What do you think?

[Pokadots]

Hi! I've read a lot about Olympus's new E510, and was just wondering what everyone else thought of it? Sounds like a pretty nice camera, but I read somewhere that Olympus's SLRs are the most repair-prone. Has anyone had many problems with theirs?

Thanks for the help!

[kgosden]

I'm biased as I have not had any problems with my Olympuses from my D220L to the D450Z to the C3030Z to the C5050Z and then the E500. I cannot see spending a few hundred dollars more for the D80 and one lens. For that you can pick up the E510, 2 lenses, a flash and a few gigs of memory.

[coldrain]

I think "the most repair prone" may just be one of those internet myths in developement, here...
In DSLRs the most repair prone DSLR is without doubt the KM 7D. Just before KM stopped to exist, even on this forum lots of KM 7D issues flooded in.

I would not worry too much about Olympus in this respect.
While it is the nicest camera to hold and feel how the controls/buttons are made, there are a few downsides I do not particularly like from Olympus DSLRs. The manual focus ring is not mechanical but electrical, which makes the feel to it a bit hmm... "unresponsive"?
The sensors used are quite a bit smaller than other DSLRs. This results in less possible depth of field (minor issue) and more noise in higher ISO settings (bigger issue).
Also the sensors are of the 4:3 format, the old (old fashioned) TV format. I do not know why Olympus decided to go for this format, probably because they reasoned the 35mm 3:2 format was "old fashioned".

But the thing is that 4:3 only exists in digital cameras because TV tubes traditionally where of that format. And therefore computer monitors were of that format. And therefore digital cameras started out to be offered in this format, since that is what digital cameras in the early days were used for, photos on a computer screen.

But as you may have noticed, wider, less square formats, are more pleasing to the eye. Movies are wide screen, 35mm photo format is wider, TVs are now changing into wide screen, computer and laptop screens more and more are becoming wide screen.

Besides these niggles, the E-510 seems to be a very nice camera.

[Riley]

this complete nonsense about 4/3 being an old tv format
it was chosen because it makes the best use of the lens image circle
wider shapes like 3x2 are more prone to light fall off, and vignetting
4/3 as a format suffers a whole lot less of these maladies
if you are printing 8x10's, you lose a mere 6% of the 4x3 image to make it fit. A 3x2 frame loses 17%.

I think anecdotally on what we have seen with 510, Olympus have it right this time

It is a well featured camera, with liveview, a dust shaker that works, with built in IS and it has a good reputation for reliability, they are robustly designed and by all reports feel good to hold. The lens system is expanding rapidly, and prices seem to be lower for the newer versions. The AF will be much faster with pro lenses now too.

More importantly to some, noise signature is way down on the new nMOS sensor and imaging engine. How far? Im holding my tongue untill release.

[some guy]

I'm a fan of Olympus. If I didn't have Canon gear in my 35mm EOS days, I'd prolly own an E-500.

[Riley]

i had a black OM4Ti back then
should never have sold it

[Pokadots]

Thanks for all the input! Another thing I like about the E510 is the image stabilization.

For the people that checked "other", I'm wondering what you think would be better for me? My budget is up to $1,000, and this will be my first DSLR camera.

Thanks so much! I also posted in the "What camera should I buy?" if you want to see more info.

[Ray Schnoor]

For the people that checked "other", I'm wondering what you think would be better for me? My budget is up to $1,000, and this will be my first DSLR camera.
The main reason I didn't check "other" is that you didn't state your budget in the comparison. I could think of several "other" cameras I would rather have than the 2 listed, but they are all above your $1,000 limit with several being over 2x your limit.:D

Ray.

[Pokadots]

Yeah, I'm sorry! And, I know the D80 is more like $1200, so I guess, my budget would be up to $1200, it'll just take a little bit longer to save for it.

Thanks for posting!

[some guy]

I've read good things on the Pentax K10d too. Not to mention the Sony A100. It shares the same sensor as the D200. And has Sony SuperSonic Shake 'n Bake Control. :D Not to mention opens the door to large KM lenses!

