4/3 for me?

[theITguy]

Hi guys,

Need some advice/info on the digital system before I surrender my monies to the shop. :bheart:

I used Canon film system previously, but had sold it off to finance my studies. I used to own a 24mm/F2.8, 50mm/F1.8, 100mm/F2 and 70-200mm/F4, along with a 420EX and EOS 33 (camera body still in my cabinet). There is no problem on rebuilding a brand new system from which camp, to make life easier since I am seeking advice/info. I am using the system for non-profitting purposes, if it matters.

I am basically a wide guy, with 85% of my photos from the 24mm/F2.8, 10% from the 100mm/F2. My main interests in photography are architechs, landscape, scenary, abstracts and macro. Other necessities are family and friends shots.

I am leaning towards the 4/3 system from Olympus, with an E3 + 12-60 SWD for general shots and 7-14 or 8-16 (if it ever release) for my wide adventuring. If I ever need, a 50-200 may be added to "complete" the tele needs. 3 lens walk the world? The ISO noise aint great and the processing may be inferior to Canon's in my personal opinion. In-camera IS, Dust Buster and Weather Proofing Body are some nice things to have, but at a small cost. I can accept the ISO 800 quality personally. DR and colour reproduction are my other concern for E3. Of course the naked 7-14 will have no protection from direct contacts....

I am a rough guy and so the system should be tough enuff to withstand certain knocks.

It may be another 3 years or so before the FF/FX becomes more affordable, but best if I need not change the lens ultimately, which is my other reason for the 4/3 system.

I welcome comments for other equivalent quality (especially for the wide part) systems, but no flaming please

 

[TMC]

check out the build, the ergonomics. The E3 is too damn huge and bulky with the grip to be comfortable.

 

[VSonic06]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/tea-leaves.shtml

Olympus continues to march to the beat of its own drummer. I was dubious about the 4/3 format when it came out, and have been every since. Nothing that I've yet seen has convinced me otherwise. Their Pro bodies using this format are no smaller than top-of-the line reduced frame DSLRs, and while Olympus lenses are generally just about as good as it gets, they are expensive and not all that much smaller either. I don't see the just-released E-3 as a convincing follow-up to the E1, even after a 4 year hiatus.

Olympus' consumer grade DSLRs have a lot of appeal, but their smaller sensor will continue to be its Achilles Heel and will prevent them from being able to be competitive in the high end, as full frame sensors continue to drop in price and increase in resolution. It's like the difference between medium format and 35mm. Size matters, and in digital as with film size has clear advantages.

 

[bousozoku]

You really have to try it for yourself.

I've been using an E-1 with 14-54mm, 50-200mm, and 50mm macro since 2004 and have found it quite good.

The sturdiness is there. The weatherproofing was fine during two hurricanes and the dust reduction system is excellent in a dusty environment full of construction.

I expect nothing less of the E-3 with some enhancements. As with others, I'm not totally convinced that the E-3 is a true replacement for the E-1 but it doesn't seem quite good and the lenses are excellent.

You might want to check the four-thirds area of these forums for specific information.

 

[NMSS_2]

try asking in a fourthird forum to get a more informed decision about why they like the system.

 

[drakon09]

Or better yet, have a hands-on session on us. If you're free that is.

http://forums.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=346767

 

[drakon09]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/tea-leaves.shtml

Ahh... if it isn't our old friend Mr Michael Reichmann... :bsmilie:

 

[retrovox]

Hi. You mentioned that you won't be doing photography as a living. As such, any present system can satisfy your needs. 4/3 is definitely worth considering for you.

 

[theITguy]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments. I am wondering if there are any other comparable ultra wide solutions (like using the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 with 5D?)

 

[blurboiboi]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments. I am wondering if there are any other comparable ultra wide solutions (like using the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 with 5D?)

oly has a 7-14 ultra wide....

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/

 

[night86mare]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments. I am wondering if there are any other comparable ultra wide solutions (like using the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 with 5D?)

i wonder if there is misconception here:

I am leaning towards the 4/3 system from Olympus, with an E3 + 12-60 SWD for general shots and 7-14 or 8-16 (if it ever release) for my wide adventuring.

