paul_loader

<p>Thanks, I appreciate the replies. My Olympus kit is the E510 and 14-42mm and 150mm lenses. It just hasn't satisfied me with the quality of results the way my Nikon film cameras and primes did. I bought a 50mm 1.8 Oly lens specifically to take tripod shots and see how it compared with the kit zooms. I also thought about the 12-60 and other 4/3 lenses as one inevitably does. The size (and price) goes up rather steeply.</p>

<p>I have handled everything in the stores from Nex, u4/3, various EOS, various Nikon incl D7000, K5 etc. I use a Samsung WB2000 (for point and shoot) and whenever I leave a store it's the EOS60D I want to go back in for. If I do go for one I plan on the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4 L IS or a third party equivalent if they are as good for less money. I realise from my film days the importance of good lenses but it also seems sensors have moved on a bit since I bought the E510. Hence starting again without deep ties in a particular system at present.</p>

<p>I suspect this is a well-trodden subject so my apologies if I have failed to locate it in the archives.</p>

<p>Coming from Olympus 4/3 (it didn't float my boat in image quality the way I hoped) and preferring to avoid the size of FF 35mm DSLR bodies, I can feel myself settling on an EOS60D and good lenses. I'm taking my time and thinking through questions as they arise.</p>

<p>The 4/3 sensor of 17.3mm x 13mm = 225mm squared. The Canon APS-C sensor of 22.2mm x 14.8mm = 329mm. This is 1.46 x the area of the Olympus sensor and in its current 18mp resolution with good lenses appears to give me what I am looking for. At least, I spend as much time searching for galleries of results with the various brands to see what they are capable of and they give some fantastic heights to aim for.</p>

<p>I was surprised to find that the Nikon/Sony/Pentax sensor is 23.6mm x 15.7mm = 370mm squared. This is 1.64 x the area of the Olympus sensor. It is also 1.12 x the area of the Canon APS-C sensor. Does this give the Nikon/Pentax/Sony a noticeable advantage over the Canon sensors or is that cancelled out by other benefits of Canon know-how?</p>

<p>It makes sobering reading to see that FF 36mm x 24mm sensor size = 864mm squared. A persuasive argument for going full frame in terms of pure image quality. Unless the cropped sensors and lenses have reached the point where on-line viewing and printing below A3/A4 give us all that we need unless severely cropping. Amidst a limitless volume of this camera vs that camera I'd like to understand this basic area a bit better and have posted it in the Canon section rather than a general one as I'm leaning towards a Canon decision.</p>

<p>My use is only family and casual by the way, a bit of portraits, a little landscape, wildlife in the garden, nothing worth publishing, occasionally something makes its way onto the wall at home or elsewhere in the family, no bigger than A4 to date.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading.</p>

<p>Thanks Gents, I meant to add I would be likely to look at the focal range of 28mm, 50mm, 80mm 105m, 135mm, 180mm and maybe 300mm. Of those, the 28mm for when I need it, such as indoors. 50mm to 135mm for casual portraits and capturing family in action whether head and shoulders, full length, family in the garden or out and about, 180mm to 300mm for more distance and less awareness of having their photo taken plus for the garden birds etc.</p>

<p>In focal length my Olympus E510 14-42mm and 40-150mm have been perfect (given their x 2 crop factor) but the image quality has not wowed me as I hoped (I tried other lenses too) and I intend to update the body rather than just a better lens. Alas the new and perhaps last E5 is very expensive and crossed off my list.</p>

<p>As mentioned, I can (and will) pore over the manufacturer's info and I'm not being lazy by asking. I have been surprised in store when handling EOS kit is all and thought Canon users might have some interesting perspectives. We are spoilt now with the range of formats and lens forms coming from 4/3, Samsung, Pentax primes and so on alongside FX&DX, EF&EF-S. Since I'm starting again and wanting more than just a pocket camera (good as the WB2000) then I'm trying to explore carefully.</p>

