Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 28, 2009, 5:08 AM   #51
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Yes and I do appreciate and find the responses interesting thus I hope to get a response to one last question....here's the Olympus E 520 XSI Canon 70- 200 f4 L lens comparison, expert opinion would be very much appreciated
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=43125

One last try. One comparison shot with one camera of each type and a single lens of each type under conditions that are not controlled is worthless.

There could be sample variation in the cameras, or lenses. You might be looking at a sample from the best 1% of all lenses that come off the Olympus production line compared against the worst 1% of lenses that come off the Canon. The operator may have not been using a tripod. If he was using a tripod there may have been a breeze when the Canon shot was taken. And a thousand other uncontrolled factors.

If you want to compare lenses go to slrgear.com and photozone.de. If you want to compare camera sensors, go to dxomark.com. Read the slrgear.com white paper on how they test lenses. From that you should get a very good idea of why the single-image comparison you posted proves nothing.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/221|0/(appareil2)/185|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Olympus/(brand2)/Canon

If you want to compare photos go to pbase.com and search. There are thousands of photos from each camera to browse through. Good and bad samples from both. You can construct literally millions of side-by-sides from the two cameras and use those to prove anything you want.

You are suffering from "confirmation bias" when you compare the two cameras. You emphasise any evidence that supports your position and ignore or play down any evidence that does not. If source X supports your position you accept it uncritically, if source Y does not you find a reason to dismiss it. When you are suffering from confirmation bias it is extremely difficult to pick it up yourself, you generally need to take other peoples' word for it. Pretty much everyone here thinks you are.

The Olymus is a fine camera which will meet your needs. It is not unequivocally a better camera than the Canon. On balance most reviewers put the Canon ahead. This should not stop you from buying the Olympus. But you will make no friends by trying to convince everyone that the Olympus is a better camera.

Everyone here is agreed. You should buy the Olympus.





peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2009, 6:52 AM   #52
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes and I do appreciate and find the responses interesting thus I hope to get a response to one last question....here's the Olympus E 520 XSI Canon 70- 200 f4 L lens comparison, expert opinion would be very much appreciated
http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=43125

One last try. One comparison shot with one camera of each type and a single lens of each type under conditions that are not controlled is worthless.
No kidding. Those shots were not even framed the same. Note that the Olympus lens was zoomed approximately 25% more compared to the Canon lens (which is one reason the Canon shot shows more of the right side of the building). One was using a 35mm equivalent focal length of 134mm, and the other was using a 35mm equivalent focal length of 112mm. IOW, the angle of view was not the same.

So, you've probably got somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% more pixels representing the detail in the Oly shot, just because of the framing with more optical zoom used (you get 4 times the pixels representing your subject each time you double the focal length or move twice as close to your subject).

Now, there are some differences in aspect ratio between these two cameras, making it more difficult to compare them. But, it's pretty obvious from looking at the building size in both samples that the test was flawed (in favor of the Oly). I also see that the OP mentioned this about them:

Quote:
No tripod for both pictures all hand held. E-520 had IS-on and the Canon 70-200 f4 L got no IS.
Focal length on Oly 40-150 was at 67mm.equiv to 134mm approx.
Exposure time 1/400 sec. at f/6.3 and ISO 200.
Canon was setup to the same values, other than Focal length was at 70mm which is equiv. to approx. 112mm
But, even if the test were not as flawed, there are many other variables involved (including in camera settings for processing, as some cameras tend to add more sharpening and contrast compared to others by default).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2009, 7:55 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

BUGSEY,

I'd like to interject a few notes of caution:
  1. If you're searching for the best image quality, evaluating reduced versions of photos isn't going to show you anything.[/*]
  2. If you're looking for unbiased evaluations, fourthirdsphoto.com is probably not a good source.[/*]
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2009, 11:23 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
BUGSEY,

I'd like to interject a few notes of caution:
  1. If you're searching for the best image quality, evaluating reduced versions of photos isn't going to show you anything.[/*]
  2. If you're looking for unbiased evaluations, fourthirdsphoto.com is probably not a good source.[/*]
I'd actually go a step further...I don't let myself be influenced by images I see posted on the Internet. Today's software programs have amazing capabilities. One can turn a very crappy picture into a gorgeous one via software. I also believe that just about any camera is capable of producing good images (if the conditions are just right). The question is, how many picture one has to take with a particular camera in order to produce one good image? A great camera should give you a much better bad to good ratio than a cheapo. But, that cheap camera may produce 1 great image out of 1000 and that's what you see on the internet. The best way to go IMO, is to select the camera based on features that are important to you, reviews, user opinions and price (assuming you're on a budget). But in the end, only you will be able to judge whether the particular camera you bought fulfill your requirements in terms of IQ, features and ergonomics.

TCav is right with regards to the fourthirds forum. That's an exclusive Panasonic/Leica/Olympus furum since these are the brands currently using the 4/3 system. They will without a doubt be biased toward these brands.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2009, 10:51 PM   #55
Junior Member
 
BUGSEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
Default

Well, guess what? I've returned both cameras for now. I guess my choice will be between the two with the Sony not being considered due to noise which is much too visible in natural light at 400 ISO when viewed full size. I prefer the Sony ergonomics but ....too much noise. I had some good test results with action bird dog shots with the Canon. All of your advice and comments help me in knowing that it isn't just the review sites praising the Canon. I will be picking up another XSI and "maybe" the E520 next chance for some more testing. Canon has really updated the XSI and I especially like the bigger lcd and much better viewfinder. Focusing was fast and accurate for some birddog photos....Thanks again everyone, Bugsey
BUGSEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2009, 5:19 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

If you like the ergonomics of the Sony but don't want the noise of the A350, you might want to consider the A300. It's the same camera, but with a 10MP image sensor instead of the 14MP sensor in the A350, so it has less noise.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2009, 9:54 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

BUGSEY wrote:
Quote:
Well, guess what? I've returned both cameras for now. I guess my choice will be between the two with the Sony not being considered due to noise which is much too visible in natural light at 400 ISO when viewed full size. I prefer the Sony ergonomics but ....too much noise. I had some good test results with action bird dog shots with the Canon. All of your advice and comments help me in knowing that it isn't just the review sites praising the Canon. I will be picking up another XSI and "maybe" the E520 next chance for some more testing. Canon has really updated the XSI and I especially like the bigger lcd and much better viewfinder. Focusing was fast and accurate for some birddog photos....Thanks again everyone, Bugsey
I think its important to say ALL of these cameras will do a good job. Each has strengths, each areas that could be better. The best choice is the one you use.

Its that that I'd concentrate on. The feel of the camera is important. If it doesn't fit well or is uncomfortable, it won't be with you when you get a chance to take a great photo. Please don't dismiss that as a top factor for your camera choice.

You were doing some comparisons between the cameras and the pics they take. You've compared some features and generated some opinions. You have done your homework. Now I get to offer some advise. Get a camera. Alot of noise about features of the newest camera, alot of pixel peeping madness, it is overblown.

My advise is to buy a camera you will use, and use it. There are used cameras with low shutter counts that may allow you to buy the next level camera. Instead of the XSi, how about a 30D.

I shoot Olympus, and I have a couple concerns. When indoors with existing light, the camera is not at its strongest. The AF doesn't work as well as some of its competition. Oly doesn't do as well at the higher ISOs. I love my kit, but if that type of photography is important to you, ..... Well if it was important to me, I'd get a different camera.

The lens choice (Olympus) is less in number but very good at price points. The f2.8-3.5 mid tier line is great and a nice compromise between weight and brightness.

If you like dogsports, my gallery may intrest you. Its all Oly but mainly E-3 (with a smattering of E500)

http://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/

Here's an example:


fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2009, 1:51 PM   #58
Junior Member
 
BUGSEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Its all Oly but mainly E-3 (with a smattering of E500)
Thank you for the link to your photos, the Springer are really good dogs!
I was just wondering why you chose the Oly?
Would you buy the E3 again?


BUGSEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2009, 2:31 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

BUGSEY wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Its all Oly but mainly E-3 (with a smattering of E500)
Thank you for the link to your photos, the Springer are really good dogs!
I was just wondering why you chose the Oly?
Would you buy the E3 again?

Originally i bought the E500 and two kit lenses because the XTi didn't fit and I couldn't afford the 30D. I loved the 70-200 f4 IS and wanted the lens, but chose a kit that would get me going cheaply, and later I'd move up to the 30D.

The more I used that cheap little kit, the more I liked it. I liked the reach the 2x allowed (my 40-150 f3.5-4.5 had the reach of the 70-200) and after alot of thought, I invested in the 50-200 rather than choosing to jump to the Canon. I liked the ease of post processing the Oly files to get the look I wanted. It was all good for me.

Part of me wants a D700 (full frame Nikon) and the 14-24 f2.8 and the 24-70, but I still would not part with the E-3 kit. For shooting long, its far lighter and I perfer the look of its pics.

My kit is: E500 (still gets used at ISO 400 and below) The E-3 (good at ISO 800 and below) and the 11-22 f2.8-3.5 (nice lens, some CA at wide end)), the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 (hard to get it to mis-behave in any way), the 50 f2 macro (incredible lens that is slow/noisy to focus) and a couple of 50-200 f2.8-3.5 lenses (Both SWD and non SWD versions. great lenses, bokeh can be rough, some vignetting, but sharp everywhere) as well as the original kit lenses.

I use Oly because I like the reach, adore the overall quality of the glass, and I use it mainly outdoors. If the cameras died, I'd replace them. I'm satisfied.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2009, 5:30 PM   #60
Junior Member
 
BUGSEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
I still would not part with the E-3 kit. For shooting long, its far lighter and I perfer the look of its pics. I use Oly because I like the reach, adore the overall quality of the glass, and I use it mainly outdoors. If the cameras died, I'd replace them. I'm satisfied.
thanks Greg, some good points you bring up which I can relate to. The Oly gave me may more "keepers", more pictures with excellent sharpness and color. The thought nagging in the back of my mind is that may be due to the fact that I an amateur and not too familiar with shooting techniques. If Oly had updated the 520's ergonomics, viewfinder and LCD my choice would be much easier. Maybe the next one to go on sale will be the deal maker.

Bugsey

BUGSEY 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 1:59 PM.