ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
I know that I am a Newbie, but I can't help but notice that there seems to be an attitude amongst some that AP and WDC has a slant against Oly products. To make my position clear I only own a E-500 with the 14-45 lens + 70-300 Oly plus various accessories (IR Remote + Filters etc).I am committed to 4/3rds for better or worse. I am conviced that when Oly committed to 4/3rds they knew what they were doing, so do you, or you wouldn't be reading this thread. Having read AP 28/6/08 and specifcally Geoffrey Crawley's analysis of 4 Macro Lenses including the 50mm F:2 from Oly, the Nikkor 60mm came out on top with 93% and the Canon 60mm, Sigma 70mm and Oly 50mm at 91%. However, Geoffrey was to comment that "Image sharpness surely aided by Olympus's declred in camera processing, was exceptional...". I don't care whether my images are "exceptional" because of in camera processing or not, just that they are. The reason that the Nikkor won in the % stakes is entirely reasonable, the Nikkor goes to 1:1 whereas the Oly is only 1:2, in an Macro comparison,this is is definitive. What this shows is that Oly kit can hold it's head in the highest of levels, and that as users we should say that in the Macro test,as in any other, did the Oly product come joint second or joint last?
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3661
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
Does it matter? If there's anything between these lenses it'll only be spotted under test conditions and may even be subjective or a matter of preference.
Olympus make quality products which are innovative and advanced. Olympus had live view and anti dust (and other features too no doubt) before the others and they offer customers an attractive choice and package.
I don't own any Olympus kit but if I had chosen to buy Olympus I wouldn't feel the need to justify my choice and purchase to anyone. I'd just bask in smug satisfaction in the knowledge that I'd bought a well made, advanced and compact camera that suited my needs.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4987
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I am conviced that when Oly committed to 4/3rds they knew what they were doing, so do you, or you wouldn't be reading this thread.
Horses for courses. There are clear plus points to the four thirds system but it's not the only answer, or (on evidence so far) even an adequate one when the criterion is low noise / high ISO performance.
Personally I think Olympus would do themselves and everyone else a favour by test marketing a 645 format digital body at a reasonably affordable price. Sure it would be huge and clunky by the standards of the E-xxx and there's probably no way it could be produced in the "bargain basement" price bracket, but two stops better noise performance than full frame is capable of is something which some of us would find valuable.
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2585
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
I too read the review with interest, and the thing I noticed is that the Olympus 50 f2 was listed as having 79 diaphragm blades. Seems an awful lot to me, and I did wonder whether Waterhouse Stops might be easier to implement!
I was also surprised that the features list didn't include whether these macro lenses go to 1:1 or not. Yes, it's in the text but buried.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Hi ZenitE
Oly make fine cameras and what it has done with 4/3rds is what it's been doing for decades. Making small cameras which follow in the tradition of miniature photography, a concept defined originally by the arrival of the Leica.
The famous Pen series of the 1960s is a classic example of a niche Oly has consistently dominated ever since. Today's E series cameras carry on in the miniature tradition. Oly engineers clearly understood that digital presented new challenges, but that the long held desire by a significant part of the market would be just as strong for easy to carry and use, high quality cameras capable of delivering high quality images.
The Pen series of the 60s used a format half the size of 35mm frame, but were quickly appreciated by those who realised they could still turn out professional quality images from a camera which could be stuffed in a pocket and carried everywhere. People still go dewy-eyed talking about their Oly Pens. Oly did it again with the OM series, making a smaller, full frame 35mm SLR than had ever been seen before. People still go dewy-eyed talking about those too.
Then Oly launched the E series in 2003. Although a lot of digital technology meant bigger bodies, Oly succeeded in miniaturising digital SLR photography in just the same way it had with half-frame and 35mm. Driving down size and weight; utilising smaller formats; it's what Oly does best.
What some seem to have difficulty appreciating about 4/3rds, is that it has delivered publishable, high-quality miniature photography by using a smaller sensor. Yes, larger format sensors mean larger images are possible, but 4/3rds delivers publishable quality which is large enough, while offering all the great benefits of a smaller format. People who use and understand 4/3rds don't need any more. Even Canon have given a nod to the high-quality small format argument by bringing out their G9 fully controllable compact which many serious Canon folk now carry around with them everywhere. But although certainly a fine camera, it's still not a true, miniaturised, interchangeable-lens DSLR with the quality and versatllity which go hand in hand with such.
