E3 V 40D....Help ME!!

Agramer said:

14-54 is much better than any Canon lens cheaper than 900€. 50-200
SWD is just a 100€ more than old 50-200 which I sold for 900€ last
month

Click to expand...

I would'nt say the 14-54 is better than the 17-55 canon

Agramer said:

Oly 35-100 is better lens than 70-200IS for a 200€ more

Click to expand...

have the 35-100

Agramer said:

If you are satisfied with a 1/2 stop high ISO advantage, and if you
like Canon colours and images you should buy Canon

Click to expand...

more like a stop in my testing untill the 14-35 is available across comparable lenses

Agramer said:

Why do you ask when you do know all the answers?!

Click to expand...

'cus I want to be SURE

Agramer said:

But you know that, I'm shure.

Click to expand...

Maybe

Agramer said:

Good luck

Click to expand...

I need it...
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

Hi!

After I looked at all of yours answers...non of the Olys advantages are important to you. Buy a Canon
Cheers

Agramer said:

Geoff_R said:

lloyd007 said:

40D has lots more chroma noise and worse colors. Also you gotta spend
big bucks on heavy L glass made for 35mm FF cameras cause Canon
really just humors their APS sensor crowd. Finally Canon quality
control is dodgy at times and they have a 'deal with it' mentality I
mean just look at all those poor saps who spent 4 grand on a 1D mk3
only to be left dangling for months with a broken autofocus.

Click to expand...

Agreed Canon QC leaves a lot to be desired at times...colours are a
personal taste thing. Have you done lots of back to back comparisons
of iso1600/3200 files from both using your normal workflow and
printed them?....I have.

Click to expand...

Good for you. Whay do you ask people around to tell you which one is
better when you know what you like?

Click to expand...

Because maybe someone else has done some valid back to back testing or seen something I have not seen that provides a different insight.

Agramer said:

For instance, I don't think about iso 1600/3200 with any camera I
tried (canon 20D, Canon30D, Canon 5D, Olympus E1, Olympus E300, Nikon
D100, Nikon D200, Minolta D7)
Take tha Canon
Cheers

Click to expand...

If you have nothing further to add....thanks for your input
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

The f2 superzooms get you back the one stop extra noise, and you already have the 35-100.

If you need high ISO, then you need 35mmFF, there is no way round it. If you won't carry one (and I wouldn't) then the 40D with matching 2.8s and Oly with matching f2 behave the same in low light.

I can't see any advantage for the Canon whatever, other than not having to buy the 35-100, and you have already done that.

I can see a strong case for the D3. If Canon fix the AF I can see a strong case for the sport camera, whatever they called it. The 40D? Can't see any point to it at all.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Geoff_R said:

Agramer said:

14-54 is much better than any Canon lens cheaper than 900€. 50-200
SWD is just a 100€ more than old 50-200 which I sold for 900€ last
month

Click to expand...

I would'nt say the 14-54 is better than the 17-55 canon

Click to expand...

canon 17-55Is is cca 900€ and 14-54 is cca 550€. 14-54 is sealed and 17-55Is isn't. Image Q is the same.

Geoff_R said:

Geoff_R said:

Oly 35-100 is better lens than 70-200IS for a 200€ more

Click to expand...

have the 35-100

Geoff_R said:

If you are satisfied with a 1/2 stop high ISO advantage, and if you
like Canon colours and images you should buy Canon

Click to expand...

more like a stop in my testing untill the 14-35 is available across
comparable lenses

Click to expand...

I can't see that 1 stop, but if you say so...

Geoff_R said:

Geoff_R said:

Why do you ask when you do know all the answers?!

Click to expand...

'cus I want to be SURE

Click to expand...

good enought

Geoff_R said:

Geoff_R said:

But you know that, I'm shure.

Click to expand...

Maybe

Geoff_R said:

Good luck

Click to expand...

I need it...
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

Click to expand...

I was in the same problems 3 years ago...and this year. But E3 is all what I need.
Cheers

Geoff_R said:

Agramer said:

Geoff_R said:

lloyd007 said:

40D has lots more chroma noise and worse colors. Also you gotta spend
big bucks on heavy L glass made for 35mm FF cameras cause Canon
really just humors their APS sensor crowd. Finally Canon quality
control is dodgy at times and they have a 'deal with it' mentality I
mean just look at all those poor saps who spent 4 grand on a 1D mk3
only to be left dangling for months with a broken autofocus.

Click to expand...

Agreed Canon QC leaves a lot to be desired at times...colours are a
personal taste thing. Have you done lots of back to back comparisons
of iso1600/3200 files from both using your normal workflow and
printed them?....I have.

Click to expand...

Good for you. Whay do you ask people around to tell you which one is
better when you know what you like?

Click to expand...

Because maybe someone else has done some valid back to back testing
or seen something I have not seen that provides a different insight.

Click to expand...

But someone else will have different demands or expectations. You should listen your brain and hearth.

