Ready to step up to DSLR

[LeVeL]

Anyone got cliffs for the last 4 posts?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by LeVeL

Anyone got cliffs for the last 4 posts?

Don't bother, it was just a stupid gear argument.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

Oly's top-end camera is only usable to ~ISO1600, while even the prosumer Canons and Nikons achieve or surpass that.

There are differences, no one has denied that. And so? The big point is how big the differences are, and they are not. The difference between the E-3 and the 40D at ISO 3200 are not that big. Not bigger than the difference between the 40D and D300.

The difference may be small, but it is still smaller and has the attributes of a smaller sensor. Why would I pay more money for less of something I want?

Because, my friend, it gives you the quality you want.

Nikon APS-C + Sigma 10-20 = 15mm, which is as close as makes no difference and also quite a good lens.

Are you seriously comparing the Sigma 10-20 to the 7-14?

Hey guys, all manufacturers make good lenses and a few subpar ones. The only lenses that stand out in the Oly range are the f/2 zooms. And they are hideously expensive. I stand by my original statement.

Okay. Let's see. The 150/2.0. It's a lens that Canon can match on APS-C with their 200/2.0L. Nikon can't match it. It's been made 'the best lens we have ever tested' by DIWA labs.

The 300/2.8 is a gem, albeit heavy and expensive. The 90-250/2.8 the same. And if we're going to be really alternative, how about the 50/2.0? It's slower than Canon/Nikon counterparts, but sharper. It can easily be used wide open without nearly any loss of quality.

What? Nikon and Canon pro bodies (and the D200/D300) are fully weather-sealed and perform in the pouring rain day in and day out, and have for years. Did you think all the National Geographic shooters just stayed indoors, waiting for Olympus to release the E3 every time it rained?

They are not. I dear you to hold a D200 or a D300 under running water. The E-3 can withstand that, and a lot more. It's generally recognized as by far the best weather sealed camera in its price bracket. Except the fact that NatGeo uses Canon to my knowledge, I think they would have used D1/D2 models. In film days perhaps an F5. Or, if they were using a Dx00, they might use a rain cover. There's a big market for those in the Canon/Nikon camp, but not in the Olympus/Pentax camp. Weird, isn't it?

I found the Olympus not any harder, and not any easier than any other system, just different.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that issue.

If f/2 zooms are what you need, Ollympus is the only game in town. If the sharpest, fastest ultrawide in FF is what you need, Nikon is the only game in town. See how that works? It's called niche marketing.

If you have the cash for a 14-24 and a D3, then it's probably a good choice. It's not without reason it's used by a lot of Canon landscape photographers. But if you can't afford it, then Olympus offers the by far best ultra wide angle lens in the market today, the only lens on par is the 14-24, and it does need a full frame to be really wide.

If sensor size and the attributed performance advantage is what I want in a camera, how is that silly? Also, ISO and dynamic range are part of image quality.

Because the differences are minute. You are absolutely correct about ISO and DR being a part of the IQ. Good thing the E-3 can nearly match the D300 and 40D on that too.

You know, for the better part of the history of DSLRs, Canon has performed better at high ISO settings, also in regard of DR, than Nikon. Why? Cause of technology. Would you tell people not to get a Canon, then? Today, Canon struggle behind Nikon at excatly those issues. So it's a poor choice. Further, a couple of months ago, the correct choice would be Canon.

And I can tell you that when I do event coverage, I want as little background distractions as possible, especially in crowded environments. APS-C + an f/1.4 lens gets the job done nicely, and FF would be even better. If I'm doing portraits, the same rule applies. If I'm shooting motorsports, background blur helps accentuate motion blur.

Well, that's your style of shooting. Is that true for the average Joe? I venture to guess, that more people struggle with too little DOF than too much.

It's not a generally valid argument in any way. You also have to consider the price difference between a full frame option and a crop option.

Again. Why would I pay more money for less of what I want, no matter how much less?

Because it surely would satisfy you. If you actually tried shooting these cameras, rather than just getting stuck up in fact sheets and teory, you would probably come to the conclusion that the differences are small enough that there's no real point talking about them.

