basscheffers

Just tried it and it certainly is faster. (Mac Pro Quad 2.6, Radeon X1900 XT) Importing was

much faster and overall it feels a lot snappier. Mind you, this was with a new library with

only 100 photos. I don't expect it to get slower with a larger one, but you never know.

You can now leave the loupe where it is when doing adjustments - nice touch, I like seeing

sharpening at 100%.

But the very best new feature for me: ordering print and books in Australia. Yay, Finally!

\o/

I don't know if any other countries have been added as I can't find a list. 1.5 just told me

sorry and gave a list of countries where you could. Now I try ordering and I get aussie

prices and it has no problems with my address. Sweet.

"Why did they include the dinky, useless pop-up flash on a supposedly professional

camera" - damned if you do, damned if you don't...

That is mainly because some argue it is useful for fill-in flash or at least a little catch-

light in the eyes of your subject and they probably have a point. Heck, even Hasselblad put

one on the H1!

One thing I like about the new grip is that it simply takes two BLM-1 batteries. The separate battery and charger required for the E-1's grip made the set too expensive for

my taste. Now that that problem is gone I will probably get the grip too.

Strange; I find mine on the E-1 to be quite sharp. Nothing like the 50/2, but as zooms go,

quite sharp indeed. The 50-200 is sharper still, though. I thought that was what most

people's experience was with this lens!

Hey Ray,

Getting the E-3 soon is a given for me, but not sure about the 12-60 before I get some

opinions on it. (it is $800 in the kit, after all) The extra reach aside, how would you rate the

optical quality compared to the 14-54?

Cheers,

Bas.

The only important data I can think of are camera model, ISO, white balance and exposure

date. The latter to order your photos and the former three to help the raw converter decide

on a profile to use and how to set the initial white balance.

Anything else is just nice to have if you want to remind yourself of which lens you used and

such, but nothing I would consider important in processing the image.

Another review that confirms what the users of this lens already know:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/35/cat/14

This is a truly awesome lens, you can't get a better combined portrait and macro lens for any

system.

The extra pins are there for the camera controlling the flash. But the OM and E-series flash

control are not compatible, which is probably why they put the pins in different places.

The big middle pin fires the flash, which does work. So you can only use the T20 in manual

or auto mode, but not dedicated with TTL metering.

Yes, I am also for it. While it may divide the Olympus forum a bit, it would unite the users of

other FourThirds brands, which I think is more valuable in the long term.

Hi Gerry, yes, relocated down under earlier in the year. Just starting to get back into old

habits. Oh, expect baby portraits soon too! :D

The 25/1.4 is too big for what it is; about the same size/bulk as the 14-54. But is is very

nice indeed. I haven't done too much shooting with it yet and do not yet have any too

interesting images, but technically it is near flawless. Dead sharp, lovely bokeh. I do see

ever so slight vignetting wide open, but unless you are in the habit of shooting white walls

at f/1.4, you won't notice.

Probably not the perfect all-day walk-around lens, but if you can put up with the 14-54

and would like something better quality at the expense of zoom, it should do quite well.

Oh, if only Pentax released their pancake 21/3.2 in FourThirds mount! (I would buy an E-

410 just for that combo)

I have never been a real big telephoto user, so the 50-200 isn't too good value for me.

That said, optically, it is a stunning lens. Not "as good as the 14-54"; it is much better, in

fact. My main problem with it isn't focussing speed, rather the fact that it does not have a

focus range limiter like the Canon 70-200 does. This means that if you miss-fire, it goes

hunting through the entire range, even though you were exclusively shooting at 3 meters

and beyond. (as you can probably guess, the amount of rotation needed to go from 3m to

infinity with lenses such as these is much, much smaller than 1m-3m) I guess a 2x faster

AF motor will make that less painful, but it is not nearly as good a solution as putting in

the darn limiter. (Olympus has it on their 150mm, so the tech isn't foreign to them!)

I have a 16" print of this and the detail in it is amazing:

http://bas.scheffers.net/snaps/safari/068-cheetah.html (E-1 and 50-200) And you can

even get a decent yield of reasonable pics when shooting sports:

http://bas.scheffers.net/snaps/touch/ (the first and only time I have tried my hand at this)

It isn't the smallest, but for a lens with an equivalent focal range of 100-400 at only

f/2.8-3.5, I find it quite a good size. Definitely needs a tri- or monpod to be used

comfortably, though! (or a beanbag on top of the landrover) I am not sure what problem

with the tripod mount you are referring to, but I do find the mount gets in the way of the

zoom action.

By the way, these discussions about what makes a professional camera bore me to tears.

Photographers are professional or amateur, cameras just are. People make money with

images taken using a Holga for crying out loud!

Gerry, I think you mean internal zoom as all of the pro lenses do have internal focussing.

Not sure if any of the cheaper lenses change size/rotate when focussing, though.

