Olympus USA - the end of this story

I don't believe that I mentioned your name. Paranoia taken to a new level?
No, you don't have to mention a name to talk about someone. I think that's rather obvious.
My reply was to Doug and any response should come from him. I did not invite your reply.
You talked about me, you invite a reply.
BTW, you actually took ownership of a sub-thread?
you interject in my subthread and talk about me -
That's hilarious!
It would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that you complained about similar things. That's what makes it sad, and rather hypocritical on your part.
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
an acronym without proving anything. You must believe it makes something true by itself. Whatever keeps you happy Bill :-)

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
That is the typical style of this poster. He typically returns whining that he didn't do/say anything wrong.
Are you talking about me Bill? Since you haven't mentioned my name just want to ask first to be sure :-)
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
I proved as much as you did…
Don't believe so. I went into detail and provided examples. You just did nothing, like right now, a circular argument.
and that's not an acronym. I thought you were educated???
I am. Want to talk about programming, psychology or gasp, photography? :-) I don't know everything and English is not my first language.
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
The 35-100 worked with the E-1, but now with the E-5 there are problems.

Perhaps the cause may be, that the E-1 has no antishake, and this way has a fixed sensor position, easy to align with the AF sensor in camera production ?

But sensor-based Antishake makes this less easy, because the sensor is mounted on a complex thing ( the antishake device ) ?

If this theory would be true, the 35-100 would also work good with E-500's, E-330's... ?

Mr.NoFlash
 
Just buy a Nikon and find out that grass is not really greener :)
...or maybe it is.
You'll have issues with shallow dof of a FF camera if you look at it at 100% too.
Going from cropped to FF may be a problem for some people who lack experience and don't know what to expect and how to handle it. Remember that the shallow DOF is an option, not an absolute necessity. A camera capable of taking shallow DOF images is also capable of taking images with more DOF by using the lens aperture. Anyway, who says he must buy an FF? There are several cropped Nikon alternatives to the FX system.
 
It will be a D700 or nothing if I go Nikon. I'm surprised though about your D7000 comment. Maybe I'll go lurk in the Nikon forums just for the education.
Wait until September... ;)
 
The 35-100 worked with the E-1, but now with the E-5 there are problems.
It depends on whether Jim has already tested the lens using the PDAF vs CDAF to see if it truly is out of alignment. From what I remember of his earlier threads he has done this, and also tweaked the focus adjust and found no remedy.

The imager IS does, absolutely, rob quality from the lens when used where it isn't necessary. I found this particularly true of the 50-200 when used with my E520, E620 and E30.. it was always sharper with IS turned off.

At the same time though, I found my 50-200 to focus pretty much like Jim's 35-100. It was just completely unreliable, even on static and simple test subjects like a newspaper pinned to a wall. I think Oly just never managed to nail their PDAF systems.. some people aren't critical enough to notice, but I was just never happy with it at all.

D
 
Just buy a Nikon and find out that grass is not really greener :)
...or maybe it is.
You'll have issues with shallow dof of a FF camera if you look at it at 100% too.
Going from cropped to FF may be a problem for some people who lack experience and don't know what to expect and how to handle it. Remember that the shallow DOF is an option, not an absolute necessity. A camera capable of taking shallow DOF images is also capable of taking images with more DOF by using the lens aperture. Anyway, who says he must buy an FF? There are several cropped Nikon alternatives to the FX system.
or to put it simply, it gives you more options, which is probably frowned upon around here :P
--
Smoke me a kipper....i'll be back for breakfast
 
If I keep everything as is, it's not much different than selling the 35-100mm because I'll likely never trust the E-5 + 35-100mm combo again. I believe maintaining status quo is not in the cards for me.
You'll end up in the situation where you are constantly babying your camera, checking focus, never really trusting that it's doing its job. You'll constantly be held back by the fact you simply don't trust this gear any more, and it's going to destroy all love you have of photography.

You need to pick up some gear that gives you the creativity and peace of mind that allows you to get back in the swing of things.

If I were you? I wouldn't think twice, I'd bite the bullet and sell the lot of it while it's still worth something . I'm already finding it hard to sell of the remainder of my 4/3 gear, even with a good reputation, and at get em quick prices. I think people are already losing interest. I wish I'd acted sooner!

As for what to jump to - why not rent some different systems for a while and see which one clicks with you?

If 200mm equiv focal length is your thing, bear in mind you could get the same DOF with an f/4 lens on FF and still have a fairly light system.

