Rugby_Nut
journeyman
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 99
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Hi Guys
My interest in photography has been greatly increased in recent times after purchase of an Oly compact followed by an Oly bridge (SP560). Before kids and mortgage I dabbled in SLR photography with Oly and Pentax (long time ago I'm afraid  ). The SP560 is a pretty good all rounder but suffers with image quality in anything other than bright daylight and any ISO setting above 200 can be disappointing. Saving images in RAW is also a good cure for insomnia. So, I'm now looking at moving up to dslr. Landscape, flora, fauna, buildings are my main interests.
Being an Oly user for most of my life, my heart says I should go for the e520 with twin lens kit. It is very portable and according to the reviews I've seen will perform very well.
My brain however worries about the 4:3 system and potential potential noise at higher ISO may be a problem.
Please tell me that I have nothing to worry about! Or alternatively, can any one recommend a better option in the £500 to £800 range. Clearly I'm at a point when lens selection becomes more critical in terms of future upgrades.
--------------------
Chris
Rugby is a game for big b*ggers. if you're not a big b*gger, you get hurt. I wasn't a big b*gger but i was a fast b*gger and therefore I avoided the big b*ggers.
(Spike Milligan)
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 403
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Hi Chris and welcome!
I think your decision will depend on what you want to do with your photographs. If you want the absolute maximum image quality currently available within your price range, then the 4/3rds syatem may not be for you. However, if you are prepared to compromise a little on image quality for the benefits of a smaller kit, then 4/3rds could be for you. In most situations, I don't think you'll find image quality an issue at all up to IS0 400. At ISO 800, you will see some noise that is probably ok. At ISO 1600, you will see distinct noise. Noise will be increased in low light situations and will be much less noticeable in bright light.
I have an E-500 (now an old model) and the images it produces for competitions, exhibitions and projection are excellent and cause no concern in comparison to anything else. For prints up to A3 size, I don't think you need to worry at all if you fancy an E-520. Would I buy one myself? Yes, most certainly because it would do everything I would need it to do.
You will get different views from others, but IMO if you like small and light kit, you are unlikely to be dissatisfied in opting for an Olympus DSLR.
May I suggest you have a look at some images produced with an E-520 here or on other web sites and see for yourself if you think image quality is up to what you would hope for. I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Hope that helps.
--------------------
Rob
|
raymebaby
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 45
|
|
Hi Chris
I changed to the E510 (not much difference from E520) from a Nikon D200 over a year ago. My main reasons were overall weight, in-body vibration reduction on the Olympus, and the presence of a dust removing facility. Image quality on the Nikon was always reckoned to be pretty good, but for me the pics from the Olympus were every bit as impressive, if not better. A lot of my photography is indoor, low-light, without flash, and noise has never been an issue. The Olympus lenses are brilliant - and feather-light compared to equivalent others I've had.
I bought an E-3 when that came out - so I've got the weight back now in one respect - but the difference is that, with the extra speed and range of 4/3rds lenses, and their low weight, I can still take an effective outfit everywhere. I'm going to the Isle of Man in a couple of months to photograph the Manx GP. Taking an appropriate Nikon outfit on the bike has been really daunting in the past. With the Olympus it's easy.
Incidentally, I blow up my best pics to suit some 800mm X 600mm frames I have. I think the quality is stunning. To my mind the 4/3rds IQ/noise problem is a complete red herring put around in forums such as this - a sort of mantra - say it often enough and it'll be true. Maybe that's why Olympus users get so worked up about it. It's a fiction. I wouldn't let it worry you. I'd recommend this system 100%.
Hope that's helpful.
Trevor
www.flickr.com/photos/raymebaby/
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
It's a fiction.
With all due respect, that statement is the fiction. Anyone who thinks that the high ISO noise of any 4/3 camera can compare with full frame, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land. However, what IS true is that that might not be remotely important to the photographer in question - if you seldom use very high ISO settings, then it simply doesn't matter. The choice of camera is always a compromise - it's up to the individual to determine what aspects are important to him/her. In other words, Rob hit the nail precisely on the head with his helpful comments.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 6974
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
Please tell me that I have nothing to worry about!
You've nothing to worry about 
Quote:
Or alternatively, can any one recommend a better option in the £500 to £800 range.
I won't dare call it a better option in this room, but a couple of months ago I went for this camera in the same sort of price range. You can't really go wrong as you'll get a good camera for the money you are spending but since you don't have any lenses tying you to Olympus DSLRs you might aswell try out other brands and see if there is a camera you like the feel of more than others.
Certainly if it was photographing moving subjects that interested you I'd recommend the Canon but since it's not it's just an other option to consider.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
raymebaby
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 45
|
|
Quote:
With all due respect, that statement is the fiction. Anyone who thinks that the high ISO noise of any 4/3 camera can compare with full frame, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land.
With all due respect to you - how does full-frame come into this this discussion? I think you've just reinforced my point.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
With all due respect, that statement is the fiction. Anyone who thinks that the high ISO noise of any 4/3 camera can compare with full frame, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land.
