Chose, [Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Olympus]

[BrentGambrell]

What if you could only chose between a Nikon or a Canon. You can't say, "well it depends on what I'm shooting, or where I'm shotting" etc. You can chose either a NIKON, SONY, OLYMPUS, or a CANON for the rest of your life.

Which brand would you chose?

[compuwar]

What if you could only chose between a Nikon or a Canon. You can't say, "well it depends on what I'm shooting, or where I'm shotting" etc. You can chose either a NIKON, SONY, OLYMPUS, or a CANON for the rest of your life.

Which product would you chose?

Between Nikon and Canon, it really doesn't matter. I'd be happy with either. I'm not convinced that Sony is in for the long haul[1,] plus they don't have a great lens selection at the long end and I'm not a 4/3rds aficionado[2.]

However, a brand isn't a product, it's a line of products- and where a company goes can change a lot over a lifetime.

Brand fans choose a brand over other considerations, and that's ultimately silly, a camera is a tool, and depending on what you're shooting and where the tool you need could be very different. The right tool for me is a Canon or a Nikon better than 95% of the time, but that doesn't make it the right tool for everyone.

Besides, you never know what paths you may go down- I spent a couple of years shooting mostly medium format film (645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9) and a couple shooting mostly large format film (4x and 5x7)- none of your brands listed allow any of those choices.

[1] Nobody's going to convince me inside the next 5 years, I've seen too many big company abandonments- and Sony's been doing it for the last three or so years like it's going out of style in a lot of product spaces.
[2] Nobody's going to make me one either, there are lots of them, they're entitled to like the smaller sensor, it's not for me due to noise and depth of field.

[alphaod]

Nikon has better glass while Canon may offer more frills on the camera.

[gkarris]

I don't get the question...

Nikon I guess, but I ended up buying an Olympus as it was a better deal on my tight budget, not to mention I can use my old CF cards...

It's all about talent anyways. I've seen people with EXPENSIVE Nikon equipment take horrible shots, and people with disposables take awesome ones... :eek:

[Doylem]

What if you could only chose between a Nikon or a Canon. You can't say, "well it depends on what I'm shooting, or where I'm shotting" etc. You can chose either a NIKON, SONY, OLYMPUS, or a CANON for the rest of your life.

Which brand would you chose?

Any or all of these would be fine with me. All I need is to acclimatise myself to new equipment (takes me a long time... which is why I've only owned two cameras in the last 20 years: Nikon FE, now Nikon D200).

Fretting about brands, IMO, is just playing the manufacturers' game...

[Apple Ink]

All of these are fine and make some brilliant products in their respective ways!

To be more specific and biased... Nikon, Canon or Sony since I know that these companies WILL linger on whatever the market situation for several years to come.

More specific... Nikon or Canon since they have a wide variety of lenses (which they currently manufacture and service {to cancel any minolta ebay retorts})

And finally.... Canon because I repeat I like their feel! All Canons, and apparently Nikons as well (see below) beep after AF has been confirmed

Other Factors.... Canon has a superior Tele lineup and a general lens lineup a mark above others [Nikon incl]
Nikon has a brilliant and user friendly interface and few buttons or confusing elements to get novices confused.
Sony, Nikon and Canon all feature built in accelerometers but only Sony and Nikon switch the LCD display. Canon uses it for automatically orienting images in the right way [another feature I cant live without].
Canon offers Live View top to bottom [on all its DSLRs] while Sony's Live View is by far the best approach with no hiccups.
Nikon hasnt upgraded its consumer offering the D40 since 2 years and was expected to release a much delayed product by Nov end but apparently its been pushed even further. Though, Nikon's loyalty to consumer class DSLRs is certainly questionable and its this segment that Sony has eaten up to capture a 20% marketshare through its amazingly feature rich yet amazingly cheap A200 and older siblings A300/350.
Sony offers built in IS top to bottom while Olympus offers it for e520 and above only. All else use in-lens IS meaning yo need to pay more for an IS version of a lens than it's non IS counterpart.
Olympus uses a four thirds (4/3) lens size for its consumer segment making its sensors considerably smaller (2.1x crop factor) as compared to other's APS-C (1.5 or 1.6x crop factor)
Canon has the best overall image quality and the best damn high ISO SnR

Hope that helps!

[ChrisA]

What if you could only chose between a Nikon or a Canon. You can't say, "well it depends on what I'm shooting, or where I'm shotting" etc. You can chose either a NIKON, SONY, OLYMPUS, or a CANON for the rest of your life.

Which brand would you chose?

I'd have to say Nikon or Canon. The others may never offer a full frame camera and Sony, I'm sure will drop their DSLR line inside of 10 years.

But why do I only get to pick from those brands? They are popular only because of their relative low prices. If money were not an issue I'd much rather have the option to choose between Leica, Mamiya and Hasselblad for the kind of photography I do.

I mostly used to shoot with a Mamiya RB67 system but when I decided to go with digital I had to move down to a much smaller Nikon system due to cost.

[Apple Ink]

I'd have to say Nikon or Canon. The others may never offer a full frame camera and Sony, I'm sure will drop their DSLR line inside of 10 years.

But why do I only get to pick from those brands? They are popular only because of their relative low prices. If money were not an issue I'd much rather have the option to choose between Leica, Mamiya and Hasselblad for the kind of photography I do.

I mostly used to shoot with a Mamiya RB67 system but when I decided to go with digital I had to move down to a much smaller Nikon system due to cost.

I must say here that your comments on Mamiya and others are seriously out of leagues in this thread because I rather doubt that anyone who cant decide which system to opt for (no offenses please... I myself was once in that position) is probably quite a distance from purchasing a full frame pardon the new 50mm hassleblad with the Kodak sensor.

And as far as Sony is concerned.... they are here to stay. And seriously in my opinion... its the only company which can make a difference and cut new innovations in this choking world of DSLRs.
One is already the stunning Live View they made... which treads the competition to oblivion! So its rather baseless a projection that you make here since may I remind that the iPod maker Apple was once in a same position as Sony is today. The only big point I have against Sony is the serious shortage of consumer lenses other than the second hand minoltas!

[Hmac]

And finally.... Canon because I like their feel and the AF confirm beep is something that is a compulsory feature for me... I dont know what would I do without it! [All Canons beep after AF has been confirmed]



AFAIK, so do all Nikons. Default menu setting is "off", which suits me because I personally find it annoying, but it's a simple matter to turn it back on and set it to either "high" or "low".

