Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Olympus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 18, 2003, 11:15 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

Bert - Great photos, THX for sharing. I'd hike on my knees for a chance at shots like those you have posted! I took some test shots with an E-20, but couldn't get comfortable with its bulkiness and the time it took to put on and remove the lens attachements. Maybe I'll give it another try, it was about a year ago. I've been really tempted to buy the Canon D10, but I'm going to wait until the E1 comes out before I make up my mind. Best - john
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2003, 11:26 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default

Posting Freak - Really nice pics, you have a good eye. I notice some pincushioning in the one lowlight Dimage shot, do you find this to be a problem with this camera. I notice you shot with three cameras, how big is the difference for you shooting with the Canon 10D ? THX - john
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2003, 11:30 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Default

John,
the E20 is a bulky camera, no question. I don't have any of the lens attachments, and I would have liked a longer lens on quite a few occasions in Africa. But when you're shooting wildlife, things happen so fast! I missed shots because I couldn't get the camera up in time! I never would have had time to put on a TX attachment anyway...or change lenses if I had a cam with interchangeable lenses.
I also like the Canon 10D. If it had been around when I bought the E20, I might have bought it. My brother-in-law has a 1D and loves it...well, what's not to love about a $4000 camera!
Maybe if the market keeps going up, I'll be able to afford one in a year or two....
:lol:
Bert
Bert Bigelow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2003, 6:18 AM   #24
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Posting Freak - Really nice pics, you have a good eye. I notice some pincushioning in the one lowlight Dimage shot, do you find this to be a problem with this camera.
It's not pin cushion, but rather vignetting from a regular Tiffen (but realized too late) filter @ the 28mm setting... Any Slim-line 4-5mm or less B&W filter would have fixed the problem on another wise excellent 28-200mm CA free lens. Common complains on the D7's are noises which can be controlled with the camera's soft(-) setting (and compensated by USM in Photoshop), and batteries life which I don't have any issue with since I'm shooting this camera in the SLR style and rarely use the rear LCD! Beside the camera was tested with 1600mAh when 2100-2300mAh are now widely available

Quote:
I notice you shot with three cameras, how big is the difference for you shooting with the Canon 10D ?
It's definetly much faster and the excellent defocus in the DOF that I was lacking with the other digicams.


Don't get me wrong here guys, the E1 looks like an excellent camera, but one also has to realize how precarious Oly position is in the overall market. All it takes is for Canon to release a lens in the EF mount, but designed for the 1.6x sensor a' la Nikon and then all the 4/3 system advantage kind of melt away...
Actually any OEM (Tamron, Tokina or Sigma) as a matter of fact can make this smaller lighter 17-55mm constant f/2,8 between now and september that'll work only with the smaller sensor but will vignette badly on a regular camera. Would I buy such a lens? May be yes, and may be no, depending if I plan to move on to a full-frame dSLR or not... a choice that a 4/3 system buyer wouldn't have either!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2003, 1:04 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Default

Posting Freak,
Quote:
depending if I plan to move on to a full-frame dSLR or not...
I'm not sure a full-frame cam would be an improvement for me...I like the extra magnification I get with standard lenses on a digital. Of course, you lose it on the wide-angle end, but for what I like to do...wildlife photography, the effective longer lens is an advantage without having to carry monster lenses.
EDIT: What a great flower shot. Love the way you did the selective focus. Nice work.
Bert Bigelow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2003, 6:16 AM   #26
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

... and I agree: Most folks like the magnification of non-full frame for the tele effect while the minority, like myself value the wide-angle end, since we do mostly landscape! This is reflected in the marketplace as well, just look @ how many digicams can go down to the 28mm...

Upgrading from a D7 to a 10D for me was only a slight 1.1Mpixels gain, but going to a full-frame with all its 11 Mpixels for vegetation details and regaining the super wide angle (as well as the +45-point autofocus) would be a big improvement... and something worth planning for would you think? I would hate to invest in lenses sized just for the 1.6x alone and not be able to use them longer term. I'm quite sure a few D100/S2 owners are facing the same quandary as well when it comes to their lens choice...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2003, 12:59 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Default

Oh yes, 11 megapixels would be great...whether in a full-frame sensor or not! My point was that the physical size of the sensor is not necessarily related to resolution,and has advantages and disadvantages. Greater resolution has no disadvantages, as far as I am concerned, as long as memories keep getting cheaper!
EDIT: I agree that the arrival of full-frame cams does pose a problem for people intending to use lenses with both types of cameras.
Bert Bigelow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2003, 10:39 AM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BTW it's true that the sensor physical size has no bearing on resolution but their dimension do. 4/3 is more squarish than the 3/2, and @ 22.3mm it's diagonal is exactly half that of 24x36mm! Quite a coincidence or is it? :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2003, 12:25 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Default

Well, now I am confused. Both my present cameras have sensors with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The E20 is 2560x1920, and the Nikon CP 950 is 1600x1200.
What am I missing here? I thought it was the lenses that were uniquely designed for the 4:3 ratio, but the sensor seems the same to me.
Bert Bigelow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2003, 1:31 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332
Default Question to NHL

NHL - THX for your reply back. Bear with me, I'm still learning quite a bit about the mechanics of cameras, something I didn't concern myself with when I was shooting film. Pls. advise;

1 - What's the diff between pincushioning and vignetting?

2 - How does a Tiffen filter (UV, I assume?) cause vignetting (I shoot with the same kind of filter on my Oly- C-730)?

3 - What's a B&W filter?

4 - What does defocus DOF mean (Manual focus?)?

5 - What's an EF mount and its signifcance to a less than full size sensor? What's sigificance of Canon possibly introducing an EF lens?

6 - How did you come to own so many cameras ?

THX for your time on this; all this is very helpful as I decide what kind of SLR camera to which I want to get married........john
fporch 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 12:23 AM.