So I've been looking at the Olympus SLRs and looking... and looking.... and I really really do like them. The button configuration is logical, the images come out well, and aren't terribly noisy despite the comparably small sensor.... and that array of lenses... that 2x crop factor makes for some killer interesting lenses.

I'm currently a Nikon shooter by virtue of love for the controls and the lenses, and flash system. But those Olympus buggers are still very appealing. DustShaker, compact, crazy lenses, nice control layout... it's all just a very appealing way for me to imagine spending $3,000 on a bit of gear... If only I had it to spend.

Anyone else feeling like I am?

I haven't been keeping up, but is Olympus really innovating anything?

With the 5D, 1DmkIII, 1DsMkII, D200, D2Xs, and the eventual flagship replacements in Canon & Nikon's product lines what would Olympus really do for you? Even the S5 looks like a better buy than the E-1.

And you can get so much used gear when you stick with the market leaders...

My .16 yuan.

Not innovating? Well, Olympus was the first with dust sensor removal, first with live view, and one of the few companies doing digital only at the moment.
The system they're using has a 2x crop factor which makes their (brand new) 70-300 lens a 140-600 35mm equivalent, and due to it's reasonable length it'd be great for going hiking and taking pictures in the sunlight. And with that crop factor the Sigma 50-500 would be a 100-1000 in 35mm equivalent. That would make for some very interesting shot's I'd say. Imagine shooting surfing events, the flexibility would be incredible.
Because their sensor is smaller they can have more compact lenses with greater zoom power and wider apertures.
So far the only downside is that all of their fixed aperture lenses are absurdly expensive. But if I were getting one it probably wouldn't be for pro work. I'd buy the E-510 (when it hits $800) and the 18-180 lens and a cheap sigma/tamron zoom (or that 70-300 if the price is right) for it. I don't like bringing my work cam/lenses out hiking and other uncertain terrain, and hey if I'm going buy a new body and lenses so i'm not using the work ones ones why not try something new?

And the used gear is a great point... I don't like to buy used... it's just a weird personal thing. I don't like not knowing what abuse my gear has been through. Though when I'm strapped for cash i do go used. That's where my D50 body came from and it's been amazing.

In my opinion the sensor dust remover and live view are both features with limited use -- especially live view. Unless the LCD swings out à la the consumer digicam how will you use it? Canon's new 1DMKIII has the "EOS Integrated Cleaning System" like Olympus and I imagine Nikon will have something similar in its next pro offering.



Are you mostly going to be shooting long, birds and surfers? Olympus makes sense then.

Otherwise the smaller chip and 2x crop aren't "features" as far as I'm concerned. In fact the trend has been to go the other way, like so many pros switching to the Canon 5D from Nikon's 1.5x APS-sized sensors. Between the inherent noise, DOF issues that come with smaller sensors, and difficulty in getting wide with that chip I'm still not getting the Olympus thing.

I also wonder how their pro service is compared to Nikon and Canon.

I can smell you baiting me into a crop factor discussion, but I won't be suckered in.

Dust removal is kinda cool, but not a killer app. Live view is pretty pointless, IMO. The images are significantly noisier than Canon's. And I think the E-xxx bodies are terribly ugly. So no, no love for Olympus Except that mounting old manual focus Zuiko lenses on a 5D w/adapter is a great way to go for super sharp wide angles.

Innovation? They're coming out with some pretty sweet lenses. Here are just a few.

7-14mm F4.0 (14-28mm)
35-100mm F2.0 (70-200mm)
11-22mm F2.8-3.5 (22-44mm)
14-35mm F2.0 (28-70mm)

And the E1 successor is in the works. Check out dpreview.com for a few details. I think Olympus is getting themselves in the game. If they get a great body with lower noise levels to put these lenses on, I might give them a chance.

Lol no no i was going to spare you a crop factor discussion. I guess the 2x crop appeals to me more because I see life as a series of portraits. Like I wouldn't take a picture of a desert and mountains, i'd get a portrait of a tumble weed and maybe some lizards or something like that.

The E1 successor currently called P-1 will have an articulating screen.