I'd choose either Nikon or Canon (did choose Nikon). Sony is a newbie, picked up a failed camera company that had picked up another failed camera company. I know, I know...Sony likely in it for the long haul, but time will tell. I'd give 'em a try if I had no other better choice, but I do. As for Olympus, I've already been burned by them once when they abandoned me and my OM/Zuiko system back in the 80's. I could see them one day just saying "yeah, we're dropping back to just point-and-shoots (again)". I'm not going to fall for that a second time.

[odinsride]

Canon I guess, since I've already invested thousands of $ in Canon equipment. :)

[compuwar]

Other Factors.... Canon has a superior Tele lineup and a general lens lineup a mark above others [Nikon incl]

Funnily enough, I've seen quite a few people switch to Nikon because Canon doesn't offer an equivalent to the 200-400VR. But more to the point, please show a single Canon lens in *any* focal length that outperforms or has a better MTF than the Nikkor 400/2.8 AF-S VR.

Canon makes great telephoto glass at an awesome price, but you can't be the superior brand if (a) you don't have the best super-telephoto on the market and (b) your customers switch brands because of a telephoto lens.

[Apple Ink]

AFAIK, so do all Nikons.

Really......

[checking]

oh well. Sorry. I stand rectified in that.

Its been quite a while since I held a Nikon!

So basically its pretty useful for the times I shoot portraits and portraits alone. Rest is mostly manual focus but in the end its a feature I really rely on since its an instant trigger for me to press the shutter!

@compuwar: yeah so I never said Canon was superior because it has a superior tele line up (I do find a lot of people crying for the 80-400mm AF-S VR). I simply say that all are brilliant companines making brilliant products. Then I CLARIFY that being more specific makes me BIASED....... Also I say that I'm biased by Canons feel not its tele line up (I hardly shoot tele)....

As far as customers switching from a brand for a lens..... I doubt any amateur or apprentice even cares for lenses to think of that and as far as pros.... almost all own more than one system!

And forgive me.... at the risk of being repetitive I own a Canon system and that does make me biased..... these are my thoughts not opinions or advices that I share with the OP. My verdict on his question has been declared by me in my first quote of my first post here itself!
Both Canon and Nikon have been making Cameras from a long long time so obviously they both re the best out there and each is superior in some ways but almost at par in the consumer segment (at least in the accessory segment if not the bodies)... heck they even name their flashes as "SpeedLight" and "SpeedLite"....

[westernmass]

Pentax :) always have (I think) always will. It is like asking Coke or Pepsi everyone has a opionon and I don't think we can change minds of folks once set it. Secretly, I do like Nikon Don't tell my Pentax friends ;)

[cube]

OP: Why do you snub Pentax?? :mad:

[gkarris]

OP: Why do you snub Pentax?? :mad:

Probably like the other "which DSLR?" threads - they tend to shy away from anything other than the two most popular, Nikon and Canon...

It's like Sony vs. Microsoft (or Sony vs. Nintendo, or Mattel vs. Atari - back in the day) - everything else is considered an "also ran..."

[Apple Ink]

Probably like the other "which DSLR?" threads - they tend to shy away from anything other than the two most popular, Nikon and Canon...

It's like Sony vs. Microsoft (or Sony vs. Nintendo, or Mattel vs. Atari - back in the day) - everything else is considered an "also ran..."

So true..... &

LOL cube... You really fight hard for Pentax! :)

[Ryox]

For Me, I'll Choose

1.Canon
2.Nikon
3.Sony
4.Olympus

[OreoCookie]

I don't share the scepticism of some of the other members towards Sony and particularly Olympus. Olympus is a long-time contender in the business and with the adoption of four-thirds by other companies, I don't see them going away any time soon. They are certainly not as big a player as Nikon and Canon, but they are there and IMO they are there to stay.

Regarding IQ and all that, at normal ISO (say, up to ISO640 or so), cameras by any manufacturer give you very nice images. Also, all manufacturers have a full lens-line up for the average user. So unless you have special applications in mind, you can still safely pick all manufacturers. Olympus, for example, has pioneered some things that are more and more main stream (read: Canon and Nikon have bothered to adopt them), e. g. senor cleaning and live view. So far, they haven't come around to include in-camera image stabilization (not sure whether Pentax was first or Olympus).

High ISO IQ is another matter, there Canon and Nikon do have an edge. Interestingly enough, Canon's new 50D has worse high ISO noise than its predecessor (that's because of the increased resolution, hence smaller pixel size). But whether you actually need it is another question.

Much more important than any of the above (and here I assume that you do not need any special lenses, e. g. loupe lenses or tilt/shift lenses) is how the body feels in your hands? Does it feel `natural'? For instance, Canons and I don't get along. We simply don't. I've owned Olympus (an E-20, my first dslr) and Nikons and they felt natural. When I tried Pentax and Sonys/Minoltas, so did they (to a lesser degree, though). I'm sure that the quality of my photos would suffer with Canons -- not because I think Canon makes bad cameras, but because `we don't get along.' This point cannot be over-emphasized: whether you like the way a camera works and feels has a direct impact on the quality of your pictures (I'm not necessarily talking about image quality, but quality of the photo). Size may matter (too large, too small) or you would like certain features (in-body image stabilization). In some instances, you will find your camera limiting (e. g. AF accuracy, viewfinder size/quality and speed), but then you can usually upgrade within that manufacturer.

To that degree, nobody can help you. Some people who like Canons will say `get a Canon, feels great/it's a great camera!' Ditto for various people who own cameras of other manufacturers. Try to avoid reading arguments that end in a comparison of the pro bodies when you are actually interested in an entry-level dslr.

Go and try them for yourself, all of them. Don't go to a camera store where people don't know that a Canon body cannot mount Nikon lenses (happened to me once, yes, it was the last time I was in that shop ;)).

[gkarris]

^^^ GREAT POST!

Everyone told me, "Nikon, Nikon, Nikon..." but the D40 for $449 (on sale and within my budget) felt kinda small and uncomfortable in my hands.

Then, I found an Olympus E-500 closeout with 2 lenses for $499. It felt perfect! Yes, a smaller sensor, but it's only 8 Megapixels (compared to maybe a larger one but 10 Megapixels). Not to mention I can use my old CF cards. I felt all "tingly" when I found out the Four-Thirds mount allows you to use Leica lenses with IS. :D

Get what fits you - you'll only regret it when you don't.

[66217]

Don't go to a camera store where people don't know that a Canon body cannot mount Nikon lenses (happened to me once, yes, it was the last time I was in that shop ;)).

But you can! Link (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm).

Tho, I doubt the guy in the store knew this existed. Not sure if there any compromises by using this, good Ken seems to say no.