IMO, Olympus have done it again and more and more people seem to be discovering this for themselves.
On the macro article, I commented in another thread that I understand 4/3rds has enabled Olympus to cost effectively utilise superior concave front elements in some of its lenses including the ZD 50mm f2 macro. I use this lens myself and I must say, it is a star performer.
Finally, I too have an E-500 and I find it to be a wonderful camera. Coming from much larger Canon gear, it has been a revelation to me how liberating 4/3rds photography is. Image quality has never been an issue whatsoever in print or projected images, even in company among larger format brands. In theory, I'm sure someone could devise a demonstration to show a difference, but it would be largely irrelevant because in reality, in the way my images are used, it has never been an issue - not once.
--------------------
Rob
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7704
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
1:2 isn't really macro IMO. Suspect it's easier to make a lens that goes to 1:2 rather than 1:1 too?
Am sure the Oly 50mm is a cracking lens but for macro I think I'd rather have Sigma 105mm in 4/3rds fit.
Second or last what does it matter when the lenses are for different systems and they are all so good 
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4987
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
1:2 isn't really macro IMO. Suspect it's easier to make a lens that goes to 1:2 rather than 1:1 too?
Yup ... but a four thirds lens working at 1:2 has the same image scale as a full frame lens working at 1:1
One of those cases where the small sensor has a technical advantage.
Quote:
Am sure the Oly 50mm is a cracking lens but for macro I think I'd rather have Sigma 105mm in 4/3rds fit.
I think I might have difficulty finding my target object in a macro lens (with very restricted depth of field) at 210mm full-frame equivalent angle of view.
OTOH the longer focal length gets you extra working distance, which is sometimes worthwhile ... yeah, I know you like to stun your subjects by squashing them against the front element of your MP-E  but I certainly find it easier to keep my distance, even when working with flowers, which aren't good at running away.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3661
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
Good post that, photocracy. It makes me want to go out and buy one. 
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
Edited by alanS (26/06/2008 09:03)
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7704
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Macro is 1:1 or greater....no ifs butts or maybes about it in my eyes. I don't count crop factors as additional magnification and it is common to see magnification alongside format to give scale. Always has been AFAIK. That said I use APS-C instead of a bigger format as I do appreciate that the smaller format makes life easier as higher magnifications are more difficult. (I've used the MP-E on APS-C, APS-H, FF and 35mm)
210mm? Can't say I noticed a problem finding my targets with a 180mm macro lens on a 40D. (I think the MP-E works out as 600mm+ equiv focal length on APS-C when set for 5:1.....depends what you are used to I guess. Haven't a clue how I've got useable hand-held shots from it at 1/6th of a second...luck I expect )
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
Macro is 1:1 or greater....no ifs butts or maybes about it in my eyes. I don't count crop factors as additional magnification and it is common to see magnification alongside format to give scale...
And yet the reality, in print, on the wall in an exhibition or as a projected image would be indistinguishable. Surely, the 'no ifs or buts' point is irrelevant in relation to what the audience will see?
--------------------
Rob
Edited by Photocracy (26/06/2008 09:53)
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7704
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Macro is 1:1 or greater....no ifs butts or maybes about it in my eyes.
And yet the reality, in print, on the wall in an exhibition or as a projected image would be indistinguishable. Surely, the 'no ifs or buts' point is irrelevant in relation to what the audience will see?
I'm not suggesting you can't produce pretty close up pictures at less than 1:1. What I am saying is that the word "macro" when referring to photography means recording something at lifesize or greater. Macro is a technical term abused by marketing folk when they put it on lenses that don't go to 1:1.
There's a bit on Wiki saying that in marketing speak macro means that in a 6x4 print the subject will be bigger than it was in real life. Load of rubbish IMO....macro means recording at lifesize or greater not printing at lifesize or greater.
Some links here: Clicky
Canon marketing folk abuse the M word too....the Canon 50mm macro only does 1:2 and there's a load of zooms with macro written on them too. I suspect most manufacturers are at it 
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Bone_Idle
Mr Maybe
Reged: 28/07/2006
Posts: 1393
Loc: Bradford
|
|
The Zuiko 50mm is a funny one, it always apeared to me to be designed to be used with the EX-25 extension tube.
without it it is supposed to make a great portrait lens, pin sharp with great bokeh.