[coldrain]

I've read good things on the Pentax K10d too. Not to mention the Sony A100. It shares the same sensor as the D200. And has Sony SuperSonic Shake 'n Bake Control. :D Not to mention opens the door to large KM lenses!
The D40X, D80, D200, A100 and K10D all feature the same Sony 10.2mp CCD sensor design.
Some leave it as noisy as it is (A100) while Nikon for instance filters and processes in-camera a lot, making for instance the D80 appear to be a lot less noisy than both the D200 and A100.

To answer the poster: I voted for different, because I do not particularly like the D80's output (it at times has a coarse feel to it in my opinion/observation) and I stated above why I do not totally like the E-510.

I prefer the Canon lens lineup options, and the image quality from the XTi/400D and EOS 30D. That is the "other" I "voted" for.
Whether or not any of those are best for you I can not judge.

[cdifoto]

I voted D80 because I'm too lazy to recommend something under "other" and for some reason 4:3 makes me cringe. Dunno why though...maybe because it screams "Point & Shoot!" in my ears. :confused:

[coldrain]

I voted D80 because I'm too lazy to recommend something under "other" and for some reason 4:3 makes me cringe. Dunno why though...maybe because it screams "Point & Shoot!" in my ears. :confused:
No, that was me screaming. You can't blame 4:3 for everything! It has more noise in the speckles in an image sense... not in the audio sense :D

[cdifoto]

this complete nonsense about 4/3 being an old tv format
it was chosen because it makes the best use of the lens image circle
wider shapes like 3x2 are more prone to light fall off, and vignetting
4/3 as a format suffers a whole lot less of these maladies
if you are printing 8x10's, you lose a mere 6% of the 4x3 image to make it fit. A 3x2 frame loses 17%.

This doesn't make much sense to me. If you use more of the image circle, you get more light falloff. Hence 1.6x cams having less of it on full frame lenses than full frame cameras.

If the 4:3 format was truly intended to make the most use out of the image circle as possible, wouldn't it actually be square instead? And certainly not 1/2 size? If I remember correctly there's a 2x crop factor on the Olys... If 1.6x doesn't make best use of the image circle, I fail to see how 2.0x would be better in that regard. Is there a full frame 4:3 sensor in the works that I'm unaware of?

[DonSchap]

The SONY A100 seems to be turning in the goods ... so it'll be hard to not recommend it ... since it offers every lens "anti-quake" capability, when they are slapped on. Personally, I shake like a leaf in the wind, during an earthquake, in a thunderstorm. I need anti-quake, big time.

Nah, j/k ... after thirty years of shooting without it, it is a nice and notable option and what I like is just being able to acheive cool looking handheld shots at 1/15 sec @ f/2.8 and ... ISO 400 (Not 1600), as some others would with other camera bodies. Oh, by the way, pick the grains of noise out of those shots, guys! ;) You can usually leave the tripod at home, indoors ... less weight is great! :D

Also, I've noticed that dust isn't showing up like it does on the fixed-sensor camera. The automatic shaking it clean seems to be helping.

[cdifoto]

The SONY A100 seems to be turning in the goods ... so it'll be hard to not recommend it ... since it offers every lens "anti-quake" capability, when slapped on. Personally, I shake like a leaf in the wind, during an earthquake, in a thunderstorm. I need anti-quake, big time.

Nah, j/k ... after thirty years of shooting without it, it is a nice and notable option and what I like is just being able to acheive cool looking handheld shots at 1/15 sec @ f/2.8 and ... ISO 400 (Not 1600), as some others would with other camera bodies. Oh, by the way, pick the grains of noise out of those shots, guys! ;) You can leave the tripod at home ... less weight is great! :D

Also, I've noticed that dust isn't showing up like it does on the fixed sensor camera. The automatic shaking it clean seems to be helping.

