Just about to leap DSLR..... Still Confused

[Norman]

I've thought for a year once the money was there that I would go with the Canon 10D, then I saw the Olympus E1. The main attraction to the E1 is with 2 lenses I can virtually cover my shooting requirements, it's smaller & well built.

The problem after reading reviews, reading Uwe's web site review this DAM AA filter thing has thrown me too. I'm reading the AA produces soft images, that need software sharpening, does anyone know if this camera to a relative computer newbie will produce biting sharp 20x16 prints to rival or surpass the 10D.

Footnote: I'm a Nikon user from the dark ages, have an FM which has little system use with todays sytems. So I'm starting with a clean slate. I'm now ready to buy & more confused than ever.

[EOSThree]

I recently purchased a 10D, the reason I went with it was I already had a selection of Canon lenses and it had fine reviews. I took a long look at the Sigma SD-10, the foveon sensor looks really interesting to me. But the having to switch lens systems and the high noise at high ISOs concerned me. I can't consider Nikon, its kind of like the Ford vs Chevy thing for me, I just can't see owning a Nikon, no real reasons it's just personal .
I have to admit I didn't know anything about the Olympus E1, so I took a crash course in the camera at http://www.dpreview.com. It looks like a pretty well thought out camera, the image quality looks good, and the 4/3 system is interesting. Since you are starting from scratch it looks like it would be a decent camera.
If the 4/3 system catches on it could be a good standard for the smaller sensor on the DSLRs. Since the two 300 lb gorillas on the block haven't adopted it though, the 4/3 system could easily go the way of 110 or APS. Nikon and Canon have both come out with a special lens for digital cameras, but I like the fact their whole lens system works with their DSLRs. In looking at Phil's noise comparisons the E1 definitley has more noise than the 10D at higher ISOs. It also showed more moire' than the 10D. All of this could be acceptible if the price was right, however the price is in the range of the 10D, or D-70.
The AA filter thing is a compromise with the way a digital camera makes images. It is necessary to reduce moire' patterns in images. Most digicams use in camera post processing to sharpen up, and generally punch up the filtered images, the DSLRs don't use as much in camera post processing resulting in a softer looking image. It's good if you want to use the digital darkroom to do your own punching up, instead of what the camera chooses to do for you.

[Photo-John]

Norman-
I thought Uwe liked the E1. I had lunch with him a few weeks ago and he showed me some very nice prints made from E1 files. I don't know if they were as sharp as 10D images would have been. But I don't know if would have been able to capture the same images without the E1 lenses that you mentioned. The system is always a very important element in choosing a camera.

I wouldn't worry so much about the AA filter. As far as I know, all digital SLRs have them, to varying degrees. It's easy enough to sharpen up your images after the fact. In fact, I think that's the best way to do it.

Hopefully Uwe will see this thread and jump in to give you his thoughts.

[Sebastian]

Talking about AA filters is akin to car buffs talking about turbo boost...it borderlines on needless. Yes, there is a difference, but does it matter in everyday shooting? For some, yes, for the majority, probably not.

Buy into a good SYSTEM, one that is established, and will support you in the long run. THat pretty much leaves Nikon and Canon. I jut switched to Canon from Nikon, but I would recommend the D70 as a great intro camera if you don't expect a lot of lens investment. If you do plan on spending big bucks on glass, Canon is cheaper and better featured in the more expensive lenses.

[Norman]

Canon has always been attractive from the point of view of IS on their lenses, which is maybe the better system than Nikon VR, I'm looking at the 100-400 IS USM & maybe saving money on the 17-40F4 (F4 seems crazy slow).

The AA thingy is a concern for someone who does not get off on computer work, I like the taking pictures, so the least post production the better, that was a concern on the E1, it seemed to NEED the extra time in PP to obtain sharp results.

The D70 flaw to me is minimum 200ISO, everything else about the camera seems great, I just don't want too much noise at everyday shooting settings & ISO 100 would seem to be better.

Thanks as usual for your insight, that's why I ask. I'm a pack rat & will hold onto this new camera too long......it's a disease!

[Norman]

Norman-
I thought Uwe liked the E1. I had lunch with him a few weeks ago and he showed me some very nice prints made from E1 files. I don't know if they were as sharp as 10D images would have been. But I don't know if would have been able to capture the same images without the E1 lenses that you mentioned. The system is always a very important element in choosing a camera.

I wouldn't worry so much about the AA filter. As far as I know, all digital SLRs have them, to varying degrees. It's easy enough to sharpen up your images after the fact. In fact, I think that's the best way to do it.

Hopefully Uwe will see this thread and jump in to give you his thoughts.

Hi PJ,

It was the softness that seems to be coming up, the camera seems very attractivly spec'ed. I'm not as well educated at the computer side of things, so I wanted out of the box GREAT performance, I want to print large photo's to hang on my walls, with the abilities I possess today, I'm trying to learn as I go, that's why this whole site has been so valuable to me. I guess I'm 48hours away from getting this next camera & am suffering a bit of, what if's, big time!

[Sebastian]

Hi PJ,

It was the softness that seems to be coming up, the camera seems very attractivly spec'ed. I'm not as well educated at the computer side of things, so I wanted out of the box GREAT performance, I want to print large photo's to hang on my walls, with the abilities I possess today, I'm trying to learn as I go, that's why this whole site has been so valuable to me. I guess I'm 48hours away from getting this next camera & am suffering a bit of, what if's, big time!

Norman,

Sharpening, by its very nature, introduces artifacts. Mainly, contrasty halos around the edges of detail. SLRs use less sharpening than consumer cameras, because SLR users are assumed to be using the shots for many different purposes, and should apply sharpening settings for the final output, not using the in-camera algorithms. Most SLR users turn sharpening OFF. Detail is not lost, it just produces a better end result if you do it manually. Not for ALL instances of course, but for most use this is the preferred method.

I am sorry, but with digital YOU become your lab. Post processing is not only the norm, it's pretty much a necessary evil, if you think of it as evil. The higher-end cameras leave the image largely untouched for you to work with them, and that is the best way to get maximum quality out of whatever camera you're using.

Having a shot come straight out of a camera and be ready for something is largely unrealistic. Plus, once you learn all the post-processing methods, you will see that you really don't spend much time in front of a computer. The techniques are pretty quick, and you obviously don't process every image, only the ones you want to do something with. It is actually something that one can learn to enjoy, not unlike spending hours in the darkroom, but with less frustration and the ability to undo.

[ustein]

We recently shot a 1Ds and E-1 side by side in Death Valley

http://www.jirvana.com/galleries/1ds...y_01/index.htm
http://www.jirvana.com/galleries/oly...1_03/index.htm


Here are my findings:

- Of course the 1Ds delivers more resolution
- I like the 4:3 aspect ratio a lot
- For nature photos the higher DOF of the E-1 is very nice

- The E-1 has strong AA filter and needs lot of sharpening (but my new plugin Simple Sharpening does the trick)
- I miss image stabilization on the E-1
- I would say the E-1 is a very good quality travel camera.
- Even owning a 1Ds the E-1 never felt like a second class camera

- I use Adobe Camera raw for the raw conversion and the E-1 shots are easy to work with

- The E-1 autofocus needs improvement (but no big deal for our style of phtography)
-the 50-200 (equivalent 100-400) lens is very nice and has wonderful range.
- A 1Ds is way more expensive

Uwe

[Norman]

Thanks Uwe for you links, I have spent time on your site following your extensive reviews, thanks for your thoughts.

And thanks to everyone else, I find it a big step to take,