Hello to Everybody!
What do you think about Olympus D-SLR Cameras, for amateur pictures?
I had a good experience, as beginner and intermediate photographer, with Olympus 4/3" camera (E-510).
Why, in general, the amateur photographers choose, mostly, Nikon or Canon? Should be the commercials?
I am very interested in to see your opinions!
Thanks and regards,
#1. "RE: Olympus D-SLR Cameras" | In response to Reply # 0Covey22 Charter MemberThu 05-Jan-12 01:00 AM
Part of the reason Four-Thirds never really succeeded as well as the other brands is that the format really didn't deliver on the lighter, yet same high performance promise that the advertisements were touting. The comparison alone in terms of Crop Factor made it a difficult sell to wide-angle shooters. When Olympus started delivering dedicated FT lenses, they weren't any cheaper or lighter than their full-frame competitors. Also, great strides were being made in high-ISO performance using DX sensors, while FT lagged behind.
Four-Thirds really found it's niche as the Micro-version and started the current Interchangeable lens compact market. I like mFT a lot and have had a lot of fun with an E-PL1.
#2. "RE: Olympus D-SLR Cameras" | In response to Reply # 1Thu 05-Jan-12 08:43 AM
Thank you for your answer, Armando!
Interesting opinion, because the Micro Four Thirds sensor size is the same with the size of Four Thirds, and you said that you have a lot of fun with Olympus E-PL1.
My experience is that I found some problems with deep of field. Also, at my E-510, I found that viewfinder size is only 0.92x finder magnification factor.
But, with all these "issues", I was more than happy with this camera. Also, the software of the camera is very easy to use, having all important settings displayed and ready to be changed imediately on the main screen.
Waiting for other opinions and experiences with Olympus cameras!
Wishing you all the best,
#3. "RE: Olympus D-SLR Cameras" | In response to Reply # 2Captain Rich Nikonian since 25th May 2006Thu 05-Jan-12 11:35 AM | edited Thu 05-Jan-12 11:37 AM by Captain Rich
I was on a two week trip this past fall, and met a Nikon shooter in Quebec City who had a Pen E-P3 and a couple of lenses with him - he said he now travels with the E-P3 rather than his Nikon. I took a look at it and was immediately impressed! I started thinking of m4/3 as an alternative to carrying a P&S (along with the Nikon) on travel. So, I recently bought an E-P2 when I saw a bargain on it. I've been doing more traveling of late, and have found - more and more - that I hate carrying the size and weight of my Nikon kit. Love the cameras and lenses, but hate the bulk. I think the little m4/3 will be a great travel camera. Light, unobtrusive, small lenses, very good image quality (although not up to Nikon's). What I haven't come to like about the Pen, though, is the menu system. I sure wish Nikon would buy Olympus and fix their menu system! I'm planning a 3 week trip to Italy and France next fall, and I plan to go strictly with the Oly (although I may take my LX3 too, if I can ever get it repaired properly). I think I'll be able to get high quality photos for a slide show, and carry everything I need in my Thank Tank Retrospective 5 bag. This should be a much more travel friendly kit.
#4. "RE: Olympus D-SLR Cameras" | In response to Reply # 3Thu 05-Jan-12 12:26 PM
As I said, Rich!
I was impressed of software and menus of my Olympus, too.
Thank you for sharing your experience with us about Olympus!
As someone said: "The Four Thirds sensor is still ... a source of controversy, discussions and flaming wars. Some people see it as the future of digital SLR photography, others as
an evolutionary dead end!"
#5. "RE: Olympus D-SLR Cameras" | In response to Reply # 2Covey22 Charter MemberThu 05-Jan-12 12:55 PM
I like mFT because of the body format, not neccessarily because of the sensor. mFT succeeded where FT did not because of those reasons I stated. mFT is light and delivers enough of a bang because the sensor is much larger than any of the compact cameras in the market. Now that Olympus and Panasonic are delivering very wide-angle lenses starting at 12mm (effectively 24mm on FT/mFT) and they don't cost a fortune, wide-angle options are plentiful.
The problem with FT was that the body alone matched the APS-C competitors, all the way to size and weight. Given those factors, there was no compelling reason I would pick say a E-510 or E-520 over a D2H or even a D70. APS-C is larger and had clear advantages in ISO performance and less impact crop-factor wise. Why would I pay for an FT 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 that cost almost as much as a Generation II Nikon AFS 300mm f2.8 non-VR?
But mFT delivered on all those promises that FT didn't. And I'm glad of it.