You go on and on about not paying for less. Well, less would be true if you were talking about a noticable difference in quality. No matter what you say, that's not the situation.

Indeed, it won't matter to most beginners. But people aren't just buying a camera, they're buying into a system. Why would I recommend what I consider to be a crippled system with no leeway for fixing the problem?

Because it's not crippled. That's simply a myth. For any user out there who has not any very specific needs, any of the systems out there are good enough. What does matter is what fits the best in your hands. For me, a 400D would never fit the bill cause of the grip. My E-400 fits a lot better, to be frank. Or a D40 for that matter.

On that note, why the hell would anyone recommend a crippled camera like the D40? You know what I'm talking about. It's really not a relevant argument anymore (a bit like sensor size, but anyhoo), but in theory, the D40 is a crippled camera.

You say that like I've never heard of film before. I carry my rangefinder 10X more than I carry my DSLR, and I've shot almost every kind of film short of 8X10. I'm not new to this game.

Your argumentation generally points to me being a fanboy not able to see the shortcommings of my own system. Oh, hell I do. But I refuse to listen to opinions being carried off as facts, and plain disinformation.

Hahaha, again there's not much hardware out there I haven't had a go with. I think the only modern digital cameras I haven't demoed at some point are the H3D and the newer Leaf Aptus backs. Well, there's those LF scanning backs too, but they don't interest me.

I would hassard to guess that I have done more shooting with both Canon and Nikon than you have with any fourthirds camera.

Bottom line is that no matter how much you rant, you're not going to convince me to recommend Four Thirds to anyone. I'm not telling you not to use and enjoy your equipment, I'm not telling you to switch systems, because I don't care. However, if someone asks my opinion on it, I will give it. You really needn't continue debating this, because I've shared my piece and that's enough for me.

Bottom line is, that you represent small issues as huge problems.

Bottom line is, that for anyone who hasn't got any real reason to pick any system, what system they pick is of as little importance to their photography as the color of their underpants.

The only good answer you can give anyone searching for a camera is to walk into your nearest well sorted camera shop, try handling the cameras and picking the camera that fits your hand the best.

Saying that any system of today is crippled really doesn't hold up.

I am not saying you can't think that, but that doesn't make it right.

And just to have mentioned it, there's lots of things I'd like to have with 4/3.

- Faster lenses, particularily a couple of f/1.4 primes (we have the 25/1.4, okay, but the 30/1.4 doesn't qualify cause of being Sigma). I suppose this will be added later, after all, fourthirds is only a couple of years old.
- Better high ISO performance. Just as a note, I'd want this with a D300 too. There's still a way to go.
- Higher framerate. The 8fps of the D300 is very impressive.
- Better finder on the budget models. They're generally fine, but still, a bit bigger finders wouldn't hurt. E-3's finder is brilliant.
- Better battery capasity, the D300 is notably better on this.
- A couple of 12-18mm primes.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I weren't a bit tired, but I guess it's enough. There is no such thing as the perfect system.

I guess my point is this; have your opinions, use your system, it's just as good as any other. But don't go telling people in a definate tone that the fourthirds system is useless.

Because it is not.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by nomix

Okay. Let's see. The 150/2.0. It's a lens that Canon can match on APS-C with their 200/2.0L. Nikon can't match it. It's been made 'the best lens we have ever tested' by DIWA labs.

I was just going to let this die, but I couldn't let this part slide. "Best lens ever" from a site that's tested a whopping 6 Nikon lenses, and half of them were consumer zooms, and only one budget macro prime! Wow, what an accomplishment. I wondered why I'd never heard of DIWA Labs before, and now I see why.

The 150/2 is probably excellent. The Canon is too. So is the Nikon 200/2. Nobody's playing to lose in the pro market.

[nomix]

They really haven't tested more than six Nikkor lenses? What the f*ck? Well, fine enough. Never noticed that.

No matter what you're saying, any lens in the top pro series is superb. Just like gold ring and red ring lenses from others. Platina ring lenses are just as good.

And pro lenses are also very, very good. 12-60. Great lens. So is the 50-200, so is the 11-22. But nevermind.

I'll let this go too, but I won't let you get away with telling people that the fourthirds system is much worse than any other system. Then I will correct you.