<p>That in itself is difficult given the poor level of reviews on the web. In the film era we got to understand our film preferences. Now I want to know how good the 18mp Canon, 16mp Nikon and 16mp Pentax sensors are, the metering, colour rendition and also the processing. The reviews are obsessed with noise and pixel peeping at the expense of it. When I read that someone is pleased with their new 60D compared with their D80 or D90 (or D7000 over D40, D50) it's not easy getting to understand by how much the latest generation of bodies are improving.</p>

<p>That's next week's homework though!</p>

<p>I'm one of those people thinking about an EOS 60D, Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 and I expect all meet or exceed my ability. I used to shoot film Nikon, sold it all and in recent years have used a mix of Panasonic LX2, Olympus E510 with twin lens kit and now a Samsung WB2000 as my pocket camera. Shooting is all amateur, family, outings, birds in the garden, nothing special and nothing sensational.</p>

<p>Against this context I have picked up all 3 of the potential bodies and the thing which has surprised me has been that whichever Canon is attached to an EOS body seems huge. I would like to find this isn't true as it is enough to steer me away from Canon.</p>

<p>The 50mm 1.8AF (non EF-S I recall) is okay but I would like to get a better understanding of how other lenses compare between the brands physically. If they are generally similar I won't discount the 60D, I like that equally in the hand to the K5, I like the D7000 less for some reason.</p>

<p>Dave Luttmann said earlier:</p>

 

<p>"Based upon the Raw files I downloaded from the 60D and K5, and processing in Lightroom, I found the K5 to be the easy winner. The 60D can pull more detail, but in a crop print I just made from a 20x30 equivalent enlargement, the extra detail is invisible.<br>

As to noise, here again the K5 is the winner. I cleans up beatufully at 6400iso for a clean 8x10 and 11x14 print. More than enough for an album from a wedding. The 60D simply didn't look as good....but the difference was small.<br>

In the end, the Pentax K5 is simply the best APS-C camera going!"</p>

 

<p>Yet over on the Nikon thread about the same DP review http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Xfrp Dave Lee says "I wasn't impressed by the output from the Pentax at all, looked noisy and full of artifacts at higher ISOs. The D7000 on the other hand remained very clean and clear all the way up to ISO 3200 with very usable output at ISO 6400"<br>

It's confusing to somone like me how seasoned photographers can have such contradictory views. Can this be down to the computers used and how unreliable it is forming views using your own PC and monitor or is something else at work?</p>

<p>Justin, I can't add to the specific comments about technology, partnerships and future direction. However if I take the thread title at face value I have mixed thoughts.</p>

<p>As a frustrated Olympus E510 and twin kit lens user I still want to use a camera with a better viewfinder so the EOS60D/D7000/K5 class of late 2010 has great appeal. Here in the UK my local camera stores are Jessops but they don't stock Pentax so the last one I picked up was a K10D 3 or 4 years ago. It felt as if it wasn't quite developed and needed a bit of refinement. I have to drive 30 miles to pick up a K7 or the new K5. I have picked up an EOS60D and can't quite connect with it, not really sure why, I suspect I will like the K5 and the D7000.</p>

<p>However, as soon as the stores bolt on these massive consumer zooms to any of these brands I find myself switching off and this is the reason for replying. The Samsung NX10, NX100, Sony NEX5 and Olympus Pen cameras really spoil us with compact lenses (until getting into telephoto focal lengths) and have a real attraction if they can get the autofocus speed and EVF quality sorted quickly.</p>

<p>Speaking solely as an amateur who is not in the market for full frame, top lenses nor commercial assignments this feels to be the biggest threat to 'investing' in any of the DSLRs. The Canikon brands continue to whip up the desire but I doubt most of us need (or really want) the DSLRs and as a result the expenditure feels fragile.</p>

<p>I can't watch anything on the internet where an American accent says "nigh-con". It's like a nail scraping down a chalkboard or a wire brush on concrete. Sorry to say, there are other Americanisms which have the same effect on me.<br>

A mate once made me endure some awful Star Trek film where Kirk makes egg-something for Picard and says "pass me the orrrr-egg-ann-owe" at which point I fell on the floor laughing and made him play it back. Now I suspect we get it wrong in England too and that Italians cringe when we say "ori-gaaan-owe".</p>