[SimD]

I choose a CAMERA! I hear they take amazing photographs.

[valiar]

...but primarily out of budget considerations.
I really like the D300 body - it is better than any current crop sensor Canon body.
However, with Canon, I can pick up a 24-105 f4 IS L for less than $1000, or a 24-70 f2.8 L for $1100. Then there is an $650 17-40 f4 L.
These lenses will generally cover most of the shooting scenarios I encounter.
Similar Nikon glass comes out to be significantly more expensive (their 24-70 is $1400+, AFAIK).
Also, I prefer the upcoming 5D MkII over the D700 for the kind of shooting I do (I don't really care about operation speed, or clean ISO 3200, but extra resolution does sound nice!).

BTW, right now I am a 4/3 user, and I own a E3.
Will be switching to Canon or Nikon in the coming months.

[heron88]

I'll answer the question with a direct answer, which is what the OP asked for.

Nikon

[zephyrnoid]

Easy. EVEN THOUGH I've used Nikon 35mm And most recently a Nikon digital for all of the 30 years I've been shooting, I'll have to vote for Canon because as a multimedia professional that shoots stills (only 25% of the time now) and video 75% of the time- Canon covers both still & video domains like no other company.I'll still bank on Nikon still lenses being the best in Digicam domain, but you said only one company so...
RED Scartlet might change that decision soon though :D

What if you could only chose between a Nikon or a Canon. You can't say, "well it depends on what I'm shooting, or where I'm shotting" etc. You can chose either a NIKON, SONY, OLYMPUS, or a CANON for the rest of your life.

Which brand would you chose?

[gkarris]

I choose a CAMERA! I hear they take amazing photographs.

Cameras don't take pictures, PEOPLE take pictures... :eek:

:D

[Digital Skunk]

None of them. If I had my way and money was no object it'd be RED all the way for the win!

[OreoCookie]

But you can! Link (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm).

Tho, I doubt the guy in the store knew this existed. Not sure if there any compromises by using this, good Ken seems to say no.
I know that these adapters exist, the guy didn't ;)

[valiar]

[2] Nobody's going to make me {{a 4/3 aficionado}} either, there are lots of them, they're entitled to like the smaller sensor, it's not for me due to noise and depth of field.

The main appeal of 4/3 is Zuiko glass.
Not only are the semi-pro and pro ZD lenses excellent optically - they are also so compact and *reasonable*!
The venerable ZD 14-54+50-200 combination covers a the entire 28-400 mm range, and fits in my small camera bag. At the same time, these lenses are weather-sealed, reasonably fast, and in terms of sharpness, MTF, etc compare very favorably with Canon L glass.
I know I will miss my Zuikos after I switch to Canon.

[peskaa]

I went for Canon.

Originally, this was because Canon offered the first affordable dSLR with the 300D. I bought this camera, and have expanded the line up ever since to the point where I am heavily financially committed to the Canon EOS system. Prior to digital I was using a Yashica system, but that was so cheap there was no real financial penalty.

Now, at work I use Nikons because they've always used Nikons. I still prefer my Canons, and there's been some comments at work in the difference between my own EOS 1Dmk3 and the work D200/300/700s and their ability to produce the shots we need. My reason for preferring the Canons is simply the feel in my hand, and my own ease of use of the system - probably because I've had an EOS camera welded to my hand for 6 years.

Currently using an EOS 1D Mark III, EOS 20D, EOS 1000D, EOS 1N RS & 70-200 f/2.8L IS UM, 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, 50 f/1.2L USM, 15 f/2.8 Fisheye. On the way I've bought and sold a whole stack of other Canon kit.

[compuwar]

The main appeal of 4/3 is Zuiko glass.
Not only are the semi-pro and pro ZD lenses excellent optically - they are also so compact and *reasonable*!


But again, they go in front of a sensor that's smaller than everyone else, you lose at least a stop to a stop and a half to an APS-C sensor of the same generation and another stop and a half or so to a 35mm sensor. I also happen to think micro 4/3rds is going to kill actual 4/3rds.

Repeat after me "crop is not magnification." Now, "crop affects depth of field," and finally "megapixels in a crop affect diffraction."


I know I will miss my Zuikos after I switch to Canon.

*cough* *sputter* *cough* *cough* *sputter*

[valiar]

But again, they go in front of a sensor that's smaller than everyone else, you lose at least a stop to a stop and a half to an APS-C sensor of the same generation and another stop and a half or so to a 35mm sensor. I also happen to think micro 4/3rds is going to kill actual 4/3rds.

Repeat after me "crop is not magnification." Now, "crop affects depth of field," and finally "megapixels in a crop affect diffraction."

*cough* *sputter* *cough* *cough* *sputter*

For any arbitrary measurement, a four-fold increase in sample size is generally needed to improve the signal-to-noise ratio by a factor of two.
Yes, I am a scientist :)
What I have said means that given a similar chip manufacturing process, you need to go to a full-frame sensor in order to get your one stop improvement over a 4/3 sensor.
APS-size sensors are only marginally larger than what 4/3 system uses (and that primarily because of the difference in aspect ratio). Here is a picture that illustrates my point:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/SensorSizes.png

If you look at any E4x, E5x, or E3 reviews on dpreview.com, you will see that 4/3 sensors are in the same ballpark as the comparable APS ones. Not better, of course, but not even a half stop worse.
Largely as expected.

I do not really understand the point you were trying to make about diffraction - in fact, it makes no sense to me. The linear size of photosites themselves (2.1um for E3, 2.3um for Nikon D300) are similar for APS and 4/3 cameras. As for the lens aperture size, any Canon lens stopped down to f22 is going to diffract, and any 4/3 lens stopped down to f22 is going to diffract. But if we are talking about these lenses "sweet spot", then their diffraction characteristics are going to be largely similar in any reasonable shooting scenarios.

As for DOF, that argument also does not hold water, sorry. If you want an extremely shallow DOF on 4/3, there is a whole family of f2.0 Zuiko glass available. Something like a Zuiko 14-35 f2.0, for example. Or the 50mm f2.0 Macro. Even with my lowly 14-54 f2.8-3.5 I never had problems isolating my subjects from the background. Again, 4/3 is largely similar to APS cameras in this respect.
Don't believe me?
Check these images out:
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p777497179/e1acbee56
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p777497179/e14823289
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p1021282566/e2ce5aeee
http://signoflife.zenfolio.com/p887868332/e21775dd1

These are shot with the 14-54 and the 50 Macro.