With all due respect to you - how does full-frame come into this this discussion? I think you've just reinforced my point.
And with all remaining respect, I said it was an example - the same applies to APS-C, but to a lesser extent - but this is in response to you wrongly saying that the issue is a red herring. It may effectively be for you, but that's not an absolute, and your posting was therefore misleading. It IS an issue, the question is simply one of if that issue is important to the individual making a purchase decision or not. Trying to pretend it doesn't exist is downright unhelpful - giving the balanced view that Rob did can really help the OP. You seem to me to be far more interested in promoting the 4/3 system than helping the OP, and I find that extremely sad - it could well be that it's the right decision for him, but only if he accepts that there is a slight trade-off in this area for the reduced size and weight of the system - it's not an unreasonable trade-off, and one that would probably suit the majority of photographers, but to pretend it's not there, well...
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Rugby_Nut
journeyman
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 99
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Thanks Guys
I've seen posts re 4:3 before and they always seem to go off on a bit of a tangent!
Am I correct in assuming that Oly have committed to 4:3 and that in essence the physical dimensions of the sensor cannot change? In other words, are they relying on improved technology to increase sensitivity and therefore quality in the future?
My only other concern is that the Oly dslr range seems quite small compared to either Canon or Nikon. Are there any rumours re a model in between the 520 and the E3?
Is the twin lens option with the e520 a good option (I suspect from a pricing point of view that it is) or can you guys recommend lens' from other manufacturers? Given my shooting preferences I would need wide angle and reasonable telephoto. I should also mention that low light shooting is important for me.
--------------------
Chris
Rugby is a game for big b*ggers. if you're not a big b*gger, you get hurt. I wasn't a big b*gger but i was a fast b*gger and therefore I avoided the big b*ggers.
(Spike Milligan)
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 403
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
Thanks Guys
I've seen posts re 4:3 before and they always seem to go off on a bit of a tangent!
Am I correct in assuming that Oly have committed to 4:3 and that in essence the physical dimensions of the sensor cannot change? In other words, are they relying on improved technology to increase sensitivity and therefore quality in the future?
My only other concern is that the Oly dslr range seems quite small compared to either Canon or Nikon. Are there any rumours re a model in between the 520 and the E3?
Is the twin lens option with the e520 a good option (I suspect from a pricing point of view that it is) or can you guys recommend lens' from other manufacturers? Given my shooting preferences I would need wide angle and reasonable telephoto. I should also mention that low light shooting is important for me.
Oly have certainly committed to the 4/3rds sensor and yes, future development is likely to be technological advances rather than any change in format size. The smaller sensor is as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage; as a miniaturised format, slightly less than highest quality is compensated for by smaller more portable high quality photography. The quality issue exists, but I don't think it's as big an issue as it's made out to be. Remember, my images appear in company with those from APS-c and FF formats and generally no one is any the wiser (in exhibitions, competitions and as projected images). But if Dr.Pixel comes along and subjects them to magnified scrutiny, he will find a difference. My point is, I don't think any difference is that meaningful for amateur/enthusiast photography, but a pro, or someone who aspired to being a pro might think differently, where ultimate IQ was critical. You must judge for yourself and decide if 4/3rds passes your own quality threshold. To help you do that, have a look here where you will find plenty of examples all captured with Olys (or other 4/3rds cameras). Bear in mind that these have been resized for web publication and the original images will be higher resolution.
A model in between the E-520 and the E-3 might be nice, but most E-510/20 users, (and dare I say E-500 users like myself) are pretty satisfied with what they can deliver anyway.
Persoanlly I think the kit lenses are a good choice. They have a pretty good reputation, although the I believe the 14-42 does have a plastic mount which I don't really approve of (the earlier 14-45 has a metal mount). I just prefer metal, but the plastics are so good these days it probably matters little. I wouldn't limit myself to one super zoom lens to cover the entire range as it seems to defeat the object of having a DSLR. I think you will get better quality pics from using two lenses.
--------------------
Rob
Edited by Photocracy (09/07/2008 13:31)
|
Rugby_Nut
journeyman
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 99
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Much obliged to you Rob.
--------------------
Chris
Rugby is a game for big b*ggers. if you're not a big b*gger, you get hurt. I wasn't a big b*gger but i was a fast b*gger and therefore I avoided the big b*ggers.
(Spike Milligan)
|
raymebaby
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 45
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With all due respect, that statement is the fiction. Anyone who thinks that the high ISO noise of any 4/3 camera can compare with full frame, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land.
With all due respect to you - how does full-frame come into this this discussion? I think you've just reinforced my point.
And with all remaining respect, I said it was an example - the same applies to APS-C, but to a lesser extent - but this is in response to you wrongly saying that the issue is a red herring. It may effectively be for you, but that's not an absolute, and your posting was therefore misleading. It IS an issue, the question is simply one of if that issue is important to the individual making a purchase decision or not. Trying to pretend it doesn't exist is downright unhelpful - giving the balanced view that Rob did can really help the OP. You seem to me to be far more interested in promoting the 4/3 system than helping the OP, and I find that extremely sad - it could well be that it's the right decision for him, but only if he accepts that there is a slight trade-off in this area for the reduced size and weight of the system - it's not an unreasonable trade-off, and one that would probably suit the majority of photographers, but to pretend it's not there, well...
