kevin_dixey2

I'm probably in the minority here but I shoot an X-P1 and only use adapted lenses. In fact I've been shooting adapted lenses for several

years on various mirror-less bodies. I think Fuji native lenses are terrific but all of my lenses combined cost less than a Fuji 35/1.4 (which

I did have for a while). I also think it is perfectly doable to go MF. The last time I looked Leica M cameras were still all MF. I don't shoot a

lot of action but I have been able to get a number of candid of both 13 year old and my hyper active terrier so it's not impossible to do. It

just takes a bit of anticipation.

 

At the moment I have (Nikon wise) an HC 50/2 and a 28/2 AiS. I'll probably be picking up a Nikkor-O 35/2 and/or Nikkor N 24/2.8 in the

near future as well. The most significant drawback is the lack of a good WA option when shooting adapted lenses. I myself almost never

shoot WA so it's not a problem. On the rare occasion I want a wide shot I will use my 28 and create a short panorama. My 28/2 is my

normal lens and the 50/2 is a short telephoto. For the kinds of things I want to for it works great. Image quality wise, I find the Nikon

lenses to very impressive. They don't have the modern look that native lenses do but they produce great results none the less.

<p>I'm late to the party but, I had that decision to make. Now that the LX5 is out the LX3 has dropped in price. I picked up a low mileage LX3 (about 500 shots) for around $200. That was about $150 less than I could get an LX5 for and for me the larger zoom, improved controls and ability to use a and EVF weren't enough to sway me. In the images I had seen from the LX3 and LX5 it looked to me as though the LX3's lens was a bit sharper throughout it's zoom range and while the LX5 had less noise in high ISO images that seemed to be at the expense of sharpness. I use Lightroom so I figured I could denise the images in there (it does a pretty good job at it as well).</p>

<p>I'm very happy with the LX3. I think the LX5 is a heck of a compact camera and I would have no reservations using one but it didn't seem to be enough of an upgrade to the LX3 to justify the extra cost. Of course everyone is different and for some folks the control wheel, or the ability to use an EVF might be the best thing ever. You just gotta ask yourself how much those things mean to you.</p>

<p>I just came back from 3 weeks in Spain and Portugal. I took my DSLR with a 14-54 (28-108 effective) and the images came out great. I also would have gladly traded it for a good point and shoot. We spent a lot of time walking and exploring and the DSLR ended up being a major P.I.T.A. I like to travel light and explore off the beaten path and the DSLR on my shoulder was not my idea of fun.</p>

<p>I'm inclined to not go the Panasonic LX3 or Canon S90 route (although I have been considering them) because of price. The camera should give you decent results, video and work well on auto. It should also be reasonably priced so if I lose it or break it it's not a big deal. I'm not so inclined to go for the 10X travel zooms. To be honest WA is much more important for the kind of thing I like to do. I should think there are a number of Panasonic, Fuji or Canon cameras that could fit the bill.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>dan Mar - as stated above, the EXIF data is captured for the body but not for the lens. I se Aperture for the Mac so I can manually enter it but I don't see where I can enter it on camera.</p>

<p>I'll check when I get the E520. I don't recall from when I had the E500. I'll get it in a few days. </p>

<p>I've hand held the Olympus 200 f4 on an E500 successfully.</p>

<p>I vote for developing and original vision an pursuing it. The gear will sort itself out.</p>

<p>I would check on eBay for what they are going for. It will depend on what kind of condition its in. I have bought silver OM1s with a 50/1.8 for around $100 in good shape and paid as little as $75 for a pristine OM2n with a MIJ 50/1.8. Another thing you could do is go to KEH and fill out the on-line form as if you were going to sell the camera to them. The website will show you a dollar figure and you can figure that you would get a bit more than that if you sold it yourself. FWIW the black bodies OMs fetch a higher price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well I have the E520 and although it's no Nikon, I like my camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, as a Nikon D40 user (and having used a Canon 10D in production for about 2 years) I can say that the Olympus E500 was better IMHO than then Canon and pretty much even with the Nikon. I expect the E520 will be similar to the E500. The addition of IS in the body and Live View will be interesting. </p>

