Help me defend Olympus

[erikzen]

I love my Olympus E-510 camera and am always looking for others who share my enthusiasm. I am also a member of Head-Fi, which is an online community for headphone high fidelity equipment and related topics. In one of its non-headphone forums I posted an "Olympus Appreciation Thread" thinking that out of the 74,000 members I would find at least a few people who shared my enthusiasm.

That was not to be. Instead I have a four page thread that basically consists of people saying that Olympus is OK, but if you're serious about photography you've got to go with Canon or Nikon. They state such things as:

1) Olympus lenses are limited
2) The ones that are available are more expensive than Canon or Nikon counterparts
3) Four-thirds system is unproven and buying into it is risky
4) Sensor size means lower quality images
5) Low resale value
6) Slow focusing

I've done my best to defend Olympus but I thought maybe I could enlist the help of some of the more knowledgable folks here. How would you defend Olympus against the criticisms above?

You can find the thread here:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f90/ol...thread-355647/

By the way, Head-Fi is a great community. I've been a member there for several years and have learned a lot about headphones and hi-fi in general. I've also made a bunch of friends, not only online but in person too. We have regular "meets" where the members get together and share their equipment. It might be something to consider for photographyreview.com.





























e-510

[Don Schaeffer]

They are small and light and cheap.

[Greg McCary]

I love my Olympus E-510 camera and am always looking for others who share my enthusiasm. I am also a member of Head-Fi, which is an online community for headphone high fidelity equipment and related topics. In one of its non-headphone forums I posted an "Olympus Appreciation Thread" thinking that out of the 74,000 members I would find at least a few people who shared my enthusiasm.

That was not to be. Instead I have a four page thread that basically consists of people saying that Olympus is OK, but if you're serious about photography you've got to go with Canon or Nikon. They state such things as:

1) Olympus lenses are limited
2) The ones that are available are more expensive than Canon or Nikon counterparts
3) Four-thirds system is unproven and buying into it is risky
4) Sensor size means lower quality images
5) Low resale value
6) Slow focusing

I've done my best to defend Olympus but I thought maybe I could enlist the help of some of the more knowledgable folks here. How would you defend Olympus against the criticisms above?

You can find the thread here:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f90/ol...thread-355647/

By the way, Head-Fi is a great community. I've been a member there for several years and have learned a lot about headphones and hi-fi in general. I've also made a bunch of friends, not only online but in person too. We have regular "meets" where the members get together and share their equipment. It might be something to consider for photographyreview.com.





















e-510

Ok Lens are limited.
On selection yes but. The 4/3rd system is still very new. Olympus has came out with some great glass and more is coming. But I would put the quality of the glass up against anyone. Olympus glass is based on the four thirds system with the whole image used. They are completly designed for the 4/3rds sensor size. The crop factor only comes from the sensor size and the entire image coming through the lens is used.
Price. I think you should get a catalog and compare. The price of the lenes is very comparable to Nikon, Canon ect. Some of the other companies image stabilization are built into the lens and not the camera and those lenses are higher. Canon has a great selection but look how long they have been on the market.
Focus speed. With the 11 point focus system and the SWD glass the E3 is the fastest on the market. I don't use SWD lenses and am still amazed at the speed of the 14-54mm mounted on the E3. I also never had any issues with the 510. It was great in low light and if I missed focus it was user error.
Risky buy. Well check the reviews here. I don't read any buyers remorse. Most that buy into the system are quite happy and also suprised that most of what they read are myths. The Olympus line of cameras built to last and even here on the forums I don't read about very many technical problems or cameras that malfunctions. For awhile my avatar was the Maytag Man due to the lack of problems. Maybe I should put it back up.LOL
Knock one wood. When has the last time you have seen an Olympus image posted with sensor dust? I can't say I ever have. I have never cleaned a sensor, yet.
I also had reservations about the image stabilization and how long a " moving sensor" could really last. But I put the 510 through a lot of rough times and dropped it several times and when I sold it for the E3 the camera was still kicking and is currently still being used by a member here. Who is rougher on equipment than me.
Sensor size. Well this is probably the area that keeps most from buyng into the system. Noise at high ISO's. Yes it is a problem. But I came all the way up from the 500 to the E3 and I can say in just a couple of years the noise levels have dropped dramaticaly. The 500 for what I do was unusable at anything over 200ISO at night. But I felt if a tripod was needed anyway what was the difference in 100 and 800? I have some very nice images that I have taken at night at 800ISOwith teh E3. Compare the price of the E3 to some of the other full framed cameras. But with all that said who needs to shoot at high ISO with image stabilization. I can shoot at 200 ISO all of the time tripod free. A good trade off not using a tripod if you ask me.
Low resale. That is with all camera systems. Once a new and better model comes out all the the photogs are wanting a better camera start selling off their equipment. Check the used prices of the lenses. The quality of the glass is so good no one is willing to resale them. A good used lens will cost you almost the price of a new one. Other than the kit lenses.
The best way to defend Olympus just to post great images and reviews. I have had a couple of photographers here local look at my camera with reservations but then they see the prints I make and visit my web site and are very suprised at what they see.

