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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 13, 2006, 9:55 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

I rented the 14-54 today and did some quick test shots. It basically gives me a much easier time to shoot at ISO 800 (where I don't think the noise is all that objectionable...although not great). I may just invest init....maybe a used one.

Any thougts about d50 images v. e500 overall? My comment about crispness?Still considering switching to the d50.
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2006, 9:55 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

I rented the 14-54 today and did some quick test shots. It basically gives me a much easier time to shoot at ISO 800 (where I don't think the noise is all that objectionable...although not great). I may just invest init....maybe a used one.

Any thougts about d50 images v. e500 overall? My comment about crispness?Still considering switching to the d50.
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 9:43 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

I would definitely hold off buying, even used, a 14-54 if you still are contemplating getting a D50. With better noise performance and a more wide selection of lenses, both Nikkors and thethird party variety-especially fast primes, which is what you really need to shoot in really low light, maybe the D50 is what you need to get. Up to ISO 400 there's little difference in most digital SLR's from any company. It's starting at ISO 800 where differencesbegin to show,with Canon (1st) and Nikon (2nd) leading the way.

Images I've taken in the past at ISO 1600with the now old technologyCanon 10D I used to own are as nice as ISO 800 shots with the E-1 I now shoot. The E-300 Itook toParis is not even as good at ISO 800 as the E-1, so I know people who use Olympus DSLR's are paying a price when it comes to noise quality. Some of that has to do with the slightly smaller sensor in the 4/3rd's format Olympus uses, and some of it has to do with Canon's own sensor technology thats just that much better than everyone elses. Nikon relies at this point on Sony for it's sensors, which is an interesting story in itself since Sony is about to start selling a direct competitor. Through the E-500 I believe all of Olumpus sensors came from Kodak. I believe the E-330 sensor is a Panasonic product. The upcoming months will be very interesting to watch in the DSLR market.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 1:15 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Greg: so what made you choose the e500 (if you are now saying the d50 might be a better choice for ME)? Just curious from your persepctive.

Also, any idea of rumours of what the next few months will hold?
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2006, 5:39 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

When I sold my Canon outfit I bought the E-1 and have since added an E-300. I have a friend who uses the E-500 but I've had little experience with it. That said, the E-500 is newer technology than either of the cameras I use so should haveimproved low-light performance.

I bought into the Olympus system because:

1. I wanted to go much wider than I had with my widest Canon lens, and to get there was going to cost me the price of a 5D, which I did not want to spend in addition to what I already had invested in Canon equipment. Enter the Olympus 7-14 (see below).

2. High ISO performance is a non-issue for me 95% of the time, and even less now that my daughter has graduated high school, so no more night high school football games and shooting images of her marching on a poorly lit fieldin the band or in low-litauditoriums for concerts, but as you can see from my Paris images, the Olympus cameras CAN deliver in low light situations.

I was able to sell my entire Canon outfit and buy my Olympus setup, including the 7-14 zoom,with little extra out of pocket expense. The one thing you can say about Canon digital equipment- at least the EF lenses, they do hold their value very well and I was selling lenses like the 17-40L, 100-400L, 85mm f1.8, a couple of DSLR's, flashes, etc, etc. The E-1 prices were already in free-fall when I jump inand the E-300 cost me $350, so most of my costs were in the lenses with the Olympus system.

I'm not saying a D50 is the right choice for you, I'm saying it might be based on what you say you want one for, and if you have any doubts you need to make the decision based on what you feel will be best for you. There is no doubt...at ISO 800 or 1600 theD50 produces a cleaner image with less fuss than an E-500, but high ISO performance isn't necessarily the determining factor for many users, including myself. If it was, I'd still be in the Canon camp.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 1:31 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Good to know. Just looking at your Paris pics again....LOVE them. Really. They are great and inspire me to practice. I am taking an initial course starting tomorrow.

What kind of tripod were you using? Any advice on what ind to get? Was it portable? Pocketable? Weren't there people in your way? I have always been too lazy to carry a tripod. Maybe I need to get over that.

I went to a baseball game tonight and shot with the e500. Renting a D50 for the weekend. I'll let you know what I decide!!!!!!!!!
stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 2:10 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

I AM the ultimate lazy photographer....

I didn't take a tripod to Paris. It was heavy enough hauling the three lenses around. Besides, I didn't want to get into a situation where I'd be somewhere and have to check it or, worse yet, have to carry it around and not be allowed to use it. What I did do was to utilize every chair back, column, rail, etc., that I could find.

The churches/cathedralswe went to other than Notre Dame, St. Denis or Sacre Coeur( the one church where absolutely no photography was allowed)- St, Etienne Du Mont, St. Severin, St. Julien LePauvre, Madeleine, St. Gervais/St. Protias, St. Roch, St. Louis en i'lle, St. Eustache, St. Merri,St. Thomas d'Aquin just to name a few but not all,were virtually left to us to go through almost alone.Tourists in Paris seems to be either at the Louvre, Versailles (the absolute worst in terms of both numbers of touristsand manners)Eiffel Tower, Orsay Museum, Notre Dame, St. Chapelle,etc, etc- all the places the tourist books say to go to. Rick Steves barely mentions some of the cathedrals in his bookand some, not at all. St. Sulpice had morevisitors than most because of all the DaVinci Code references, but even it wasn't that bad.If you are a gothic architecture/ historyfan there are so many gorgeous churches to see you could spend a week there, see nothing else and still not visit them all.

I couldn't think of a better weekend than testing out a couple of DSLR's....if only it weren't 102 degrees or seemeingly morefor high temps around here.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 2:23 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Greg: go to sleep! Just kidding.

A few more questions:

what setting were you using? SHQ? HQ? What compression?

Do you change the sharpness, contrast, etc.?

Also, I noticed that you lowered the exposure a little? How did you know to do this?


stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 2:24 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Greg: go to sleep! Just kidding.

A few more questions:

what setting were you using? SHQ? HQ? What compression?

Do you change the sharpness, contrast, etc.?

Also, I noticed that you lowered the exposure a little? How did you know to do this?


stripperdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2006, 2:24 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Greg: go to sleep! Just kidding.

A few more questions:

what setting were you using? SHQ? HQ? What compression?

Do you change the sharpness, contrast, etc.?

Also, I noticed that you lowered the exposure a little? How did you know to do this?


stripperdave 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 6:02 PM.