Nikon VS Olympus

I went and did some Year One pictures for a friend at the fire house. I have been thinking of switching to Nikon over my Olympus after 5 years. I think the Nikon handels harsh lighting better than the Olympus. Here are two examples.

The Nikon was a D40 with a 70-200mm 2.8 Tamron lens. $700

The Olympus was a E510 with a 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 I ZUIKO $300 used

I want a 50-200mm 2.8-3.5 but it is around $1000

I am afraid I will be disappointed in the $1000 wonder lens. I love portraiture and the 14-54 doesn't cut it.

What should I do?

Top is the Nikon Image
Bottom is the Olympus

Hm. I actually like the second shot better - the top (Nikon) shot seems a bit over-warm or slightly magenta.

That is a tough call Tyson I wouldn't ditch Oly one the count of one shot. I would a bit more experimenting first. I think you should try it with equal glass.

I wish I could, the glass was not mine and an Olympus piece would cost me a Grand.

take a look at the exif data, the nikon had its contrast settings set to 0 and the olympus had them set to 2, this is more likely the difference than the lens.

I'll say that if you get the D40, take a closer look, it is a great entry level DSLR a bit old technology by current standards, you may outgrow it quickly , disadvantages I see with the D40 are the small viewfinder, the inability to handle ISO 800 or higher without noticeable noise and only 3 autofocus points

if the photo is taken in Raw the differences between both images is easy to correct

I think the Nikon looks way better, but like the others have said, that might be due to the settings rather than actual performance, also the lenses are not equal at all. Lenses are more than focal length and aperture range, different lenses have different color's, and different characteristics. Theirs no doubt that Nikon's in general have better high iso capabilities than Olympus. But the Olympus photo supplied could be maid a little bit better if you go into light-room and play with the shadow's. Good luck :)

Let's see, off the top of my head the D40 does not have image stabilization built in, there is no auto dust reduction/cleaner and it will only auto focus with specific lens.

No way is a Tamron lens going to compete with a HG Olympus lens.

Your test is close to meaningless without shooting both camera's in raw with everything at 0 and at the same focal length and using the same focus point and metering. And in that harsh light using a cp filter.

Here's the Oly shot with a quick edit...

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/g...ilyoneyear.jpg

Cheers, Don

The Nikon was 2/3rd stops more exposed, and as was said, the contrast set to + 2 is not best, def change back to 0.

I pretty much agree with everyone else: it's not the camera or the lens, it's the settings. The 14-54 is a very capable, professional quality lens and I doubt the tamron is "better."

Although, the E510 has a tendency to clip highlights in jpg shooting. I always shoot RAW, but with the E510 is practically a requirement. I actually like the RAW output of the E510 over the E3; The E3 is probably more accurate, but the E510 had a certain, I don't know what.

And, you can find a used 50-200 mkI for under $700.

With Oly you have to watch carefully for contrast because their images are contrasty. my contrast setting on my e-510 is -2 so as sharpness, I also use the same lens as yours. Its also recommended with this camera to shoot at -3 or -7 exposure bias. When it comes to highlight clipping, they do clip em.
When it comes to the above images, if you set your camera as I mentioned and zoom in like you did in the Nikon image you could get great image because when you zoomed out with Oly you had sky, trees and dark areas in the background that changed your camera exposure calculations.

If you are looking for a better image set the Olympus to 0 for a contrast setting. These are the settings I use. Shoot in Raw, turn the image mode to natural, your gradation to auto,ISO at 100.
As far as a lens you can do better with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 50mm macro. Either one of these will cost around $400. Sigma also makes other longer focal lengths for four thirds systems that cost less than $1000.00. I shoot the 30mm allot on my E-520 and love it.
Also changing the settings as suggested will make a big difference in image quality. With mine I expose at -03 in moderate light and -07 in bright sun to avoid hot spots. This might be a little different with the 510.