<p>Always a tough one accepting the language of others when our own pronunciations are ingrained for many years. At idle moments I find myself speculating whether Americans say "Peeentax", "Pine-tax", "Pennax" and so on.<br>

However, American accents have a rightness about them in rock and pop music whereas English misses the mark, just to balance things up.<br>

As cutely observed earlier though, I don't think these companies care if we are getting our wallets out, lots of laughs!</p>

<p>... or to have them acknowledge the test is invalid and to re-test it maybe someone should call them? Presumably they have received emails from folk such as those posting on this thread.<br>

(I'm currently a disillusioned Oly E510 user tempted watching the events of the next few weeks, tempted by the K7 but waiting to see if the rumoured releases bring a better sensor etc., this room is invaluable for the experiences of Justin and others who know what Pentax kit is really like day to day)</p>

<p>I was deflated when I read that the 50D uses the flash for AF assist as I have found this distracting and I am otherwise very tempted at the lower prices we are now seeing. I understand the 7D also uses the flash, am I missing the point here and misguided in thinking that a dedicated AF assist lamp such as that on Nikons is preferable?</p>

<p>I hoped the Samsung NX10 would be that ideal bridge camera. Pocketable so you have it with you, flexible enough to give decent performance. At the moment my pocketable camera is a Panasonic LX2. I love the 3 choices of aspect ratios and often shoot in 16:9, I also love the little Leica lens. Alas, the video sucks and is inferior to a friends LX1 and also LX3 samples I have tried with my own cards. Curious I know but really poor. I also use E510 and kit lenses, the 40-150 mostly.</p>

<p>For all its ergonomics I was disappointed with the video samples I took in store with the NX10 on two occasions. Seemed to be a noticeable banding issue plus the usual rolling shutter. I am hoping the Sony NEX3/5 or Samsung TL350(WB2000 in the UK) will fit the bill. I think many of us shoot casually and want some usable video and good shots whilst accepting the compromises of a small form.</p>

<p>Matt, can you help me understand "That's why a 50mm might be just what you want on a DX-format body" please.</p>

<p>If I understand the meaning of these cropped small sensors correctly isn't the only difference between DX and FF the field of view and not focal length magnification? If so wouldn't it mean that 50mm is 50mm no matter which body we use and that the perspective distortion of the portrait subject would remain the same, only the image content to the side of our subject would differ?</p>

<p>This is an area of great confusion to me at the moment.</p>

<p>For clarification, in 4/3 the FOV is x2 but the focal length remains the same? i.e. a 40mm to 150mm f/3 lens has a FOV of 80mm to 300mm (and a deeper DOF) but contrary to popular myth still has a focal length of only 40mm to 150mm?<br>

Thanks in anticipation. A lot of confusion out there but no doubt none in this room.<br>

It struck me that in previous decades the horse racing shots could (and probably would) have ben captueed with hyperfocal pre-focusing on manual focus kit together with manual exposure and worked well although a different and slower craft. The % of keepers with birding though must have been low and presumably photographers at the time constantly muttered about the day AF would come to their rescue.<br>

It is a shame that all the brands have dumbed down the viewfinders and manual focusing, I really miss the large bright port-holes and split prisms that meant we could have a say in it all.</p>

<p>Crikey, the original OP question looked an interesting one. After getting this far I had to go back and remind myself what it was.</p>

<p>It would seem to depend on what exactly those features are that are important to you personally. To throw confusion into the mix:<br>

- is there are any reason why the Sony Alpha 850 is not on your list and as others have said you will/should make a decision based on your longer-term lens needs?<br>

- any system will work for you if you want it too. See this ageing field report on an Olympus outdoor/wildlife shooter http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/information/php/2007_Reviews/Isaac/Oly510Review.php Olympus have committed this week to sticking with 4/3 so you should see successors to the E3/E30/E620 and their lenses do not have to apologise to anyone</p>

Thanks once more and the suggestions are timely. I have now been able to isolate the printer as the source of the problem

by taking the test print and those of mine causing the problem on media to another family member using a Canon MP500

with the same ink cartridges. No changes were made to the files.

 

The prints on this second Canon there did not suffer the same problem so I now need to work through the profile idea or

estbalish whether my printer has developed a fault. I'm no getting somewhere though.