<p>I have always wondered about the fascination with high ISO performance in DSLRs. I mean how often do you use that? About the highest ISO film I shoot regularly is ISO 400 Tri-X. I have a roll of ISO 1600 Fuji around that I bought a while back. I have never used it. Clearly High ISO is important to some people and in that case I suppose something like the Canon or Nikon is the best choice but up to ISO 400 I found the E500 to be equal to the Canons and Nikons of the same period. I suspect the E520 will be the same. The point of using high ISO for me is to be able to hand hold a shot where I need to use a slow shutter speed. IS should be quite a help in that situation. I also tend to take a tripod when shooting in situations like that (film habit). For me at least the image quality at high ISO is not so important.</p>

<p>A more pressing issue for me is the small viewfinder. I wear glasses and like to use MF lenses so that tiny viewfinder will be a problem. I think the first thing I am going to do is buy one of those magnifying eyepieces from eBay. The TENPA 1.36 viewer seems to well thought of among Olympus owners on the fourthirds.com forums.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>I'm curious. I just bought a rarely used Olympus E520 because I wanted a DSLR to use my OM lenses with. A few years back I owned an E500 so I have had experience with Olympus four thirds cameras. I find the viewfinder small and the image quality at high ISO is sketchy, but I like the Olympus color a lot more than my current camera (a Nikon D40). The ability to use my OM lenses (and my Konica 50/1.7) is really nice so I am generally happy with the trade-offs.</p>

<p>I am however surprised that the E520 seems to get very little attention and respect. I've read the reviews and while it wasn't rated as high as the Canon Rebel or equivalent Nikon it seems to me that the difference between the E520 and it's "betters" is pretty small. </p>

<p>I can see why the new Olympus EP1 and EP2 get most of the attention (they quite nice). In the Olympus DSLR camp the E620 is the flavor du jour. I guess because the E520 is old news it is forgotten but I happen to think it's a pretty nice little DSLR. The size is nice, it seems well made and if the images are as nice as my old E500 it'll be a fun camera to play with. Attach my 35-70 3.5/4.5 or my 50/1.8 OM lenses and I should be able to get some decent shots. I think I even have a DZ 35mm 3.5 macro sitting around somewhere. As I recall that lens is VERY sharp.</p>

<p>I 'll have it in about a week and I'll put it through it's paces but despite it being a lowly E520 I am pretty excited to get it. Anyone out there have one and like it? Just wondering.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All great suggestions...thank you everyone. I ended up picking up an Olympus E520 with under 500 shutter actuations for under $300 that I will pair up with my Olympus lenses. I'll sell the D40 kit to pay for it (it also has pretty low shutter actuations).</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to seeing how it all works out. Down the line I may opt for something like the G1. I even have an old OM to 4/3rds adapter somewhere. I'm going to look at a KatzEye focusing screen or at the very least the magnified eye piece to help with the tiny viewfinder.</p>

<p>CC - I can see why Nikon lenses are in demand. They did a smart thing by keeping the mount consistent. Also, Nikon makes really great lenses. I have some Konica glass sitting around that I may try to adapt to 4/3rd. I know there is a way to do that. I have a Konica 50/1.7 that is very VERY sharp. I'd be curious to see how that works on the E520.</p>

<p>Again, thanks everyone for your help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you are right, the D40 (as well as other Nikon DSLRs) tout the fact that any and all Nikon lenses can be mounted. Some lenses cannot meter and others have no AF but almost all of them fit and can work in some fashion. At first I thought that Nikon being so common that I could pick up a few nice lenses for the D40. Well it turns out that despite the sheer amount of Nikon glass out there they aren't all that inexpensive. If only I could use Konica lenses...those are both cheap and REALLY nice.</p>

<p>I think I am leaning toward an old E500. I like the smaller size of the E410/420 (close to the size of my OM bodies) but I found a mint E500 (in a box) with about 3K shutter actuations for $200 shipped. It's pretty tempting. It's a known quantity, I like the color that the old Kodak CCD produced and if I pop a KatzEye focus screen in it I should be able to make the manual focusing easier. I still think an E410/420 would be cool but as I said, I won't use it enough to make me want to invest a lot of time or money into this process. </p>

<p> </p>

Greg - Yeah, I see that there are a number if OM to Canon adapters but if I'm going to get another body I figure it should

be an Olympus.