D
 
I'm sorry to hear your story ended this way, Jim, though I can't say I'm very surprised, given my own experience trying to get an E-3 that focused reliably. I would have hoped they'd be able to fix this kind of thing by now, though. I can't believe they're blaming your problem on the lens technology. I upgraded to a 50-200 SWD, thinking it would work better with the new AF system, but it turned out to be a waste of money.
That's good to know since switching to the 50-200mm SWD is (was!) one of my considered options.
That was the lens which opened my eyes and caused most problems with the E-3 I had, and finally made me decide to buy the the 35-100 ...or... to swich system. I ended up with a new system because I was afraid to spend that much money on an uncertain future.

Julie is 100% right.
 
  1. Sell the E-5 and return to the E-1
If you still have an E1 handy, it might be worth doing a side by side test for a few days and then try this; resize all of your E5 shots back down to 2560 pixels wide and do direct comparisons with the E1 shots.

The thing is, I always gave my E1 kudos for being a perfect focuser, when my 12mp Olys would do bad things. Then I started to notice if I resized the 12mp-> 5mp a lot of the shots I considered to be out of focus actually were still sharper than the equivalent E1 shots.

This suggests that the lower pixel density and higher AA filter on the E1 is averaging out a lot of the focus errors, and the difference between a pin sharp and a slightly OOF shot is barely noticeable.
  1. Sell the 35-100mm and purchase a 50-200mm SWD and be done with it
Beware, I had similar problems with the 50-200 as you do with your 35-100. I'd point it at black on white text pinned to a wall and notice that at least 50% of the time it would fail to land on the right spot. Also, I'd be too polite if I called the bokeh of that lens 'harsh'.

D
 
It will be a D700 or nothing if I go Nikon. I'm surprised though about your D7000 comment. Maybe I'll go lurk in the Nikon forums just for the education.
The D7000 was the route I chose and it was an eye opener. Regaining trust in AF made photography fun again.

But Nikon do appear to be churning out D7000s like machine gun bullets, and there are a higher than usual number of duds. I got a good one thankfully, but there are reports of issues with mirror slap vibrations and there is always the talk of oil spots showing up on the sensors. Many of the other alleged faults are simply forum noise.

Take the D7000 forum with a pinch of salt - many of the regulars are novices and are simply having trouble getting to grips with the features of this camera. Also bear in mind it shares forum space with the likes of the D3100 and D5100 - there are many who don't quite 'get' a complex DSLR.

I think you would be happy with D700, although bear in mind that the D7000 actually produces superior image quality at lower ISOs.

I would be keeping a close eye on the D300s replacement if I were you.

D
 
I am. Want to talk about programming, psychology or gasp, photography? :-) I don't know everything and English is not my first language.
--
I dont mean to be disruptive Ricardo, but "quads erat demonstrandum" is not English, never has been English, and as I recall, is taught at the Grade School Level in the US, and in most of the rest of the world.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde
 
Just couldn't resist, by q.e.d. Nope not taught nor understood this side of the world - Hk.

In any case I really think Ricardo has a point, cameras these days are basically electronics and like and CPUs quality varies per batch allowing hem to churn out quadcores triple cores or dual cores. I absolutely feel that a camera company can and would select slightly better performin products for review if they saw a disparity in products. And I hav first hand experience with this aka canon 40d lemon that I bought first day it came out in Hk. Lesson learnt was especially fir canons to never buy first batches. For OLY there often is no second batch (where they may be able to refine he process).

Regrds
 
I am. Want to talk about programming, psychology or gasp, photography? :-) I don't know everything and English is not my first language.
--
I dont mean to be disruptive Ricardo, but "quads erat demonstrandum" is not English, never has been English, and as I recall, is taught at the Grade School Level in the US, and in most of the rest of the world.
No worries, I know it's Latin. But the letters in Spanish are different as used when saying similar, even if they have been sometimes used as is as latin. You are also assuming I was in grade school in the USA. The point was never what it meant anyway, so you are just talking about yet another point.

In any case, I know what it means. Whether acronym, abbreviation, initialism, whatever, hardly changes any of the points raised, and it's just Bill "looking for anything he can" to throw. It's like correcting internet spelling :-) Let alone whether Bill is using it correctly or not. LOL :-)
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
There's quite a share of loaners and review units in what he said. Or did you miss that?
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
No, I didn't miss that. But he also stated that the cameras he purchased
worked flawlessly. Did you miss that?

--
Neil C
 
There's quite a share of loaners and review units in what he said. Or did you miss that?
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
No, I didn't miss that. But he also stated that the cameras he purchased
worked flawlessly. Did you miss that?
Selective interpretation.
--
Neil C
--
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top