Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 6, 2006, 9:49 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

I think these are the comparison which every newbie makes ... most of the time under compulsion ...
because most of us (even I am a newbie) have never ever used any serious photographic equipment
and are somewhat worried about the money that we are about to put into the expensive equipment.
And its only the guidance from experienced users which can help the newbies into learning about
the things that matter.

This forum did in deed help me in deciding what camera to buy

Only thing wrong with this post was that it (probably) came into the wrong forum.

Cheers,
--
Gaggu


gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 12:20 PM   #12
Member
 
jbigfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Default

The reasons I posted in this forum were:

1) Get the opinions from people who have delved into the respective models in more details and (probably) with more experience; and


2) My first posting in the 'which camera should I buy' forum netted me only two responses whereas asking more specific questions has yielded more specific information, which is of greater value as I become a little better informed from perusing the different models.
jbigfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 12:59 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

gaggu wrote:
Quote:
Only thing wrong with this post was that it (probably) came into the wrong forum.

Cheers,
--
Gaggu

No, no...don't misunderstand me.

I have no problem at all with the post and I have no problem at all with the question being asked.

My beef is with the people who insist on handing out meaningless advice.

To tell somebody to pass on the Olympus because the other brand a has " a bigger sensor and smaller conversion factor which means better pictures" is almost worthless advice. People are developing a fixation on a minor size difference. It's not like comparing a 16mm Minox to a Deardorff 8x10 but that's what you'd think from the way junk advice is handed out.

There are many factors to consider when choosing a camera. The sensor size of a 4x3 vs. something like an APS-C is one factor and it's a factor which gets way more attention than it deserves.

I'm a car guy. I've got an old Corvette, an old Triumph convertible and an old Trans Am. I'm interested in performance. I wantto know about total weight and weight distribution. I want ot know about suspension, tiresand brakes. I don't need amateur advice saying, "The Trans Am is the best car because it has the biggest engine".

People get tunnel vision about ONE thing start handing it out as seriously incomplete advice.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 1:07 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

-Brent

Oops ... misundertanding.

But,nevertheless, you gave a lot of information about what all
film/slide/sensor sizes are available in your last post ... Thanks
for that Brent.

And it is true that sensor size is not that big an issue.

Cheers,
--
Gaggu
gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 1:19 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

I'm always amused when the very same people who tell me that this difference in sensor size is critical to image quality, then will try to tell me that the difference between 8MP and 6MP in resolution isn't. Does that make any sense to anybody?

If you really want the nitty gritty details, the Nikon D50 CCD (or Pentax K100/110D) is actually 50% larger than the E500 CCD (368 square mm to 243). But, from the first page of the E500 review:
In fact, the active pixel area of the Full Frame Transfer CCD is 1.5 times larger than a common Interline CCD of equal size.
So, it's a complete wash. The E500 sensor is using the exact same amount of actual real estate to capture image data as the larger 1.5 crop factor CCDs. They are, however, squeezing 8MP out of that area rather than 6MP.

But, I really only care about image quality insofar that it actually will helps me produce quality images. So how is the image quality in the real world? Try heading to pbase and compare differnet camera models (or different lenses) there. You might be surprised:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus/e_500
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/d50

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/1...-56g_ed_afs_dx
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus...-56_digital_ed


http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus/zuiko_14-54_28-35
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18-50_28_ex_dc
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/1...5g_edif_afs_dx


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 2:04 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 183
Default

If it was not for the EXIF or the fact that the website says that they are shot
with the said equipment ... I as for one (a newbie) wouldn't have know how
to differentiate between the pictures ... uhh .. I meant Cameras.

Maybe you can guide how to do that ?

Almost all the pics on those links look good.

However ... take a look at the comparison shots from both cameras
on DPReview.

E500 outresolves D50 ... and overall image looks somewhat better
than D50's.

There is however difference in sharpness which can be observed in
the crop showing the lense ... uhmmm ... but if you compare the globe
there ... it's lot more easier to read FRENCH WEST AFRICA on the
E 500 shot.

