"Ack!" The hater of Olympus and 4/3rds joins Dpreview!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Waterproof case for A570IS or Waterproof Camera
Next: Dpreview. Strapped for real news, or in sales pitch mode?
From: Alfred Molon on 24 Jan 2010 08:44 In article <gAU6n.30855$Ym4.20921(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, david- taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid says... > Whilst I am very interested in and very keen on photography, I am very > unlikely to pay GBP 1000 for an Olympus lens, particularly when that lens > is heavier and bigger than then the Nikon equivalent. A couple of years ago I was in the market for a long zoom lens to use for wildlife photography. Was told to get an F2.8 lens, because it would help in dark rainforests. Bigger, heavier and more expensive than an F4 or F5.6 lens, but definitely more suitable for wildlife photography in rainforests. The bottom line is that you buy the lens you need and if a F4 lens is not bright enough you have to get an F2.8 or F2 lens. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: Bruce on 24 Jan 2010 08:57 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:31:20 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:6bdol51982b87bme8tl9psokaljijr8evi(a)4ax.com... >[] >> At ISO 100, there is little or no practical difference in image >> quality between Olympus and Nikon sensors. >> >> But there is a difference in the optical quality of the lenses. And >> that difference favours the Olympus products. The optical quality of >> Nikon consumer-grade glass has never been anything to write home >> about, whereas even the cheaper Olympus lenses have excellent optics >> thanks to their near-telecentric design. >> >> The pro grade Digital Zuiko lenses have outstanding optics. >> >> Overall image quality is a combination of optical performance and >> sensor performance (plus accurate focusing and a stable platform). At >> ISO 100, all other things being equal, the Olympus DSLR will shine >> thanks to its superior optics. At much higher ISOs, the Nikon will >> shine thanks to its lower noise sensor. >> >> So the result of the comparison is nowhere near as conclusive in >> favour of the Nikon as you would like (us) to think. > >At ISO 100, almost any sensor (including the ones in some compact cameras) >may give adequate image quality. As someone who likes smaller aperture >lenses, the high ISO performance is what matters more to me. I can quite >happily use ISO 3200. And the point is /not/ about image quality, but the >lack of comparable compact and lightweight Olympus lenses to the Nikon >range, which has been adequately demonstrated. On the contrary, there is a good selection of Olympus lenses that offer not only compact size and light weight but optical performance that is demonstrably superior to the Nikon's consumer grade lenses. You are quite clearly in denial about that. I agree that there are not exact equivalents to the focal lengths of your Nikkors. However, there is a more than adequate selection of ranges of focal length for Olympus users. >If you insist on a Nikon/Olympus comparison, for me the lack of in-lens >image stabilisation would be a major factor. You sound as if you keep >your camera set to ISO 100 on a tripod, I don't, so it's not surprising >that we will have different best-buys. My best-buy DSLR is my Nikon D700 which I use at ISOs up to 12,800. I also use my Canon EOS 5D at high ISOs. It performs well, though not quite as well as the D700. Most of my lenses are Nikkors, including 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms and a selection of very high quality fixed focal length lenses. So I don't need any lectures from you, or your snide comments. The difference between us is that I am prepared to recognise that DSLR systems other than the one I use also have their strengths. You appear quite unwilling to recognise that, and I can only conclude that your fears of buyers' remorse (having spent a lot of money on products of one particular brand) have clouded your objectivity. You appear to have a need to dismiss rival products, regardless of their merits, which would seem to indicate a deep-seated insecurity about your own choice of equipment. This insecurity is not uncommon when people spend relatively large amounts of money on a consumer item. It means that they need to convince themselves that all the other available choices would have been wrong. In conclusion, I note that, throughout the discussion, you have consistently refused to address the fact that all the Olympus Zuiko lenses for Four Thirds DSLRs - even the cheapest - are optically superior to consumer-grade Nikkors.
