Reading mode: Light Dark

Folks..it just doesn't happen (to me anyway)..you?

Go to last post
Two years ago on US Labor Day, my photo safari buddy (who use to shoot large format) and I took a ride up to the Mogollon (pronounce Mug-E-own) Rim for a photo session. My friend had converted from analog to Canon 5D. While we were shooting a young guy came up the path and started talking to my friend about DSLRs. He mentioned how he had just ordered a Nikon from one of the big camera stores in NY and couldn't wait until it arrived. He also asked my friend how he like the Canon 5D. He completely ignored me and my "lowly" E330. Maybe he's a male chauvinist and ignored me because of my gender but I couldn't help thinking he ignored me because I was shooting an Oly. I didn't care - I know what that camera can do. I also know it's not just the camera that makes great shots.

My friend and I have never criticized each other's brand selection. He is partial to Canon and I have come to enjoy my experiences with Oly.

PS: The photography teacher at a local community college recommends Oly to his students looking to purchase their first DSLR.
--
Charlene Ahrens
charahrens.smugmug.com
 
frankjules said:
Had to comment on this: from time to time I read on this forum from some poster, that he/she was told by a canon or nikon shooter that Oly cameras just don't cut it and they should switch to Canon or Nikon. Ok..so be it.
Click to expand...
Being a member of a camera club I get this all the time...I always get asked why I'm not using an "N" or "C" brand camera, and they ask it in a way to imply I'm using an inferior camera.
frankjules said:
But in the number of years that I have been using Oly DSLR's I have never ever come across anyone who has ever told me I should switch.
Click to expand...
OK, none of them have actually told me I should switch (probably because I usually know more about photography than they do), but they still look down on my Oly because I'm not part of either of the two cliques.
 
and I'm the only Olympian in my photography club. Just a few weeks ago I did a simple double exposure (simple for an e620 owner, that is) and the Canonites and Nikonians in my group were scratching their heads wondering "how did he do that?" When I met another member of the club this week, he told me about the online chatter. My friend told the group leader, "You ask him (me). I don't know how he did it!"
 
I'm afraid that your definition of reach is just a marketing gimmick. You're confusing reach with FOV. A 500mm lens is always going to out resolve a 200mm lens (assuming somewhat equal quality). Olympus just doesn't have a real birding lens at any price.
--
http://www.efrench.members.winisp.net/
 
Nope, no major dissing on my end. There are some occasions when ppl look at me like some kind of pariah with a weird system, but I don't need to make time for those ppl. I'd rather communicate with other Canikon users who truly want to know why I use Oly and don't start of a conversation with prejudicial view. I couldn't help but laugh everytime they get silent when looking at my pics. Goes to show that even a D300s has got nothing on an E-1 when the user doesn't understand squat about what photography is all about. But overall, the community back here aren't out casting Oly users like me. Curious is the more appropriate word.

The problem with many of our users back here is that they have a supremely gear head mentality. To them, the camera decides how good the pics look, hence a lot of total newbies who switch from Canon to Nikon and vice versa, because the color is either not right (?????), or the lack of so and so lenses (?????). I kid you not when I say some of them wouldn't consider Oly "because it's an Oly". Yeah.........OK.............so, what's the problem, I always ask them? It's always a case of the not having anyone to recommend it or explain it's virtues to them. I personally wouldn't do it either, because I don't want to face a situation where they blame the camera for their lack of skill. I'd rather they blame Canikon for their really bad pics and not cast a more prejudicial light on a system that's already being outcast FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.

Thankfully, the same does not apply for the m4/3 and Pen series. If anything, it is the 1st camera system that actually made users turn their heads at Oly's direction. The Pen series is wildly popular back here, especially among the female demographic, and I would assume the same applies anywhere else. It's kind of a vexing situation when Oly would not do the same for their very own 4/3 cameras. We're stuck with soft images and noisy sensors whereas the smaller m4/3 marches on with stride. WTH Oly????!!!!

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

'All men will die, but few have truly lived'
 
When in the frontstage at a concert, waiting for the artist to arrive, people sometimes size up eachother's gear. Olympus is always a rarity, but having F2.0 on a range from EFL 70 to EFL200 (with the ZD35-100) does not result in a reaction that I should get something better.

Nikonians do have tendendy in those circumstances to sing the praises of high ISO and then I just grant them that indeed their brand is better in that department. Live and let live.
--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html
 
efrench said:
I'm afraid that your definition of reach is just a marketing gimmick. You're confusing reach with FOV. A 500mm lens is always going to out resolve a 200mm lens (assuming somewhat equal quality). Olympus just doesn't have a real birding lens at any price.
Click to expand...
Two images have the same "reach" if they both put the same number of pixels on the subject from the same distance. Thus, 300mm on an E1 has the same reach as 344mm on a 1DII, and that a 500mm lens on a 1DII would have 45% more reach than a 300mm lens on an E1.
 
Karaya said:
I tried to explain the 4/3 system to him succinctly but when I told him that the only real birding lens in the system was a $7000 300mm he said that was just nuts and looked at me like I must be crazy. He had a 1D mkII and 500mm f4 along in his truck but was hesitant to show them to me, either because he feared for my sanity or assumed someone with such a poor man's birding rig must not bathe regularly.

Well, I am going back to Hawk Ridge next month, with my 300mm 2.8. Perhaps I will run into the same fellow again and we can talk some more!
Click to expand...
Most other system owners don't know about Olympus's crop 2x factor. To them it doesn't make sense to pay $7000 for a 300mm lens and a 300mm lens is the same as any other 300mm lens.

In comparison, the Canon EF 300mm f2.8 costs $4500.
 