Thanks for the replies. One of the checks I have done is to download a test print (at

digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml which I would have linked to but photo.net did not allow me to so with a full URL) and then both

view and print. In

broad terms this shows me two large differences.

 

1. On screen I see shades of blue in various places such as (a) in the two colour bands near the top (b) below the

word "ColourMatch" the very bottom line of the squares changes from white to blue and © the beads held in the hand

are a noticeably bright shade. When printed all of these areas are rendered towards or are very clearly a shade of purple.

 

2. On screen the backgrounds behind both (d) the picture of the hand and (e) behind the dog are grey. Also, (f) the solid

block to the right of the dog/below the aforementioned squares/above the picture of the hand is also grey. When printed

each of these is warm and moving towards pink/purple.

 

I am still at a loss to know what I can do about it if it is down to the printer. This is because the menus appear to give me the

option to change the profile without explanation (so trial and error I guess) but who knows what happens on another photo.

Nor is there a colour temp option I can find nor a basic RGB adjustment to try varying the output.

 

Does this mean one wastes a lot of print and ink? It doesn't seem sensible. Is it a case of us naively expecting consumer

printers to provide an unreasonably high quality, consumers being kept away from setting them up or just user

inexperience? I don't know so I guess I shall need to go and read about which home printers people choose and why. Plus

calibrating the monitor along the lines already recommended.

Thanks Roger. Reading your reply I am wondering if it can work the other way i.e. if one downloads a good sample test print known to be neutral can we use it to check and confirm/eliminate the printer as the cause?

 

I am not looking for fine shades of colour correctness. Unlike the covers of my daughter's favourite novels, the pony I am looking at really should not be the delightful shade of pink showing in the prints. So I am looking for basic and large adjustments unless digital can't be that simple.

I searched before posting but without much success, most likely due to being a beginner at digital. Olympus will be

mentioned in various ways but I simply don't know if that is relevant or if my problem is a more general or printer problem so

I will try and advise the little I knowingly know, if you see what I mean.

 

A while ago I was unhappy that a home print taken with my Panasonix LX2 on my Canon iP5200r showed a lot of red/pink

when compared to the screen of my Dell D600. I forgot all about it.

 

Then, I recently picked up my first dSLR, an Olympus E510. As part of the whole new world of digital photography to me, I

shot some pictures in RAW so that I could experiment with whatever is important in digital. Basically, due to so much written

about sharpness, noise, white balance and so on.

 

I opened Olympus Master to get to know it and printed a shot of my daughter riding a pony. It came out very red. I instantly

thought back to the LX2 print. However, I did not know where to begin with what would be relevant and irrelevant between

the camera/monitor/printer.

 

Firstly, I have attempted to change the monitor settings using advise and a link from Wrotniak's site as known in Olympus

circles. In short, I played around with the gamma setting (noting that without expensive claibration hardware and software

this may not work). The on-screen picture soon looked noticeably less yellow than before. I assumed this was a good

beginning. I have the D600 gamma set to 2.2

 

Another test print yielded the same result, I assumed this crude process of elimation sat the blame at the door of the Canon

printer, especially having happened with 2 devices. in fact the 2nd E510 print was darker than the first although I confess I

ticked a photo optmiser option in my printer settings which may have been the cause. I went through my printer menus and

settings but I saw no indication of white balance or gamma settings tucked away.

 

I don't really know what I am doing though and whether something in the obvious jumps out as obvious or if this is

incomplete or random to find and solve the problem. Advice on any common causes or how you would work through the

problem would be much appreciated. Or indeed, a pointer to previous ocurrences, not wishing to waste anyone's time if

other reading is already available.

 

I can upload a shot if it helps but given the size of the RAW image would benefit from someone suggesting how and where

and what size etc.

 

Regards,

Paul

I dug out my old, disused Oly mju300 to see if that remote would work my E510. Yep, only one button but works just fine so I don't need to buy a specific one. I have set the E510 to recognise a 2 second timer delay which works and remembers the setting. Perhaps you can pick up this older Oly remote cheaper than E-volt versions, if I recall correctly it's an RM1.