I prefer to have my cake & eat it too. Canon's high ISO* plus Image Stabilization (if I can afford it HAH!) so I can tackle more jobs rather than just certain ones.




*Kinda moot since I moved backwards with a 1D, but hey it's only temporary. :p

[Riley]

This doesn't make much sense to me. If you use more of the image circle, you get more light falloff. Hence 1.6x cams having less of it on full frame lenses than full frame cameras.

APS C has the same lens register that FF does, for Canon thats 44mm. So by a factor of scale nominated as 1.6x the register is longer, hence less fall off. For Oly its the same, its actual crop is 1.96, making its register by scale a whopping 76mm.

This tunnel for light makes the path more telecentric. Issues that are derived from film era registers like fall off exist because sensors are a lot less tolerant of angular light than film is. Microlenses are the current technology answer, but if you go this road, theres no AA filter and not enough depth in glass for adequate IR absorbtion.


If the 4:3 format was truly intended to make the most use out of the image circle as possible, wouldn't it actually be square instead? And certainly not 1/2 size? If I remember correctly there's a 2x crop factor on the Olys... If 1.6x doesn't make best use of the image circle, I fail to see how 2.0x would be better in that regard.

When edge definition is an issue, it will show in the corners first. The shape of the 3x2 frame has its left and right edges closer to the edge of the image circle than on a 4x3, or even square if you prefer.


Is there a full frame 4:3 sensor in the works that I'm unaware of?

you mean like MF backs lol ?

In a sense, 4/3 wernt ever crops, being designed from the ground up exterior to 35mm or legacy developments.
Thats maybe why Oly offer the 7-14mm zoom and why no one else goes that wide. For it is in ultra wide angle that these phenomena show most.

But a lot of this is becoming side chat to the main game
Canon's strategy is based on a tiered approach, 1.6x 1.3x and FF. To differentiate their products they keep the feature set down on the smaller crops and this enables them to hold a good price point.

Olympus and others dont have this problem, they offer dSLRs with a higher feature set, and a tolerant price. With Pentax's future development in self destruct mode for the next 2 years, and Sony taking their sweet time with essentially the camera that KM bailed out of, Oly's first and second new dSLR cameras for this year will have the best feature set in small dSLRs including APS C, and it will remain so for awhile. And then there is still P1 to come, expected in August

To add, there is nothing very special about 400D's noise performance, its capped to 1600iso below that of D40 anyway, and might be behind 510 this time around too, we have to wait and see.

[coldrain]

There is no light fall off to speak of on APS-C, it is more of a problem with full frame sensors. The bigger problem is light fall-off caused by the lens.

With 4/3rd lenses you have a bigger problem there actually. The 4 corners will act the same, of course. That is, if you compare a 4/3rds image circle lens with for instance a APS-C image circle lens. The sides of a 3:2 frame may show a bit more light fall off, when measured, but the top and bottom of 4:3 will show more light fall off when measured.

It is very simple...when you reduce the image circle of the lens itself, you will see light fall off because of how light travels through the lens and the lens barrel being not wide enought to prevent some light fall off.

With full frame lenses on APS-C light fall off problems will show up less than on 4/3rd image circle lenses on 2x crop factor Olympus cameras. How many 35mm full frame lenses are available for the Olympus system?

So, your whole story seems skewed.

Now just some objective figures to look at actual light fall off with lenses with image circles designed for each specific camera.

ColorFoto magazine test results for "vignetting" (light fall off into the corners/edges):
Canon EF-S f3.5-5.6 18-55mm kitlens tested on Canon 20D (1.6x crop factor camera):
Wide open 0.5 f-stops, stopped down 2 f-stops: 0.2 f-stops.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor f3.5-5.6 18-55mm DX G ED tested on Nikon D70s (1.5 crop factor camera):
Wide open 0.5 f-stops, stopped down 2 f-stops: 0.5 f-stops.

