Feeling a bit "sad" about Olympus ...

I was planing to go for the E-30 or E-3 and 9-18 14-54 II 50-200 SWD ...

But the latest sample I saw from the E-30 at 3200 iso (taken on studio) was really disapointing, I compared on the same site with the same iso from a D300, and the diference look more than the one fstop disavantage that all here talk, in fact the result at 6400 from the D300 looks like the 1600 iso from the E-30, and the E-3 look only a bit better.

The site I am speaking is this one:

http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/olympus-e-30-initial-impressions/

And I have opened the E-30 and D300 samples at 100% and compared

I also compared at low iso, and again Nikon look better ...
(also compared here on dpreview the E-3 with the D300 at 3200 iso)

Image quality with the new nikons is really better, but I continue to like the Zuiko glass, whish I could use it on a Nikon body with the same 2.x crop, but that is impossible.

Guess I have to go for the Nikon, the results dont give me choice, but I will keep an eye on what Olympus is doing, in hope that someday the cameras have really good sensors like the Nikons have now, and if this happens for sure I will buy one with the 3 lenses I mentioned.

Anyway, I will keep talking here, because this Olympus SLR forum have really nice people around, or if I could I will try to have both, Nikon and Olympus.

All the best

Aleo

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

We're talking about ISO 3200-6400 here. That's insane IMO. but if you ACTUALLY shoot that high often, then go to Nikon and enjoy. Otherwise, enjoy what you have.
--
Ken

I know the the feeling.. On my last holiday I was forced to up the iso on my E-3 and i must say the results really hurts my eyes. But.. that is the only time I wished I owned a second brand. At the dusty jeep safari earlier that day, I think a couple of Cannoners wished they owned an Olly What I dont understand is if our noise problem comes from high pixel density on our chips, why doesnt the newer 24Mp cameras suffer as much as my E-3 does?
--
Thomas Fjørtoft

SP570uz, E-3, FL-36R, 12-60mm, 70-300mm, 50mm/f2, 8mm FE,25mm pancake,Sigma 50-500 and EX-25.
http://timmey78.zenfolio.com/

Want a usable high ISO capable camera?

Spend $2000 for a Canon 5d
Another $1200 for a 24mm-70mm zoom lens to cover the workhorse range

Or maybe midrange...
$1500 for a D300
and $400 to cover the same range.

--

You've been expressing dissatisfaction with Olympus for some time now. I can understand your move. I don't put a blanket "better IQ" on the D300 as I perfer the low ISO output of the Oly stuff, but that's just my opinion.

High ISO isn't Oly's strong suit. If you need that, I'd go elsewhere. If you do need high ISO IQ, I'd try everything possible to trump the D300 and go right to the D700. I doubt that you would regret it in the long run.

Cheers,

-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/

Thomas Fjørtoft wrote:

I know the the feeling.. On my last holiday I was forced to up the iso on my E-3 and i must say the results really hurts my eyes. But.. that is the only time I wished I owned a second brand. At the dusty jeep safari earlier that day, I think a couple of Cannoners wished they owned an Olly What I dont understand is if our noise problem comes from high pixel density on our chips, why doesnt the newer 24Mp cameras suffer as much as my E-3 does?

Because for starters, the new 24MP camera is full frame (35mm equiv) which means its sensor size is approx twice that of the E-3, also it's configured and constructed differently, by a different manufacturer.

Different horses for different courses. If one single camera did everything perfectly, there would be no need for competition.

--

--
Ingrid

If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com

And another $200 for a suitable shock mounted hand truck to cart/carry that stuff around !!

Paul
Vancouver, WA . . . USA

galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/spdavis/my_favorites

having seen nothing in your images to indicate that you need the high ISO advantage you are discussing I can only feel a little sad about such posts as new threads.

well new is probably the wrong word as well.

I really think you should switch to Kikon though, you cleary won't sleep until you have tried it.

--

• enjoy your camera equipment -

My heart tell me to stay with Olympus, but the logic and what I need Nikon have it, and they have good lenses too, not so good as most of the Zuikos, but very good.

I think I am a bit sentimental with Olympus, always love this brand, and for sure I will buy one later only for my personal photography and maybe some work also

Thank you all for your kind words

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Now to look further into the OP's equation, I've spent a lot of time comparing the D300 to the D700 and the ISO from the D300 at ISO 6400 doesn't hold a candle to the D700. If high ISO is your focus, why would you buy a D300 for high ISO use when the D3/D700 is so much better, particularly if you genuinely have the NEED for high ISO shots.

Also, if you're serious about your wide photography and quality of equipment, and a weathersealed D300 is your benchmark, why would you overlook the 7-14 for the 9-18? If you want quality wide, the 7-14 is one the best on the market, irrespective of manufacturer.

There are some unquantified inconsistencies in the OP.

--
Ingrid

If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com

Ingrid M said:

Now to look further into the OP's equation, I've spent a lot of time
comparing the D300 to the D700 and the ISO from the D300 at ISO 6400
doesn't hold a candle to the D700. If high ISO is your focus, why
would you buy a D300 for high ISO use when the D3/D700 is so much
better, particularly if you genuinely have the NEED for high ISO
shots.

Also, if you're serious about your wide photography and quality of
equipment, and a weathersealed D300 is your benchmark, why would you
overlook the 7-14 for the 9-18? If you want quality wide, the 7-14
is one the best on the market, irrespective of manufacturer.