Is that correct Ronald? Taking mine out of the box yesterday I noticed that and it would be very limiting. However, the manual states that you use the AE-L/AF-L button to pre-focus so it seems Olympus already thought of it.

I ordered an E-510 yesterday with the twin lens kit and received it a couple of hours ago. It all feels much lighter than

the metal-brick era I am used to in both bodies and lenses but I appreciate the positive feel of the controls and many

aspects of smart design where camera design has evolved in the past 20 years. Exmaples are the reversible lens

hoods with the click-stop when fitting to use or to put away.

 

I doubt the kit lenses will be a waste even as hands down to my daughter in the future so better lenses will wait.

Simply looking forward to getting to know this package, forget about the technical arguments and produce the shots

I used to get with film and which others get with digital.

 

I must search photo.net for advice on uploading images as I have become used to doing so with easycapture to keep

file sizes small. Perfect for web shots such as writing wiki articles (coffee is my indulgence and I write articles from

time to time on coffee time www.coffeetimeuk.com ) but this level of image isn't really going to help on a forum like

this.

 

Thanks again. Happy shooting.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I want to answer some things but not as an argument so let me clarify that I take no offence in

your comments.

 

I mentioned that I did not want to dwell on my Canikon reasons because I know brand loyalties run fierce and can lead to

distracting debate. Also, that it can appear naive to reject brands irrationaly. I do of course have (personal) rationale but

would rather leave them out of the conversation. I prefer to start afresh with digital-era designed lenses. Lower weight fits in

more with my 40+ age and family lifestyle, having watched the market for a couple of years and picking up a few bodies to

see how they feel, I am comfortable holding the Olympus/Pentax brands. For price point and VFM the lenses of both

(Olympus in general and limited lenses for Pentax) have high reputations. Yes, shooting styles are important and personal

and mine is not particularly demanding which Gerry summed up well.

 

I agree it is surprising that with so much information around one can become confused. You try and filter out the marketing

and reject the sites that just don't educate you helpfully but when "you don't know what you don't know" and only really have

the web as your guide your eyes glaze. The phrase "Obviously familiar with" could sound a bit condescending to be honest,

I honestly don't want to be familiar with misleading and irrelevant sites/reviews.

 

The hub of the confusion is that as a new joiner in a fast moving technology market, it becomes difficult to differentiate

genuine development and actual performance capability from the marketing fluff and the user-induced problems which may

do digital an injustice. Especially when recognising that no manufacturer is there to sell photography, they are there to sell

product!

 

This is why I posted here. I know it is sponsored but nevertheless has always seemed to attract pros and other

photographers who have a nasty (healthy) habit of bringing the less experienced of us back to solid ground on the issues

that really matter.

 

It is why I value the replies and also why part of my question went beyond product A versus product B and into a more

general question of digital quality versus the technology I am previously familiar, my limited digital skirmish to date and the

whole issue of artefacts.

 

Please understand that with only digital disappointment to go by to date, sorting into relevant and irrelevant is not easy for

everyone. You are absolutely right that real pictures by real people is what matters most. The links in the responses are

exactly what is needed, as is looking at a field report like this

http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/information/php/2007_Reviews/Isaac/Oly510Review.php

 

If I take all the replies as a whole, the messages appear to be that: all the major brands have developed into collective

competence; digital as a medium produces results which will not disappoint a film user; the scare of artefacts with DSLRs

comes from unrealistic pc viewing, a competent photographer can adapt to his/her choice.

I really appreciate the variety of points in the responses.

 

As is typical in these situations, this afternoon my head says take advantage of the typical E-510 offer around at

present because the E-520 images I see in comparisons look equal to the E-510 at best and possibly softer. I am in

London, UK so this means the E-510 twin lens kit for GBP 450 or less.

 

Of course, up to the point I purchase I shall change my mind, then again, then again, lots of

laughs.

 

BTW, I have previously picked up an E-510 and a K200D so I know how they feel in the hands. It is more a question

of the points I raised and in this regard, the replies so far are really helpful.

Oh dear, another one of those questions. I suspect this forum and many others are littered with confused owners,

potential owners, enthusiasts and ever-changing apsirations. So, I'm sorry to tread the boards with one of those

questions that are wildfire with every camera release.