<p>FWIW I am not invested in the Nikon system. I have a D40 and a kit lens. I have no issues with the Nikon but I don't think its the best thing since penicillin either. It is simply a decent little DSLR that I use on occasion. I would like to be able to use my OM lenses with whatever DSLR I have. I don't like the Nikon kit lens (no offense to Ken Rockwell) and when I had the E500 I liked the 14-45 kit lens even less. I realize that there are better lenses (the 14-54 DZ is very nice) but I am not interested in spending that kind of money when I shoot film most often. Maybe someday but right now it isn't a priority.</p>

<p>In hindsight I should have kept the E500 but I didn't so...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Using your OM lenses on an Olympus DSLR will be no easier than using them on your Nikon DSLR. Both require an adaptor and neither offers more utility than the other, other than Nikon's better quality finder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Greg </strong>- The problem is that there aren't any decent options to use the OM glass with the D40. The only one I have found is the <a href="http://www.leitax.com/OlympusOM-lens-for-Nikon-cameras.html">Leitax</a> and that requires me to disassemble the mount and put their mount on. That means a separate mount for each lens. I don't mind the assembly part, but at 60 Euros each that can get spendy. The Olympus E series at least allow me to use a single adapter that I can easily move from lens to lens in the field.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>If there is another way I'd love to hear about it.</p>

<p>I primarily shoot film so I'm not too interested in spending a lot for a body. The idea is so I can use my OM lenses on digital when I shoot digital not to migrate from film to digital. FWIW the EP-1 and EP-2 are pretty nice and I suppose when I can no longer shoot film I might be tempted in that direction.</p>

<p>I was thinking the E420 because it is about the same size as my OM2n. I could also pick up a used E500. To be honest I have a bit of an aversion to the megapixel arms race in DSLRs (and digicams in general). My D40 at 6mp produces very nice images for what I need. For beter I would likely use film anyway.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D40 and I am feeling like I would like to switch back to an Olympus DSLR body. I had an E500 a while back and I liked it. I though the color was terrific and hated the tiny viewfinder and the kit lens (well, I like the 40-150 lens). The D40 is fine but I have a nice little collection of OM lenses (as well as an OM1n and 2n) and getting them to work on my D40 is a pain.</p>

<p>So...I was thinking I might want to switch back to having an Olympus DSLR body to simplify matters. I like shooting film but I shoot digital from time to time so I figured I could pick up a used body. I have been put of the Olympus E-VOLT loop for a while so I am not sure where to start. As I recall the E400 was a pretty cool little camera and was wondering what the fine folks here on the Olympus and Four-Thirds forums would recommend?</p>

<p>As I understand the viewfinder is still atrocious. I know there are some focusing screen options that help so I may have to do that (The D40 has a pretty nice viewfinder). Also, has the dynamic range issue with the cameras gotten any better? I never though the E500 was too bad in that regard and I think the much nicer color it produced more than made up for it.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Bought a refurb D40 a year or so ago and it has been great. The kit lens looked a bit dirty but the body was absolutely pristine. </p>

<p>Mark - I was thinking that I'd have more need of a WA in Europe. I'd love to pick up a 24/2.8 but post airline ticket finances being what they are I think I'm going to pick up a 28/2.8 from KEH. I thought about the much lived 28/3.5 but I want the extra speed (I live in the Northwest) and I like the fact that the 28/2.8 stops down to f22. I have some time to play with it before the trip. We have a good many spots where I can use a WA in Washington State so I can put it through it's paces.</p>