[AgingEyes]

It seems to me other parties are arguing Olympus is OK but not better than either Canon or Nikon, and your arguments, IMO, appear to agree with them, i.e., Olympus is OK, especially you also admit that are quite a few weaknesses with Olympus.

IMO, the best away to prove those folks wrong is to use comparison tests, show them that Olympus are better than Nikon or Canon. Here's an example from http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/5484...mera-test.html :

"We are, however, disappointed that the D700's AF system doesn't match the breakneck speeds of the D3. This means that photographers will have to settle for just blazingly fast. In bright and moderate light from EV 12 to EV 6, it's faster than Canon's EOS 40D and 5D, but not as quick as Sony's Alpha 700 or the Olympus E-3.

But low light is paradoxically where the D700 shines, able to focus in under 1 second all the way down to EV -1. At EV -2 (think full-moon dark), it's still quite fast, focusing in 1.25 sec, while the E-3 failed to find focus in such low light in our tests."

In the end, I think no system is perfect. And they are not saying that Olympus is bad. Olympus is OK, according to them, but not better than or trustworthy than Canon or Nikon.

Just my two cents.

I'm out.

Ok Lens are limited.
On selection yes but. The 4/3rd system is still very new. Olympus has came out with some great glass and more is coming. But I would put the quality of the glass up against anyone. Olympus glass is based on the four thirds system with the whole image used. They are completly designed for the 4/3rds sensor size. The crop factor only comes from the sensor size and the entire image coming through the lens is used.
Price. I think you should get a catalog and compare. The price of the lenes is very comparable to Nikon, Canon ect. Some of the other companies image stabilization are built into the lens and not the camera and those lenses are higher. Canon has a great selection but look how long they have been on the market.
Focus speed. With the 11 point focus system and the SWD glass the E3 is the fastest on the market. I don't use SWD lenses and am still amazed at the speed of the 14-54mm mounted on the E3. I also never had any issues with the 510. It was great in low light and if I missed focus it was user error.
Risky buy. Well check the reviews here. I don't read any buyers remorse. Most that buy into the system are quite happy and also suprised that most of what they read are myths. The Olympus line of cameras built to last and even here on the forums I don't read about very many technical problems or cameras that malfunctions. For awhile my avatar was the Maytag Man due to the lack of problems. Maybe I should put it back up.LOL
Knock one wood. When has the last time you have seen an Olympus image posted with sensor dust? I can't say I ever have. I have never cleaned a sensor, yet.
I also had reservations about the image stabilization and how long a " moving sensor" could really last. But I put the 510 through a lot of rough times and dropped it several times and when I sold it for the E3 the camera was still kicking and is currently still being used by a member here. Who is rougher on equipment than me.
Sensor size. Well this is probably the area that keeps most from buyng into the system. Noise at high ISO's. Yes it is a problem. But I came all the way up from the 500 to the E3 and I can say in just a couple of years the noise levels have dropped dramaticaly. The 500 for what I do was unusable at anything over 200ISO at night. But I felt if a tripod was needed anyway what was the difference in 100 and 800? I have some very nice images that I have taken at night at 800ISOwith teh E3. Compare the price of the E3 to some of the other full framed cameras. But with all that said who needs to shoot at high ISO with image stabilization. I can shoot at 200 ISO all of the time tripod free. A good trade off not using a tripod if you ask me.
Low resale. That is with all camera systems. Once a new and better model comes out all the the photogs are wanting a better camera start selling off their equipment. Check the used prices of the lenses. The quality of the glass is so good no one is willing to resale them. A good used lens will cost you almost the price of a new one. Other than the kit lenses.
The best way to defend Olympus just to post great images and reviews. I have had a couple of photographers here local look at my camera with reservations but then they see the prints I make and visit my web site and are very suprised at what they see.