Olympus Zuiko Digital f3.5-5.6 14-45mm ED tested on Olympus E-300 (2x crop factor camera)):
Wide open 0.8 f-stops, stopped down 2 f-stops: 0.4 f-stops.

3 kitlenses. Same standard focal length zoom range. These are the facts.

Another thing: The 10mp sensor from the E-410 and E-510 seems to be of the same technology as the 7.x mp sensor from the E-330 and Panasonic L1. As you know, the 7.x sensor produces a whole lot more noise than anything else currently out there in DSLR land (if we disregard the Leica R9 digital back perhaps), so how likely will it be that the E-510 will be LESS noisy with 10mp (tinier photo diodes)?

And the 400D's sensor IS special, it is less noisy than the sensors of other DSLRs with 10.x mp, like from the A100/D80/D200/D40X/K10D (all based on the same 10mp Sony CCD) and the E-400 from Olympus.

And about the 7-14mm from Olympus:
7 x 2 = 14mm
14 x 2 = 28mm
This is in effect a 14-28mm lens.

Canon has a 10-22mm lens.
10 x 1.6 = 16mm
22 x 1.6 = 35.2mm
This is in effect a 16-35.2mm lens.

Sigma has a 10-20mm lens, on Nikon.
10 x 1.5 = 15mm
20 x 1.5 = 30mm
This is in effect a 15-30mm lens.

The Olympus 7-14mm is not really very much wider, now is it? It is a nice lens, I am not saying it is a crap lens. But I fail to see what is so special about it? Compact digital lenses are in focal length even shorter anyway.
even my ageing Canon Powershot S30 has a 7.1-21.3mm focal length range. And my old A20 had a focal length range of 5.4-16.2mm.

Just because the Olympus has a SMALLER chip, and therefore needs shorter focal lengths, is in no way anything special, nor peculiar.

[Riley]

There is no light fall off to speak of on APS-C, it is more of a problem with full frame sensors. The bigger problem is light fall-off caused by the lens.


With 4/3rd lenses you have a bigger problem there actually. The 4 corners will act the same, of course. That is, if you compare a 4/3rds image circle lens with for instance a APS-C image circle lens. The sides of a 3:2 frame may show a bit more light fall off, when measured, but the top and bottom of 4:3 will show more light fall off when measured.

IF that was true, what would you sooner have, soft corners of soft edges all the way down the frame?

Yet somehow this becomes a bigger problem. As the lenses are designed for one system 4/3, there are less instances of vignetting, no noticeable fall off, and a whole lot less of the soft edges that all legacy systems suffer.


It is very simple...when you reduce the image circle of the lens itself, you will see light fall off because of how light travels through the lens and the lens barrel being not wide enought to prevent some light fall off.

See thats where you dont understand what is going on. While the lens register is often quoted as the controlling influence, even by me, the real control is the scaled aspect ratio of the register v/s the image circle diameter. Just as a demo, the Leica M register is around 25mm, yet fast wide lenses have very wide optic channels. Longer tele lenses are less affected.

Clearly this is a low aspect ratio, and allows more light to have a steeper angle of approach to the film plane. This as you would know, is ok for film, but bad for sensors. The angular light creates the most severe fall off, in the M system the angles are quite steep. If you imagine pools of light falling on the film plane, more light will gather in the centre, and less on the edges, that is the cause of fall off. Inversely, longer tele lenses have the effect of lengthening the register, and raising the aspect ratio, thus reducing fall off.

A high aspect ratio system like 4/3, the approach angle of light is well controlled to a much less acute angle. The sensor tolerates this angle much better.


With full frame lenses on APS-C light fall off problems will show up less than on 4/3rd image circle lenses on 2x crop factor Olympus cameras. How many 35mm full frame lenses are available for the Olympus system?
So, your whole story seems skewed.

Oh really!, on wide angle lenses the edges are so soft the lower stops are a lot less usable, ever wonder why that is? Once again, the wide throat of FF lenses designed for 36x24 frames actually promotes more angular light, angular light causes fall off. Certainly longer tele FF lenses promote less fall off for the reasons given above.


