar with the Nikon line, is the D70 supposed to have a lower resolution than the D100? Then too, sometimes a given camera body and a given lens just don't work that well together. It's the mystery of minor wear and tolerances being ever so slightly off from the norm.

 

Whatever it is you are seeing, I personally don't believe it is a focus issue.

The Panasonic SLR, the L1 is a 4/3s system camera. The 'Leica' lenses can be used on both the Panasonic and Olympus bodies. Right now, they are the only two manufacturers of 4/3s system cameras. It is rumoured that Leica will OEM the Panasonic. I don't believe Leica will produce a new 4/3s system camera as that would divert resources from their core business. But rebadging the Panasonic and selling it at a premium might generate some cash for them, and give the 4/3s system a higher profile overall. That little red dot still has a cache about it.

 

Sigma also makes some of their lenses available in the 4/3s mount. Tamron is making noises about how they are 'thinking' about it. (I have no idea what that means!)

 

I'm quite pleased with my Olympus E500, and I look forward to reading some hands-on reviews of the Panasonic.

Hmmm! Interesting question I never considered before! With the tiny sensor size, and corresponding focal lengths it may be that it costs too much to make a diaphragm that can provide a reliable f/22 opening.

 

Especially since with those tiny sensors, you won't see a coresponding increase in DOF with the smaller apertures. With f/8, DOF on a small sensor camera is huge. And controlling exposure can be compensated for by varying the shutter speed and iso settings.

 

They may have made the decision that the increase in manufacturing costs won't be offset by any increase in sales.

I recently upgraded from a Canon G3 to an Olympus E500. I personally agree with your decision not to move too fast into a "system" camera.

 

In spite of all the automation and what a lot of people are telling you, the digital learning curve (to produce GOOD photos) is pretty steep in my opinion, even if you are an experienced film photographer. A lot of the old rules don't apply and a lot of the old rules DO apply but they have a 'twist' to them.

 

The kind of digital photography I'm doing is way different from the kind of film photography I used to do. I can't mark it up to JUST personal growth and development. I think technology has some influence as well. I say get your feet wet, but delay buying into a 'system' for a year or two when presumably you have grip on the technology and you know more about where you want to go photographically.

I really like my Olympus E500. However, I think you'll find ANY of them a step up even from some of the better 'serious' Point & Shoot cameras.

 

I am FINALLY able have the control back that I had 30 years ago with my match-needle film slr. It's great.

Have you tried the special effects that come with your photo-editor? Most editors within the $30 - $100 USD price range (Say, the Photoshop elements, Paintshop Pro, ACDSee Photoedtor 4 (very good, BTW) type editors all come with a variety of special effects. Look in the filters menu, sometimes called special effects.

 

Generally, these stand alone special effect packages just do automatically what you can do with an editor. The built in special effects just automate many of the functions of the edior.

No, the quality of Pentax lenses are clearly high enough for just about anyone's standards.

 

Back to the original question, the differences in the various models are quite real and quite significant to many people. If your needs are such that the differences between the various models DON'T seem significant, then buy the cheapest one.

Berk,

 

Did I miss understand your response?!? You can see into your Spotmatic viewfinder when it is a half a meter away from your face? Put into terms of measurement that I understand, that is roughly the length of two to three longneck bottles of beer placed end to end!

 

Sir, you have some seriously good eyesight!

I've been using CF cards in my E500, I've heard the XD cards are slower to write than CF. how do you feel they work in the real world?