[Greg McCary]

Compare the cost of the Nikon against the E3. At a $1500.00 difference you are comparing an F1 car to a Sprint car.

[Sushigaijin]

Olympus lenses are limited? Really? What focal lengths, specifically?

I keep hearing about this limitation - but I can't figure it out. Perhaps a REALLY long prime, like a 400mm? alright, I'll buy that.

As for price, Zuiko lenses are some of the best lenses ever. A price comes with that, but no more than canikon. The way I see it, the 4/3 line is super streamlined and offers every focal length a person could need in just a few super nice lenses. And all image stabilized, weather sealed on the mid-tier...Why carry a bag full of lenses when you can have just three or four that do it all really well? That's money saved on an arsenal of glass, which effectively makes the 4/3 line cheaper.

4/3 is established and growing. it's not going away anytime soon. Any thoughts of it being "unproven" are hogwash.

Olympus boasted the "worlds fastest autofocus" when the E3 was released, so any AF complaints are null.

The only real criticism.I ever see with the 4/3 format is sensor noise, and I do agree that 4/3 sensor technology hasn't quite delivered the same performance that APS and FF have. I'm not worried about that, technology changes. A lot of those canikon guys have shot with the same lenses for 10 or 15 years, which has seen technology go from emulsion, to crappy digital, to mediocre digital, to good digital, to great digital. The next 10 years will be equally exciting. Knowing that my lenses are built to out-resolve my sensor is an assurance that I won't have to reinvest in lenses as sensor quality improves. That's money in the bank. And I don't have to replace all of my non-stabilized glass with stabilized glass, and I don't have to replace my stabilized version 1 glass with version 2 glass. Lens stabilization is a scam, plain and simple.

Plus small and light. :thumbsup:

[xwingkiller]

ya, what they said.

[Wild Wassa]

I have brand loyalty to Canon, I'm guessing that I always will. I've not ever sent a Canon camera in for repairs in 35 years, 2/3rds of that time working as an industrial and scientific photographer. Not once have I sent a Canon for repair ... as long as Canon don't go to being too plastic and those plastic kit lenses Canon make which are very ordinary lenses, don't become too popular or are considered that, that, is what Canon are about, then I guess I'll always be fond of Canon.

There is nothing at all wrong with Olympus digital cameras. My favourite photographer Jacob Kubika is an Olympus user.

I'd cut off my right arm if my Canon was as good as his Olympus is ... and repeatedly is.

If you gave the World's best photographer, the World's worst camera ... they would still be the World's best photographer. When you put an Olympus in the hands of Jacob Kubica ... he makes Nikons and Canons look very very ordinary.

I can't give a higher recomendation for a camera than a quality Olympus camera.

Catch up with Kubica's images ... I think that you might agree. Jacob Kubika is from Poland.

Warren.

[erikzen]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I agree whole-heartedly with what everyone has said and are the basic arguments I made to my friends over at Head-Fi. Still, I think there is a prejudice against Olympus that I'm not going to change with one thread. Either people will give Olympus a try and discover what a great value it is or they will continue to think that Nikon and Canon are the only names in top quality DSLR systems.

Even those that agreed that Olympus represented great value said the same thing could be said about Pentax and Sony. They contend that if you want the absolute best professional photographic experience you still need to turn to Nikon and Canon.

I guess for now I will let my hi-fi friends continue to buy into the Canikon way of thinking and content myself with discussing and enjoying the Olypmus Four Thirds system with my friends here at photographyreview.com.

By the way, I could not find any images online for Jacob Kubika. Do you have any links?

