New Olympus dSLR Owner..

Hls811

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
792
6
New Jersey
Hey.. I made the jump and finally ditched Ultra-Zoom Point and Shoots for a dSLR (e-510). This is my first dSLR and these are a group of pictures I took over the weekend and I'd love to hear some feedback -good/bad/indifferent..

Any suggestions or pointers would be a big help in getting me to learn! In addition to suggestions for manual camera settings, just knowing what filters to use for certain subjects would help!!

I did have on a clear UV Filter for all of the Bryant Park pictures and used the kit 14-42mm lens.

The second group was taken at Yankee Stadium and were with the 40-150mm kit lens and had a polarizer filter.

Again - any critiques/advice is welcome!! (I'm going to another game in a few weeks so would love to try and improve!)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hls811/
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,641
406
Redondo Beach, California
...just knowing what filters to use for certain subjects would help!!
For the most part you don't need filters on digital cameras. With film we used them for color correction. Two exceptions.

1) Some people like to put a clear filter over the lens. This has no effect on the image (unless you use a cheap filter)

2) A polarizer filter can remove glare and refections from non-metalic objects and in some light angles make open, blue sky look darker. Removing glare can improve contrast and color saturation. The effect can be adjusted by rotating the filter

But the filter robs some light and degrades the image so you have to balance it's use with the 1.5 stops of light it blocks. Take if off unless you need it
 

Lovesong

macrumors 65816
For the most part you don't need filters on digital cameras. With film we used them for color correction. Two exceptions.

1) Some people like to put a clear filter over the lens. This has no effect on the image (unless you use a cheap filter)

2) A polarizer filter can remove glare and refections from non-metalic objects and in some light angles make open, blue sky look darker. Removing glare can improve contrast and color saturation. The effect can be adjusted by rotating the filter

But the filter robs some light and degrades the image so you have to balance it's use with the 1.5 stops of light it blocks. Take if off unless you need it
While that is mostly true, I'd have to disagree with the blanket statement that filters have become obsolete now that we have Photoshop. You mentioned a circular polarizer, and a protective filter. I'd have to add ND filters (which are essential for obtaining long-shutter exposures without overexposure), and graduated density filters (yes I know that you can do HDR, but that kills the sharpness of an image, and it's a bit more difficult to do with an object in motion.

Hls811- overall your pictures look good. Watch out for over-blown highlights (Construction), and when you're shooting an image with high-contrast areas (Into the Sun) consider using either a graduated ND filter, or at least bracket your exposure a bit. Keep up the good job.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,951
3
Gone but not forgotten.
Generally, I don't use filters but a circular polariser of good quality can help at times. Cheap filters really make things worse.

Congratulations on getting an E-510. Hopefully, you've read the manual and know not to be concerned with the vibration and noise at shutdown.

I tried an E-510 with my lenses at a store last week and it seems rather small but quite capable. You might want to try some Olympus resources, as there are a couple of Olympus-only forums online and a few others that have a healthy Olympus group.
 

Mitthrawnuruodo

Moderator emeritus
Mar 10, 2004
13,604
146
Bergen, Norway
Congrats on the purchase. I'm a bit envious, though my E-400 is nice enough... :cool:

I generally don't like effect filters, either, much better to add the effects you want in post-processing in most cases, IMO. The only thing I use is a relatively good and clear UV-filter mostly as a lens protector (better to scratch a $40-50 filter than the $200 kit lens, and with more expensive lenses, well, you do the math ;)).

Nice to have another Olympus user on-board, the Nikon and Canon posses can be quite overwhelming at times...
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,379
110
Location Location Location
I tried an E-510 with my lenses at a store last week and it seems rather small but quite capable.
I was in Japan like 2 days ago, trying out the new E-410. Holy ****.....what a small camera. :eek: It really is compact size. It's a bit uncomfortable to hold, but it's a compromise between size and comfort, isn't it. If you want a DSLR to throw into a bag and go, that is definitely the camera to get.

Also played around with a Fuji S5 Pro for the first time. I really really really want it. :eek:
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,951
3
Gone but not forgotten.
I was in Japan like 2 days ago, trying out the new E-410. Holy ****.....what a small camera. :eek: It really is compact size. It's a bit uncomfortable to hold, but it's a compromise between size and comfort, isn't it. If you want a DSLR to throw into a bag and go, that is definitely the camera to get.

Also played around with a Fuji S5 Pro for the first time. I really really really want it. :eek:
Yes, the E-410 is even smaller. The Nikon D-40 is about the same size.

The E-410 is without a nice grip so it's like the 35mm cameras of old. The E-510 is more like other dSLRs even though it shares most things with the E-410.