Be Thankful For Olympus Gear

Started Apr 23, 2013 | Discussions
light_bulb
Contributing MemberPosts: 507
Like?
Re: Be Thankful For Olympus Gear
In reply to Doctor Lecter, Apr 26, 2013

I have started with Oly as my second SLR and still have several OMs and Zuiko lenses from that time sitting on the shelf without any issues. The Zuiko lenses pretty much look like new and even the rubber is just perfect.

Except for my currently reported issue with the heavily used ZD 150 f2 which I was able to fix by mysel I had no issues with a long list of cameras and lenses.

My D800 looks more worn after 10k shots than my E-3 after 55k. However I had nothing on the sensor and no left AF issue.

Perhaps I am just lucky?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
alatchin
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
Re: Canikon
In reply to esco, Apr 26, 2013

esco wrote:

Read it again, I never said canon came up with AF.

As long as we are being like this, did I say you said Canon came up with AF? No I alluded to your point that Minolta made IBIS first negating the Olympus development. My point was that Canon also didnt develop AF but simply improved it (Just as Olympus has for IBIS).

swivel screens do hamper durability from the simple fact that you can break them off and that they simply cannot be sealed within the chassis if a camera.

Actually, when I was using my E-3 I found the swivel screen MORE durable because when I was in bad weather and had the camera slung as I was moving around I wasnt scratching my screen with my zippers and buttons (as I did early on with my a850 while I was waiting for the screen protector to come in). The strawman argument that it can break off doesnt reflect how people generally use that feature, they dont run and gun with the screen flopping all over the place. As for weather sealing, the stories of failure are pretty common with all brands.

you have probably never had the chance to hold a top pro canikon camera if you believe the e series has been some of the most robust. The e series can be tough but the 1d series feels every bit of a different beast altogether and it should be - you get what you pay for.

With weather sealing, you do. But as to how much you are paying for for build... well, that is impossible to tell. As for the other reasons a 1 series or single digit series from Canon and Nikon cost as much as they do... I suspect it has very little to do with the cost of production and a great deal to do with product placement. As to me holding a 1 series Canon body, I have held many of them, they are regularly available at my local camera store which I haunt, I have held them at shows, and I know the Canon product line very well, including the 1 series as Canon is one of my clients.

-- hide signature --

Oldschool Evolt shooter

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

 alatchin's gear list:alatchin's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
William Russell
Contributing MemberPosts: 669
Like?
Re: Be Thankful For Olympus Gear
In reply to Oliver85, Apr 26, 2013

I had over the years the 1-Olympus C-2100, 2-E3s, 2 E5s, and now 2 OM-Ds. Only the C-2100 had a issue which was repaired under an extended warranty. Of all the Olympus lens only the 12-60 had to be sent in for a recall which turned out to be no problem at all. Just checked.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,979
Like?
not upset at what Oly does right
In reply to John King, Apr 26, 2013

I too like Oly colours. Also, the E1 (+ 2 kit lenses) stole my heart. Awesome combination. The reason I got into Oly in the first place was competitive quality in a smaller package. That is why I have never 'jumped ship'. There are no other 'small package' DSLR systems out there.

m4/3rds is not a DSLR, though I'm watching closely.

I'm not upset at what Oly did right. I'm upset at them for (in my view) ruining the system. It could have been so good.

Instead we got stupid marketing (the E3 'gottaway proof' focus being advertised with a front focused image in a national pro photog magazine in the states), stupid design goals (who was asking for 'the worlds fastest' AF ... it was a 'need' that Oly invented out of whole cloth), old tech noisy sensors, Canon knock-off body, life-view flippy up mirror rubbish (did they learn nothing from Fuji who did this first?), an AF unit that couldn't focus reliably in backlight, CAF left in the stone age, MASSIVE SHG LENSES when their own stated unique selling point was a 'compact system' ... etc, etc.

I still own an E1 but the sensor is dying in it. Never liked the E3. Use it because I have it, but it is a lemon as far as I'm concerned.

John, I am sincerely sorry for ranting so much against the much loved (on this forum) E5. If it works for you, I don't mean to take anything away. It's that the E3 was the first real nail in the 4/3rds coffin so I can't help but see the E5 as simply another nail.

Let's hope that you can throw egg in my face when Oly produces a corker in the fall ... though I still don't think we'll see another 4/3rds camera. It will almost certainly be m4/3rds that may (or may not) competently focus the 4/3rds lenses.

If I'm wrong about the 'new' 4/3rds body too, well, you can throw bacon at my face as well.