One thing I don't understand in the review is why Olympus in camera processing makes the lens sharper? Surely the sharpness is measure independently of the camera? Also, all digital cameras process the image don't they?
--------------------
Thanks
Nick
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
I'm not suggesting you can't produce pretty close up pictures at less than 1:1. What I am saying is that the word "macro" when referring to photography means recording something at lifesize or greater. Macro is a technical term abused by marketing folk when they put it on lenses that don't go to 1:1.
There's a bit on Wiki saying that in marketing speak macro means that in a 6x4 print the subject will be bigger than it was in real life. Load of rubbish IMO....macro means recording at lifesize or greater not printing at lifesize or greater.
I accept the technical distinction you make. But I'm not entirely convinced it's a useful or meaningful distinction in the context of a viewing audience in an exhibition room.
--------------------
Rob
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7704
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
I accept the technical distinction you make. But I'm not entirely convinced it's a useful or meaningful distinction in the context of a viewing audience in an exhibition room.
I agree, I don't think it's meaningful in the context of a print on the wall either....if the print on the wall looks nice who cares
So long as we agree macro means recording at lifesize or greater I'm happy 
Did you notice the bit in those links about it being easier to make a 1:2 lens than 1:1? So if the Oly lens is the easiest to make out of the 4 tested how come it didn't win? 
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
I agree, I don't think it's meaningful in the context of a print on the wall either....if the print on the wall looks nice who cares
So long as we agree macro means recording at lifesize or greater I'm happy
Did you notice the bit in those links about it being easier to make a 1:2 lens than 1:1? So if the Oly lens is the easiest to make out of the 4 tested how come it didn't win?
There's nothing easy about making concave lenses, which is why they are so rare! 
--------------------
Rob
|
Bone_Idle
Mr Maybe
Reged: 28/07/2006
Posts: 1393
Loc: Bradford
|
|
Is the oly lens the only one that is fully weatherproofed? If so, surely it sghould have been marked up on build or features?
--------------------
Thanks
Nick
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
Is the oly lens the only one that is fully weatherproofed? If so, surely it sghould have been marked up on build or features?
There is no mention on their respective websites of weather or dust proofing for the Nikkor, Sigma or Canon so no, it seems none of them have it.
The Oly lens is a pro lens, both dust and splash proof. It comes complete with lens hood and soft case.
The Sigma also comes with a lens hood and padded case.
The Nikon also comes with lens hood and soft case.
The Canon comes with neither lens hood nor case. Lens hood is additional £26.
One other Oly plus. I believe (and I'm prepared to be corrected on this) that it is the only one of the four tested which can have the direction of its manual focussing changed by the user to suit. Also, I think only the Canon and the Oly can perform seamless AF+manual without switching.
So yes, quite a few more factors to consider there.
--------------------
Rob
|
Bone_Idle
Mr Maybe
Reged: 28/07/2006
Posts: 1393
Loc: Bradford
|
|
when it comes down to it it's all about optical performance, and there was pretty much nothing between them.
I suspect the test just confirms that if you have an Oly camera, your top end Macro option performs well. If you have a Nikon or Canon, you can be confident their offrings doa great job and also have the option of the Sigma, which also performs well and is a bit cheaper.
--------------------
Thanks
Nick
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7704
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
FWIW I've used my Canon macro lenses in minging weather and not had problems....neither of mine are L lenses and probably fairly similar in how they are sealed to the 60mm.
A case is no use if the lens lives in a camera bag or on your camera and a lens hood is no use with a macro flash on the front. I wouldn't want to pay for stuff I didn't need so good on Canon for not bumping up the price with pointless frills that not everybody needs. If you want a case, hood and tripod ring then the Canon 180mm L comes with all that.
The Canon focus ring doesn't need to be able to change direction as it goes the right way already
Either way the Oly lens tested is just a pretend macro lens since it doesn't do 1:1 so the bells and whistles are insignificat IMO. (I think Nikon use the right term of "micro" for less than 1:1)
Does the Oly 50mm come with a lifesize convertor?
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Usually, I mount the 'pretend' macro on the camera, take my pretend shots, print them out 'cropped' (iffing and butting all the way). The results are of publishable quality and the pictures can be entered in exhibitions or competitions where they're generally indistinguishable from any other method of achieving the same thing. All subject to my photographic skills, of course . But then, I'm just pretending  .
Is it me, or is it dusty in here?
--------------------
Rob
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