Note that I am not a 4/3 fanboy by any measure. I did say that I am switching to Canon in the near future, as you remember - and I am doing it because I want to have an upgrade path to a full-frame camera. I want that extra stop of sensitivity, I want a wide-angle tilt-shift lens, and I love large, film-era-style viewfinders.

But 4/3 format has its definite advantages, and it is definitely not as terrible as you might imagine. In fact, the E3 is a pretty darn nice body.

[PCMacUser]

Funnily enough, I've seen quite a few people switch to Nikon because Canon doesn't offer an equivalent to the 200-400VR. But more to the point, please show a single Canon lens in *any* focal length that outperforms or has a better MTF than the Nikkor 400/2.8 AF-S VR.

Canon makes great telephoto glass at an awesome price, but you can't be the superior brand if (a) you don't have the best super-telephoto on the market and (b) your customers switch brands because of a telephoto lens.

I found this post interesting, because I wasn't at all familiar with the MTF measurements. After doing some homework, although incomplete, I have the following comments.

a. Isn't the Canon EF100mm-400mm F3.5-5.6 L with Image Stabilising a near equivalent to the 200-400VR? Or is there an issue with aperture?

b. I'm not sure how you're comparing MTF details between Canon and the Nikkor lenses. If you're relying on the manufacturers' MTF details, then the Luminous Landscape website says this:

Be aware though that different manufacturers have different measurement procedures, and therefore while comparing MTF charts between lenses in the same line is possible, and is in fact very useful in making a purchasing decision, doing so between different manufacturer's MTF charts isn't.

Either way, I appreciate the post, because otherwise I wouldn't have learnt about this whole measurement system.

[compuwar]

If you look at any E4x, E5x, or E3 reviews on dpreview.com, you will see that 4/3 sensors are in the same ballpark as the comparable APS ones. Not better, of course, but not even a half stop worse.
Largely as expected.



That's not what I get from the samples on DPR using my Mk I eyeballs, I see about a stop's difference in noise from the E410/E510 samples versus APS-C.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp

The dynamic range isn't all that either, though that's an Oly issue, not a 4/3rds format issue...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page18.asp

The pure math says based simply on size that you lose about .79x over APS-C, but that doesn't take into account density or heat, which will worsen the measurement in real life- so about a stop seems pretty accurate.



I do not really understand the point you were trying to make about diffraction - in fact, it makes no sense to me. The linear size of photosites themselves (2.1um for E3, 2.3um for Nikon D300) are similar for APS and 4/3 cameras. As for the lens aperture size, any Canon lens stopped down to f22 is going to diffract, and any 4/3 lens stopped down to f22 is going to diffract. But if we are talking about these lenses "sweet spot", then their diffraction characteristics are going to be largely similar in any reasonable shooting scenarios.


10MP at 4/3rds is going to diffract sooner than 10MP at APS-C is going to diffract sooner than 10MP at 35mm.

For instance, for an 8x10 print, 4/3rds is diffraction limited at f/13, APS-C at f/18 and 35mm at f/32.

(Calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm)

You do gain some DoF advantages on the smaller sensor, but the other disadvantages mean I haven't done the math to see if they offset at the distances I normally shoot and frankly there's not enough of a range of camera resolutions in 4/3rds to be all that pertinent anyway.



As for DOF, that argument also does not hold water, sorry. If you want an extremely shallow DOF on 4/3, there is a whole family of f2.0 Zuiko glass available. Something like a Zuiko 14-35 f2.0, for example. Or the 50mm f2.0 Macro. Even with my lowly 14-54 f2.8-3.5 I never had problems isolating my subjects from the background. Again, 4/3 is largely similar to APS cameras in this respect.



Crop factor isn't the same as magnification- so you're left with a maximum focal length of 150mm at f/2- that's simply not competitive with a 400mm f/2.8 lens- a "whole family" of f/2.0 glass seems to consist of a three lenses unless I'm missing something? It seems you go from a 300/2.8 equivalent to a 600/4 equivalent, with nothing in between. For my shooting, I skipped the 300/2.8 in terms of distance and the 600/4 in terms of speed, and the lens selection simply isn't there for 4/3rds.

The end result is therefore that a 4/3rds camera has twice the depth of field as a 35mm camera with a lens covering the same field of view.

(Source: http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four-Thirds)

So to get the same field of view and depth of field as a 400/2.8, you'd need a 200/2, right? I don't see one. A 200/2 equivalent would need to be 100/1.4 as well, Unless I'm missing something?



But 4/3 format has its definite advantages, and it is definitely not as terrible as you might imagine. In fact, the E3 is a pretty darn nice body.

Again, it doesn't work for most of my photography.

[compuwar]

I found this post interesting, because I wasn't at all familiar with the MTF measurements. After doing some homework, although incomplete, I have the following comments.

a. Isn't the Canon EF100mm-400mm F3.5-5.6 L with Image Stabilising a near equivalent to the 200-400VR? Or is there an issue with aperture?


Not even close- the 200-400VR is only slightly down from a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 or 600/4, the 100-400IS is better than the Nikon 80-400VR, but not in the same class as the super-tele primes. Both the 100-400IS and 80-400VR are "Prosumer" lenses with similar price points and target audiences and variable apertures (don't let the "L" designation or gold ring fool you) and while they're reasonable for what they are, they're not top-of-the-line professional lenses, the 200-400VR is. Plus you get to shoot in half the light at 400 or use a shallower DoF, both important considerations for wildlife shooters where these lenses are targeted.


b. I'm not sure how you're comparing MTF details between Canon and the Nikkor lenses. If you're relying on the manufacturers' MTF details, then the Luminous Landscape website says this:


Nikon and Canon both provide 10 and 30 lines/mm (Both done off the optical formulae, not actual measurements) Zeiss goes 10, 20 and 40mm, so it's a more difficult comparison, but you can still compare center to edge performance, just not resolution in an apples-to-apples way over all three.

Also, Reichman is wrong- Nikon publishes MTFs on its international lens site, not just the Japanese site and has done so for a number of years. Here's the 400VR's:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/index.htm

You may find this article also helpful:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/how_to_choose_a_lens.html

MTFs don't show color fall-off, but are otherwise a reasonable data point in lens selection.

[OreoCookie]

So to get the same field of view and depth of field as a 400/2.8, you'd need a 200/2, right? I don't see one. A 200/2 equivalent would need to be 100/1.4 as well, Unless I'm missing something?
Yes, I think you're missing something: the 200 mm f/2 lenses cost an arm, a leg and a first-born. The OP was asking about entry-level dslrs. For most things, Olympus has a full lens line-up.