Now just some objective figures to look at actual light fall off with lenses with image circles designed for each specific camera.
ColorFoto magazine test results for "vignetting" (light fall off into the corners/edges):
Canon EF-S f3.5-5.6 18-55mm kitlens tested on Canon 20D (1.6x crop factor camera):
Wide open 0.5 f-stops, stopped down 2 f-stops: 0.2 f-stops.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor f3.5-5.6 18-55mm DX G ED tested on Nikon D70s (1.5 crop factor camera):
Wide open 0.5 f-stops, stopped down 2 f-stops: 0.5 f-stops.

Olympus Zuiko Digital f3.5-5.6 14-45mm ED tested on Olympus E-300 (2x crop factor camera)):
Wide open 0.8 f-stops, stopped down 2 f-stops: 0.4 f-stops.

3 kitlenses. Same standard focal length zoom range. These are the facts.

Well look, I have no idea why we are looking at kit lenses, lets get some opinion from PhotoZone.de

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Vignetting
The level of vignetting isn't really impressive - at least wide-open under lab conditions (infinity focus). Vignetting is worst at 18mm, wide-open - no surprise here. At ~0.87EV is can be disturbing in some situations. Stopping down does improve the situation down to a negligible degree. At 55mm the situation is better with about ~0.59EV of vignetting. At f/8 the problem is largely reduced.

MTF (resolution & chromatic aberrations)
The MTF performance was mixed in the lab. As to be expected the weakest spot are the borders at 18mm @ f/3.5 which are plain ugly. Things improve a little at f/5.6 but you should really stop down to at least f/8 for decent results. The center is much better with already very good resolution figures at wide-open aperture.

Verdict
In lens land there's no such thing as a free lunch and the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II is an example for that. Under controlled conditions (stopping down two stops at 18mm) the lens can provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual users . Distortions are very high at the wide-end but no issue at the tele end. The construction quality is soso at best.

Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX
Vignetting
As mentioned the AF-S 18-55mm DX is a reduced image circle lens (APS-C) and typical for such lenses vignetting is somewhat more pronounced compared to classic full frame lenses. As to be expected the problem is most significant at 18mm @ f/3.5 where the vignetting exceeds 1.2EV at the image borders. However, this is only a local issue which is a much lesser problem at other focal lengths and at 18mm it can easily be resolved by stopping down a little. All-in-all the issue is pretty well under control for a DX-type lens.

Olympus Digital Zuiko 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6
Vignetting
Vignetting is well controlled with the lens. Wide-open vignetting doesn't exceed 0.5 f-stops which is usually not disturbing in most scenes. Tpyical for all lenses stopping down helps to reduce vignetting.

Verdict
Regarding its price tag the Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 is a very good deal with a good build quality combined with a very decent optical performance. The most pronounced weaknesses are very strong barrel distortions at 14mm and some chromatic aberrations at 14mm @ f/3.5 (easily correctable via tools).

Ok, so generally, the APS C kit are in more trouble for vignetting softer edges and contrast, you notice while they mention it on the Oly, it is in a much better position.


Another thing: The 10mp sensor from the E-410 and E-510 seems to be of the same technology as the 7.x mp sensor from the E-330 and Panasonic L1. As you know, the 7.x sensor produces a whole lot more noise than anything else currently out there in DSLR land (if we disregard the Leica R9 digital back perhaps), so how likely will it be that the E-510 will be LESS noisy with 10mp (tinier photo diodes)?

The nMOS sensor is new, the sensor you describe was 7.5Mp. It is apparent that noise is considerably less this time around. I will be happy to re-visit this issue when reviews are out but, anecdotal evidence from images provided on the net demonstrate lower noise ninja profiles for the new sensors, and even look like defeating existing APS C, perhaps not the D40 though. We have to wait and see really, but it looks optimistic.