From: David J Taylor on 24 Jan 2010 10:22 > A couple of years ago I was in the market for a long zoom lens to use > for wildlife photography. Was told to get an F2.8 lens, because it would > help in dark rainforests. Bigger, heavier and more expensive than an F4 > or F5.6 lens, but definitely more suitable for wildlife photography in > rainforests. The bottom line is that you buy the lens you need and if a > F4 lens is not bright enough you have to get an F2.8 or F2 lens. > -- > > Alfred Molon As I said, different people would make different choices, as they have different needs and budgets. My own preference is to turn up the ISO and save on both weight, bulk, and expense - I don't do enough of the type of photography which might justify something more expensive. It's just a hobby for me. Cheers, David
From: David J Taylor on 24 Jan 2010 10:34 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:89jol5p019vo0pue60ldu2flj2hb25h879(a)4ax.com... [] > On the contrary, there is a good selection of Olympus lenses that > offer not only compact size and light weight but optical performance > that is demonstrably superior to the Nikon's consumer grade lenses. > > You are quite clearly in denial about that. I looked and saw none. > I agree that there are not exact equivalents to the focal lengths of > your Nikkors. However, there is a more than adequate selection of > ranges of focal length for Olympus users. > > >>If you insist on a Nikon/Olympus comparison, for me the lack of in-lens >>image stabilisation would be a major factor. You sound as if you keep >>your camera set to ISO 100 on a tripod, I don't, so it's not surprising >>that we will have different best-buys. > > > My best-buy DSLR is my Nikon D700 which I use at ISOs up to 12,800. I > also use my Canon EOS 5D at high ISOs. It performs well, though not > quite as well as the D700. Most of my lenses are Nikkors, including > 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms and a selection of very high > quality fixed focal length lenses. > > So I don't need any lectures from you, or your snide comments. The > difference between us is that I am prepared to recognise that DSLR > systems other than the one I use also have their strengths. If you are going to make insults, the discussion ends here. > You appear quite unwilling to recognise that, and I can only conclude > that your fears of buyers' remorse (having spent a lot of money on > products of one particular brand) have clouded your objectivity. Nonsense. I looked at three DSLR systems before making my choice. > You > appear to have a need to dismiss rival products, regardless of their > merits, which would seem to indicate a deep-seated insecurity about > your own choice of equipment. I have dismissed nothing, simply stated that Olympus don't have the lenses I prefer whereas Nikon do. > This insecurity is not uncommon when people spend relatively large > amounts of money on a consumer item. It means that they need to > convince themselves that all the other available choices would have > been wrong. > > In conclusion, I note that, throughout the discussion, you have > consistently refused to address the fact that all the Olympus Zuiko > lenses for Four Thirds DSLRs - even the cheapest - are optically > superior to consumer-grade Nikkors. Simply because I am not in a position to make that judgment. Leica may make even better quality lenses, and perhaps Canon L-series are better, I say nothing about those lenses either. In any case, it doesn't enter into the argument as Olympus don't offer what I want simply in terms of apertures and focal lengths. Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 24 Jan 2010 10:52
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:34:10 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:89jol5p019vo0pue60ldu2flj2hb25h879(a)4ax.com... >[] >> On the contrary, there is a good selection of Olympus lenses that >> offer not only compact size and light weight but optical performance >> that is demonstrably superior to the Nikon's consumer grade lenses. >> >> You are quite clearly in denial about that. > >I looked and saw none. > >> I agree that there are not exact equivalents to the focal lengths of >> your Nikkors. However, there is a more than adequate selection of >> ranges of focal length for Olympus users. >> >> >>>If you insist on a Nikon/Olympus comparison, for me the lack of in-lens >>>image stabilisation would be a major factor. You sound as if you keep >>>your camera set to ISO 100 on a tripod, I don't, so it's not surprising >>>that we will have different best-buys. >> >> >> My best-buy DSLR is my Nikon D700 which I use at ISOs up to 12,800. I >> also use my Canon EOS 5D at high ISOs. It performs well, though not >> quite as well as the D700. Most of my lenses are Nikkors, including >> 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms and a selection of very high >> quality fixed focal length lenses. >> >> So I don't need any lectures from you, or your snide comments. The >> difference between us is that I am prepared to recognise that DSLR >> systems other than the one I use also have their strengths. > >If you are going to make insults, the discussion ends here. I could have taken the same attitude with your snide comments above. It seems that such childish insults are your speciality, but I am mature enough to ignore them. |