Regarding noise, for normal ISOs, the Olys are pretty much on par (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse420/page16.asp), the dynamic range (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse420/page18.asp) is a little less (8.2 EV), about half an EV to 1 EV less than the competition. Again, for consumers, I don't think this is much of an issue. Keep in mind that a Canon 30D, a very decent camera, has a dynamic range of 8.4 EV at ISO 100.

I'm not saying that Olympus has the right camera for you, but for a consumer or even many enthusiasts, the points you mention are moot to irrelevant.

Disclaimer: Right now I shoot Nikon and have no plans of switching to Olympus.

[compuwar]

Yes, I think you're missing something: the 200 mm f/2 lenses cost an arm, a leg and a first-born. The OP was asking about entry-level dslrs. For most things, Olympus has a full lens line-up.



No, I answered the OP directly- my response to Valiar was in response to my notes about 4/3rds and myself, therefore it's a perfectly valid response. Also, you're probably aware that you can rent plenty of expensive Nikon lenses at a number of places, and a full lens line-up for ME includes super-teles, and since the response was to a point about 4/3rds not being for me, it's a valid response.


I'm not saying that Olympus has the right camera for you, but for a consumer or even many enthusiasts, the points you mention are moot to irrelevant.


Again, I was directly responding to a point made about why the 4/3rds system wasn't right for *me*, but I'd argue that many enthusiasts are quite picky about noise and DoF if many of the postings here are to be believed.

[PCMacUser]

Not even close- the 200-400VR is only slightly down from a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 or 600/4, the 100-400IS is better than the Nikon 80-400VR, but not in the same class as the super-tele primes. Both the 100-400IS and 80-400VR are "Prosumer" lenses with similar price points and target audiences and variable apertures (don't let the "L" designation or gold ring fool you) and while they're reasonable for what they are, they're not top-of-the-line professional lenses, the 200-400VR is. Plus you get to shoot in half the light at 400 or use a shallower DoF, both important considerations for wildlife shooters where these lenses are targeted.

Interesting stuff. To be honest, the wildlife photographers I know use super-tele primes. In fact, from what I've read, even 400mm is considered a little bit at the wide end for serious wildlife photography.

But yes I agree, based on what pros and various articles have said, that the 100mm-400mmIS lens is more of a 'prosumer' lens due to its lower levels of sharpness, and famous 'dust pump' zoom action etc. It might not put me off buying one for when I go on safari in Africa though. But for bird photography the 400mm f/5.6 prime is considered a far better (and actually cheaper) option for optical quality.

Alas, we're off topic, but it's been educational.

[valiar]

That's not what I get from the samples on DPR using my Mk I eyeballs, I see about a stop's difference in noise from the E410/E510 samples versus APS-C.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page16.asp

The dynamic range isn't all that either, though that's an Oly issue, not a 4/3rds format issue...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse510/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page18.asp


OK, I'll bite.
First of all, look carefully at the pages you have linked to.
In particular, look at the noise-vs-ISO plots. Carefully.
As you can see, there is not all that much difference between the cameras they have been comparing.
Of course, it is not obvious to me that standard deviation of luminance value for an in-camera processed JPEG file is an accurate measure of sensor noise.
Still, it is amusing that you have chosen to link these particular pages.

But now let's look at RAW dynamic range.
Let me quote the DPR numbers for RAW dynamic range directly.

Olympus E510:
"The most we could achieve using Adobe Camera RAW was a total dynamic range of 9.6 EV although the last stop of this appears to have almost no color information."

Canon 400D:
"The best we could achieve (with some pretty extreme ACR settings) was just over 10 stops total dynamic range..."

While a half-stop advantage is nice, it is *nowhere* near the (physically impossible) 1 to 1.5 stop difference you have been claiming.

Another illustrative example is the APS-C Pentax camera that is being tested together with 400D and E510. It has significantly more sensor noise and less DR than either the Canon or the Oly. What this means is that the particular sensor chip quirks will generally have more influence on the measurement outcome than the small difference in linear size between 4/3 and APS.

Also note that I am not touching the issue of in-camera JPEG dynamic range. That will, obviously, be very much software-dependent.

The pure math says based simply on size that you lose about .79x over APS-C, but that doesn't take into account density or heat, which will worsen the measurement in real life- so about a stop seems pretty accurate.

.79x of what exactly? And how did you come up with this number?
The area of a 4/3 sensor is 225 mm2. The area of a Canon APS-C sensor is 329 mm2, i.e. it is 31.6% larger. Which means that the signal-to-noise ratio advantage of the Canon sensor, given that the manufacturing process/substrate is similar, and the image aspect ratio is the same, is sqrt(1.316). A whopping 14%.
This is the "pure math" treatment.

OK, enough with this nonsense.
Go shoot some pictures instead.
After all, I presume you are the pro photographer here. I am just a lowly physical chemistry PhD.
Peace :)

[jmdeegan]

Definetly Pentax.

I have Olympus point-n-shoot as a backup, its also my underwater camera. Nice little guy.

But the dSLR is all Pentax, K10D. Much more bang for the buck with that than a Canon or Nikon, IMHO

[compuwar]

OK, I'll bite.
First of all, look carefully at the pages you have linked to.
In particular, look at the noise-vs-ISO plots. Carefully.
As you can see, there is not all that much difference between the cameras they have been comparing.


No, look at the actual pictures, since that's what you'd be using and that's the best head-to-head comparison you'll see online. If you look at the stamp shots and the dark patch shots you'll see the noise differences quite clearly- and general and chroma noise are visibly worse in the 4/3rds samples.


Of course, it is not obvious to me that standard deviation of luminance value for an in-camera processed JPEG file is an accurate measure of sensor noise.
Still, it is amusing that you have chosen to link these particular pages.


I haven't seen other direct comparisons so of course I link to the ones I've seen. If you have better direct comparisons please share them.


But now let's look at RAW dynamic range.

Let me quote the DPR numbers for RAW dynamic range directly.

Olympus E510:
"The most we could achieve using Adobe Camera RAW was a total dynamic range of 9.6 EV although the last stop of this appears to have almost no color information."

Canon 400D:
"The best we could achieve (with some pretty extreme ACR settings) was just over 10 stops total dynamic range..."

While a half-stop advantage is nice, it is *nowhere* near the (physically impossible) 1 to 1.5 stop difference you have been claiming.


Actually, you appear to be somewhat reading challenged- I've been claiming noise differences in stops based upon the DPR sample images, not dynamic range differences which I said were an Olympus issue, not a 4/3rds issue (however the D40 seems to come out at 10.1 to 11 EV in Imatest results) and just not that flattering to the Oly cameras.