[dumpy]

Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Hassleblad, Leica and Sony all make great cameras. It's really a game of what works for you. Many pros use Nikon and Canon because they have been making cameras for quite a while and have used the same lens system for some time. Not having to buy new lenses when going digital is a plus. I think this may work to Sony's advantage in the coming years as well, as their cameras use the Minolta mount.

Every Olympus lens I have used has been top notch, most reviews that I have found and test shots I've seen will back this up. Much like the Olympus sensor (more on this below) the price on Olympus glass seems to have limited range. Olympus doesn't make a cheap, fast prime like the Canon 50mm F1.8 for $85 that I've heard is phenomenal. On the flipside of this, their top of the line and mid range lenses are a bargain for what you get. They don't make $15,000 lenses, but they do make top quality lenses for 7 grand.

This middle of the road, but very good philosophy applies to their bodies as well. Olympus's top of the line body falls more into the mid-high price range when compared with other manufactures. Oly's entry level DSLR is quite a camera when compared with what the competition has in the same price range.

Much like the OP (I read your posts on the other site as well) when I bought this camera I had also thought about the Canon 40D. These are two very different cameras, but share some similar traits that Iw as attracted to. One was live view, there are only certain circumstances I use this with, but when I do it is invaluable. One of those is macro, I often mount my camera upside down on my tripod to get low and close. A viewfinder just doesn't cut it for this. The other one is dust removal. 95% of my shooting is outside, many times in dusty, muddy and just plain dirty conditions. I also change lenses a lot in the field. I would have to send my camera out a few times a year minimum without this feature.
I only saw two advantages for me with the 40D, faster FPS rate as I do like to shoot wildlife and sometimes sports and less noise at higher ISO. I liked the ergonomics of the 510 better and the price was hard to beat.
For the price of the 40D body I could buy two 510 kits. The choice seemed obvious, especially once I used the 510 and realized that the kit lenses are actually pretty good. I then had $700 extra dollars in my pocket for glass and accessories. Even the salesman who could've sold me the more expensive system (and is a Canon guy) convinced me that the 510 would fit my needs perfectly.

I've noticed that many of the negative posts on the other site are more aimed at the 4/3 system than the Olympus cameras. I tend to agree with these to certain extent. I did not buy a 510 because I am a believer in the 4/3 system, but rather because I liked that camera and felt that Oly would only improve on it as time went on. Granted some of the things I like about this camera (ergonomics, optical quality) may be directly related to it being 4/3, but some of the things I dislike are certainly tied to 4/3. The noise at higher ISO is the big one, I've had a hard time with this. However it has made me a better photographer as I work on light more now. I've invested in a flash and reflector, I've learned how to use these, if I could've shot clean shots at 1600, I may not have and I don't feel that my pictures would be as good as they are now. I've used skill and knowledge instead of the camera to my advantage.
The other negative is reduced DR. Honestly I don't think it's as big of a deal as claimed. I shoot RAW which does help a bit, but overall i think quality glass is more important to overall image quality. Oly makes good glass and the affordable price of the bodies means i can buy more lenses, which in turn means better images.

I do wish there were more third party accessories available (Kenko tubes I'm looking at you), but I think in due time we will see this.

I don't really think Oly needs defending. For what the cameras they make are, they do a great job and have a strong following. Granted you don't see many pros shooting with Oly, but Oly doesn't make a true top tier or full frame sensor camera. They also don't have the legacy lens advantage of Nikon or Canon. Ask some pros why they don't shoot Oly and I bet you will here these answers. It's just a different beast.

[dumpy]

One other side note. Well after I had bought into the Oly system, I saw DSLR reviews in Consumer Reports. Whenever they review an type of "specialty products" (bikes and cameras are the two that come to mind) I tend to find their reviews to be bunk, but I did see one interesting thing in it. Camera reliability based on number times cameras (sorted by brand) were sent back for service. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing Oly having the fewest occurrences.

So that tosses the lack of reliability right out the window.