<p>I think a 135/3.5 or 100/2.8 to round out the kit will come later.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Compared to the price of the trip, $200 for a 24/2.8 (120-180) and a 135/3.5 (20-40) is well worth it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough. I hear tales of the 24/2.8 being quite sharp. I have always been under the impression that 24 would seem a bit too wide for a lot of stuff and that 28 would be more useable. It's good to learn otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Finally, the analysis seriously underestimates the cost of film, paper, and chemicals. 1000 exposures on film cost more than a digital camera kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a good point I porbably DID underestimate the cost of these things but you do not NEED to develop them yourself, there are decent places to have that done. You can do the same with digital (meaning not have a computer or printer) but IMHO it is a lot less practical. If I am shooting film I can simply reload and continue shooting. If my film card fills up (and yes it takes a lot longer) I have to unload it to a computer. There is also the issue of long term storage to think about. Merely writing images to CD or DVD doesn't provide image fidelity like many people think so there is an increased cost of properly archiving them . If you choose to print them then there is the cost of paper and ink which can be quite high. I would say that the model of shooting images and printing only the ones you like many folks shooting digital follow (including me) would be most like shooting film and getting it processed but not having any prints made. I would be curious to see how that stacks up cost wise.<br>

<br /><br>

In looking at my initial post I agree that my analysis of the cost of digital is faulty (I was pretty peeved at the time so its not surprising). I still take issue with the idea that shooting film is somehow inferior to digital it was the impetus for my original post) it's simply different and I continue to feel like shooting film suits me better than digital. </p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>I can't believe I didn't post this in here before. In the "Classic manual" forum I posted a question about a good lens lenses for travel. I am going to Europe on a 25th anniversary trip in June and taking my OM2 (before you ask..I prefer film) and got some great suggestions. I am taking my MIJ 50/1.8 and I just purchased an 35-70/3.5-4.5. I chose it to give me some flexibility and I liked it's small size. I admit, I am still a bit unsure about the zoom as I have always subscribed to the idea that primes were good and zooms were bad but I'm willing it give it a go. </p>

<p>What I am wondering is how are the 135 3.5s? I am wanting something with a bit more reach but need to go for something in the budget category. I know the 28/3.5 is known to be a very good quality lens and I was wondering what the opinions are about the 135/3.5? </p>

<p>In case anyone is interested...I ordered a 35-70/3.5-4.5 from KEH (yesterday). I am planning to take that and my 50/1.8 and call it a day.</p>

<p>I'd have to go with Olympus OM gear and I have this cool little Ricoh CR-5 with a Pentax K mount that I am having some fun with (probably because I got it for free).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't view film and digital as that different. I want to produce an image. The type output I want can be the deciding factor in whether I use a film camera or a digital, difference in quality, not so much.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree that practically speaking there isn't THAT much difference anymore. I would argue that you can get bigger enlargements with film at a lower cost because the full frame camera bodies are quite spendy. That however is a pretty minor thing and for most folks they are equivalent. </p>

<p>Like I said I have logged more than a few images using digital and for me there is something missing. I find that I simply don't have as much fun as I do when I shoot film. Perhaps I like the feel of the old mechanical cameras or the process of working with film. Maybe it is uncertainty of what the images will look like. I really don't have an explanation. I can't explain it any better than that. I have a good friend (and very talented photographer) that makes his living shooting exotic cars. He has a gorgeous full frame Canon and some really nice glass to go with it. Yet, I don't find that I wish I had his setup. It just doesn't do anything for me (well maybe the lenses). FWIW he thinks I'm nuts to shoot film.</p>

<p>Now, I admit that I do like having y images in digital form in that I can archive, organize and generally control my images much better than I could with them siting in shoe boxes. I like to shoot film and then get it scanned if possible (we have a few local options for that)...and yes that <strong>process</strong> would be easier if I was shooting digital but I like film.</p>

<p>Now, where's my abacus?<br>

 

 

</p>