The "infamous" E500 jaggies can also be seen on the paper clips but
I think that can be dealt with in E500. (The samples are taken with
defaults)

Buhhhtttt ... we are taking to pixel peeping again ... however both
the pics in print wont show those differences I believe. Not even in
8x10 prints.

I had an EOS 350D for some time ... did try the D50 ... but own an E500.

So where is the real difference ?

(I don't intend to fire up a sharp debate but just want to learn more)

Cheers,
--
Gaggu


gaggu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 6:22 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

"So where is the real difference ?"

The operative word in that question is "real".

I still have my Bronica ETR 6x4.5cm film camera. I have Beseler 67 enlarger with an 80mm Rodagon enlarging lens. I ran a few rolls or Kodachrome through the camera 20 years ago. To look at Kodachrome through a grain focusser when projected through a high quality enlarging lens is a sight to behold. It's magnificent.

You know how many prints I made from those big Kodachromes? ZERO.

You know how many times I projected the big Kodachromes for others to see? ZERO.

I had five or six 20x30" poster size enlargements made from Kodacolor. I printed a lot of nice 8x10's. But the fact is that the camera offerred very little real advantage for real world use. If I walked around with a photo album of enormous, poster-sized prints, the ETR might have been handy. Truth is, up to about 11x14, it's almost impossible to disguish pictures from a medium format camera from pictures taken with a 35mm camera.

In my opinion (and I say this as the owner of Nikon F3 and several lenses) the biggest attraction of the Nikon and Canon brands is their solid reputation, compatibility with legacy lenses, and wide availability of lenses and accessories. That is not insignificant. It's a real advantage. I have to order almost everything for my E-500 whereas every corner store carries Nikon and Canon stuff.

But in terms of real difference in the final QUALITY OF THE IMAGE, I have seen no indication that Canon or Nikon can outperform Olympus. I have a personal preference for Olympus based on the camera system...I like the SSWF, pixel mapping, build quality and 4x3 sensor which offers the promise of compact high performance being hinted at by the E-400.

However, I think all good DSLRs produce images of such closely matched quality that I would be hard-pressed to tell one from another.

Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 7:28 PM   #18
Member
 
jbigfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Default

I'm not passing judgment about whose advice is valid or not valid, all I'm doing is repeating what has been told to me -- for better or worse. Whether or not what I'm being told has merit or not is something I'll have to decide by weighing the testimony -- and looking at the pictures.

Everything that the good folks on this forum have said is greatly appreciated, as is your efforts in providing seeing side-by-side comparisons of the ultimate product. As I'm new to this particular part of photography, I'm learning real quick that there is enough information out there to choke a horse. Or several. As I'm going through all this, I'm thinking about my most likely shooting situations and the merits of each camera system in a given circumstance. A common theme I see emerging is that digital photography has come so far in the 6 or 7 years since I purchased that Oly C-3000, it's next to impossible to pick a loser.

At the rate I'm going, I will probably not have the money to buy anything until crunch time at Christmas -- or the after-Christmas sales. So keep it coming, folks!
jbigfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2006, 8:51 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

IMHO, the importance of this cannot be over-stated. We see on all of these forums, people get wrapped up in arguing over the supposed superiority of one aspect of their system compared to some other one, but they are really arguing about the minutia at the absolute margins. Of the major brands of DSLRs within a given price point and target addressed market at a given point in time, the WORST of all of these systems is around 90-something % as good as the very best of them on most of the important dimensions. By far the dominant issue involves how intuitive the ergonomics of the particular system is for the particular individual, and the specific options across the range of prices and quality levels of the lenses that one chooses to buy and mount on the various cameras.

Any one of these modern DSLR cameras is capable of delivering great results in the right hands, and lousy results in the hands of a user who makes no effort to use the camera to it's full potential.

Brent Gair wrote:
Quote:
"So where is the real difference ?"

........However, I think all good DSLRs produce images of such closely matched quality that I would be hard-pressed to tell one from another
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2006, 3:48 AM   #20
Member
 
jbigfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 72
Default

Doug, your points are well-taken. I finally got a chance to handle the cameras on my short list and it may come down to something as minute as the convenience of the viewfinder and how it feels when I'm using it. They are just that close, otherwise.
jbigfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:54 AM.