When Oly falls short on DOF, ISO, and Bohka

[Joe B T]

Thanks, and I agree--it would be interesting to compare the two. The 50-200mm does a great job as well. I have read the review of the 70-200mm here, but I have not been able to see any of the problems that have been reported with mine.

Those that bash the 70-200mm here, I bet have never used one on a D3/D700.

. . . quite a pose!

It would be interesting to print up some samples between that lens
and the 35-100mm to see the difference.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

--

SIGNATURE: This is a picture I did not take of a tall, greying man with crooked teeth whom I've encountered three times while photographing downtown, and each time, he's approached me quickly from the front, with a long stride, and each time he's leaned toward me and said the exact same thing 'OLD ONES ARE BETTER' while palming his ancient brass Leica, opening his hand enough to show me what's there, but not enough really showing-off!' (An Unknown Leica Street Photographer)

 

[pgabor]

(1) I would love to leave but giving up is the worst possible thing that one can do IMO.

(2) You do not have to feel sorry. I did not write it because I want You to do so.

(3) I am not lucky. I worked hard to get accepted and I deserve it. I did not need luck fort this.

G.

G - Sorry you've seen such terrible things. I guess all these things
happened here in the US?

I've met many folks/friends from war torn areas...none of them have
the hatred for their enemies that you exhibit so openly. I'm talking
folks forced into service in the Balkans (both sides), Iraq, etc.

You should consider yourself very lucky to be able to be in the
US...getting a good education and hopefully the ability to do good in
the world. Please start in your own neighborhood. If that is too
appalling for you please find a location more pleasant.

Life is too short, PhD's can be gained elsewhere, move whilst you can!

Dan

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

 

[CBR1100XX]

This has blown up way out of proportion, but made for an entertaining read. I'm going to echo the more middle-of-the-road sentiment of shooting the system you like. All have their advantages, and even though some might have slightly better technical abilities in their bodies ergonomics/weight is my number one issue, which is why I picked up an Olympus body. I can't even hold a Nikon or Canon body right now, and even though it's too heavy for me currently. Somehow the E3 fits in my hands with my wrist braces.

 

[John King]

Gidday again Zach

.. .massachusetts, bring some kangaroos. The Aussies have been
hoarding all of the world's marsupials for millennia.

Have to be Wallabies (little buggers; sort of like kangaroos that have shrunk in the rain ... ) to survive the cold ... But a very beautiful part of the world around there (Ma - never been there, but have seen plenty of pics).

That's MILLIONS of years (like about 60mya ... ). But only most of them, South America has some great ones as well, IIRC.

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

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

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



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[thebard37]

. . .of the time statistics are just lies.

This si the 5% where I am sure that 95% percent of the time tjhey havne't handled the lens.

C'est la vie. People read reviews and in the heat of an arguement it can fuel the fire.

I am sure I have done it too.

have'nt experience the problems

I think that is because the D3's vignetting compensation was disabled in the review.

I didn't read the review because the format here stinks, but heard all the buzz from angry Nikon fans and celebratory Nikon haters.

I am sure it takes great photos, and I know a 70-200 can rake 12mp on a 35mm sensor.

Enjoy your lens man.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

 

[Torch]

Enjoyed what you had to say.

I have no idea why this trend of misleading sensationalist titles which do not relate to the body of text.

Even though those shots are a desired result I am not in favor of defending the poster regardless of what conjured excuses could be wand waved out of a fog.

It's a matter of responsibility to correctly refer to what Olympus is not offering AFTER USING THE CAMERA FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. Newbie or not.

Fact is even with good pricing I don't yet own any Olympus DSLR for the ISO reasons you mentioned. I suggest it to others for first time DSLR ownership and thats it.

Would like to suggest using more paragraphs.