 

I realise this is a wide question so here is my situation. I gave up film this year selling my Nikon legacy collection

and I specifically did not want to keep the Nikon lenses to use with digital. In fact, I don't really want a Nikon or a

Canon, just a personal thing I won't dwell on even though I have just discarded the two market leaders.

 

My shooting is family/amateur and in my film years I moved away from consumer viewfinders and consumer lenses

as I did not like either. I used portrait lenses and the mid/high end Nikons without buying the pro bodies so I still got

the lovely porthole viewfinders. Whether shooting indoors or outdoors I would typically shoot candid family portraits,

mostly of my daughter grorwing up, between f4 to f8 and around 35mm to 105mm perspective. My daughter is now

8. I still like to put A4 sized pictures on the wall.

 

Since the rate of evolution with digital is cruel to the money we spend on camera bodies I hoped to avoid buying a

DSLR for a few years until all the madness stops. Some hope!

 

I bought a Panasonic DMC-LX2 a short while ago and I have mixed views. Used in a narrow way I can get some nice

shots but I really have to work at it and away from natural outdoor light I see insufficient focal sharpness and clarity. I

have tested this using a tripod, varied the light levels and settings and given it a fair crack. I like the movies and the

variable aspect ratios but it hasn't scratched the quality itch I hoped it might.

 

So, I am back to the DSLR dilemma. The web is full of reviews and opinions and it is really hard to make sense of

the contradictions, particularly when (as I understand it):

1. our monitors often wrongly suggest artefacts of noise and purple fringing which are actually down to upsampling

and downsampling in the pc, and

2. printing technology can only show a limited amount of the resolution we capture

 

This seems to make almost all that we read unreliable. However, we have to start somewhere so in my case I have a

soft spot for the E-series and whilst there are good deals around on the E-510, I like the features added to the E-520

even if resolution is the same. Oh, and I realise the viewfinders are not

their strongest point.

 

So,

3. 14mp sensors require an awful lot of lens and it does not follow that a 10mp sensor/lens combination is

inadequate or inferior when designed properly. Olympus make a big thing of this certainly. How good is Oly image

quality?

4. I have read the suggestions that E-520 shots are inferior to E-510. Hopefully this is down to defualt settings and

the E-520 is equally as good when adjusted the same?

5. The Pentax K200D shots on the camerlabs review looked better than the Oly E-series and Canon 450D shots to

my eyes but in the video the editor remarked that one had to pay careful attention to the Pentax settings. This

inferred that they were manipulated/set-up in a certain way but I'll say again that on my monitor they looked better.

Is the Oly as good as Pentax for detail or do Oly capture less?

6. Finally, it's very hard to know just how good a camera like an E-520 is and whether digital really has caught up

when compared to something like a Nikon F90X shooting a 85mm 1.8 AF-D lens and ISO100 Fuji or Kodak slide.

Maybe this is unfair, maybe digital caught up a long ago, I don't know. I just know my LX2 isn't at that level.

 

I have to say I would buy a twin-lens E-520 kit if I go for it and have no idea what benchmark those who say the kit

lenses are good work to. Price wise this has greater appeal than say a Pentax K20D and working towards limited

primes. Again, hard to understand how "you don't get something for nothing" and "laws of diminshing returns" apply

to DSLRs and the final proof has to be in the images.

 

Which brings me back to the alleged unreliability of much of what we look at on screen. All rather confusing. Any

thoughts from those who have been around the block with some of this kit are most welcome!

I can't say I've shot digital beyond my Olympus mju300, my subconscious seems to say there will be a few more years left in digital yet for me to gt on the bandwagon :-)

 

However, every camera I own was chosen (partly) on the basis of viewfinder. F90X, F3HP, SQAi, FM2N. Along the way I rejected all Canon (except the 1 series which I could not then afford), Contax G2, Minolta 7 etc.

 

If one puts on the Cartier-Bresson hat though, perhaps it matter not at all if one simply uses the LCD screens of digital as a rough framing. Presumably we're going to see a top-plate LCD VF at some point and then we'll really be motoring, unless someone has already done it.

 

Paul