Olympus E-500 DSLR comments please?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by SJ, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. SJ

    SMS Guest

    The manufacturing issues of producing something like the 7-14 mm are a
    big contributor to its high price. The problems with building a long
    telephoto are completely different.
    Only in theory. There have been noisy full-frame sensors, as used in the
    Kodak D-SLRS, and noisy 1.5 crop factor sensors, as used in the Sigma D-SLRs

    In any case, the original response that I posted is still valid. If you
    need super-wide-angle (or whatever anyone wants to call it), the E-500
    requires a very expensive lens to get it. Consider this fact when making
    a selection.
     
    SMS, Apr 6, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. SJ

    sir_bazz Guest

    If wide angle is a priority then I'd be looking at the Pentax range.

    Just including the made for APS-C lenses theres

    Pentax-DA 14mm f2.8
    Pentax-DA 16-45mm f4.0
    Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4.0
    Pentax-DA 10-17mm fisheye zoom.

    Failing that there's always the third party options from Sigma and
    Tokina which are available for most mounts.

    cheers,
    bazz.
     
    sir_bazz, Apr 6, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. SJ

    Mr.T Guest

    But have the same effect on price it seems.
    The Nikon 200mm f2 is a *lot* dearer than the Olympus 150mm f2 for example.
    (both 300mm effective) Both are more expensive than the 7-14 Olympus you
    claim is "too expensive".
    So it all depends on what you are photographing and what you are prepared to
    pay to get good results obviously.

    As I said. But the laws of physics do govern the ultimate performance
    obtainable.

    Consider *all* facts that are personally relevant when making a selection.
    Yours may not be the same as someone else's.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Apr 7, 2006
    #23
  4. Note that a 1.4x increase in the crop factor costs you essentially one stop
    of sensitivity (if you keep the pixel count the same). So that Nikon "300 mm
    equivalent" is a full stop faster than the Oly lens. In practice, a 200/2.8
    on the Nikon will act very much like a 150/2.0 on the Oly.

    The theory says that to collect the same number of photons to achieve the
    same noise level, doubling the area of the pixel is exactly the same as
    doubling the exposure time. The fine print of the theory says that read
    noise will be very similar, so the smaller pixel will have a worse SNR at
    ISO 100 than the larger pixel at ISO 200.
    If you look at the actual performance of current sensors, the theory holds
    in practice as well. Here's a detailed noise analysis comparing the 20D and
    5D; the 5D is basically one stop more sensitive.

    http://www.ddisoftware.com/20d-5d/#nsprof

    At lower ISOs, smaller format digital produces images that are often
    adequate. They claim, anyway.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 7, 2006
    #24
  5. SJ

    RW+/- Guest

    OK, here is where my ignorance with digital will show. :)
    I would assume that since Oly is designing their digital lenses for their
    cameras explicitly so I should expect a 2.0 to be a true 2.0. I do
    understand for whatever reason in trying to maintain 35mm familiarity with
    digital that Oly's are 2X when it comes to translating the focal length to
    a familiar setting. ie: 25mm digital equals 50mm in 35mm format. I have not
    heard that the f-stop is to be translated also. Most digitals ISO 100-400
    are supposed to be the exact same also.

    One of my reasons for asking is that I was intending to use my 35mm light
    meters to set the camera and also the flash when I get a decent on camera
    flash. From what you are describing it would appear that all old light
    meters should simply be thrown away.
    Here again it would seem that someone is lying about true ISO. To me noise
    equal grain in 35mm.

    If all the digital cameras vary so much and 35mm standards are just so much
    crap then one would have to buy books related to the digital camera of
    choice and relearn it all when you switch cameras.

    I used to be an amateur photographer and am just now getting back into it
    with digital. I still have all my color and B&W darkroom equipment and
    sadly it will have to be relegated to my personnel museum of past hobbies.
     
    RW+/-, Apr 7, 2006
    #25
  6. SJ

    Pete D Guest

    I have the 16-45mm F4.0, definite keeper, very sharp.
     
    Pete D, Apr 7, 2006
    #26
  7. SJ

    Mr.T Guest

    Pretty much, and we already covered that. It's the main reason I don't have
    a 4/3 system camera.
    Of course if sensors continue to improve, noise may be virtually a non issue
    in a few years. I'd certainly love to have noise free performance at 1600
    ISO, it would save a lot of money on lenses.
    Yep, but the Nikon D2x is roughly half a stop better for the same size
    sensor. You can argue it is at the expense of resolution for the same number
    of pixels though.
    Yes it all depends on what you consider adequate. I doubt a Canon 1DS-II
    user would ever be tempted to go for a 4/3 camera. :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Apr 8, 2006
    #27
  8. SJ

    Mr.T Guest

    No you are confused. He is simply saying that in general, a larger sensor
    will have less noise at a given ISO rating, for the same number of pixels.
    He is then converting that into the number of stops you can benefit by, if
    you accept the same amount of noise.
    ie. if one camera has the same noise at ISO 800, as another does at ISO 400
    (same number of pixels) then you can shoot one stop lower (smaller aperture
    lens was his point)

    Of course he simply ignored the fact that you may want a larger aperture for
    other reasons.


    Definitely worse at the same ISO, whether it's worse at half the ISO will
    depend on many other factors.
    Nope, ASA/ISO rating is just something you use to calculate EV.
    Similar problems at least.
    No, but some of the techniques sure are different. However techniques were
    also different when using transparency film as opposed to negative film. One
    simply has to understand all the issues, and that will involve some more
    learning when going digital.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Apr 8, 2006
    #28
  9. SJ

    RW+/- Guest

    Thanks for the clarification! When I read, " In practice, a 200/2.8
    on the Nikon will act very much like a 150/2.0 on the Oly." It took me in
    an entirely different direction, your clarification was a great help. I am
    not aware of the difference in the size of sensors between the two cameras
    and lack of MDL numbers did not help either. Again, your description was
    far clearer.
    It might be a lot easier had I not learn photography the old fashioned way.
    :) I am learning as I am going how to translate the lingo.

    Is it safe to say that I can use my existing light meters for my manual
    shots for optimum shots or to get the effect I want, recognizing of course
    the noise level which will have to be learned through experience for my
    camera? Back of my mind says that noise is not necessarily a bad thing as I
    remember shooting grainy shots for effect at times.

    One last question if I may. With 35mm Canon I have various portrait lenses,
    including variable soft focus 100mm lenses, I would like to be able to do
    this in camera. Is there an optimum way, and second best?
     
    RW+/-, Apr 9, 2006
    #29
  10. SJ

    Mr.T Guest

    Not IMO. How to compose, use of light, when to shoot etc. are the important
    things for a real photograher. Nothing has changed.
    Digital has simply made it easy for everyone to shoot far more images, and
    see instantly whether they need to change anything.
    You only stop learning when you are dead.
    Of course, digital is just the same balancing act between getting good
    shadow detail and blown out highlights. And artistic choices like high key
    and low key of course.
    Yes, but I'd rather shoot noise free and add digital grain effects in
    Photoshop, for the few times I actually want them.
    Your 100mm soft focus lens will still work, albeit at 150mm effective on a
    Canon 300/350D or 10/20/30D.
    If you already have a good range of Canon EF lenses, I suggest you save up
    for a 5D (full frame)
    Personally I prefer to do soft focus in Photoshop, but shallow depth of
    field is easier with a fast lens than computer simulation.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Apr 10, 2006
    #30
    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.