Another illustrative example is the APS-C Pentax camera that is being tested together with 400D and E510. It has significantly more sensor noise and less DR than either the Canon or the Oly. What this means is that the particular sensor chip quirks will generally have more influence on the measurement outcome than the small difference in linear size between 4/3 and APS.


Which is why I said it was a manufacturer issue rather than a format issue.
[/QUOTE]


.79x of what exactly? And how did you come up with this number?


Pixel pitch for the same megapixel camera on the different sized sensors- it obviously changes slightly based upon which sized APS-C you're talking about- but seems to be a fairly good indicator of photon noise limited sensor performance.

[compuwar]

Interesting stuff. To be honest, the wildlife photographers I know use super-tele primes. In fact, from what I've read, even 400mm is considered a little bit at the wide end for serious wildlife photography.


It depends a lot on what you shoot, when and where. For small birds, 400's not really long enough- but there are trade-offs to consider- a 600/4 needs twice the light of a 400/2.8 (which is the longest 2.8 prime - the new Sigma 300-500/2.8 zoom is looking very interesting though.) During the long days of summer, and with larger subjects, the 400 gives you a much longer shooting day, and with a 1.4x TC is pretty close to a 600/4 prime in terms of IQ and reach. Some folks prefer the lighter 500/4, some the 600/4 for its reach. I don't mind the extra weight of the 400/2.8, and I'd prefer to have the light since I'm shooting a high pixel density body most of the time and I can go to a 1.4x or 1.7x TC when I have the light and need the reach.


But yes I agree, based on what pros and various articles have said, that the 100mm-400mmIS lens is more of a 'prosumer' lens due to its lower levels of sharpness, and famous 'dust pump' zoom action etc. It might not put me off buying one for when I go on safari in Africa though. But for bird photography the 400mm f/5.6 prime is considered a far better (and actually cheaper) option for optical quality.


It's a decent lens for its price, and if you can deal with the aperture limitations it's well-worth it for a big trip. I recommended it last to a friend who was doing an Alaska trip and he came back with great Bear and Moose pictures, and wouldn't have been able to travel with a larger or faster lens if he'd been able to budget it. Even the Nikkor 80-400VR isn't a poor choice for its price range, though mine's been lent out for two or three years now, and I think I've shot with it twice in that time because I hate to give up the extra IQ and shallower DoF of the 400 prime.

[valiar]

No, look at the actual pictures, since that's what you'd be using and that's the best head-to-head comparison you'll see online. If you look at the stamp shots and the dark patch shots you'll see the noise differences quite clearly- and general and chroma noise are visibly worse in the 4/3rds samples.


This is starting to be more than mildly amusing.
Guess how do they come up with the numbers on the plots? Do you even understand what these numbers are (and for that matter, what "standard deviation" means)?

These numbers are the quantitative measure of "blotchiness" of these dark patch shots you have been referring to. As in, the DPR staff actually *measured* how much noise there is on these dark patch shots. Yes, the same dark patches that they show you fragments of.

And, sure enough, there is more noise in the high ISO E510 samples than in the high ISO 400D samples. You can clearly see it on the plots. It is just that the difference is not as dramatic as you want it to be.


I haven't seen other direct comparisons so of course I link to the ones I've seen. If you have better direct comparisons please share them.

My point is that this particular experiment is really not a direct comparison of sensor noise, because each camera's demosaicing, noise reduction, and JPEG compression algorithms come into play.

However, if the noise difference were as dramatic as you claim it to be, no smart software could have saved the poor E510 from slaughter. To check me on this, just look up any recent compact camera review on DPR. Then compare its numbers to the 400D and E520. The beauty of DPR is that they are quite consistent with their methodology, so everything is directly comparable.

Actually, you appear to be somewhat reading challenged- I've been claiming noise differences in stops based upon the DPR sample images, not dynamic range differences which I said were an Olympus issue, not a 4/3rds issue (however the D40 seems to come out at 10.1 to 11 EV in Imatest results) and just not that flattering to the Oly cameras.

I am sorry, it does not look like you have any idea what you are talking about here.

DPR's methodology for determining DR is very simple.
They shoot a graduated wedge. Then they stretch the resulting RAW file in ACR, and see how many gradations they can see before either clipping (on the bright side), or fade-to-noise (on the dark side) occurs.

On a fundamental level, this experiment is equivalent to a direct sensor noise measurement. The reason I have quoted this result is because DPR staff use RAW to run this comparison, thus removing the difference in software from the equation.

When measured this way, under controlled conditions, the 4 cameras mentioned in the review you have linked have largely the same DR. And the E510 is not even the worst of the pack.

Throwing in some numbers from a measurement performed in a different manner, and under different conditions, is really not relevant, because the numbers will not be directly comparable. This is *not* how you design experiments.

But let's hear what DPR has to say about D40's RAW DR:
"The best we could achieve was just over 10 stops total dynamic range (although with no guarantee of color in highlights)".
It looks like the E510, which crams a whopping 10MP into that smaller sensor, comes within 1/2 stop of a 6MP APS camera. To be frank, I am quite impressed with Matsushita engineers. Really.

And I don't mean to say anything bad about the D40. Apart from the lack of focusing motor in the body, it is a nice little camera, and I would prefer it over Oly's E410/420 any day. But not because of noise or DR.

Pixel pitch for the same megapixel camera on the different sized sensors- it obviously changes slightly based upon which sized APS-C you're talking about- but seems to be a fairly good indicator of photon noise limited sensor performance.

Can you give me a definition of what "photon noise" is?
As for the pixel pitch, sensor area, and their relation to signal-to-noise ratio - see one of my previous posts in this epic thread.
The difference between 4/3 and APS cameras is marginal.

Yes, larger pixels are better.
Yes, larger sensors are better, because more of the larger pixels fit.
Yes, Olympus have made a business blunder by assuming that FF sensors will never be cheap enough to be mass produced.

But claiming that 30% of additional sensor area results in 1 full stop of signal-to-noise ratio improvement is ludicrous.

I will sign off for good with one final DPR link - that to an Oly E3/Nikon D300 studio scene comparison.
Yes, I do like the D300 shot slightly more.
Yes, the difference between them is at best marginal.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/page26.asp

[gkarris]

OK, I'll bite.
First of all, look carefully at the pages you have linked to.
In particular, look at the noise-vs-ISO plots. Carefully.
As you can see, there is not all that much difference between the cameras they have been comparing.
Of course, it is not obvious to me that standard deviation of luminance value for an in-camera processed JPEG file is an accurate measure of sensor noise.
Still, it is amusing that you have chosen to link these particular pages.