Geoff_R said:

Geoff_R said:

For instance, I don't think about iso 1600/3200 with any camera I
tried (canon 20D, Canon30D, Canon 5D, Olympus E1, Olympus E300, Nikon
D100, Nikon D200, Minolta D7)
Take tha Canon
Cheers

Click to expand...

If you have nothing further to add....thanks for your input
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

Click to expand...

Cheers

If you're not into weight, it could be argued Oly has the best quality to weight to price of anything out there. My big issue with the E1 has always been focus and unless Oly is lying through their teeth, they've got this one licked.

Canon's focus has been suspect in all their none 1 series cameras. My E1 shoots alongside a 5D and his hit rate for focus is easily half mine in low light.

While Canon glass might be okay on a small sensor, its simply not as good as Oly glass on smaller sensors.

And whose going to accept an image from a 40D at 1600iso but reject and equal quality image from an E3 because of a noise difference you only notice when you stare at it when the images are side by side?

If you're into small sensors, Oly is very very competitive.

However, if you like the Canon in your hand better, then all this is a moot point, because the person behind the camera is going to make a far biggest difference at this level of comparison.

--

When every single person in the world thinks their unique interpretation of reality is the most accurate, how do I know mine is the truest?

was available NOW...I wouldnt have started this thread and I'd have 2 x e3's one with the 35-100 perched on it and the other with the 14-35...period.

But its not and I'm really p*ssed off that Oly keep letting it slip when its a deal breaker for some of us that need it.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

Tim

a compelling argument but from what I've seen the af problems are sorted also with the 40d....I guess I more miffed about the constant delays with the 14-35.
Will it ever arrive....probaly now....but when?
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

Would retraining yourself from Olympus to Canon be a significant issue?

Maybe ask someone who has both the E-1 and a 40D (or comparable) how different the systems are to work with. (Everything from camera use, to lens foibles, to post-processing.) I would think that for pro use this would be a very big issue.

You mentioned that the Olympus flash system is more expensive. Why would you not use Metz? I was thinking of going to the new Metz range for flash - it seems to be (on paper, anyway) as good as Olympus for dedicated control, is more powerful and cheaper.

Agramer said:

Hi!
After I looked at all of yours answers...non of the Olys advantages
are important to you. Buy a Canon
Cheers

Click to expand...

will with the 17-55 but I'll get an e3 as well and wait and wait for the 14-35
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

I have an E3 + 12-20 on order here in the UK.

Yesterday I went into Cardiff round the camera shops looking (unsuccessfully) for a demo model to try.

One shop (high profile) I tried said they werent sure they if they would stock it because they werent confident the price was sustainable.

Certainly got me wondering if I should wait and see.

Richard

boggis the cat said:

Would retraining yourself from Olympus to Canon be a significant issue?
Maybe ask someone who has both the E-1 and a 40D (or comparable) how
different the systems are to work with. (Everything from camera use,
to lens foibles, to post-processing.) I would think that for pro use
this would be a very big issue.

Click to expand...

Nope been there done that

boggis the cat said:

You mentioned that the Olympus flash system is more expensive. Why
would you not use Metz? I was thinking of going to the new Metz
range for flash - it seems to be (on paper, anyway) as good as
Olympus for dedicated control, is more powerful and cheaper.

Click to expand...

Yep I might just change to metz anyway.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

Louis_Dobson said:

The f2 superzooms get you back the one stop extra noise, and you
already have the 35-100.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Louis_Dobson said:

If you need high ISO, then you need 35mmFF, there is no way round it.
If you won't carry one (and I wouldn't) then the 40D with matching
2.8s and Oly with matching f2 behave the same in low light.

Click to expand...

They have f2.8's in focal ranges I need we are still waiting for the 14-35...and waiting and waiting.
best
--
Geoff Roughton



'Always look on the bright side life...'

I was just having a look around when I saw this.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=25557113

--

When every single person in the world thinks their unique interpretation of reality is the most accurate, how do I know mine is the truest?

rovingtim said:

And whose going to accept an image from a 40D at 1600iso but reject
and equal quality image from an E3 because of a noise difference you
only notice when you stare at it when the images are side by side?

Click to expand...

If you use a brighter lens with the E3, then there will not be a significant difference in noise. It then depends only on sensor technologie, but not on sensor size.

why you want the cameras, mostly.

If you NEED high ISO quality - your best bet is probably the new Nikon full frame.

Like earlier posters I don't trust Canon's quality control and dislike their attitude. A good example is, as one poster wrote, their "deal with it" attitude toward quality control.

The new Nikon, tho Canon has wonderful sensors, uses larger photosite sizes, and should have superb high ISO quality. And Nikon has pretty good quality control.

If price and inbody IS is paramount, consider Pentax. Maybe Pentax will bring out a super item at the upcoming PSA. If their lenses fit your needs Pentax can be an excellent tool.

I love Oly and with over 40 years in 35mm their OM series was my all-time favorite; and I used both (real) Leicas and Nikons extensively before the OMs.

But to my mind Oly's commitment to 4/3 (while understandable from a business "niche" point of view) really limits their high ISO quality and limits their future to essentially high end amateurs or pros not needing large prints.

