Feeling a bit "sad" about Olympus ...

Gidday Mick

Mick 58 said:

Iv just spent hours today looking for Nikon lenes between 50 and 200
, there is very little .Most are old and the new ones are very
expensive . With Olympus I can go from 12 all the way too 200mm =
24-400 with just 2 lenses 12-60=24-120 , 50-200=100-400 both for
£1200 and they are both weather sealed. Try laying on a wet sandy
beach with a D300 and sigma 50-500 lens with the wind blowing on the
lens then try the zoom and then listen to the grinding noise.

Click to expand...

An MP3 player ... ? Playing "modern" music ... ?

That's what Kirasir (Andrey Sudbin) reckons about his E-3 and pro lenses. He shoots off-road events all around the world (he is a pro photojournalist; 90 GBs of images at the Oz Outback Challenge ... ); and after more than a year he has never had to have either his E-3 or his 50~200 cleaned or serviced ... I have used them, they still felt fine to me.

My E-1 seems to have just as good build quality as the E-3.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction): http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

PDXguy said:

--
Regards,

Steve

'Sometimes the mind, for reasons we don't necessarily understand,
just decides to go to the store for a quart of milk' - Diane Frolov
and Andrew Schneider

Click to expand...

No, And I have changed my mind I will stay with Olympus

Regards

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

Art_P said:

Is to view 1:1 crops that fill the screen, then by all means, go for
the camera that gives the best results in this area.
Some may stress over how their images look under a microscope, but I
would say more here are concerned with how the overall image looks
after processing, or how it prints, or how portable their system is.
If I don't plan to examine each photo pixel by pixel, I don't really
care how it looks at 1:1, so long as it looks decent filling the
screen, or as an 8x10 print.
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/

Click to expand...

I am not a pixel peeper, and I changed my mind I will stay with Olympus

Regards

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

For a long time I shot using tailored in-camera settings and I still do when I shoot in volume or for casual stuff, I was satisfied with the image processors of olympus and mastered getting the shot right in camera which is still very important no matter what your workflow is and this isn't about raw vs jpeg either. Weather or not I edit extensively depends on lighting conditions or what it is i'm trying to convey or mood since I dread sitting in front of the computer editing images for hours on end.

More than a few years back shooting alongside my nikon friend who had a d50 and was very much into photoshop I realized how much of a staggering difference there was in our images, mainly the sharpness and depth of color including accuracy after we've processed our images. So much for that oly color lmfao.

In most galleries it becomes very obvious who has spent the time and effort in the digital darkroom or at the least works closely with someone that does vs someone who has used essentially ooc images. Things didn't change, back in the film days those that processed their own rolls or worked closely with someone that did always had better results than those who dropped them off without having a hand in the process.

I'm not saying everyone should be editing thier images beyond simple adjustments nor that all images need more than that but the fact is digital cameras, namely their metering systems cannot replicate what our vision can in many situations also there is so much of a variable in printing in terms of color matching, sizes, dpi, paper stock etc.

Over the years i've pretty much come to the conclusion that having proficiency or even the desire to make the most of your images beyond the limits that are set into place while you're in the field is essential especially for those making a profession out of it on their own or just want become really really good at it from a artistic stand-point.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me and it's definitely not for everyone as I hate to be in front of the computer editing images for a long time myself but recognize the benefits of it and in some cases it's staggering even after you've done your very best to get it right in the camera.

--
Oldschool Evolt shooter