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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25, 2008, 9:52 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Scouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camano Island, WA.
Posts: 2,328
Default

Congratulations both of you...and I get upset when I have a headache!

Lot's of good reason to own an Oly. I started off like Steve, first of all with a little point'n shoot film camera that I loved. It was great to backpack with. Then came the OM 1 followed by the OM 2. I bought my wife the OM 10, I never did figure that one out but she got some outstanding photos with it. Natual composer!

Then suddenly I quit taking photos. After thousands of slides and boxes of photos, I just quit for several years. Then I got into this real estate work and picked up a digicam...yes an Oly. The C4000.

Then I got interested again and wanted something a little better so went for the E500. That made me happy..:-)

I'm not a tech head, 99% of my shots are automatic with a bit of control over the standard. I like the "shot" and the composing aspect of it. Any PP I do, is just minor.

It's good to be back though.



Brent, Which airline did you work for. I'm an ex grubby mechanic as well. Started with British, went to NZ and ANZ, QANTAS in OZ. SA in SA and then WesternAirlines in LA. When Delta took over Western I quit and became a ski bum in Utah........
Scouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2008, 10:08 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

I also have a strange history with photography.

For most of my life, I was a photo freak...a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool photography super geek. I turn 50 next month. I got my first enlarger when I was in junior high school (maybe 36+ years ago). My list of 35mm SLRs includes: Mamiya Sekor, Minolta, Yashica, Pentax, Nikon and a few OM-1's. I still own most of them although I admit to selling the OM's about 25 years ago when I went to a Nikon F3.

When I was a teenager, I worked a job for $2.90 and hour and, after a year, I blew ALL of my savings on a medium format Bronica ETR (then a brand new system) for about $1500.00 (spent a few bucks on the prism finder, speed grip etc.). Bought a bigger Beseler Enlarger. A true geek.

Then, when digital started to become more common, I virtually gave up the whole hobby. Just stopped. I got a cheap, little 480x320 point-and-shoot digital and took crappy little snapshots that I sometimes posted online or printed on plain paper. I went from semi-pro to "who gives a darn amateur hack who just can't be bothered".

I got a succession of better P&S cameras but I was still pretty lukewarm about photography. When I got my E-500, It started to refire my interest. The 50mm macro really got me back in the swing. When I started visiting car shows with the 11-22mm, I was back to my old photo geek self.

It's just like the old days for me.



OH...just saw that question about which airline I worked for. I didn't work for an airline. I worked for STANDARD AERO LIMITED which is a large, independent overhaul and service company that does gas turbines. I held many jobs there over the years with my most direct work being with the Allison 501 (T-56 on the Hercules, Electraand Orion) and the Allision 250 used on JetRanger and Hughes/McDonnell Helicopters.

Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2008, 10:12 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Which brings up an interesting question: how does one afford to quit a become a ski bum?? I would love to quit working, but all my creditors would not allow it. LOL!!

:lol:
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2008, 6:49 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Hi, Scouse and Brent

I also started with film photography a long time ago, with a Leica IIIf. Had a B&W darkroom, trays and trays of slides, and by the mid 1980s began to lose interest in photography. The Oly CL2500, one of the first DSLRs, piqued my interest and like you guys, I movedback into photography. I think there are several reasons for what happened to us with film and why digital brought us back:

1. With film photography, looking at your results tended to be inconvenient. To seeslides well you had to drag out a projector, a table to put it on, and a screen. For prints, if you didn't take the time to put them in albums, you had to futz with many envelopes.Digital is way more convenient - by viewing images on a monitor you get the transmitted-light punch you got from slides, without the hassle. True, it's harder to show digtal images to a group but how often did we do that anyway? And digital images can be shared with anyone on this planet as long as they have access to a computer and the Internet.

2.Although I don't have any old issues of photo magazines to check this, I strongly suspect that adjusted for inflationDSLRsand their lenses are less expensive, feature-for-feature (including autofocus), than in thefilm days. Especially zoom lenses, which generally are much better and faster than decades ago.

3. You have way more control over digital images,especially if you didn't have a darkroom but even if you did. For example, being able to reduce the contrast of an image before you took it, was just a dream for film photography. Let's face it, the Zone System was invented because the luminance range of most outdoor shots was way greater than film could handle. Now you just set the digicam for reduced contrast and you pretty much get the entire luminance range.

I'm loving digital photography.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2008, 12:26 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Brent Gair wrote:
Quote:
My specific comment about the developing sensor technology in regard to high ISO, HDR and noise is that, "these issues will become less important".

While large sensors may always have the advantage imparted by their large collection areas, I also believe that we will reach a threshhold beyond which it just isn't very important. As it is today, the issues related to sensor size tend to be most problematic at higher magnifications or cropping of images.

I think that, as technology continues to improve, those issues will be pushed toward the outer edges of the performance envelope where they will matter only to those who make extreme enlargements or do extreme cropping.

SoI would suggest that, while a smaller sensor can't compete evenly with a big sensor, it should be possible to minimize those problems into a state of relative insignificance. We aren't there yet but I can see it happenning.
Hi, Brent

I'm not sure I agree that technically we will reach a threshold beyond which large sensors don't make a difference - that's certainly not true in astrophotography, which pushes the limit of digital imaging and I don't think it will be true for low-level available-light terrestrial photography.

