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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 28, 2008, 10:35 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6
Default

What different camera bodies can Zuiko lenses be used on. I have a E-500, and it takes good pics. It doesn't do very well indoors no matter what Itry. I was at my brothers house for xmas and he has a Canon rebel Dslr. I picked it up and took a couple of snap shots from the same place I took pics with my E500. The canon took a better indoor room pic than my e500. The pics looked exactly like the room live, where as the e500 didn't. Both using auto focus, same room same lighting. So, that being said I am thinking of getting a canon body. Can I use my Zuiko lenses on a canon camera and be able to use all funtions?
albertr35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 28, 2008, 10:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

albert-

No, Zuiko Lenses will not work on a Canon DSLR camera and provide auto focus and auto exposure. I am guessing that in the Christmas situation you described that you were not using flash. Would that be correct?

For the sake of our discussion, let's assume that you were both taking photos without the help of and flash at all. The Canon DSLR camera has a greater ability to us higher ISO settings without much noise.

Your Olympus E-500 cannot compete with the Canon DSLR at the same high ISO settings, without showing a lot of noise, because of its own internal design.

Now if you were both using flash, was it the camera's own built-in flash unit, or were each of you using external flash units.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2008, 11:51 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Both cameras were using auto flash in auto mode, Both were using built in flash with auto pop up. Pretty much just picking up the camera's, turning them on in auto and taking the pic. I have been using the e-500 for about a year now. Its a tricky camera to use without practice. It is kinda irratating to practice with a camera for so long to get good with it and then pick up another camera and take a couple of shots with better picks.......here is a site that has just a few of my pics on there. The low light sitiuation on the e500 is poor. I had a fuji finepix that did good, it broke so I wanted to move up to a better camera.I did some research to find out what camera would fit me and my price range. I got the e500 because of all of the great reviews.

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=308563

My user name is the same. albertr35.
albertr35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2008, 2:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

The Olympus E-500 (I own one and know the camera well) uses one of the original Kodak manufactured imagers. It has lovely colors and does particularly well outdoors. However, it was not a high ISO camera, due that imager.

In going to your link and reviewing your photos. It is obvious that you do good work, you understand your camera,and the colors in those photos are wonderful. When you say "...auto mode, auto flash..." and there was no mention of where the ISO was set, that is the missing element.

For the purpose of our conversation, let's assume that the ISO was also set to Auto ISO. Due to the imager specifications I noted above, your E-500 would have attempted to raise the ISO level because you (in taking a photo of an entire room) were beyond the maximum flash range of that little built in flash whose guide number is just 12 or 13. Your E-500 ran the ISO to 800 or 1600 and you got a lot of noise.

The Canon DSLR did the very same drill of increasing the ISO, but that imager could handle high ISO settings with little or no noise. That is a signature feature of Canojn DSLR imagers. So the photo from the Canon looked much better than the E-500.

Take a look at the attached photo that I just took of my husband. To really get the exposure right indoors, I attached the FL-36 flash to get a well balance exposure. The built-in flash gave be an underexposed photo. So based on my experience in taking this photo and just making a pure guess, I just think it was those two imagers trying to operate at high ISO settings.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2008, 7:08 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Yep thats right. I have had problems with indoor shooting for a while. I do have an external slave flash that works really well. The problem with that is, anyone in the shot complains of it being so bright. I am looking at getting a deflector for the flash so it will bounce off it and not blind subject in the shot. I will post a couple of photos I took indoors during xmas when I get off work so you can see them. Thanks for all of you info. It really helps........ArT...
albertr35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2008, 7:37 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi,

FWIW, there are many 'home made"diffusers suggestions that can be made rather inexpensively and yet they work quite well.Ifyou google DIY flash diffusers, you can find them.

Here is one that I've used. It's made from an isopropyl alcohol bottle and works surprisingly well. It's a low cost solution until you find exactly what you want.

http://www.diyphotography.net/homest...flash-diffuser

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2008, 4:38 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6
Default

The first pic is with the external flash. its a bit out of focus. But its for the point.
Attached Images
 
albertr35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2008, 4:39 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6
Default

This is the pic without the external flash. Big difference. Not good focus. I was just messing around with the lighting.
Attached Images
 
albertr35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2008, 6:14 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for the site zig-123. I think that is a very usefull tool. Seems that alot of inventions do come from ways to keep things working and (these days) cost efficient!:!:
albertr35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2009, 12:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Albert, what is exactly your complain? I read all the posts and could not determine whether your problem with the camera's low light performance is related to noise, blurriness, color inaccuracy caused by poor auto WB or,...Unfortunately, the images in your gallery don't have EXIF information, making it difficult to be analyzed. The very first thing to keep in mind is the fact that the E500 does not have image stabilization, thus pictures taken with low shutter speeds will most likely suffer from motion blurr. Of course that does not quite apply to flash photography since the camera will set the shutter speed to at least 1/80, which is plenty enough for the WA kit lens. Many people seem to think that setting the camera to AUTO everything should translate into good images. This perception is (unfortunately) not true. I say unfortunatle because in theory, every camera should perform reasonably well in AUTO mode (what is the purpose of the AUTO mode otherwise???). However, in reality, many cameras have a mediocre AUTO performance. With that said, I'd avoid setting everything to AUTO. P mode is the closest to AUTO I'd get. This will put the responsibility of choosing the appropriate aperture and shutter speeds on the camera rather than on you. And let's face it, unless you are very familiar with those settings, the camera will probably do a better job anyway. The good thing about the P mode is that it still sllows you to have some control of the camera, such as ISO, WB, etc. Next, you should always try to have control of the ISO unless your camera performs exceptionally well in high ISO. The E500 is a couple of years old already and my guess is that it will not perform well at any ISO above 400. Even today's cameras have difficulties breaking the 400 barrier (although many can handle ISO 800 well). Another thing to keep in mind is that wide apertures (f2.8 or f3.5) will allow you to photograph in low light conditions (w/o flash) without having to increase the ISO significantly. The downside of it is, images tend to be much softer then if shooting at f8 for instance. As you can see, there are a number of things that will impact IQ and having the EXIF information is crucial for troubleshooting image problems.
Tullio 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 7:57 AM.