[Photo-John]

I feel like I'm often one of the few camera reviewers defending Olympus DSLRs. And it might be because of my unique perspective as a backcountry action sports guy. I love the relatively small size and low weight of the Olympus gear. Right now I am loving riding with the E-520. I haven't actually done a comparison (not a bad idea, though), but to carry equivalent Canon gear takes up a lot more space and likely weighs twice as much. And that's a big deal when you're riding miles and climbing thousands of feet at altitude.

So put it this way to your audio buddies -

For me, it's the right tool for the job. I've got an iPod because it's convenient. But compared to my two-channel home system, the sound sucks. And I've got a Macintosh in my car and using the iPod in the car always seems like a waste. But it's so convenient. The reality is, I'm not taking Rega amp and subwoofer system in the car or on the plane, am I? And I hate having 50 CDs in broken cases kicking around in my car. Sure, the sound is clearly better. But it's just not practical. And for me, that's how the Olympus DSLR system shines. No doubt, image quality isn't as good as my Canon. But that doesn't mean I can't get great photos with it. I'm trading dynamic range and a bit of noise for more lens range and built-in image stabilization on the trail. It's more than a fair trade for me.

[erikzen]

I haven't actually done a comparison (not a bad idea, though), but to carry equivalent Canon gear takes up a lot more space and likely weighs twice as much. And that's a big deal when you're riding miles and climbing thousands of feet at altitude.

That would be an awesome comparison and I would love to see that. I'm sure we could put a lot of arguments to rest with something like that. I understand the amount of work that would require and dont' expect you to run right out and do that just to show how great Olympus is. If you ever do however, that will be something to see.

So put it this way to your audio buddies -

For me, it's the right tool for the job. I've got an iPod because it's convenient. But compared to my two-channel home system, the sound sucks. And I've got a Macintosh in my car and using the iPod in the car always seems like a waste. But it's so convenient. The reality is, I'm not taking Rega amp and subwoofer system in the car or on the plane, am I? And I hate having 50 CDs in broken cases kicking around in my car. Sure, the sound is clearly better. But it's just not practical.

You underestimate my Head-Fi buddies. I currently use an iPod 3G Nano with a line out dock (cable that bypasses internal amplification effectively creating a line level signal) run that into an amp called The Predator and use Westone UM2 in ear monitors. The total system cost me about $900 and the sound rivals many home systems. I can fit it into my shirt pocket or easily slide it into my brief case. The Predator is also a USB digital to audio converter so I can use it with my computer to bypass the internal sound card. The guys at Head-Fi consider me a piker. This is a fanatical bunch who will stop at nothing to squeeze out the last 5% of audio quality no matter how much it may cost. It is not unusual for these guys to have $5000 home systems dedicated just to two channel headphone listening and a few guys have systems in the 5 figure range.

And for me, that's how the Olympus DSLR system shines. No doubt, image quality isn't as good as my Canon. But that doesn't mean I can't get great photos with it. I'm trading dynamic range and a bit of noise for more lens range and built-in image stabilization on the trail. It's more than a fair trade for me.

That is the bottom line. Unfortunately there is a mindset out there that causes Sunday snapshot takers and tin ear music lovers to spend every last cent chasing top quality, whether they can see/hear the difference or not.

Thanks John, and everyone else, for helping me to put this in perspective.

[VJIM]

Dumpy, John, everybody THANKS; great thread; as an old black and white film person, digital is quite a challenge:thumbsup: ; glad I came up with the 510; another challenge to master, and at 70, quite a delight; By the way, whoever asked the question, thanks also,

Love, Vjim

[Greg McCary]

I have brand loyalty to Canon, I'm guessing that I always will. I've not ever sent a Canon camera in for repairs in 35 years, 2/3rds of that time working as an industrial and scientific photographer. Not once have I sent a Canon for repair ... as long as Canon don't go to being too plastic and those plastic kit lenses Canon make which are very ordinary lenses, don't become too popular or are considered that is what Canon are about, I guess I'll always be fond of Canons.

There is nothing at all wrong with Olympus digital cameras. My favourite photographer Jacob Kubika is an Olympus user.

I'd cut off my right arm if my Canon was as good as his Olympus is ... and repeatedly is.

If you gave the World's best photographer, the World's worst camera ... they would still be the World's best photographer. When you put an Olympus in the hands of Jacob Kubica ... he makes Nikons and Canons look very very ordinary.