However I do reach the sameconclusion you do, but for adifferent reason. Right now I don't shoot my E3above ISO 800 or so. The FF Canikons can deliver the same quality at ISO 1600 or maybe 2400 - that'sone stop to1.5 stops better. But the E3 is equivalent simply because of the lenses available. The high-end Olylenses are at least one stop faster than the equivalent CaNikons (and less expensive as well). So you get essentially the same exposure capability either way. That's surely not an accident - I think Oly andPana-Leica decided theyhad to produce faster lenses to make up for the 1-stop or so lower high-ISO performance of the 4/3 sensor. And they have done so - you can't get the F2 lenses Oly sells, from CaNikonat all.

I do a lot of low-level available light indoor photography and because of the Oly and Leica lenses I'm able to do with the E3, what I could do with a CaNikon system, at a way lower price.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2008, 1:02 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

I guess my point would be better stated as my sense that there will come a time when sensor size won't make a "practical" difference.

For example, I do 75% of my shooting at ISO 200 and I regularly have prints made at 8x10 (actually, I've not yet had a digital print made any larger) at that size and ISO, the pictures are essentially perfect. I do about 20% of my shooting at ISO 400. I've just reviewed a bunch of them and I really don't see the noise on the monitor unless I enlarge them very substantially. Again, it doesn't show up in a printed 8x10.

In terms of dynamic range, I've had some problems on extremely bright days when shooting contrasty subjects but I would doubt it's really a concern in more than 1% or 2% of my photos. Sure, I'd love an extra stop of dynamic range and I think it will come.

I wouldn't pretend to speak for others and I can only speak for myself. For me, to put an arbitrary number on it, Id' say the current 4/3 sensors are about 90% of where I'd like them to be. I can shoot ISO 400 and enlarge to 8x10 with no problems on the vast majority of my shots.

That's where the term "practical" becomes subject to interpretation. An ISO 400 8x10 print would likely, I THINK, cover the needs of a large majority of photographers. I'm confident that most of those picture could probably be printed just fine at 11x14. If I dropped to my regular ISO 200, I'm sure even larger, very high quality prints could be made.

On the other hand, if I shot a high contrast subject at ISO 3200 and wanted to make a 20x30 print, I'd likely be in trouble. But I would also judge that as beyond what most of us would deem practical.

I don't think it's unrealistic to see slow improvment in 4/3 sensors to the point where we can reasonably shoot ISO 1600. By that time, the big sensors may be safely shooting at ISO 3200 or 6400 (I know they can already go there...but I'm speaking terms of everyday, usable high quality). I also think it's reasonable to think that we could pick up another stop or two of dynamic range.

When we reach that point, yes, big sensors will still outperform smaller sensors. But that performance edge will be of little practical value to anybody except for highly specialized photographers (like astrophotographers).

I'm a car guy...got an old Corvette, old Trans Ams with a 455 engine and I have and old Triumph convertible (lots of "old" there!). They'll drive 60mph just fine. They'll all drive 110mph just fine. If I want to drive 140mph, I need the biggest engine. How often do I drive 140mph? Not often enough to justify paying the bill for a car that get's 6 miles per gallon. It might be fun but I only do it once every 5 years. It serves no practical purpose.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2008, 2:02 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Brent Gair wrote:
Quote:
I guess my point would be better stated as my sense that there will come a time when sensor size won't make a "practical" difference.

But that performance edge will be of little practical value to anybody except for highly specialized photographers (like astrophotographers).
Sorry, but people that shoot in indoor available light at EV 5 or 6 are not "specialized". Nor are amateur sports photographers shooting indoor available light at EV 10 but need high shutter speeds.

You appear to be shooting in outdoor light and so your personal issue is how large an enlargement you need to make. There are a lot of folks in this forum that have a different problem. At EV 6, ISO 200, and f/2 you're at a shutter speed of 1/30 sec. Try to understand that "practical" means different things to different photographers. Many of us shoot a lot indoors.

Ted


tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26, 2008, 3:25 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

And aside from folks who want to image their kids doing sports events in a school gymnasium or indoor events in churches or auditoriums, take a look at my post of a photo of a fledgling bird, yesterday in the "Eagle hunt.......bust..!" thread in this forum. That was shot at EV 10 with a breeze moving the tree. An ISO of 1600 or more, would have given me both more DOF and a higher shutter speed. Non-"specialized" photography isn't just bright sunlight...

Ted


tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2008, 3:17 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

Not sure if anyones mentioned it but one of the reasons why i went for the E1 was for ists silent shutter or very close to it and for street shooting it was perfect. The e3's lost that silent shutter, although it is still a lot quieter than the various N/C/Pentax's etc.

Cheers

Harj




HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2008, 5:29 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Dangerous Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 140
Default

Hi all

Just put mt 2 cents worth in, My reason was quality of lenses and amage after owning c8080, and live view. WhenI found out that the E330 was the only true live view out there with mode A, and the fire sale price that camera ended going forI just had to get it. Plus when some one says how doI get it on screenI just flip live view mode a on and thre happy.
Dangerous Brian 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 2:38 AM.