I think the 14-35 was meant to be out two to three years ago as well! At the time it

silently went away and was only re-announced last year, if I recall correctly. Too bad they

didn't re-design it as a 12-35... It is not on my want list right now, though. Mostly

because of weight and bulk. I have the 50/2 and 25/1.4 and would ideally have a

hypothetical 12/2.8 (or faster) to complete a set of high quality, fast, glass. The 14-54

suits me well for traveling, thought the 12-60 sounds tempting as a replacement.

My main interest in the E-3 are: a few more pixels, a bit less noise, faster display of the

histogram and IS. Probably in that order. None of the other much touted improvements

(5fps, 11 focus points, live view, 1/8000, 1/250 sync, etc) don't really catch my attention.

Well, it only weighs 140 grams (that's 5 ounces for you yanks) more than the E-1, not

something you would really notice, especially not with at almost another pound of lens

attached to it. In combination with the 14-54, the E-3 weighs not even 13% more than the

same combo based on an E-1.

So get over it or buy an E-410! :P

Seriously though, barring image quality that has yet to be determined, it looks like a good

upgrade. The E-1 has been a good friend for three and a half years now but has its

drawbacks, as any now 5 year old design would have. With this it looks like I won't need

another camera for the next decade if I upgrade. (which I likely will)

Nice one, Oly!

I assume these are scans from prints? Like Jorgen, I would say underexposed and then

compensated in print by the lab.

Take some negs of good photos you took before in similar conditions and compare them to

the last negs of the bad ones. (hold against the light) Do the bad ones seem very light in the

negatives? If so, they are underexposed.

I convert all my Oly files to Adobe's open-standard DNG format. The converter is free and

aside from making your Oly files more liked, it also makes them less than half the size.

Not sure if Microsoft's tools open DNGs, though!

One that fits on your camera! :) (you haven't toldus what you shoot with)

The Canon/Nikon own brands score consistently better than Sigma/Tamron, but they do cost

a lot more. I have no experience with any of these myself, so Google for some reviews is what

I would do.

Good luck!

When you say "people", I assume you mean social photography, as you 90mm is already

perfect for portraits. A 17-55/2.8 would greatly improve upon the 18-55 you have.

According to the specs for the display, all "new" 15 and 17 inch models should be OK:

http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

But the spec for the 1.67 15" G4 says the dual-link DVI that is required is a build-to-order

option:

http://support.apple.com/specs/powerbook/PowerBook_G4_15-inch_1_67-1_5GHz.html

It does say you would also get 128MB of ram with that, so that would be a good sign if you

have it. ("about this mac" and then "more info" and find the video card)

At the end of the day, it's probably best to take it into an Apple Store and ask...

Cheaper is just a term for inexpensive; no need to feel offended! :)

On most (D)SLRs in the higher price bracket they shell out a dollar or two for a red beam

to assist in focussing, which isn't nearly as annoying as the strobing. You can get rig of it

by getting yourself an FL-36 (or FL-50) flash. Not only will these give much better results

than the built in one, they also have the red AF assist beam; no annoying strobe and it

works much better.

But you really should read the manual too; these cameras have a lot of options and a lot of

explaining to do about what they do and when they do it, as you found out. ;-)

Uhm, have you read the manual, front to back?

In low light, the E-500 fires a burst of flash to help focus. Many of the cheaper DSLRs do this.

Does that Nikor actualy signal its chosen aperture back to the body in the same way an OM-

lens does? (with a lever)

I have admit, I have no idea how Nikkor lenses work in that regard, so just a thought...

PS: Why not print 5x7s from you Oly pictures? That can be done with very little cropping and

a slightly larger picture than 6x4 looks much nicer to me. Many labs now also offer 6x4.5,

which is a perfect match for the 4:3 format which is also what virtually all digicams work in.

What you need to ask yourself is *which* lenses do you need, rather than looking at simply

who sells the most.

I like my E-1 and, for me, Olympus sells the right lenses. Sigma is also making more and

more of them and now even Leica is getting in on making lenses for the system too; it

doesn't look like it is dead in the water to me...

If I were to start from scratch now, I might be looking at other systems (though not Canon)

but I see no reason to dump what I have and start over.

What Mac are you on Antonio?

I use an old 1.8GHz G5 Powermac and Aperture works just fine for me. Sure, if I were a pro

and working with it many hours a week, I'd like something faster. But if you have a G5

processor and a graphics card that is supported, you should be fine.

I always try before I buy and "evaluation" copies are easy to find on the internet.

I have more faith in in-lens IS but I am not sure if that is warranted. The sensor shaking

about like mad trying to keep things stable just sounds like electornics failure waiting to

happen. Optical IS also isn't exactly new technology; the teething problems should have been

taken care of by now.

One *big* advantage of in-lens IS is that you can see it through the viewfinder whereas in-

body is you can't.

The huge advantage with in-body IS of course is cost...