And the 400D's sensor IS special, it is less noisy than the sensors of other DSLRs with 10.x mp, like from the A100/D80/D200/D40X/K10D (all based on the same 10mp Sony CCD) and the E-400 from Olympus.

read para above, not anymore


And about the 7-14mm from Olympus:
7 x 2 = 14mm
14 x 2 = 28mm
This is in effect a 14-28mm lens.

Canon has a 10-22mm lens.
10 x 1.6 = 16mm
22 x 1.6 = 35.2mm
This is in effect a 16-35.2mm lens.

Well it may be a 14-28 in 35mm EFL, but it IS a 7-14mm lens, thats why we call it a 7-14 i guess. And PhotoZone.de say about the Canon?

Verdict
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM delivered a very sound performance with a combination of very decent build quality and very good if not impressive optical results. If anything vignetting at wide-open aperture could be better. The center performance is excellent throughout the range with generally good borders.

Uh oh, soft edges and vignetting, same old story i guess


Sigma has a 10-20mm lens, on Nikon.
10 x 1.5 = 15mm
20 x 1.5 = 30mm
This is in effect a 15-30mm lens.

Oh please, you really want to compare this top quality lens with a brand B Sigma ? Ok, lets go

Verdict
The Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM DC showed a good though not stellar performance on the Nikon D200. The vignetting and distortions are quite comparable to the rest of the gang but the border resolution, specifically towards the long end of the zoom range, leaves a little to be desired compared to its direct competitors. This is a bit unfortunate because the center resolution is exceptional at all focal lengths.

yuk


The Olympus 7-14mm is not really very much wider, now is it? It is a nice lens, I am not saying it is a crap lens. But I fail to see what is so special about it? Compact digital lenses are in focal length even shorter anyway.
even my ageing Canon Powershot S30 has a 7.1-21.3mm focal length range. And my old A20 had a focal length range of 5.4-16.2mm.

It has no equal on 2 points, it is not just a few mm wider, it is considerably wider in FoV, yet it is also rectilinear and quite distortion free. It has been said that this lens alone is a reason to go 4/3.


Just because the Olympus has a SMALLER chip, and therefore needs shorter focal lengths, is in no way anything special, nor peculiar.

would that be just like Canon gear is SMALLER than Nikons crop?
if that REALLY mattered you should sell the Canon stuff and invest in the LARGER Nikon.

[coldrain]

Your "arguments" are all over the place again....
What has a slightly larger chip have to do with anything, when we are talking about focal length? I am pointing out that OF COURSE its UWA will have a shorter foacl length... else it will not be an UWA.

You never seem to get point, read more carefully. The point was and is: 7-14mm is nothing special when the sensor is that small. If it was 7-14mm on full frame, sure, THEN it would be something special.

And no idea why you focus on how, according to photozone, the Canon 10-22mm performs ("All-in-all very impressive results here." according to them in resolution). Because they have not tested the 7-14mm, so any comparison can not be made, and the only reason I mentioned that (very good) Canon is to show that the 7-14mm Olympus is nothing more than an UWA lens all manufacturers make.

The controlled tests from ColorFoto are quite reliable as far as I am concerned. I picked 3 kitlenses, no idea why you find that a strange idea, to show that vignetting is quite the same. I picked the three kitlenses because that is as equal as you can get, of course realizing that this says both something about the particular lens and about the lens system itself.
As you can see, it shows that that silly 2x crop 4:3 system vignets totally the same. Which is not at all surprising.

[Riley]

You never seem to get point, read more carefully. The point was and is: 7-14mm is nothing special when the sensor is that small. If it was 7-14mm on full frame, sure, THEN it would be something special.