Mmmmmmmm. Bacon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Re: The "ISO-less camera" argument
In reply to boggis the cat, Apr 26, 2013

Gidday Cat

boggis the cat wrote:

John King wrote:

Even if the results have been spectacular failures; and there have been many of them! Digital is far cheaper to make many spectacular failures - thereby creating a far more immediate and thus better learning environment, IMNSHO. Unfortunately, digital also creates an environment where far too many people have the attitude "I'll just fix it in post processing.". This goes equally for composition (using the wrong lens or framing); exposure; subject matter ("I'll just add in/subtract whatever I want/don't want later.").

I find it interesting that many people seem convinced that it is easier to take bad shots, or use equipment that has unpredictable behaviour, then 'fix' the photo in post.

I too like predictable behaviour in anything I use. Cameras and lenses are no exception ...

Yet these same people will then happily claim that using an auto-exposure mode is abdicating responsibility and thus not 'legitimate' photography (Program or Program-shift is what I tend to use by far the most, due to what I tend to shoot most).

This is just sloppy, regardless of the level of the camera being used. We have the wonderful choice of fantastic tools at our disposal so that some people can be just plain sloppy in their use of them.

He stresses the exposure triangle of ISO, aperture and shutter speed and how to use these exposure parameters to achieve the desired aesthetic results. Although I have little to learn from anything he has written (the book belongs to a friend, and he lent it to me to audit), it is terrific looking at his wonderful photos. He is also a very clear communicator. I like to have read a book before recommending it to others ... and I could not recommend his book too highly.

Have you noticed that there is a bit of a push to argue that 'ISO' is no longer a valid concept?

That was one of Newman's favourite fight starters ...
I agree with Bryan Peterson's continued use of the "Exposure triangle" - ISO (sensitivity of the recording medium), Aperture (the hole in the diaphragm in the lens) and Shutter speed (how long the recording medium is exposed to the light source). Seems so self-evident, and has been used by photographers ever since photography began. No less valid today than it was 150 years ago ... . All other decisions are aesthetic decisions, and just as important in their own right. They are just not exposure parameters, per se. They are determined by the meber of the exposure set chosen. Peterson stresses this constantly.

There was a thread in the Open Talk forum where this was being discussed.  I jumped in here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51328732

but did not get a reply to my argument for ISO in that thread.

Am I missing something obvious?  I don't see how a sensor can have limitless 'sensitivity', so therefore we have to always consider that third element (even if we have an ever increasing latitude).

I agree. So does every photographer and author on the subject I have ever had anything to do with. Even auto ISO is still applying a value to the sensitivity of the recording medium. It's just blather to suggest otherwise, IMNSHO.

It is also interesting to note how relaxed he is about a whole lot of subjects and how both the particular aperture and shutter speed chosen don't matter a lot of the time, as long as they are "correct" for the lighting situation, but sometimes they are at the crux of the photo taken. Again, I agree.

Absolutely right.  The downside of using 'auto' modes is that you may sometimes miss an opportunity that you may have seen if you had been using aperture priority, then you note it after the fact and realise that it could have been a great shot.

Everything is a trade-off, of course, and for people who believe that capturing a shot 'in camera' is not that high a priority perhaps they get more satisfaction from fiddling in Photoshop or what have you.  I just get confused, lose track of what I am trying to get to, 'fix' one thing only to obliterate other more important elements, and end up going in circles until the shot looks 'OK' (but not what I had hoped for when I started wasting time chasing the concept), then compare to the OOC JPEGs and find that they're better... 

Of course. And that too. Except that my OoC JPEGs are never better than the images I get from any RAW file, no matter how crappily I have taken it ... .

Down at the beach the other day, I was discussing composition and PP with a woman we had met there on a doggy walk. I mentioned that I almost never cropped in PP, exceptionally rarely; and that I considered it an admission of failure on my part if I had to (yeah, I do know that sometimes it is unavoidable - who doesn't?). She said "You're being very hard on yourself". I replied that it was the only way I could force myself to be disciplined as far as composition, lens choice, etc went; that composition was one of my weakest areas, and that to improve (as I am told I have), I have to be hard on myself. She then said "Fair enough".

-- hide signature --

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,313
Like?
Re: The "ISO-less camera" argument
In reply to boggis the cat, Apr 28, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

John King wrote:

Even if the results have been spectacular failures; and there have been many of them! Digital is far cheaper to make many spectacular failures - thereby creating a far more immediate and thus better learning environment, IMNSHO. Unfortunately, digital also creates an environment where far too many people have the attitude "I'll just fix it in post processing.". This goes equally for composition (using the wrong lens or framing); exposure; subject matter ("I'll just add in/subtract whatever I want/don't want later.").