I can't give a higher recomendation for a camera than a quality Olympus camera.

Catch up with Kubica's images ... I think that you might agree. Jacob Kubika is from Poland.

Warren.

Before I went digital my last SLR was a Canon Rebel 2000. I really enjoyed it. I wound up buying two of them and put them through heck and back. It had about the best meter I can remember ever using. I also used an AE-1 one for awhile. It too was an awesome camera.
I really don't think there are any bad DSLR's out there. I think we all agree that it just works out to what is important to you and how much you can afford.
To me for what you get with Olympus you get more bang for your buck than anything on the market. The image stabilization is worth every penny you pay. My tripod has been collecting dust for a couple of years now. I think I have only used it a couple of times in two years.
As far as noise goes. The following picture was 800ISO hand held. No NR software. On my way home from taking the picture I remembered I had left the camera on 800ISO by mistake. I was worried the noise would be to much. But as you can see I came home with a very usable picture and the print is great.

[erikzen]

I've decided that I don't have to defend anything. It seems like I may be the only member at my hi-fi group that is using an Olympus. I am just going to continue to enjoy using my camera and leave it at that. There are enough fellow Olympiads here to share and enjoy with.

[dumpy]

I can't believe I didn't mention this before, but have you ever been to http://myfourthirds.com/?? It is not nearly as helpful overall as PR, but the galleries are impressive. There are some great photographers over there, most of whom are using Olympus. There is occasionally a decent article or two as well.

[rigel]

Check out Andrzej Wrotniak's take on the Four-Thirds system here. Quite a good read

[Greg McCary]

Check out Andrzej Wrotniak's take on the Four-Thirds system here. Quite a good read

A very interesting read. I book marked it. Thanks.......

[Don Kondra]

I thought I mentioned this before ??

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/

No need to get defensive about Olympus, just show them your pictures

Cheers, Don

[Justintoxicated]

no way i'll get into it with anyone over on that forum... Olympus has IS built in. Go ahead and pay an extra $600 for a premium canon lense just to get slightly better IS. The price difference is huge. People on that forum don't seem to take prices into consideration...EVER!

You say my camera does this this and this and they will throw a canikon at you that can do it better (despite costing twice as much). Then you mention that, and they will simply make another comparison where the prices are close (maybe lower end lenses) and bait you to respond. Just forget it we all know olympus is awesome, and I have nothing against canon or nikon either. I just bougth the olympus because it was the best value from my research and I'm very happy with olympus branded glass, so hapy in fact that all of my lenses are olympus brand so far...

While there is alot of good info on that forum, when it comes to cameras theres alot of fanboys that are afraid to try new things. I used to be like that years ago and would buy nothing but canon. After having problems with some cameras and excelent results with others I thoguht I would try olympus. My buddies olympus, despite having worse reviews always took amazing pictures, he knew how to use the tool...

[Wild Wassa]

Erikzen, I'm sorry not to be on the Forum as often as I'd like, to be able to reply promptly.

You wrote, "By the way, I could not find any images online for Jacob Kubika. Do you have any links?" ... Yes.

I think it would have helped if I had spelt the Polish photographer 'Kubica' and not given you the name of the British photographer Kubika. Sorry about that.

Jacob Kubica's Gallery is on deviantArt. I think this is a good page to start, to view his recent work ... and then make your way back to page 1.

http://kubica.deviantart.com/gallery/#_featured--5

Click on his photographs, click them again, click on his name, his thumbnail collections on the left hand side. There's a lot to read on his work flows and the gear used and about his locations found under many of the images.

Warren.

[Wild Wassa]

More fine Olympus stuff.

The Hungarian photographer's Zsiggy Zsolt describes his 'Tools of the Trade' as;
Olympus C-725UZ Zuiko Digital 40-150mm/f3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital 14-45/3.5-5.6.

http://realitydream.extra.hu/

Zsolt's dA gallery is easier to view many of his works, rather than clicking on the cut down thumbs on his website.

http://realitydream.deviantart.com/

Warren.

[erikzen]

Thanks Warren. Cool stuff!