The controlled tests from ColorFoto are quite reliable as far as I am concerned. I picked 3 kitlenses, no idea why you find that a strange idea, to show that vignetting is quite the same. I picked the three kitlenses because that is as equal as you can get, of course realizing that this says both something about the particular lens and about the lens system itself.
As you can see, it shows that that silly 2x crop 4:3 system vignets totally the same. Which is not at all surprising.

unlike you Im happier without fall off, soft edges and vignetting, as a paid photographer i need ultrawide performance that works. Instead of imaginary quotes from who knows where, here's mine for the world to see, at least when it comes to 4/3, i know what im talking about

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/page6.shtml


The Olympus ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm is without a doubt an extremely impressive lens. Not only does it offer noticeably wider coverage than any other ultra-wide zoom on the market, it also features highly-corrected optics.

As our results page shows, the 7-14mm exhibits virtually no geometric distortion, impressively low vignetting considering its extreme coverage, and is sharp in the corners throughout its focal range. It's also very well-built and designed to stand-up to professional use. There's really no technical aspect we can fault it on.

Indeed, rather than just describing it as the only ultra-wide option for Four Thirds owners, we'd go as far as to say it's a compelling reason to buy a Four Thirds body in the first place. Certainly if you're a well-healed ultra-wide fanatic looking to invest in a new DSLR system, it should sway your decision towards Four Thirds. We particularly enjoyed testing the ZUIKO DIGITAL 7-14mm and, reservations about price noted, can highly recommend it.


say cheese

[coldrain]

A paid photographer? You do not have a 4:3's camera. What do you have? That Pentax K110D? Who pays you, and for what?

[Riley]

A paid photographer? You do not have a 4:3's camera. What do you have? That Pentax K110D? Who pays you, and for what?

i have 4/3 gear among others, ive said that before here
im a real estate photographer, so i guess that makes me a professional photographer

the pentax 110 in my bi-line was a 110 cartridge film camera, and it would be close to, if not the smallest film SLR ever made. I use that as opposed to bragging rights others indulge in here.

That said, i do actually have one, i bought my first pentax, but the slightly larger K1000 SLR in 1972. It got left behind in the withdrawal from the Vung Tau Peninsula South Vietnam, so whoever has it, could they return it please.

[Pokadots]

YIKES!!! I'm lost! I don't have a clue what you guys are talking about! I don't know too much about SLRs! :)

[Riley]

just so there are no doubts, the EXIF is good

[Pokadots]

Wow, what camera was that pictures taken with? It's really clear and nice color! :D

[coldrain]

What is that very strong aliasing from? Did you sharpen it a lot? Or did you use a very bad scaling function?

[Riley]

Wow, what camera was that pictures taken with? It's really clear and nice color! :D

thanks...
Actually its my B body, one of the oldest cheapest 4/3 dSLRs around, the Olympus E-300. Its the lens that makes the difference. At F8 the depth of field can be as deep as 3ft to infinity, and at its maximum focus zone which is around the front of the house, it is very sharp indeed.

You should expect that from a high quality ultra-wide lens, but probably not from brand 'B' junk.

[coldrain]

Wow, what camera was that pictures taken with? It's really clear and nice color! :D
The photo is post processed, not straight out of the camera.

[Riley]

The photo is post processed, not straight out of the camera.

like it matters, it was presented to offer proof of the 4/3 cameras you say i dont have
(does anyone else here think that is a tad more than weird ?)

keep trolling sport

[Pokadots]

What lense did you use? I think Olympus has some pretty good color!

[LR Max]

I would not recommend the olympus. As a DSLR, it lacks A LOT compared to the others on the shelf. Long start-up time, shutter lag, controls difficult to use, and didn't feel good in my hands. Overall, Olympus, once a great producer of cameras, has dropped the ball in the digital world.

I am a nikonian, but when I pick up a Canon or a Pentax I can effectively use either camera even without knowing all the doo-dads and buttons. These cameras, when I use them (mainly when I borrow them from my friends' camera bags :p ) basically feel the same as my own nikon. It feels like an extension of my body which allows me to concentrate on the shot rather than the camera.

The olympus does not have the same feeling. It feels cumbersome, kinda like an old point n' shoot. Go to the camera shop and see what I mean. Definately not a camera recommended by ANY shop I've been in. Once I held it I agreed. I know the Olympus can probably make a good photo, but I feel that it lacks a lot compared to other cameras out there.

