I will tell you why pro photographer use Olympus slr.

Yan Turcotte said:

I"m a still photographer in the movies industies, a year and a half ago i switch Canon to Olympus.

Zuiko does not need to have primes.

I can assure you that optically the zuiko 7-14 F4.0, the 14-35 F2.0 and the 35-100 F2.0 is as good as the canon 50 L ,85L, 135L, 200L

Click to expand...

Irrespective of your opinion of the optical quality of these lenses, are you aware that people buy full-frame cameras and fast-primes for the speed , and not just the optical quality? Giving up full-frame and my 35L for an Oly system and an f2 zoom means giving up 3 stops of speed - exactly the three stops I purchased when I bought the 35L after already owning an f4 zoom that covers the same range. If I didn't need that speed, I guarantee you I wouldn't have spent $1100 to get it. But I did, and I do. I'll need a 17mm f0.7 on Oly for that, and I don't see it coming, ever.

As for optical quality it doesn't really matter to me. I get such high resolution and sharpness out of my zooms on full-frame that I simply never need more, even when cropping and printing big. Here's an example from one of my horrible Canon wide zooms (24-105L) on full-frame, at the long end where it's weakest, with a 100% crop at the edge of the Olympus 2x frame from a 12.7MP image. I don't need it to be any better than this, even if it could be. And it can be - the 35L is just a stunningly good lens, as are the rest of the L-primes.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

stimmer said:

This is exactly why I stay with Olympus.

You can get into the sytem for a lot cheaper, with less lenses to carry, and have top notch quality.

Click to expand...

The OP mentioned these three lenses: the 7-14 F4.0, the 14-35 F2.0 and the 35-100 F2.0. Do you consider those less to carry compared to similar options from competitors? Those aren't exactly lightweights.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Canon's prime L lens are wonderful ! I never said it is not.

If you can affort it, and you like the high resolution to have the possibility to crop.
I'm not saying that the 24-105 is horrible, i just did not liked it..that's all

I prefer oly"s images they look more natural to me and less digital sharpeness, maybe because they put more sharpen in software camera on FF to compensate..I don"t know?

F 2.0 to 1.4 is only one stop less of speed
to F 1.2 is one and a half stop slower. For amount of light not DOF

Gainsboro said:

which I know for a fact is just plain silly (the "wide open is unsable for IQ" part).

Click to expand...

Fynny, I have used all those lenses quite a bit (professionally) and I am inclined to say the OP is right... well "unusable" is a bit harsh maybe, that would only be my verdict for the 16-35 due to it's massive field-curvature. (very bad, with digital) and then there's the vignetting...ouch.

But when one is used to HG or SHG Zuikos, the other two just aren't that great, wide open. I would still call them "usable" though. ALL sharp pictures you see from these lenses wide open, will have had some serious unsharp-masking though, I know that for a fact.

The really good Canon lenses are the telephoto primes, 135/2, 100 macro, and such.

What I think is really silly, is the "it is bigger, so it must be better" attitude.

;-)
Lourens

Yan Turcotte said:

Canon's prime L lens are wonderful ! I never said it is not.

If you can affort it, and you like the high resolution to have the possibility to crop.
I'm not saying that the 24-105 is horrible, i just did not liked it..that's all

I prefer oly"s images they look more natural to me and less digital sharpeness, maybe because they put more sharpen in software camera on FF to compensate..I don"t know?

Click to expand...

No, that was processed from raw, and so the sharpening was my choice, not Canon's.

Yan Turcotte said:

F 2.0 to 1.4 is only one stop less of speed

Click to expand...

Full-frame to 2x-crop is 2 stops less of high-ISO performance. 2+1=3.

Yan Turcotte said:

to F 1.2 is one and a half stop slower. For amount of light not DOF

Click to expand...

People seem to commonly confuse illuminance (light per unit area) and "amount of light". Illuminance is constant with f-stop which is why exposure meters work, total light is constant with aperture. 100mm and f2 has the same aperture as 200mm and f4 (50mm - 100/2 or 200/4). Relative noise performance goes with total light, not illuminance. This is why larger sensors have better high-ISO performance. 4/3 folks like to claim this benefit when talking about micro 4/3 versus small sensor compacts, but ignore it when comparing 4/3 to full-frame.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Thanks for the professional input! Always good to hear that Oly has appeal to the pros...Btw, nice examples of your work at your website!

http://yanturcotte.com/

Yan Turcotte said:

I"m a still photographer in the movies industies, a year and a half ago i switch Canon to Olympus.

Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that because your needs are different from his needs, and Canon is just dandy for you, then he must be wrong in his assertion that Olympus is fine for his professional work. Is that about right?

I'm in the market for a portrait lense. I feel like a prime is the only option so as to keep the package small.

The ZD50/2 focuses too slowly to be reliable (I have enough experience with the 50/2 on the E-1 and E-3).

ZD 14-35 - fine except marginally short at the long end. And not exactly your typical small, lightweight 85/1.4 for Canon or Nikon.

ZD 35-100, 50-200 - the latter literally scares clients, I can't imagine pointing the former at them. Far too big to be useful as typical portrait lense.

25/1.4, 12-60mm, 14-54mm - ok, each of these can be used in their own right, but each have significant compromises. The 25/1.4 is pretty short unless for 3/4 or full body portraits. The 12-60mm and 14-54mm cover and focal length and focusing requirements, but are pretty slow, and the 12-60mm isn't that small.

So the question is, will a ZD prime fill the clear gap in Olympus as a small, fast, portrait lense? Or should we be wanting an SHG portrait zoom, something the world has yet to see? I fear with the latter that size would be an issue - for example, a 35-70mm SWD f/2, or 45-90mm SWD f/2. Or are we simply expecting/hoping for far too much?

Thoughts?