But now let's look at RAW dynamic range.
Let me quote the DPR numbers for RAW dynamic range directly.

Olympus E510:
"The most we could achieve using Adobe Camera RAW was a total dynamic range of 9.6 EV although the last stop of this appears to have almost no color information."

Canon 400D:
"The best we could achieve (with some pretty extreme ACR settings) was just over 10 stops total dynamic range..."

While a half-stop advantage is nice, it is *nowhere* near the (physically impossible) 1 to 1.5 stop difference you have been claiming.

Another illustrative example is the APS-C Pentax camera that is being tested together with 400D and E510. It has significantly more sensor noise and less DR than either the Canon or the Oly. What this means is that the particular sensor chip quirks will generally have more influence on the measurement outcome than the small difference in linear size between 4/3 and APS.

Also note that I am not touching the issue of in-camera JPEG dynamic range. That will, obviously, be very much software-dependent.



.79x of what exactly? And how did you come up with this number?
The area of a 4/3 sensor is 225 mm2. The area of a Canon APS-C sensor is 329 mm2, i.e. it is 31.6% larger. Which means that the signal-to-noise ratio advantage of the Canon sensor, given that the manufacturing process/substrate is similar, and the image aspect ratio is the same, is sqrt(1.316). A whopping 14%.
This is the "pure math" treatment.

OK, enough with this nonsense.
Go shoot some pictures instead.
After all, I presume you are the pro photographer here. I am just a lowly physical chemistry PhD.
Peace :)

Here we go. I'm surprised that the Mod hasn't closed this now meaningless thread - "My (insert favorite brand here) is better than everything else because (insert some ultra-vague concept here)"...

It's all about the photographers talent...

[valiar]

Here we go. I'm surprised that the Mod hasn't closed this now meaningless thread - "My (insert favorite brand here) is better than everything else because (insert some ultra-vague concept here)"...

It's all about the photographers talent...

It is even worse than that - it is more along the lines of "your (insert favorite brand here) is the worst thing in the observable universe because (insert faulty reasoning here)"...

Usually I don't feed the fanbois, but in this case I could not resist.
It is genuinely funny when people continue arguing their point, even after being presented with evidence to the contrary.

[jodelli]

There was a Nikon D90 on display at our last user group meeting, and I was intrigued by the fact that it is capable of HD video.
I also heard that there was a roughly equivalent Canon available, I think it was the EOS 5D Mark II, but I could be wrong. I've been using Canons so I'm disposed that way.
A guy I was discussing this with while we looked over the Nikon said he would be staying with Olympus for now due to the legacy lens issue.

[peskaa]

There was a Nikon D90 on display at our last user group meeting, and I was intrigued by the fact that it is capable of HD video.
I also heard that there was a roughly equivalent Canon available, I think it was the EOS 5D Mark II, but I could be wrong. I've been using Canons so I'm disposed that way.
A guy I was discussing this with while we looked over the Nikon said he would be staying with Olympus for now due to the legacy lens issue.

The D90 does 720p HD video, the EOS 5D II will do 1080p HD. So yes, you heard right ;)

[Ironic]

Sonys have great color and a great Macro even the P&S !

[compuwar]

This is starting to be more than mildly amusing.
Guess how do they come up with the numbers on the plots?


No, it's getting tiring, from your "range of f/2 lenses" and not quite right grasp of DoF issues to the incessant nitpicking, it's clear your fan position uber alles is tainting your thinking.


Do you even understand what these numbers are (and for that matter, what "standard deviation" means)?


Yes and yes- but thanks for your concern :-P


These numbers are the quantitative measure of "blotchiness" of these dark patch shots you have been referring to. As in, the DPR staff actually *measured* how much noise there is on these dark patch shots. Yes, the same dark patches that they show you fragments of.


Yes, and while DR is bounded by noise, the type of noise exhibited by a system, as well as contrast you can have two cameras with the same DR that exhibit different noise characteristics, which is why looking at the noise differences provides a better idea of the boundaries than simply knowing the threshold for read noise (the lower bound of DR.)



And, sure enough, there is more noise in the high ISO E510 samples than in the high ISO 400D samples. You can clearly see it on the plots. It is just that the difference is not as dramatic as you want it to be.


Different noise patterns are more or less pleasing to different people- the noise is as I see it, and I couldn't care less what a single instantiation of a system produces (your attempted projection of "want" is silly)- overall I see the different noise of 4/3rds producing an equally pleasing image at a stop or so given the samples that are there. You'd have to do a lot more comparisons and bounce around between reviews to get to "this system" from "this camera."

Here's what the Imaging Resources folks had to say in their DR section on the E-510 that's particularly relevant (since they do actual testing with Imatest)

Processing the E510's RAW (ORF) files through Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) version 4.1, we had somewhat confounding results. ACR 4.1's automatic settings increased the visual dynamic range a little, but produced a very flat tone curve, with no depth to the shadows. (Basically the same behavior we encountered with the E410's RAW files.) With a little manual tweaking, we obtained much better results, and Imatest recognized more density steps, but the net results were still weak when compared to competing cameras. While weaker than other cameras though, the E510's manually-tweaked dynamic range results were a good 0.4 EV (that is, almost half an f-stop) better than those of the E410, at least when using the High and Medium-High quality thresholds for allowable noise. The results of the manual tweaking are reflected in the table below.

The net result was that the E510 performed rather poorly when compared against most current DSLR models, with a full f-stop or more less dynamic range than anything currently on the market. If you're willing to work from its RAW files directly though, it will still lag the field, but not as badly.


The results shown in the table are interesting. One of the first things that struck me when I initially looked at test data for a wide range of d-SLRs, was that here again, purely analytical measurements don't necessarily correlate all that well with actual photographic experience.

Regardless of the positions of the other cameras though, the Olympus E510 does appear to offer rather poor dynamic range, the one notably negative mark against what is otherwise a good-performing consumer SLR. Matters improve somewhat if you take the time to process its RAW files manually, but the results are still far from stellar.

As I always say though, at the end of the day I think you have to take the figures here with a grain of salt, and look at actual images with your own eyes to see what you make of each camera's tonal range and noise levels. We'll continue performing these dynamic range tests on the digital SLRs that we review, but (just as with the laboratory resolution target results), we suggest that you not rely on them exclusively for making your purchase decisions.




My point is that this particular experiment is really not a direct comparison of sensor noise, because each camera's demosaicing, noise reduction, and JPEG compression algorithms come into play.