I wouldn't get a body that expensive to start, i'd rather get a cheaper body to play with the lenses, and system and if i liked it then get the pro body.



YAY! Good to see i'm not alone. The noise levels aren't terribly unacceptable till you get above the 600 range... which is certainly a bit low. And you're right the Canon's are great with keeping the noise down.
The only real big disappointment is that the the p-1 is currently the only one slated to have a battery grip. That's a real shame if you're short on cash.

Those fast zooms are impressive in some ways. They would be virtually impossible to replicate for cameras with larger sensors, but the 2x crop Oly's can use smaller lenses like that. They're less impressive though, since the DOF would be roughly the same as an f/4 lens on a 35mm sensor.

I think Olympus is on to something... And they are innovators. The lenses they are offering are amazingly fast and.... light! Imagine using a 300mm f2 on a wedding. Amazing possibilities. The bad thing is that the sensors so far are amazingly noisy.
I switched to Canon for the full frame and the low noise... but a combination of the Canon wide and (if Olympus controls it's noise levels) olympus' zooms would be quite amazing... that is if you like shooting without flash like me.

Carlos Andres

the fast zooms are kinda cool, but your not getting much shallow DOF when you're that wide. So it's kind of a trade off. Plus the noise issue when you squeeze that many pixels into such a small sensor. Don't think I'm ready to jump anytime soon. I expect the built in sensor cleaning to be standard with all the newer bodies.

I forgot to mention my favorite part:

Olympus' newer cameras will have VR/IS in camera (like the Sony Alpha)!!!!!!!!!!!

ps. I use 2 5d's and the 85 f1.2 but would love to add an Olympus if the noise levels are just as good as the 5d's.

Why would the DOF only be the same as an F/4? The lenses are designed for the smaller sensor, and cast a much smaller light circle, but that shouldn't effect the DOF only the angle of view. I was going by This link which logically makes sense to me however there's very probably something I'm missing. Could you link me if you know a good place? Thanks!


Would you happen to have any links explaining the whole DOF getting larger on smaller sensors thing? I haven't found anything useful so if you've got links that'd be great! But yes, the noise is most certainly an issue... there's ways around it, say if they got a sensor manufacturer where the sensor has less native noise or components that keep the voltages more stable.


Amen to VR/IS.

The easiest way to start understanding the different DOF at the same focal length is to think back at 35mm and Medium Format. In a Medium Format camera (because the sensor/negative is bigger) a 45mm lens at f4.5 is more or less the same as a 24mm lens at 2.8 on a 35mm camera (more or less).
The same can be said about digital sensors FF, 1.5, or 2x

Carlos Andres

It's a hard concept to grasp. Each focal length has the same amount of DOF no matter what format your shooting in. But to achieve the same Field of View you have to get closer or farther away which causes them to appear to have more or less DOF. Which is why a 50mm lens on a MF camera is a wide lens.

The Oly E-500 was my first d-SLR. I'm mostly shooting Fuji now, but I still love the Oly. The pictures I get right out of the camera are wonderful. Noise isn't a problem with most of the work I do... (most is natural light work) The RAW processor is so much faster than Fuji's it's not even funny.

Sure it's no 5D. But I don't think you can beat the price/quality point. I'm interested to see what they are unvieling next. It will need to be pretty impressive to get me to stay with them, but for non-wedding shooters (or people who don't work in low-light situations often) I think they are a serious contender.

Here I am working on getting Bryce to ditch the Nikon and go Canon and then he finds OSP and dives into a post about getting an Olympus??

You guys aren't helping my cause here!

At lease his fiancee uses Canon so there's some sense in his life I kid him a lot!

But serously... get a Canon so I can let you use a lens or two if I need to.

