and while everyone looks at Canon...

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Martin Francis, Feb 18, 2005.

  1. .... those new Olympus lenses look *very* promising.

    Now, any chances of a decent midrange SLR from them? A body something like a
    smaller E20 with improved 8mp sensor would be most welcome...
    Martin Francis, Feb 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Martin Francis

    Clyde Guest

    Wouldn't that be the E-200/EVOLT?

    Clyde, Feb 18, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. How much are they?
    Dave R knows who, Feb 18, 2005
  4. More of a 300D/DRebel competitor than a midrange body. The E1 seems to have
    been their pro body. Something in between would be nice.
    Martin Francis, Feb 18, 2005
  5. Martin Francis

    Brian Baird Guest

    Basically that's what it comes down to.

    The other Oly lenses haven't really delivered on the whole "4/3rds is a
    lot cheaper" promise.
    Brian Baird, Feb 19, 2005
  6. Martin Francis

    PlaneGuy Guest

    Guess we have just found out one of the MAJOR advantages of the 4/3 system.

    There are people on the web forums that are putting the use of f2.0 down,
    due to the fact they say that the Canon/Nikon et al have at least 1 stop
    better noise performance, so you have lost all benefit of the extra stop of
    light of the Olympus. Apart from the fact that noise performance will only
    ever increase with time (not that I'm too fussed by noise), but the f2 will
    give all the better ability to stop the action (on my Canon D30, the noise
    at ISO1600 is woeful, yet a stopped action shot at ISO1600 is much better
    than a blurred photo at ISO800 or even 400, IMHO)
    PlaneGuy, Feb 19, 2005
  7. Martin Francis

    Stacey Guest

    So how much is the canon 600mm f2.8?

    Or their 300mm F2?

    How many F2 zooms are the other guys making?

    Stacey, Feb 19, 2005
  8. Martin Francis

    Lourens Smak Guest

    Well why don't you get a beautiful 17-55DX-Nikkor then for just $1400,
    or maybe you prefer the Canon option, which consists of $100 worth of
    optics and $500 worth of IS, all in a handy plastic f/5.6 package? Tough
    choice... Suddenly a f/2.8-3.5 14-54mm Zuiko for $500 doesn't sound that

    Reality-check: the Olympus accessories may be expensive, but the lenses
    are simply great value.

    Lourens Smak, Feb 20, 2005
  9. Martin Francis

    Brian Baird Guest

    Who cares? You can get 600mm on a full-frame Canon for about the same
    price than you can get the 300mm from Oly. AND you get image

    Or you could buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS and a 2x teleconverter and come out
    even further ahead.

    Field of view, field of schmew. A 300mm f/2.8 lens shouldn't be priced
    any more than any other 300mm f/2.8 lens. So, if it was about $2,500
    I'd say: "Way to go, Oly!"
    Again, who cares?
    Brian Baird, Feb 20, 2005
  10. Martin Francis

    Skip M Guest

    You don't need a 600 f2.8 (if such existed) on a 20D to equal the 300 f2.8
    Oly, just a 400 f2.8L, which not only exists, but costs less than the Oly,
    $6499.99 for the Canon vs. $6999.99 for the Oly and the Canon includes IS, a
    feature the Oly can't provide at any price. The Canon 200mm f2.8L is
    $659.99, vs. $2,219.95 for the Oly 150mm f2.0, a premium of $1560 for 1/3 of
    a stop. Wow, Stace, you got me there... And I can buy a 500mm f4L IS and
    600mm f5.6L IS, lenses not available for the Oly, not to mention a 16-35
    f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, , 85mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2, 100 f2, 135mm f2.0L plus all of
    those other IS lenses Canon produces. Any IS on any of the Oly lenses?
    C'mon, can't you leave well enough alone?
    Skip M, Feb 20, 2005
  11. They have a smaller sensor. This is an advantage for making fast
    lenses -- you should see what's available for 16mm movie cameras, or
    even scarier for Super 8 back when it was an important format. 12x
    f1.4 lenses that focused down to contact with the front element were
    the *norm* for serious Super 8 cameras.
    And that's at least partly the other half of the same story, the
    higher noise from the smaller sensor.
    I hear two stories. How much of the noise really can be reduced?
    Aren't we dealing largely with quantum noise at this point? You can
    tell I don't understand the physics of these sensors in detail;
    problem is, I have trouble telling who *does*, so it's hard to know
    who to believe.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.