If we're going to be nit-picky buttheads (and it seems you may be) then you really don't EVER get a comparison of sensor noise, because the ADCs, tonal curves and a bunch of other stuff gets in the way. Noise reduction reduces noise, so the 4/3rds body has to have that much noise- JPEG and demosaicing produce artifacts, but I've not seen them mistaken for noise, perhaps you can show some examples to substantiate your claim?


The beauty of DPR is that they are quite consistent with their methodology, so everything is directly comparable.


Once again, absent other comparisons that give comparable head-to-head results over multiple systems it's difficult to come up with better data, so you can either complain that the data are incomplete or skewed, or accept that it's "directly comparable." doing both side-by-side is disingenuous.



DPR's methodology for determining DR is very simple.
They shoot a graduated wedge. Then they stretch the resulting RAW file in ACR, and see how many gradations they can see before either clipping (on the bright side), or fade-to-noise (on the dark side) occurs.

On a fundamental level, this experiment is equivalent to a direct sensor noise measurement. The reason I have quoted this result is because DPR staff use RAW to run this comparison, thus removing the difference in software from the equation.


1. It is equivalent to one aspect of noise measurement only- you can have two cameras with similar dynamic ranges which have quite different noise characteristics.

2. You're really not as educated as you position if you believe that using ACR "removes the difference in software from the equation."

For all your posturing on experimental procedure you surely are aware that ACR changes exposure values on raw files on a per-camera basis without the ability to "turn off" this feature? While it technically "removes the difference in product" it surely changes the software path and more importantly the results on a per-camera bases- not even a per-manufacturer one.

You can run several different raw converters on the same raw file and come up with not only different conversions, but even different pixels being converted- with closed-source software it's quite involved to test and see if Adobe does anything anywhere near equivalent when dealing with the same raw file format, let alone between raw file formats.

To assume that ACR acts in any way consistently over anything more than different raw files from the same camera shows a vacuous understanding of raw converters and raw file conversion, let alone ACR itself.


When measured this way, under controlled conditions, the 4 cameras mentioned in the review you have linked have largely the same DR. And the E510 is not even the worst of the pack.


Yet they don't all have the same noise characteristics- hence the disclaimer from even those who perform such evaluations regularly that the quantitative data are not completely illustrative of the empirical results.


Throwing in some numbers from a measurement performed in a different manner, and under different conditions, is really not relevant, because the numbers will not be directly comparable. This is *not* how you design experiments.


1. I'm not designing an experiment, I'm showing that the data change based on measurement, but that the relative measurements tend to produce results in the same relative quantities.

2. There are a bunch of Imatest results for various cameras, surely you're familiar enough with the Web to not need to be spoon-fed the apples-to-apples links?


But claiming that 30% of additional sensor area results in 1 full stop of signal-to-noise ratio improvement is ludicrous.


Yet if we accept that one or more stops of dynamic range performance equate to read noise levels at the floor, to quote Imaging Resources again"

"The net result was that the E510 performed rather poorly when compared against most current DSLR models, with a full f-stop or more less dynamic range than anything currently on the market."

Perhaps not so ludicrous if you take off the fanboy shades.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Nobody argues with Compuwar and wins, at least not in Compuwar's eyes.

I hear ya though Valiar. If you'd just made some bogus claims about Nikon being the best thing ever and that the new Nikon line would actually be able to cure Hepatitis C or something like that, you'd have saved yourself some time.

I like Olympus cameras, they're really nice and nobody can refute that. As you say, the engineers at matsushita have really done themselves proud with the 4/3rds concept. Bringing what shoudl be a completely crippled sensor size so close to the performance of sensors that are larger and supposedly "better" is no small feat. Just imagine what they could do with an APS-C or FF sensor.

You've outlined and backed up your arguments well, but some fanboyists aren't interested in logic and evidence, but rather Nikon and Canon are better just because is all they hear. It's been entertaining to read the exchange nonetheless!

SLC

[gkarris]

Nobody argues with Compuwar and wins, at least not in Compuwar's eyes.

I hear ya though Valiar. If you'd just made some bogus claims about Nikon being the best thing ever and that the new Nikon line would actually be able to cure Hepatitis C or something like that, you'd have saved yourself some time.

I like Olympus cameras, they're really nice and nobody can refute that. As you say, the engineers at matsushita have really done themselves proud with the 4/3rds concept. Bringing what shoudl be a completely crippled sensor size so close to the performance of sensors that are larger and supposedly "better" is no small feat. Just imagine what they could do with an APS-C or FF sensor.

You've outlined and backed up your arguments well, but some fanboyists aren't interested in logic and evidence, but rather Nikon and Canon are better just because is all they hear. It's been entertaining to read the exchange nonetheless!

SLC

I ended up with an E-500 2 lens kit on closeout for $499 and love it! I'm happy I didn't settle for the tiny, uncomfortable Nikon D40.

The whole thing reminds me of the Kodak vs. Fuji film back in the day... :eek:

Heck, I still love taking pics with my Polariod AND my Kodak Pocket 110! :D

(no more film, though - runs off crying...)

[gkarris]

There was a Nikon D90 on display at our last user group meeting, and I was intrigued by the fact that it is capable of HD video.
I also heard that there was a roughly equivalent Canon available, I think it was the EOS 5D Mark II, but I could be wrong. I've been using Canons so I'm disposed that way.
A guy I was discussing this with while we looked over the Nikon said he would be staying with Olympus for now due to the legacy lens issue.

Stay away from DSLRs with video. The large sensor causes "worbling" in fast motion video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0i5rmwPPNQ

You need an actual Camcorder with a sensor that's made for video. That's why video on the small P&S are actually kinda good - the sensors are small like on the camcorders...

[cube]

It's not the size of the sensor. It's the design of the electronic shutter.

[Davydd]

For the record I bought the Olympus E-520 after comparing it to a Canon XSi, Sony A300 and Nikon D60. Also, I looked at the Olympus E-420. I decided on the Olympus because I thought the 4/3rds sensor made practical sense especially since most of my photos are prepared for online posting. I also just liked the feel of the camera and grip. The camera body image stability made a lot of sense to me as well and is proving to be a good choice. Finally, I liked the lens choices. The kit 14-42mm was good. What I wanted was a lens for bird photography and the 70-300mm was super for that at a great price. Finally I wanted something unobtrusive and the 25mm pancake lens filled the bill for the restaurant food photography I do a lot of.

[srf4real]

Olympus... I shoot long and don't like to carry a wheelbarrow full of cash to the camera store nor do I want to carry a wheelbarrow full of glass out of there. I just want pretty pictures.;)