Hi Stephen,
It is actually even more pronounced than that due to the "Circle of Confusion", or the size of the sensor/film from which you are enlarging. To give an example, a 25mm lens (50 equivalent) at f2.8 would have about 4.2 feet of depth of field while a 5d with a 50mm at f2.8 would only have 2.1. That is why portrait photographers loved MF. A 75mm lens (6x4.5 50 equivalent) only had 1.4 feet at f2.8. And the lenses were able to resolve more detail as well. You can find more information about depth of field and a depth of field calculator at http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.
Cory

The non-front runner camera that I really like is the Pentax K10D. Very nice feature set and a fantastic price - $900 for a weather sealed, 10mp camera with nice features and internal IS!
Cory

Practically speaking, given the same framing, the larger the format/negative/sensor, the shallower the DOF. Shoot a head/shoulders portrait on a Hassy, and on 5D, both at f/2.8 ... the MF body will give you much shallower DOF.

Think about trying to get some nice bokeh with a point and shoot. Doesn't work. A full-frame camera has about 1 1/3 stops less DOF than a 1.6x crop camera. That's why the Oly sensors, even with those fast lenses, will still not give you much in the way of BG blur.

Lol, Ohh come on I love cameras in general so i always look!

I've thought about picking up a refurbed Rebel XT for relatively cheap for just that reason, however I'm just a tad too short on cash for that right now. I really want to save and get the D80 with battery grip, then the 70-200 2.8 after that, though I might not get it and save for the one with VR, but besides when you get the Mark III you'll have a spare 20d body!

Carlos, Steven, The great Divorce, and Cory, Thanks so much for your responses. I think i'm going to go find some resources on lens theory and read up on that so that I can really grasp this sort of thing. Thanks so much for your help.



I used to be a big fan of that camera too... till I actually got to handle one. I hated how the controls were placed, the button to unhook your lens is badly placed (very hard to change lenses standing). And the worst of it all... when the shutter goes it sounds so plasticky and so weak you feel like you're hurting it everytime you press the shutter-release.
All that aside though, it takes some damn good images and the weather sealing is amazing. I can easily understand why people like it, it's just not for me.

We shot our first wedding with an E1 and and an E500. The 14-54mm which has a crop factor of 28-108mm is a very reasonably priced weather sealed lens. Olympus has some very good glass. The E1 is a very lite weather sealed camera. Many nature and adventure photographers were drawn to it. My experience is that the cameras our dependable. I have a fondness for Olympus.

But we switched to Canon. Unless we can repeal the laws of physics the smaller sensor will always generate more noise. Most churches do not allow flashes. In addition the only pro or semi-pro camera is the 5 megapixel E1 which is showing its age. Yet another PMA goes by with only hints and promises about its replacement. Compare this to the Canon or Nikon line-up which goes from entry level to pro with many steps in between.

Ultimately Olympus may fill two niches. Cameras like the 410 will compete with high end digicams because the smaller sensor allows a smaller DSLR. Also for some nature photographers who shoot in good light the 2x crop factor and the presumed size and weight advantage of the E1 successor may also carve out a market. But from the perspective of Pat and I Olympus did not have a competitive product for event photography.

Hope this helps.

Thank you so much for weighing in Shedrow. It's good to hear from a former owner about the cameras. I'd be doing mostly daytime nature with them so i guess it would be ok. Shame I just don't have the cash for it... heck i couldn't even by a cheap lens for anything at the moment.

The 4/3 system is where all digital would be today if it weren't for Canon and Nikon doing everything they could to first, delay digital's adoption (so it wouldn't undercut their film lines), and second, increase prices dramatically when digital actually did arrive. (A Nikon F6 is still only $2K, which used to be considered an astronomical price for a camera; now that's an amateur-level price point for digital.)

Smaller sensors allow smaller, lighter, less-expensive lenses that also can outperform their larger counterparts (which is obvious to anyone who uses any of Canon's or Nikon's high-end digital-crop-factor lenses). But it would also mean that both companies would have to redesign their entire lens lines - which is where they make the majority of their money. Specifically the 4/3 sensors is only a tiny bit smaller than Canon's standard sensors. (See half-way down the page here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/.)

By the same token, in-camera image-stabilization (whether optical or digital) is a much better choice than in-the-lens stabilization - but you will never see it from Canon for the same reason.

Digital photography is the way it is today because Canon and Nikon have manipulated the market to make it so (just as Microsoft has manipulated the pc world). The net result is we end up paying more for less choices.