12-60 equates to 24-120 in 35mm terms
7-14 gives 14-28 and 8-16 gives 16-32 in 35mm terms

this is because of the crop factor (2x for olympus, unlike most others, full frame is 1x, aps-c is usually 1.5 or 1.6x), which is why oly has such extreme lens being made

wonder why no one even mentioned this? :dunno: if you are clear on this though, while olympus IS and will be a great brand to choose, perhaps you should at least consider the other brands too, each and every brand/system has their own advantages/disadvantages.

i mean, seriously though, anything can go with the sigma 10-20 and the new tamron 10-24? (something like that). canon also has a 10-22. 10 with 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor will give 15 or 16mm in 35mm terms. not that different when you compare it to 14-28, but of course 1mm makes a whole world of difference sometimes.

in fact, if you must have the widest, full frame will help you achieve it, not sure if the 10-22 is compatible with full frame from canon, but that's a whooping 10mm in 35mm terms.

[EDIT] - i did a check, apparently 10-22 with give bigass vignetting on 5d

 

[dorts]

Agreed with some above, that the Four-Thirds system is not best for wide angles, besides the 7-14mm, which I believe is the widest you can find. (excluding FF/FX)

The 7-14mm is really expensive, but it's really really impressive as well. I'm not kidding. Take a look at the link posted above. Considering that it's a extreme wide, it shows very little geometric distortion and little vignetting.

I think going full-frame will give you your wideness you want. But you've have to live with the problems, like vignetting.

Most importantly, come join us in the hands-on session like what drakon said. Have a feel of the camera and see if it suits you. The E-3 won't suit everyone.

 

[VSonic06]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments. I am wondering if there are any other comparable ultra wide solutions (like using the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 with 5D?)

There are some very affordable ultra-wide options from Sigma and Tamron as night86mare pointed out. The new Tamron 10-24 when mated to a 1.5x crop DSLR body, gives you 15-36 which is more than wide enough for most use. Also you can put a filter on it, unlike the Olympus 7-14 or Nikkor 14-28.

On the 4/3 platform your choice of UWA glass is currently limited to the Olympus' pricey $2,600 7-14/4. The 8-16 won't come cheap either, if it happens at all. Also, you can't adapt a UWA lens from another manufacturer and still retain its UWA characteristics due to the 2x multiplier effect.

 

[theITguy]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the advices.

I think I will try out the E3 with the other guys.

This thread has served its purpose.

Regards

 

[lsisaxon]

Hi guys,

Need some advice/info on the digital system before I surrender my monies to the shop. :bheart:

I used Canon film system previously, but had sold it off to finance my studies. I used to own a 24mm/F2.8, 50mm/F1.8, 100mm/F2 and 70-200mm/F4, along with a 420EX and EOS 33 (camera body still in my cabinet). There is no problem on rebuilding a brand new system from which camp, to make life easier since I am seeking advice/info. I am using the system for non-profitting purposes, if it matters.

I am basically a wide guy, with 85% of my photos from the 24mm/F2.8, 10% from the 100mm/F2. My main interests in photography are architechs, landscape, scenary, abstracts and macro. Other necessities are family and friends shots.

I am leaning towards the 4/3 system from Olympus, with an E3 + 12-60 SWD for general shots and 7-14 or 8-16 (if it ever release) for my wide adventuring. If I ever need, a 50-200 may be added to "complete" the tele needs. 3 lens walk the world? The ISO noise aint great and the processing may be inferior to Canon's in my personal opinion. In-camera IS, Dust Buster and Weather Proofing Body are some nice things to have, but at a small cost. I can accept the ISO 800 quality personally. DR and colour reproduction are my other concern for E3. Of course the naked 7-14 will have no protection from direct contacts....

I am a rough guy and so the system should be tough enuff to withstand certain knocks.

It may be another 3 years or so before the FF/FX becomes more affordable, but best if I need not change the lens ultimately, which is my other reason for the 4/3 system.

I welcome comments for other equivalent quality (especially for the wide part) systems, but no flaming please

You're basically stuck in 4/3 if you go into the 4/3 camp. You will need to change system when FX/FF becomes cheaper. I would recommend getting a cheaper APS crop body from either Sony or Nikon (I think they should be the next ones to release affordable FF/FX bodies because Sony just announced a FF sensor. Well, Canon was the first with the 5D but it isn't exactly affordable). Then you won't be short of wide angle lenses because the widest rectilinear you can go now is 12mm on FF using the Sigma 12-24.

EXIF intact.

This is the Google Earth plan view of where I shot from.