I find it interesting that many people seem convinced that it is easier to take bad shots, or use equipment that has unpredictable behaviour, then 'fix' the photo in post.

Hmm.  I've never seen someone say that.

Yet these same people will then happily claim that using an auto-exposure mode is abdicating responsibility and thus not 'legitimate' photography (Program or Program-shift is what I tend to use by far the most, due to what I tend to shoot most).

Auto ISO is an excellent tool.

This is just sloppy, regardless of the level of the camera being used. We have the wonderful choice of fantastic tools at our disposal so that some people can be just plain sloppy in their use of them.

He stresses the exposure triangle of ISO, aperture and shutter speed and how to use these exposure parameters to achieve the desired aesthetic results. Although I have little to learn from anything he has written (the book belongs to a friend, and he lent it to me to audit), it is terrific looking at his wonderful photos. He is also a very clear communicator. I like to have read a book before recommending it to others ... and I could not recommend his book too highly.

Have you noticed that there is a bit of a push to argue that 'ISO' is no longer a valid concept?

Has anyone said such a thing?

There was a thread in the Open Talk forum where this was being discussed.  I jumped in here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51328732

but did not get a reply to my argument for ISO in that thread.

Am I missing something obvious?  I don't see how a sensor can have limitless 'sensitivity', so therefore we have to always consider that third element (even if we have an ever increasing latitude).

ISO is not "sensitivity".  What the ISO setting does, aside from indirectly affect exposure by changing the f-ratio, shutter speed, and/or flash power in accordance with the camera's meter, is apply a gain to the captured signal.

For cameras that do not have ISOless sensors, this gain results in less read noise at higher ISOs, which is why, for example, f/2.8 1/100 ISO 1600 will be less noisy than f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 pushed two stops.  See here for an example.

On the other hand, when the signal is pushed, depending on the DR of the scene, portions of the scene can be pushed outside the bit depth of the image file, resulting in more of the scene being blown than if a lower ISO were used.  In other words, the competent photographer balances noise vs blown highlights when using higher ISOs for a given exposure (keeping in mind, of course, that the exposure is a function solely of the scene luminance, f-ratio, and shutter speed -- the role of ISO is simply internal processing).

However, for a camera with an ISOless sensor, the read noise is constant throughout the ISO range, and thus there is no noise reduction when using higher ISOs.  The use of a higher ISO on such a system merely results in more blown highlights.  See here for an example.

A natural question, then, is why would anyone with a camera sporting an ISOless sensor would shoot anything other than base ISO?  The answer is simple:  manufacturers have not yet incorporated an ISOless UI where the LCD playback and OOC jpg are set for a zeroed meter (plus or minus any EC).  Thus, the operational disadvantages of shooting in an ISOless style often outweigh the IQ advantages without an ISOless UI.  This is such a pity, 'cause it's an easy thing to add in firmware.

It is also interesting to note how relaxed he is about a whole lot of subjects and how both the particular aperture and shutter speed chosen don't matter a lot of the time, as long as they are "correct" for the lighting situation, but sometimes they are at the crux of the photo taken. Again, I agree.

Absolutely right.  The downside of using 'auto' modes is that you may sometimes miss an opportunity that you may have seen if you had been using aperture priority, then you note it after the fact and realise that it could have been a great shot.

Auto modes are simply for when you feel the decisions the camera makes are better than the decisions you would have made, or at least "good enough", and speed is important.

Everything is a trade-off, of course, and for people who believe that capturing a shot 'in camera' is not that high a priority perhaps they get more satisfaction from fiddling in Photoshop or what have you.

As I alluded to above, sometimes speed is critical, and being able to make corrections in post is operationally more important than "getting it right" in camera.  A simple example is shooting RAW and setting the white balance in the conversion -- taking time to set the correct white balance in camera may cause the photographer to miss shots.

I just get confused, lose track of what I am trying to get to, 'fix' one thing only to obliterate other more important elements, and end up going in circles until the shot looks 'OK' (but not what I had hoped for when I started wasting time chasing the concept), then compare to the OOC JPEGs and find that they're better... 

Makes sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,313
Like?
Re: The "ISO-less camera" argument
In reply to John King, Apr 28, 2013

John King wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Have you noticed that there is a bit of a push to argue that 'ISO' is no longer a valid concept?

That was one of Newman's favourite fight starters ...
I agree with Bryan Peterson's continued use of the "Exposure triangle" - ISO (sensitivity of the recording medium), Aperture (the hole in the diaphragm in the lens) and Shutter speed (how long the recording medium is exposed to the light source). Seems so self-evident, and has been used by photographers ever since photography began. No less valid today than it was 150 years ago ... . All other decisions are aesthetic decisions, and just as important in their own right. They are just not exposure parameters, per se. They are determined by the meber of the exposure set chosen. Peterson stresses this constantly.