There’s clearly no remaining respect. Do you need to be so pedantic and patronising? I guess that to enthusiastically endorse 4/3 will inevitably be characterised in such terms as ‘extremely sad’ and ‘in cloud cuckoo land’. My initial comments were intended to be helpful, and were based on my own experience. I apologise to anyone who finds such an endorsement offensive.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
By all means make your comments as your opinion and experience - that's actually really helpful. But make it clear that it is opinion, not unchallengable fact, or you will be challenged, because that really isn't helpful. And it's the same whatever format it is, and whatever manufacturer, as you would know if you looked in any of the other camera rooms (well, to be fair I can't recall the last one in the Minolta or Sony rooms) - it just so happens that in this case it's 4/3 because that's what we happen to be talking about. Don't even attempt to make my comments an attack on 4/3 or 4/3 users in general, they're certainly not, they're comments about somebody letting their enthusiasm get the better of what they write. Look, the OP has indicated that he's got some concerns in the area of low-light/high ISO performance. If you say the issue doesn't exist at all, what if the OP buys the camera as a result and then finds that he's not happy with it, as he has different requirements and perhaps standards to you? Have you then been helpful, or have you actually made things worse than if you hadn't answered? Whereas what Rob has done is to give the information and his opinion, and leave the OP to decide for himself - now that IS helpful, because the OP can make a judgement based on his own criteria. Forgive me if you think that's pedantic and patronising, because I think it's actually looking after the interests of our members - it's a matter of complete indifference to me what camera Chris buys, so long as he's happy with his choice. What I personally think he should do is make a shortlist based on his requirements and try them out and see what he feels most comfortable with - all we should really be trying to help him with is developing the shortlist.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
raymebaby
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 45
|
|
So, what you’re saying is: it’s unhelpful to be over-enthusiastic, as such comments could be mistaken for fact, and misused in an erroneous purchase. This will be particularly unfortunate, as I probably have lower standards than you, and of course, you are looking after the interests of members.
Why don’t you just say how you found the E5*0?
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 403
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
To be fair Nick, Trevor did set his first post within the overall context of his opinion, using the phrases "But for me..." and "To my mind...". Perhaps a similar qualifying opening could have been reiterated in the last couple of sentences. I don't think this need be a major disagreement.
Nick, there could be different outcomes here ! Grrrrrr 
--------------------
Rob
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
So, what you’re saying is: it’s unhelpful to be over-enthusiastic, as such comments could be mistaken for fact, and misused in an erroneous purchase.
When you present them as fact, yes. Be as over-enthusiastic as you like when you make clear it's opinion.
Quote:
This will be particularly unfortunate, as I probably have lower standards than you,
I have no idea what your standards are, nor those of the OP - and that's the point - you have no idea of the OP's standards, either. All we know is that a compact doesn't meet his requirements in this area.
Quote:
and of course, you are looking after the interests of members.
Indeed so.
Quote:
Why don’t you just say how you found the E5*0?
The results from it that I've seen are perfectly respectable, and IMVHO it should be on the OP's shortlist unless he is particularly demanding about high ISO performance. The E-520 appears to be a decent and sound camera that represnts good value in the two-lens kit. It's got a lot going for it. I'm absolutely not telling the OP not to buy it - it may be the camera that suits him best, and if it is, great. If he decides that nothing less than a Nikon D3 will suit him, that's great too - as long as he makes the decision that's right for him, it could be a film disposable for all I care. I find it utterly incomprehensible that anyone might take a different view to that, TBH - why should it matter to anyone else what brand somebody chooses? 
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
To be fair Nick, Trevor did set his first post within the overall context of his opinion, using the phrases "But for me..." and "To my mind...". Perhaps a similar qualifying opening could have been reiterated in the last couple of sentences. I don't think this need be a major disagreement.
Absolutely - it's only the comment "It's a fiction" that really needed resolving as far too definitive.
Quote:
Nick, there could be different outcomes here ! Grrrrrr
Perhaps. 
P.S. Sorry to pick on your post as a shining example of how to do it!
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Trevor, I feel I should apologise for the tone of my original post. Re-reading it I can see that phrases like “living in cloud cuckoo land” are far more provocative than I really intended, and I’m sorry for that, it wasn’t intended to cause offence. I need perhaps to listen to my own advice a little more on being careful in posts… 
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
raymebaby
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 45
|
|
Thanks Nick. Apology accepted. And, to be absolutely honest, it's probably not a total fiction...! And wouldn't it be boring if we were nice to each other all the time?!
Very best wishes
Trevor
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36427
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
And wouldn't it be boring if we were nice to each other all the time?!
Very true. Perhaps we could just try it once in a while, though?
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 19533
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
*puts nailed baseball bats back in the cupboard*
--------------------
Fen.
- Fen's Flickr Fotos -
"One good photograph does not a photographer make."
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