Although I originally switched from 35mm OMs to Canon when Canon introduced the first 35mm stabilized lenses, and continued with Canon in digital (Pro90 IS to start, then 10D, 20D and finally 350XT for the same sensor as the 20D with a MUCH lighter body) - I then switched to a Pentax K10D for the inbody stabilization.

BUT I have increasingly gone to larger prints and more elaborate postprocessing, and have gradually become convinced that inbody stabilization is less important to me than quality - which means more and more use of tripods, which means less value to the inbody stabilization.

I am contemplating a switch to either the Canon 5D or the new Nikon full frame. I will probably go with the Nikon despite the increased cost because I dislike Canon's attitude toward photographers.

A superb example of their "attitude" is their contemptous refusal to make mirror lockup simple and easy despite the example of most other high-end camera bodies.

The ONLY thing of value Canon has is an excellent sensor but IMHO this is more than offset by their pricing, their basic contempt toward users, and dodgy quality control.

I am personally going to wait for PSA and expect to go for the Nikon despite the price,

I have enjoyed my K10D - the 77LTD f1.8 (115mm 35mE) is a marvellous stabilized prime, excellent for low-light portraits and my favorite lens. But their future under Hoya ownership is unclear, and the limitations of the Sony sensor are obvious.

If Pentax's showing at PSA pretty well commits Hoya to the high end line, and if Sony comes up with some improvement in their Sensor, and if the Pentax/Hoya lens line shows improvement and a future - Pentax may be the way to go.

They have tried HARD to fit their customer needs - will Hoya continue? What sensor future for Pentax?

Nikon's limitation is PRICE and lack of inbody stabilization.

Oly's limitation is the 4/3 size sensor; their limitation is also the source, paradoxically, of their greatest strength; their domination of the niche is desirable ONLY if the limitations of the niche suit you (and if these limitations did NOT suit you why would you hesitate ?)

Overall a thorny problem and like much of life you may simply have to settle for a compromise and for betting on the future without really adequate information. As I say, much of life is like that.

Good luck and best wishes whatever you choose.

PS - I am in the US and am also considering use of RENTAL medium format for my real high quality needs (pro) while keeping the inbody stabilized K10D for my personal amateur use (it works fine for that). I don't know if UK has feasible rental of high quality medium format digital - but this is increasingly available here in the US - and although the price outright is not a good idea for me - the rental availability of superb bodies/sensors with availabilty of equally superb lenses (without investing $40 - $60 K US !) is really interesting for (especially tethered) tripod work. AND for our tax purposes there is an ABSOLUTELY clear-cut ability to slot the camera/lens cost into a particular job...something to investigate I guess...

--
bill wilson

I can see no logic in a lateral move. ie. going E system to APS-C.

Now if you said you wanted to go FF, you'd have a valid argument.

I've gone with a 5D myself and can support what is being said here. The lenses are expensive and huge. But - the end justifiys the means. The 5D is a great camera no matter what anyone says. The IQ just knocks you over.

But for sports? I don't think so. Even if you wanted to try, you need f2.8 or faster lenses on Canon to take advantage of the top secret 6 hidden focus points. I can't speak for the 40D, but on the 5D, the cross sensors are only active on f2.8 and faster. So for your application forget about cheap. You'd need the 24-70 and 70-200 at a grand total of $2700.

As far as FPS goes. 6.5 fps vs. 5 fps is splitting hairs. There's a little known caveat in the 40D litterature that says that 6.5 is not sustainable, the buffer will choke max 17 frames RAW, so bursts of

Now if you were saying that you wanted a 40D to suppliment a 5D that's another story. That would make sense to be able to swap lenses back and forth.

And as far as lens superiority goes. EF lenses are made for FF cameras, so not really optimized for APS-C. E lenses are made for E cameras. "L" lenses are every bit as good as Olympus mid and top grade, not factoring speed.

For your application I'd stay where you are. The very least I'd do is buy one E-3 to try for a few gigs. If you don't like it I don't think you'd have trouble reselling.

--
'A picture is worth a thousand dollars'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenzflair/

Erot said:

rovingtim said:

And whose going to accept an image from a 40D at 1600iso but reject
and equal quality image from an E3 because of a noise difference you
only notice when you stare at it when the images are side by side?

Click to expand...

If you use a brighter lens with the E3, then there will not be a
significant difference in noise. It then depends only on sensor
technologie, but not on sensor size.

Click to expand...

Hi!

I think that you didn't gett his point. At f2,8 and ISO 1600 40D and E3 are quite close and you can't see a difference on prints without searching for noice side by side. From my point of wiev both cameras aren't good for ISO 1600, and both cameras are close and good enought for ISO 800. Canon have a little advantage, that's right, but that advantage isn't 1 stop.
Cheers

Agramer said:

You
should listen your brain and hearth.

Click to expand...

But your brain and your heart do not automatically come bundled with unlimited prior knowledge or experience, hence asking other peoples opinions is a valid way of gathering more data....

... as long as you have a BS fanboy filter to get rid of the majority of the uninformed bias that's written in most posts here these days.