While I like Your images I have to say that I really hate these
threads. I used to use an Oly system for 2.5 years not only 9 months
and I have to say that You are wrong. We (who complain) are not all
stupid. I personally hardly ever see anyone complaining about the
bokeh. However, the complaints about the not so shallow DOF and less
than stellar high ISO performance are all valid in my opinion. First,
the fact that in some situation You can get decent DOF does not prove
that it is not a problem. I hope You realize that in all of Your pics
the subject is really close and the background is quite far.
Therefore, You will get a decent depth of field no matter what lens
or system You use. You also mention that You used ISO 400 and 500.
That is not high ISO. The standard lighting for a gym at the Olympic
games for example is 1/500th of a second with a 2.8 lens. Now, that
is hardly enough to capture motion blur free shots of gymnasts. Thus,
You either pop up the ISO to 1600, or use one of the f2 lenses from
Oly. This way You get 1/1000th of a sec, which is usually
satisfactory. The problem is that You have a one stop advantage with
a full frame system in terms of high ISO performance over Oly and
this hardly justifies the high price tag of the SHG lenses. I have to
say that if You do not shot in these kind of conditions than the 4/3
system is an option that everyone should consider but when people
complain they do not mean the entry level cameras.

G.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

--
Instead of trying to impress people with confusion... go back to basics.
Torch

 

[Sam610]

Those that bash the 70-200mm here, I bet have never used one on a
D3/D700.

. . . quite a pose!

It would be interesting to print up some samples between that lens
and the 35-100mm to see the difference.

Nikon 70-200mm AFS VR is one of Nikon sweet lens. It performs well on D3/D700 as it once does on my Kodak 14n. Vignetting is not much to worry for this lens, and easily corrected without any quality loss. The image quality is at least the same as Oly 50-200mm, but the Nikon has better bokeh. Nikon is also weather sealed and has better built quality than Oly 50-200mm. The VR works excellent and the lens focus swift and silent.

I never have a chance to try Oly 35-100mm F2. But my gut feeling tells me that this lens would be sharper than the Nikon 70-200mm due to its shorter FL and also it is a class above the already excellent 50-200mm.

Sam H.

 

[John King]

Gidday Sam

Nikon 70-200mm AFS VR is one of Nikon sweet lens. It performs well on
D3/D700 as it once does on my Kodak 14n. Vignetting is not much to
worry for this lens, and easily corrected without any quality loss.
The image quality is at least the same as Oly 50-200mm, but the Nikon
has better bokeh. Nikon is also weather sealed and has better built
quality than Oly 50-200mm. The VR works excellent and the lens focus
swift and silent.
I never have a chance to try Oly 35-100mm F2. But my gut feeling
tells me that this lens would be sharper than the Nikon 70-200mm due
to its shorter FL and also it is a class above the already excellent
50-200mm.

Sam H.

Sam, I could not let your post go past without comment.

That was the most nicely put, balanced and well-made cross-brand comparison I have read in a long time.

It is a model of how to behave politely and respectfully on another forum, while giving your completely honest (and no doubt accurate) assessment from your own experience.

Thank you, well said - and a valued opinion (by me, at least - lol!).

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

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

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



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[corey brown]

That my photos are able to spark such emotions.

But no really Thank you every one for posting all the educational information that you have even though some posts have been less then informative there has been some great things that I did not know and I am sure some others did not as well. That is what a photographic community is supposed to be about is to share and learn from each other. Thank you, every one who has shared your photos I love looking at other peoples photography and seeing what all I can learn and be inspired from. Even if it is to show a lack of vignetting they were some good captures.

I would like to have the time to respond to each informative post personally but I am running short with a dead line so I hope you all will understand and forgive me.
Thanks
Corey
--
I know my spelling and grammar are poor some times my spell check says 'I got
nothing

for you' and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.

 

[OPiiPO]

The Oly 35-100mm is equivalent to the Nikon 70-200mm for example. It
is $550 more expensive and 10% heavier. Do I really need to list all
the other counter examples as well? Please, do a research before You
state something. Thank You.

The Zuiko 35-100mm/F2.0 is lense is one stop faster than Nikon 70-200/F2.8, they are not exactly the same lenses in all of their technical details. So please do some little research, before You state something

Thanks:

OPi,

 

[Sam610]

Sam, I could not let your post go past without comment.

That was the most nicely put, balanced and well-made cross-brand
comparison I have read in a long time.

It is a model of how to behave politely and respectfully on another
forum, while giving your completely honest (and no doubt accurate)
assessment from your own experience.

Thank you, well said - and a valued opinion (by me, at least - lol!).

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

Thank you John for your very kind word. I have started photography with Nikon manual focus film I was a Nikon guy at heart until just recently I have changed to 4/3 system which suits me better. I had used the Nikon70-200mm AFS VR with My Kodak 14n, I have no complain about this lens at all, only sometime VR produces a strange bokeh look. The weight and size also prevent me from lugging it around.

On the other hand with Oly I shoot a whole lot more with this lens in just a short time that I have it. I really appreciate the 2X factor that 4/3 makes the lens behaves as 100-400mm and the lens is really a performer across the whole zoom range. The Nikon combined with 2XTC just does not cut it at the long end. I replace the hard plastic hood with a collapsible rubber lens hood on Oly 50-200 so I can nerver have to mount and dismount the hood. The lens also looks a lot smaller and fit nicely in its own bag.

Sam H.

 

[Martin Datzinger]

when people post macro photos or tele portraits to prove that 4/3 is "capable of DoF".

Even a compact can shoot insects with blurry backgrounds!

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net

 

[HornOUBet]

Like your price comparison...how water proof is each of the Nikon
lenses sans a filter?

How much does the 70-200 vignette again on a full frame Nikon?

Yes Canon is much cheaper with an old 5D which still works great for
some folks...just don't expect it to take a beating like the Nikon or
Olympus will.

How weather/dust proof is the Nikon? Let's just forget the Canon
here ok!? The D700 appears to be a great camera, go buy one or two
and stay in the Nikon forum ok?

I agree the Olympus SHG lenses aren't inexpensive but for most folks
the HG lenses accomplish the task.

Yes I've had my share of the SHG lenses and still have one! Is this
the crux of your problem as someone else mentioned...you want
inexpensive SHG lenses? Anyone, who picked Olympus thinking these
lenses would become less expensive really needs to examine where the
head is...it may be in an orifice or someplace similar! The longer
they've been out they have come down some, but don't expect any to
drop in 1/2 soon.

In the past I've had the 7-14 and 150. I sold the 7-14 since it sat
on the shelf most of the time and I used the cash to pick up a
35-100f2 which I think I'll be keeping for quite a while! It is
heavy but the results make it worth it...and I'm getting better at
lugging it around!

The 150f2 I would have kept if the "silly" soccer players always
stayed at the right distance! As it was it was a great lens with
great results but for bang for the buck other Oly lenses provided
much more benefit.

I agree and would love some inexpensive 50f1.8 and other Nikon
relatively "cheap" primes from Olympus.

All in all, the Nikon 70-200 can be great on APS and film F100 but I
really don't think it's wise to pick it as a superb FF digital lens.
My neighbor has one and in all honesty I don't loose any sleep at
night coveting it!

VR in lenses is nice but having it work in the sensor is even better!
Every lens is stabilized and yes at times it's great to have
stabilized wide angles.

I'm also becoming more and more of a "disbeliever" in this higher
ISOs are possible with other systems. Maybe true for pixel peepers
but I've gotten plenty of good prints with my E1 and E3 at high isos
(1600 and above) that looked pretty crappy at 100% but prints look
just fine. In fact some folks have complemented how film like they
look and "they don't look digital at all"!

So you mean some of my crappy photos might look OK if I print them out?? I sure hate to throw away money on crappy prints too....

This last complement really means a lot to me...I've seen many
different prints of past sports great moments selling for big dollars
and guess what they wouldn't be considered "real good" by most
weanies on these forums for "measuring" a photos worth! I look at
these prints/moments and chuckle to myself when I reflect on weanies
here complaining about this or that.

Find the equipment that works for you, shut up your constant
complaining, find a forum you can be welcome on and contribute in a
positive manner.

Colorado is a great place. I just came back from Colorado Springs,
walked many trails and really enjoyed my life there...you should go a
walk and take your camera/s of choice and enjoy!

Just be careful getting too close to those waterfalls unless your
sure about your Nikon's weather ability or take some baggies with
you. At the waterfalls is a great time to get long exposures with
wide angle that don't require one to haul a tripod with them!

Do be especially careful with Canon's 5D around water. I hat to
think how much dust would be in Canon 5D images if one changed lenses
out on a trail! I think maybe next for your would be a 1DsIII...?

Good luck and don't take this too negatively enjoy your life and
surroundings. Please don't kick the dog and don't consider us to be
your dog.

Dan

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

 

[Azures]

when people post macro photos or tele portraits to prove that 4/3 is
"capable of DoF".

Even a compact can shoot insects with blurry backgrounds!

It is inevitable someone will just not get it.

Edit: Although it seemed like an honest admiration and joy in the first post, till 50-200 was compared to 70-200 (again).

-

 

[Dan]

Dwight - I guess it depends upon your definition of crappy and mine. I guess I didn't use the best of words!

By crappy I meant when viewed at 100% in photoshop you can easily see there is noise present in the photos especially the shadows. For the areas that are a little less underexposed that portion of the print looks fine for me.

I will admit I'm not a measurebater and constantly looking to see individual blades of grass of in 16 x 20 inch prints from a nose distance away!

Good luck...if you don't want to waste too much money crop the area you are most concerned about and have that section printed as a 4 x 6 or 5 x 7. In this way you can "scale up" and visualize how the rest of the photo would print.

In many cases I've been pleasantly surprised!

Dan

 

[Jon Stock]

when people post macro photos or tele portraits to prove that 4/3 is
"capable of DoF".

Even a compact can shoot insects with blurry backgrounds!

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net

If you are referring to my macro shot of an empty dragonfly larva casing I posted it to show the EXTRA depth of field of 4/3rds macro and how that is an advantage.

You have to struggle to get depth of field with a macro picture. As you already pointed out even compacts have shallow DOF in macro mode!

DOF advantage with Macro:
50mm Macro 1/60sec ISO 400 F7.1. (1 stop of IS)

Typical one-third-stop f-number scale
f/# 2.8 3.2 3.5 4 4.5 5.0 5.6 6.3 7.1 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22

A FF camera would need 2 stops smaller f-stop and an ISO of 1600 not 400.

Since the picture was at F7.1 an extra 2 stops would be F14.

Also note I had 1 stop of IS (50mm macro=100mm effective focal length=1/100s exposure) I only had 1/60s exposure not 1/100s. This means raising the ISO speed by 3 stops. Three stops above 400 is 3200.

If you want to shoot a 5D at f14 1/100s ISO 3200 and feel superior to an Olympus user shooting at F7.1 1/60s ISO 400 go ahead...enjoy.

I will pass on the high ISO noise and diffraction blurring and stick with Olympus

--
Jon
Stony Plain Alberta

 

[Akemi]

I've just got a D300 and i can isolate the background. Unfortunately I cannot get the whole subject in focus. All my portraits are superbly isolated and now include blurry noses and ears.

 

[John King]

Gidday Jon & All

An excerpt from Mike Johnson's "Best of Breed" personal ratings for lenses (June 2005):

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-05.shtml

Best Lens Available for DSLRs: Olympus Digital Zuiko 50mm ƒ 2 Macro

Best Telephoto Zoom for DSLRs: Olympus 50-200mm Digital Zuiko

Best Lens Line for Overall Optical Quality (tie): Olympus Digital Zuiko (for Four-
Thirds System) Leica R (for 35mm SLR)

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Read the full article at the above URL. An interesting view, IMHO.

FWIW ... one man's opinion ...

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

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

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



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[John King]

Gidday Akemi

I've just got a D300 and i can isolate the background. Unfortunately
I cannot get the whole subject in focus. All my portraits are
superbly isolated and now include blurry noses and ears.

Sorry to hear that. I had the same problem with a picture of the lovely Lizzie cat (currently keeping my lap warm ... ), when I failed to stop down the manual OM lens I was using. Mucked up a never to be repeated shot - nice happy snap, but ... here:



Try stopping down further than you are used to. You will have about 1/3~1/2 stop more before you hit diffraction limits (who cares about them anyway, ... mostly).

Also try using a different EFL lens.

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

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

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



Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Jon Stock]

I've just got a D300 and i can isolate the background. Unfortunately
I cannot get the whole subject in focus. All my portraits are
superbly isolated and now include blurry noses and ears.

Been there done that twice;

First when I got the 50mm macro and shot portraits at f2.0.

The second time was when I got the 25mm f1.4 and used it at f1.4 (it has a bit more depth of field at f1.4 than the 50mm at f2.0 so I thought it would be OK).

As long as I have to stop down lenses to get the depth of field I want I don't see any reason to go FF.

Although I would LOVE a 40mm f1.4.

--
Jon
Stony Plain Alberta