There was a thread in the Open Talk forum where this was being discussed.  I jumped in here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51328732

but did not get a reply to my argument for ISO in that thread.

Am I missing something obvious?  I don't see how a sensor can have limitless 'sensitivity', so therefore we have to always consider that third element (even if we have an ever increasing latitude).

I agree. So does every photographer and author on the subject I have ever had anything to do with. Even auto ISO is still applying a value to the sensitivity of the recording medium. It's just blather to suggest otherwise, IMNSHO.

The sensitivity of a digital sensor is fixed, except inasmuch as read noise is less at higher ISOs for non-ISOless sensors.  In other words, f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 and f/2.8 1/100 ISO 1600 have the same exposure for a given scene, but not the same brightness.

The advantage to the ISO 1600 photo is that it will be less noisy than the ISO 400 photo pushed to the same brightness if the sensor was not ISOless.  The disadvantage to the ISO 1600 photo is that more of it may be blown (due to the limited bit depth of the image file), regardless of whether the sensor is ISOless or not.

Recently, an excellent article on exposure was written by gollywop:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

As a side, he's also written an excellent article on colors management:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7270088913/color-management-a-walkthrough

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John King
Forum ProPosts: 12,792Gear list
Like?
Re: The "ISO-less camera" argument
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 28, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

John King wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Have you noticed that there is a bit of a push to argue that 'ISO' is no longer a valid concept?

That was one of Newman's favourite fight starters ...
I agree with Bryan Peterson's continued use of the "Exposure triangle" - ISO (sensitivity of the recording medium), Aperture (the hole in the diaphragm in the lens) and Shutter speed (how long the recording medium is exposed to the light source). Seems so self-evident, and has been used by photographers ever since photography began. No less valid today than it was 150 years ago ... . All other decisions are aesthetic decisions, and just as important in their own right. They are just not exposure parameters, per se. They are determined by the meber of the exposure set chosen. Peterson stresses this constantly.

There was a thread in the Open Talk forum where this was being discussed.  I jumped in here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51328732

but did not get a reply to my argument for ISO in that thread.

Disagree with the idea that ISO is subjective. It may be a second level variable (and always has been, even with film ... ), but that is completely different from it being a "subjective" phenomenon ...

Am I missing something obvious?  I don't see how a sensor can have limitless 'sensitivity', so therefore we have to always consider that third element (even if we have an ever increasing latitude).

I agree. So does every photographer and author on the subject I have ever had anything to do with. Even auto ISO is still applying a value to the sensitivity of the recording medium. It's just blather to suggest otherwise, IMNSHO.

The sensitivity of a digital sensor is fixed, except inasmuch as read noise is less at higher ISOs for non-ISOless sensors.  In other words, f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 and f/2.8 1/100 ISO 1600 have the same exposure for a given scene, but not the same brightness.

The advantage to the ISO 1600 photo is that it will be less noisy than the ISO 400 photo pushed to the same brightness if the sensor was not ISOless.  The disadvantage to the ISO 1600 photo is that more of it may be blown (due to the limited bit depth of the image file), regardless of whether the sensor is ISOless or not.

Recently, an excellent article on exposure was written by gollywop:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

Love the bit about "in-camera processing". Just sort of relegates some of the most important technical aspects of how and what a digital camera does to the back burner. Bit like listening to the sound coming from a stylus and ignoring the amplifier between this and the speakers; or listening to a CD being played without any earphones or amplifier connected ...

As a side, he's also written an excellent article on colors management:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7270088913/color-management-a-walkthrough

"Excellent" in whose opinion?

Not as succinct as my own essay (NFP). Without spending more time in a detailed reading, I can't comment further than this. I would rather read the original authors, which I have already done, in the main. My essay on the subject is designed to remove the techno talk so that ordinary photographers can do these things without the necessity of wading through technical details.
IME, most photographers will not even read well written, straight forward, simple texts on any of these subjects, so the techno-babble has to be left out without over-simplifying the underlying workflow practices such that they become wrong. IMHO, he has not achieved this objective, even though a worthy effort.

BTW, From what I did read (quickly), some of the things said about printers has not been current since before 2004 or so. Ditto about colour spaces. See Schewe & Fraser "Real World Adobe Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5", Blatner & Fraser "Real World Adobe Photoshop CS" and Jurgen "The Digital Print" - among many other sources.

Not interested in discussing these things with you, as you are merely interested in things other than the photographic ramifications and use of these things.

 John King's gear list:John King's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-510 Olympus E-30
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads