Comparison: Rebel XT with Kit Zoom versus Olympus C8080

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by RichA, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_test

    3 images each
    Equivalent focal lengths
    100 ISO
    WB = auto on both
    JPEG output highest each provides
    Focusing done manually
    Both cameras tripod mounted
    Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
    Controlled lighting environment
    Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings
     
    RichA, Aug 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    #1: Your focus is way off on at least two of the Rebel shots.

    #2: The shots highlight major differences in DOF, not lens quality.
    For example, 7.1mm at f/5.6 on the Oly is going to give a near infinite
    depth of field, with objects beyond 2.3 feet being in acceptable
    sharpness. Comparatively, 18mm at f/7.1 with the Digital Rebel is going
    to have a near sharpness of about 3.5 feet.

    This gets worse down the line. At 35mm and f/7.1, the depth of field
    will be 2.5 feet TOTAL for the Digital Rebel. At 55mm and f/7.1, you're
    less than a foot. The Oly's depth of field at equivalent fields of view
    will be 6 feet and 2 feet respectively.

    http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

    #3: The Oly has certainly a stronger in camera sharpening regimen. If
    it has a "low sharpening" or "no sharpening" mode, please use it when
    you repeat the test.

    My suggestions to correct this test:

    #1: Depth of field variations will ALWAYS occur when you're comparing
    point and shoots with HUGE DOFs with dSLRs that have relatively narrow
    DOFs. I would set up a test shot that has the camera parallel to a
    subject, with most of the scene within about a foot of where you will be
    focusing.

    My suggestion: set a bunch of random stuff on a table, make sure it is
    well lit and more or less parallel with the focal plane of the camera.
    Don't let the total distance between the objects and the focal distance
    exceed more than six inches in either direction.

    #2: Make sure the Oly has it's sharpening set as low as possible, or
    turn up the Rebel's to the highest setting (+2).

    #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and
    f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses
    are really soft wide open, but sharpen very nicely as you stop down.
    Additionally, this will make sure that we're not seeing manifestations
    of narrow depth of field.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Vince Guest

    RichA email me @

    Vince....



    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_test

    3 images each
    Equivalent focal lengths
    100 ISO
    WB = auto on both
    JPEG output highest each provides
    Focusing done manually
    Both cameras tripod mounted
    Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer
    Controlled lighting environment
    Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings
     
    Vince, Aug 3, 2005
    #3
  4. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft.
     
    Stacey, Aug 3, 2005
    #4
  5. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    It may be, but this test certainly doesn't help us determine that.

    So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is
    appropriate, shut your fucking yap.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 3, 2005
    #5
  6. RichA

    G.T. Guest

    Blah BLAH BLAH BLAH blah. Blah blah blah BLAH BLAH.

    Greg
     
    G.T., Aug 3, 2005
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The lens was softer than the Olympus with less detail shown on every
    shot. Given the Rebel's potential with a good lens, I think it's safe
    to say the kit lens has a crippling effect on the camera. The kit
    lens has more problems, but they weren't apparent in that kind of a
    photo. Put it another way, how many people who buy the Canon who
    understand it and the Canon lens system stick with the kit lens
    for any length of time, if they have the money to do something about
    it? BTW; While I was in the store, a guy came in to buy a zoom
    to replace the kit lens he had on his Rebel. He wanted something
    better. Too bad the store didn't have what he wanted in stock.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Aug 3, 2005
    #7
  8. I just spent over a week with an Oly C-8080 WZ before sending it back.
    It makes little difference how sharp the Oly lens is if the damn camera
    refuses to focus in a normally lit room. Yes, the AF assist light was
    on too and it still would hunt for a few seconds or more if it focused
    at all. Our old Oly C-2020Z runs rings around it indoors when focusing.
    I've considered the Rebel XT, but the handgrip is too small, the kit
    lens is too cheap, and will probably buy a Nikon D50 or D70s with the
    18-70mm AF-S DX lens instead...

    Mike
     
    Mike Murphree, Aug 4, 2005
    #8
  9. RichA

    Colin D Guest

    Did you not read Brian's remarks? Of course the Canon lens *looks*
    softer - that's because a) it's out of focus, and b) the depth of field
    is inadequate to encompass the oblique shots you set up as a 'test' -
    quite apart from the Oly's more aggressive in-camera sharpening.

    Questions arising: Why did you choose a subject for your tests that had
    a significant dof problem? To make the oly look better? Or because you
    didn't know any better? Since you say the camera was manually focused,
    tell us just what item in those shots you actually focused on? And did
    you reframe the camera after focusing?

    As I said in an earlier post, we ADMIT the 18-55 is not a top lens. It
    isn't meant to be. But it's better than acceptably sharp at all
    apertures *except* at the edges. A hell of a lot of lenses aren't as
    sharp at the edges as they are in the centre. But for most purposes
    they're ADEQUATE. But, due to the dof problems in that (rigged) test,
    not to mention incorrect manual focus, the centres of those shots are
    not sharp, which gives the game away.

    RichA's anti-Canon bias is showing here, unfortunately serving to fuel
    Stacey's vendetta.

    You want an illustration of RichA's bias? He remarked on some guy
    wanting a better lens for his Rebel. Did he say *why* the bloke wanted
    a better lens? Nnnooo, he didn't. Or what he found inadequate with the
    18-55? Nnnooo, he didn't. RichA jumped to the conclusion that the
    bloke found the lens unsharp and poor quality. My take, from
    experience, would be the chap didn't find the lens that bad, he merely
    wanted more zoom range than the 18-55 could give him. Most photogs in
    the amateur field want more zoom range, even though quality might
    suffer. I have seen several of this type of shooter weighing up which
    lens to buy, and they always come down on the side of range.

    So much for RichA's and Stacey's biased, myopic viewpoint. Neither are
    worth a damn. Empty vessels and all that.

    One more point: You'll not fail to note that I have said *nothing* about
    the Oly performance. That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
    I don't bash cameras. Unlike Rich and Stacey.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Aug 4, 2005
    #9
  10. RichA

    Toa Guest

    That's because, like most reasonable posters here,
    Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead

    Toa
     
    Toa, Aug 4, 2005
    #10
  11. RichA

    Mike Warren Guest


    Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :)

    -Mike
     
    Mike Warren, Aug 4, 2005
    #11
  12. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Your test was flawed. I MIGHT agree with you in the future, but not
    until you do the test right.

    Is that so fucking hard to understand, Rich? Is it as hard as you
    understanding what a HUGE difference DOF makes in these kids of
    comparisons? Is it too hard to fucking focus consistently for
    consistent results?

    I've had it with you. Either do the test right or shut the **** up.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #12
  13. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Same. I don't see anything wrong with the Oly's performance, other than
    its results versus the Rebel's results are flawed due to the massive
    depth of field differences and in-camera sharpening. And the poor focus
    on the part of the user...
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #13
  14. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    I think I speak for most of us when I say this:

    IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The
    biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people
    who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong.

    When Stacey showed up, I was more than willing to let him/her enjoy the
    E300 on the merits of them liking the camera and being comfortable with
    it. That went out the window fast. Some people...
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #14
  15. RichA

    Mike Warren Guest

     
    Mike Warren, Aug 4, 2005
    #15
  16. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Ahh... the allure of good glass.

    I don't have any cash so I stopped dreaming a long time ago.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #16
  17. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Rich posted a review that talks about how poor this lens performs wide open
    at your request and of couse one of the canon cheerleaders responded with:

    "You Canon bashers are full of BULLSHIT.  Missed that word, did you? 
    here it is again:  BULLSHIT.  Take Brian's advice and shut your f*****g
    yaps."


    Seems it doesn't matter what is said, if it isn't Canon cheerleading it's
    "bashing"?
     
    Stacey, Aug 4, 2005
    #17
  18. RichA

    Stacey Guest


    Refreshing to see someone doing their own testing rather than -following the
    pack-..
     
    Stacey, Aug 4, 2005
    #18
  19. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    You actually think I'm going to change YOUR mind? I just hate seeing you and
    other preach "Buy a canon kit" and the people end up with this shitty
    performing lens in the bargain.
     
    Stacey, Aug 4, 2005
    #19
  20. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    He didn't post a review, he posted shots that highlighted that a good
    portion of the shot was out of the depth of field.

    I may or may not describe the Canon kit lens as a piece of shit. But
    I'm certainly not going to make any pronouncements based on Rich's
    flawed test. He couldn't even focus right!

    Sheesh.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 4, 2005
    #20
    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.