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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 18, 2010, 7:08 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
Thanks, SirWired for your reply-

I happen to agree with you that the quality of the Olympus kit lenses is a step above some of the other kit lenses offered. In addition, Olympus offers a number of other even higher quality lenses that are well worth your consideration such as the Olympus 9-18mm and the 50-200mm lenses.

As a long time Olympus DSLR user I can tell you that the Olympus system is very effective.

Sarah Joyce
The thing that is making me the most nervous about Olympus is my lack of faith in Olympus's commitment to the system. I'd feel better if somebody besides Oly and Sigma picked it up, lens-wise. (Panasonic appears to have dropped it entirely in favor of m4/3.) I just don't see that Olympus is going to be able to keep two lens systems going at once for very long. If I were in their place, I'd focus on m4/3, where there is a lot less competition than in the larger sizes.

When fourthirds.org puts "No Information" on the page dedicated to "Lenses Planned for Release", it makes me feel a bit nervous.

And it's a shame, because I really like the idea behind the system, the e620 body is a spectacular value, and Olympus certainly hasn't slacked off with the design for either the lenses or the bodies. Oly made a gamble when they decided to discard 35mm mounts entirely, but I guess it just didn't work out.

If Sony had purchased Olympus instead of Minolta, I think 4/3 would be a real force to be reckoned with.

SirWired
sirwired is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 7:31 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirwired View Post
If Sony had purchased Olympus instead of Minolta, I think 4/3 would be a real force to be reckoned with.
That never would have happened. Sony and Minolta had a long symbiotic relationship, and they each had relationships with the same companies, like Zeiss and Tamron. Sony wouldn't have purchased anyone else; they were already developing their own dSLRs with Minolta's help.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 8:19 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

sirwired-

I certainly do not see the Olympus 4/3rd system as being short lived.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 8:28 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Sarah: isn't the low priced dslr cameras as the T2i a thread to 4/3 survival?
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 8:53 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
Sarah: isn't the low priced dslr cameras as the T2i a thread to 4/3 survival?
While I'm concerned about 4/3 making it long-term, the e620 body is very competitive with Txi models (though the Oly body has a different feature set) and it is about half the price.

SirWired
sirwired is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 9:28 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

$499 for Olypmus e620 body. 12.3 Megapixels MOS sensor.
$749 for T2i body. 18 Megapixels CMOS sensor.

Not to mention a lot of features.
Not truly comparable.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2010, 10:29 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Ordo and SirWired-

I like my E-620 a lot and feel that it meets my needs nicely. If I really need a high ISO capability I also have a Pentax Kx and the necessary supporting lenses.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2010, 10:59 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirwired View Post
... I'm not taking pictures of basketball games in a poorly-lit gym here, so bazillion dollar zoom bazookas aren't needed, but being able to do some available light photography where the subject isn't stock-still would be nice. I'm looking to upgrade the IQ over the kit zooms more than take pics in horrendous light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirwired View Post
My budget (exclusive of a flash, extra battery, case, etc.) is around $1100-ish. ...
That puts the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or 30/1.4 or the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8, along with a Pentax K-x or Sony A500, within your budget. I think any combination of these would be the best solution for what you want to do.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2010, 11:51 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

There's a lot of talk about the APS-C size being short lived let alone the new bridge system - the 4/3 sensor. I gather that the days of using a camera body for 20 years are long gone, and that the bodies available in 5 years will make the current crop look archaic if not pathetic (look at the 5 year old digital cameras from today's perspective). Given all that, I'd say picking a brand based on lens availability would be a good choice.

I went for the Canon T2i because it had 1080p video as well as the large sensor. If I stick with the EF lenses rather than the EF-S lenses they can carry over to the full frame bodies and I'll have at least a set of lenses that will be relevant for a long time.

The only thing I gave up when moving to the T2i was my desire for pocketing the camera. Everything else is so much better - low light performance, speed, zoom ability, and creative controls - I'm still rather excited about it.

Good luck!

Jim
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2010, 12:22 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowa_jim View Post
There's a lot of talk about the APS-C size being short lived ...
That's nonsense. APS-C dSLRs are smaller, lighter, and less expensive than 'Full Frame' dSLRs, and they have a larger selection of lenses. They can use the smaller, lighter, less expensive APS-C lenses, and they can take advantage of the sweet spot on 'Full Frame' lenses. All in all, APS-C dSLRs are much more attractive than 'Full Frame' dSLRs for almost any purpose. And nothing on the horizon is likely to change that. Anything that will make a 'Full Frame' dSLR more attractive, will simultaneously make an APS-C dSLR more attractive.

Most of the people talking about the imminent demise of APS-C do so because they feel the need to justify to themselves the extra money they spent on bigger, heavier gear.

There will always be 'Full Frame' dSLRs, but as niche products, much like 120/220 film cameras were 20 years ago. The major factor that keeps 'Full Frame' dSLRs as popular as they are, is because they can use many of the same lenses and accessories that APS-C dSLRs have. That's something that can't be said for those 120/220 film cameras.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Apr 19, 2010 at 12:24 PM.
TCav is online now   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 6:18 PM.