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/7-14/12-60/150/50-200/25/25/EC-14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

No No! a F2.0 on a MF or FF or a aps-c sensor ,gets the same amount of light coming in.
The difference it is just with the focal lenght and the DOF.

F2.0 is half of the light of F1.4 so it is one stop

On you're spotmeter you don"t have to fix the sensor size, it is not a function.

ljfinger said:

Irrespective of your opinion of the optical quality of these lenses, are you aware that people buy full-frame cameras and fast-primes for the speed , and not just the optical quality? ...

Click to expand...

Irrespective of his opinion? Why did you then reply as though he's trying to suggest others should do what he's done? It's his opinion, for his reasons. Then you retort as though he's trying to tell you to switch.

Yan simply listed the reasons why he switched to Olympus. Those of you taking it further than that are either reading more into his post than intended, or are suffering from a slight case of fanboyism, perhaps.

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

No... I really think that Full Frame and primes lens will gives better or similar result on a reasonable prints. That"s it
And yes some proffessionals needs it. Like some needs MF over FF

LJSmak said:

Gainsboro said:

which I know for a fact is just plain silly (the "wide open is unsable for IQ" part).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LJSmak said:

Fynny, I have used all those lenses quite a bit (professionally) and I am inclined to say the OP is right... well "unusable" is a bit harsh maybe, that would only be my verdict for the 16-35 due to it's massive field-curvature. (very bad, with digital) and then there's the vignetting...ouch.

But when one is used to HG or SHG Zuikos, the other two just aren't that great, wide open. I would still call them "usable" though. ALL sharp pictures you see from these lenses wide open, will have had some serious unsharp-masking though, I know that for a fact.

Click to expand...

First, I assume you understand that "wide open" on FF does not mean the same thing as "wide open" on 4/3 -- the DOFs are rather different, and that alone accounts for a great deal of the difference in sharpness. One would, for example, compare the 16-35 / 2.8L on FF at f/8 against the 7-14 / 4 on 4/3 wide open if we are comparing sharpness, especially if we are talking about the edges of the frame, which are difficult enough to get within the DOF for most shots.

That said, even wide open, the last six pics in this gallery are wide open, and either full size or 100% crops with the 70-200 / 2.8L:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/70200

and all these pics with the original 16-35 / 2.8L are full size and/or 100% crops:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/163528l_on_a_5d

Of course, the wide open pics in the above gallery are academic, as the test scenes are not how one would use the lens wide open. For that, you have to see his gallery of resized pics:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/1635

where "wide open" look eminently "usable" to me.

LJSmak said:

The really good Canon lenses are the telephoto primes, 135/2, 100 macro, and such.

Click to expand...

Among others.

LJSmak said:

What I think is really silly, is the "it is bigger, so it must be better" attitude.

Click to expand...

Not "it's bigger, so it must be better", but rather "it's bigger, so you would expect it to be better". After all, don't you expect the 14-35 / 2 to be "better" than the 14-42 / 3.5-5.6?

Honestly! I will love Oly making a 45mm prime F2.0 or less

I do my portraits with zd 50mm and it"s true it is slow a bit.

Oly"s not perferct, like any of other system. IF you can affort it Hasselblad, Leica S2 and even canon and Nikon FF with primes is better quality.

I simply cannot afford that

If you place all the Canons primes in a bag it weights more

I'm a french speaking person so i"m really sorry for all of you canon if i used the word unusable. I"m just saying that for me i did not like the wide open pictures from a lot of lens on my 5D
This is my opinion.
Yes, the 70-200L 2.8 is a great lens i used to loved this lens very much.

Yan Turcotte said:

No No! a F2.0 on a MF or FF or a aps-c sensor ,gets the same amount of light coming in.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It gets the same illuminance (light per unit of area), which is why exposure meters work. Light per unit of area is not the same as total light, since total light is light per unit of area * area. More area = more total light when the light per unit area (illuminance) is the same. Noise is driven by total light, not illuminance.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

LDC said:

So, what you're saying is that because your needs are different from his needs, and Canon is just dandy for you, then he must be wrong in his assertion that Olympus is fine for his professional work. Is that about right?

Click to expand...

He said this: "Zuiko does not need to have primes."

Does that sound like a statement about his needs to you? It's not. It's a general statement about everyone's needs that might be a customer of this company. It's wrong. If he has said, "I don't need any Zuiko primes for my work," that would be a different story.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I should say better quality on prints bigger then 13X19 and more controls over DOF and DR

It is true

I found the same thing in my comparison that the 24-105L won't resolve to the resolution. The 85 1.2 does. But you have to have a prime on Canon to get the sharpness of the Oly zooms.

I still have both systems, but I'm using mostly the Oly.

Your IQ coments match my experience too.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

CharlesB58 said:

ljfinger said:

Irrespective of your opinion of the optical quality of these lenses, are you aware that people buy full-frame cameras and fast-primes for the speed , and not just the optical quality? ...

Click to expand...

Irrespective of his opinion? Why did you then reply as though he's trying to suggest others should do what he's done? It's his opinion, for his reasons. Then you retort as though he's trying to tell you to switch.

Yan simply listed the reasons why he switched to Olympus. Those of you taking it further than that are either reading more into his post than intended, or are suffering from a slight case of fanboyism, perhaps.

Click to expand...

These are quotes from the OP. Tell me if you think they are general statements, or statements just about his needs:

"Zuiko does not need to have primes."

"For canon to achive the quality of zuiko pro grade lenses on a Full Frame, their zoom will have to be twice as big. "

"Olympus does not need to go beyond 12 mpix: "

"Canon 5dII + 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 Cost :7000$ Good sensor, better High iso perfomance but you lose one stop on the lens and half on the aperture... cause wide open is unusable for IQ."

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)