K3nKen said:
Most other system owners don't know about Olympus's crop 2x factor. To them it doesn't make sense to pay $7000 for a 300mm lens and a 300mm lens is the same as any other 300mm lens.

In comparison, the Canon EF 300mm f2.8 costs $4500.
Click to expand...
You know, arguably they are right, because as you yourself wrote above, "a 300mm lens and a 300mm lens is the same as any other 300mm lens" is true insofar as if they are made for the same maximum aperture, they are probably going to be made of approximately the same amount of glass, etc. So by and large, it would seem reasonable if the price was sort of similar as well.

Using a smaller sensor as justification for a higher price is not immediately reasonable. At least they didn't price it at the $10,000+ level of the Nikkor 600/4 (which is equivalent to a hypothetical 300/2 on 4/3).

--
Rikke
 
Rikke Rask said:
Using a smaller sensor as justification for a higher price is not immediately reasonable. At least they didn't price it at the $10,000+ level of the Nikkor 600/4 (which is equivalent to a hypothetical 300/2 on 4/3).
Click to expand...
No, I think Olympus did something right: their 300/2.8 is far from cheap (even compared to the competition) and lacks the goodies found in the Canikon versions like USM or IS, but any 300/2.8 is most certainly not a volume product and Olympus's version is more or less hand-built.

A 300/5.6 costs $300 (using the ZD 70-300 as an example; I have no doubt that Olympus could make a 300/5.6 prime for that price, but why bother?), a 300/4 from Canikon $1300, a 300/2.8 $5000 give or take a few hundred or thousand dollars. We'd expect a 300mm F2 to cost $20000 or more, and it'd be very large and heavy. Not to mention far, far out of financial reach for even well-off amateurs.

It is sobering how quickly telephoto lenses increase in price. :(

Edit: with respect to the OP, I haven't had anyone remark on my Olympus gear. Not even in places where people with cameras would be. This weekend at Yosemite, I saw only one other Olympus DSLR user (an Indian tourist using an E-520 + 14-42, who asked me to take his family's picture). I saw at least 5 people using m4/3, 4 Pentaxes and Sonys, and a ton of Rebels and baby Nikons.
 
Josefin said:
Josefin said:
K3nKen wrote:

Most other system owners don't know about Olympus's crop 2x factor. To them it doesn't make sense to pay $7000 for a 300mm lens and a 300mm lens is the same as any other 300mm lens.

In comparison, the Canon EF 300mm f2.8 costs $4500.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Josefin said:
Rikke Rask wrote:

Using a smaller sensor as justification for a higher price is not immediately reasonable. At least they didn't price it at the $10,000+ level of the Nikkor 600/4 (which is equivalent to a hypothetical 300/2 on 4/3).
Click to expand...
It is, however, "justifiable" if it is "better". Of course, "better" is subjective, but some examples of "justifiably better" would be:
  • resolves more detail on 4/3 than the competition's equivalent lens does on its format
  • has a larger aperture diameter to collect more light
  • has other IQ advantages such as better bokeh, flare resistance, etc.
  • has a closer MFD
  • focuses faster and/or more accurately
Of course, another reason is to "justify" a higher price is to say, "It's the best option available for my system." ;)
 
rednefed said:
No, I think Olympus did something right: their 300/2.8 is far from cheap (even compared to the competition) and lacks the goodies found in the Canikon versions like USM or IS, but any 300/2.8 is most certainly not a volume product and Olympus's version is more or less hand-built.
Click to expand...
Apropos assembled by hand. Have you seen this (from one of the competitors)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpkAWZTwqI4

--
Rikke
 
Great Bustard said:
Two images have the same "reach" if they both put the same number of pixels on the subject from the same distance.
Click to expand...
That's a bit odd. Reach was defined in terms of what you could put on the film plane -- angular field of view -- back in film days, regardless of the grain size of the film.

The quality of what you get is of some importance, too.
 
boggis the cat said:
boggis the cat said:
Great Bustard wrote:

Two images have the same "reach" if they both put the same number of pixels on the subject from the same distance.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
boggis the cat said:
boggis the cat wrote:

That's a bit odd. Reach was defined in terms of what you could put on the film plane -- angular field of view -- back in film days, regardless of the grain size of the film.
Click to expand...
It's not odd at all. If the pics are taken of the same scene from the same position, with the same framing, and both are made of the same number of pixels, then both have the same reach. Weird that such a straighforward definition would confuse you.
boggis the cat said:
The quality of what you get is of some importance, too.
Click to expand...
It's of critical importance, in my opinion. The same reach does not mean the same IQ. Has it ever?

P.S.: You said " another redefining". What else was "redefined"?
 
geoson said:
and I'm the only Olympian in my photography club. Just a few weeks ago I did a simple double exposure (simple for an e620 owner, that is) and the Canonites and Nikonians in my group were scratching their heads wondering "how did he do that?" When I met another member of the club this week, he told me about the online chatter. My friend told the group leader, "You ask him (me). I don't know how he did it!"
Click to expand...
maybe they didn't read the manual to get it working rather than some of their cameras not being able to do it
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo :)?
 
boggis the cat said:
Great Bustard said:
Two images have the same "reach" if they both put the same number of pixels on the subject from the same distance.
Click to expand...
That's a bit odd. Reach was defined in terms of what you could put on the film plane -- angular field of view -- back in film days, regardless of the grain size of the film.
Click to expand...
That was then and this is now. The big bird's definition seems to be the most commonly accepted one these days. These discussions go on interminably on the canon forum each time they bring out a camera with more pixels than its predecessor. Some always want to say there can be no advantage to more pixels, the others point out (amongst other things) about the potential for birding and other activities. Until Canon went with 18MP on 1.6x, Olympus had the best reach available in DSLR'dom. maybe with the E-5 they'll get the crown back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top