Check out the D80. Can't go wrong here. Can't do wrong with a Canon 30D. The 30Ds are sweet (one of the cameras I tend to "borrow" from my friend :rolleyes: ). Yes, the Pentax is the dark horse that no one knows anything about (or at least I didn't until I recieved a limited education). The body looks fairly solid but lenses aren't really known about. However I have heard of some pretty badass Pentax lenses out there so keep this in mind. If you get a Pentax, for the love of God get one that has image stabilization. The Pentax feels good overall, it isn't a camera to be considered inferior by any means.

[Riley]

What lense did you use? I think Olympus has some pretty good color!

that was the 11-22mm wide lens, i think its about US$670
Olympus have a striking red render, for me its makes particularly attractive interiors

[cdifoto]

that was the 11-22mm wide lens, i think its about US$670
Olympus have a striking red render, for me its makes particularly attractive interiors

Do you mean "red render" as in red color cast? I sorta noticed it looks to favor that color...but I thought it coulda been my monitor too. And it's only one image. I haven't seen many others with it as far as I know.

[Riley]

Do you mean "red render" as in red color cast? I sorta noticed it looks to favor that color...but I thought it coulda been my monitor too. And it's only one image. I haven't seen many others with it as far as I know.

that particular shot was around 4.30 in the afternoon, its a jpeg, with strong sun at about 75 degrees to the right. The dominance of red on the garden with jarrah chips and the house is rather unusual and overwhelming, where normally red doesnt come into the equation much.

Wherever reds appear it seems to make them punch out at you, they are quite biting, i think it does have a red bias, its probable that in interiors it just isnt as dominant colour and therefore not as noticeable to me. In this instance the combination of the late afternoon angular light and the dominance of reds has an unusual effect that combined with my PP for interiors profile looks a little striking. ~something different

I guess for the new cameras since its a whole new engine, so we have to see where that is at. My experience is, all camera/jpeg formulae have a bias in them somewhere, like those canon lenses and red bias, that make attractive portraits. Or Sigma's with that yellow/orange colour, and Panasonic's green bias.

[cdifoto]

that particular shot was around 4.30 in the afternoon, its a jpeg, with strong sun at about 75 degrees to the right. The dominance of red on the garden with jarrah chips and the house is rather unusual and overwhelming, where normally red doesnt come into the equation much.

Wherever reds appear it seems to make them punch out at you, they are quite biting, i think it does have a red bias, its probable that in interiors it just isnt as dominant colour and therefore not as noticeable to me. In this instance the combination of the late afternoon angular light and the dominance of reds has an unusual effect that combined with my PP for interiors profile looks a little striking. ~something different

I guess for the new cameras since its a whole new engine, so we have to see where that is at. My experience is, all camera/jpeg formulae have a bias in them somewhere, like those canon lenses and red bias, that make attractive portraits. Or Sigma's with that yellow/orange colour, and Panasonic's green bias.

Yeah Fuji is all about the greens too. My Canons have a slight red....but it's even more prominent..and tends to blow the red channel...when it's actually something red being photographed. Kinda sucks when you want a good shot of roses. hah.

Glad I shoot RAW though...makes it easier to pull the highlights back down on any given color if I'm not feeling too lazy to do it. :p

[Riley]

when its busy, not that it is at the moment, thanks johnny :(
i can have like 150 images in a day to process
so unfortunately on the basis of time, RAW just isnt an option for me

[cdifoto]

when its busy, not that it is at the moment, thanks johnny :(
i can have like 150 images in a day to process
so unfortunately on the basis of time, RAW just isnt an option for me

I'm not gonna get into it a lot but I actually find RAW to be faster than JPEG. Not so much if I would need to have stuff ready half an hour or less after shooting, but even if I have 2 hours to prep I can get 'em done, save for any major overhauls, which I never do anyway. :p