There are some unquantified inconsistencies in the OP.

--
Ingrid

If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Yes but the 7-14 is very expensive, for now I dont even go to buy the nikon pro glass

Besides I have seen very good results from the 9-18, I think this lens should be on the Olympus Pro categorie but at the same price

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

I know we have a smaller sensor.. I just thought the pixel density of a 24Mp FF compared to my my 10Mp 4/3 could not be far off.
--
Thomas Fjørtoft

SP570uz, E-3, FL-36R, 12-60mm, 70-300mm, 50mm/f2, 8mm FE,25mm pancake,Sigma 50-500 and EX-25.
http://timmey78.zenfolio.com/

..will Nikon improve the photographs you get, taking in mind the styles and subjects you photograph?

If so, don't hesitate; jump ship now.

Otherwise I can only say, try not to think that different gear will make a big difference to your photographs. Even jumping from an E410 to a 1DSMkIII will not make a big difference to actual photographs for the majority of types of photography.

David

--
Who needs High ISO when you can have Pure Whey?

fldspringer said:

--

You've been expressing dissatisfaction with Olympus for some time
now. I can understand your move. I don't put a blanket "better IQ"
on the D300 as I perfer the low ISO output of the Oly stuff, but
that's just my opinion.

High ISO isn't Oly's strong suit. If you need that, I'd go
elsewhere. If you do need high ISO IQ, I'd try everything possible
to trump the D300 and go right to the D700. I doubt that you would
regret it in the long run.

Cheers,

-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/

Click to expand...

Good advice, I have until the end of January to think all that

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

kwa_photo said:

We're talking about ISO 3200-6400 here. That's insane IMO. but if you
ACTUALLY shoot that high often, then go to Nikon and enjoy.
Otherwise, enjoy what you have.
--

Click to expand...

I' second that. I find this kind of posts very unnerving. This gentleman's nickname has been online for only a few days and yet he's found a way of complaining about Oly most of the time.

Other people try to convince us that without a G1 we are doomed, why can't they post about their new toy, or intended toy in the relevant brand forum?

It's a lack of respect for users who find their tools perfectly suitable to their intended use, but must be niggled and criticized for not using other ones. Give us a break

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Bluetrain048 said:

..will Nikon improve the photographs you get, taking in mind the
styles and subjects you photograph?

If so, don't hesitate; jump ship now.

Click to expand...

Yes but only at hight iso, I am going to need high iso for ballet and some indoor shows

Bluetrain048 said:

Otherwise I can only say, try not to think that different gear will
make a big difference to your photographs. Even jumping from an
E410 to a 1DSMkIII will not make a big difference to actual
photographs for the majority of types of photography.

David

--
Who needs High ISO when you can have Pure Whey?

Click to expand...

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

amalric said:

kwa_photo said:

We're talking about ISO 3200-6400 here. That's insane IMO. but if you
ACTUALLY shoot that high often, then go to Nikon and enjoy.
Otherwise, enjoy what you have.
--

Click to expand...

I' second that. I find this kind of posts very unnerving. This
gentleman's nickname has been online for only a few days and yet he's
found a way of complaining about Oly most of the time.

Click to expand...

No, that is not true, I really like Olympus, I only complain about the noise, and that is because I need good hight iso results, as I said I plan to have both systems in the future, so you see I am not one of those that always complain
I think we can talk friendly about this

amalric said:

Other people try to convince us that without a G1 we are doomed, why
can't they post about their new toy, or intended toy in the relevant
brand forum?

It's a lack of respect for users who find their tools perfectly
suitable to their intended use, but must be niggled and criticized
for not using other ones. Give us a break

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Click to expand...

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

timmey78 said:

I know we have a smaller sensor.. I just thought the pixel density of
a 24Mp FF compared to my my 10Mp 4/3 could not be far off.

Click to expand...

Very good point and question...different manufacturer?

timmey78 said:

--
Thomas Fjørtoft
SP570uz, E-3, FL-36R, 12-60mm, 70-300mm, 50mm/f2, 8mm FE,25mm
pancake,Sigma 50-500 and EX-25.
http://timmey78.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

--
Dwight
take at peek at the world I see at
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker

Aleo Veuliah said:

fldspringer said:

--

You've been expressing dissatisfaction with Olympus for some time
now.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, a member for a little over a month now... maybe he WANTS someone to convince him to buy Oly??

I can understand your move. I don't put a blanket "better IQ"

Aleo Veuliah said:

Aleo Veuliah said:

on the D300 as I perfer the low ISO output of the Oly stuff, but
that's just my opinion.

High ISO isn't Oly's strong suit. If you need that, I'd go
elsewhere. If you do need high ISO IQ, I'd try everything possible
to trump the D300 and go right to the D700. I doubt that you would
regret it in the long run.

Cheers,

-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/

Click to expand...

Good advice, I have until the end of January to think all that

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Click to expand...

--
Dwight
take at peek at the world I see at
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker

HornOUBet said:

timmey78 said:

I know we have a smaller sensor.. I just thought the pixel density of
a 24Mp FF compared to my my 10Mp 4/3 could not be far off.

Click to expand...

Very good point and question...different manufacturer?

Click to expand...

--

The pixel count would have to be 40 mp to be equal to the pixel density of the 10 mp 4/3 sensor. They have 4x the area so 4x the pixel count to be comparable in density.

-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/