Am I the only one here using an Olympus DSLR?

[Richard Lovison]

It seems I'm terribly outnumbered by Canon and Nikon users. :eek: I'm feeling isolated here. Am I the only fool using a four thirds sensor?

[John Chardine]

Alexander Koenders uses one to great effect. I think he's an Olympus ambassador. You are right though Richard, there are not many.

[Kerry Perkins]

Uncle Gus Hallgren makes some fantastic images with his E-520.

[Ken Watkins]

When I was a lot younger fitter and more capable of carrying heavy objects I had a Pen FT, could I do with one of those now. I loved the Zuiko lenses, I just hope that one day I will be able to go back to them. Just waiting on the sensors to catch up.

[Gallagher]

but just sold all my gear to get a D300 and 200-400VR. There are some Olympus users with great skill who manage great results with the 4/3rds format. I needed a little help and so I went with Nikon. You should go to the DPReview website and check out the Olympus SLR Talk Sunday Bird. Lots of Olympus users posting bird photos. You may get some advice specific to Olympus gear but don't expect the caliber of constructive criticism you will get on this forum. If you really want want to improve, this is the place to be. Take care, Robert

[Giulio Zanni]

Here I am, I have been using Olympus for a year now and I am very happy with it. The 300mm f2.8 it's a great piece of glass, as well as the 90-250mm f2.8 and the 150mm f2.0.

Giulio

[Richard Lovison]

Here I am, I have been using Olympus for a year now and I am very happy with it. The 300mm f2.8 it's a great piece of glass, as well as the 90-250mm f2.8 and the 150mm f2.0.

Giulio

Ah, so I'm not alone. :) Yes, those lenses are quite nice though beyond my budget at the moment.

[Ed Vatza]

Hey Richard,

Canon shooter here. But I wanted to let you know that you are not alone. I live within minutes of Olympus USA HQ and have marveled that I never met an Olympus shooter. Then I joined the local camera club and quickly learned that Olympus shooters there just may outnumber us Canon and Nikon users. And they aren't all Olympus employees. As a matter of fact, the one Oly employee I met shoots Canon more than Olympus. But there are pockets of heavy use.

[Ned Bagno]

I do Richard.

[Doug West]

That's odd...I thought Nikon users were the fools :D

But seriously though...don't worry about what everyone
uses. It's the person taking the photograph that counts.

Who knows? Maybe in time those Nikon users that use to
be Canon users will change their minds again and jump to
Olympus:p

Sorry...just had to get those in there cause it drives James
Shadle nuts :)

Doug

[Larry Millican]

Hi, Richard -
I'm not an Olympus shooter -- at least not by ownership -- but use Sony equipment. If I were to switch I would seriously consider Olympus. Just came back from a trip & had the opportunity to use an E3 and the 90-250. I will attest that it is a very very sharp lens, and focuses as quickly as the other guys. Olympus is trying hard to be a factor in the market. btw, I work in a retail camera store.

Thanks~

Larry
Van Buren, Arkansas

[Roger Clark]

Hi, Richard -
I'm not an Olympus shooter -- at least not by ownership -- but use Sony equipment. If I were to switch I would seriously consider Olympus.

But before deciding on any camera from any manufacturer, be aware that the sensor size and pixel size directly affects performance. A small sensor with small pixels does not collect as much light as larger ones, so has lower high ISO performance. This will not change in the future as it is basic physics. Second, and quite important for bird photographers, be sure the manufacturer has the lenses needed for bird photography, even if you can't afford them now, In the future you might be able to buy one (even used) and it would be a shame to be locked into a system that does not have the hardware. (This is not a post against any one manufacturer, just some general principles.)

Roger

[Giulio Zanni]

Just came back from a trip & had the opportunity to use an E3 and the 90-250. I will attest that it is a very very sharp lens, and focuses as quickly as the other guys.

Yes, the 90-250mm f2.8 is a very fine lens, but the 300mm f2.8 is stellar. Coupled with the 2x it doesn't loose a bit of IQ and you have a 1200mm FL in a size of a 400DO. Also the latest E-3/E-30 do not have nothing less than a 50D or D300. Of course, horses for courses, I don't think I will never need more than 12 mpxs and my back is very happy too...

Giulio

[Richard Lovison]

Yes, the 90-250mm f2.8 is a very fine lens, but the 300mm f2.8 is stellar. Coupled with the 2x it doesn't loose a bit of IQ and you have a 1200mm FL in a size of a 400DO.
Giulio

Thanks for the mini review of the 300mm. I wish I had the $6000 to purchase it though the 70-300mm is more in my budget. Actually I been trying to decide whether to purchase the 50-200mm or the 70-300mm. I'd have more reach with the latter though probably better optics and build quality plus weather proofing with the former.

I too enjoy the compactness of the four thirds system. As I'm getting older, carrying less weight is a blessing. They've improved the noise characteristics at higher ISOs in the E-3 over the E-1 though I'm still reluctant to shoot over ISO 800 and I'd really like to stay at 400 or lower.

[Richard Lovison]

But before deciding on any camera from any manufacturer, be aware that the sensor size and pixel size directly affects performance. A small sensor with small pixels does not collect as much light as larger ones, so has lower high ISO performance. This will not change in the future as it is basic physics.

Roger,

Nothing is impossible. :) Olympus most likely will come up with technology that will improve ISO performance in their four thirds sensors though will always fall short of the performance offered from 35mm full frame sensor cameras.

I'm not arguing with your point. You are offering very sound advice taking into account what is available at the moment. If all I wanted to do was bird photography and had the funds available, I would be shooting with Nikon or Canon.

[Giulio Zanni]

Actually I been trying to decide whether to purchase the 50-200mm or the 70-300mm. I'd have more reach with the latter though probably better optics and build quality plus weather proofing with the former.

I too enjoy the compactness of the four thirds system. As I'm getting older, carrying less weight is a blessing. They've improved the noise characteristics at higher ISOs in the E-3 over the E-1 though I'm still reluctant to shoot over ISO 800 and I'd really like to stay at 400 or lower.

The 70-300 is a fine walk-around/zoo lens, very light but I think that the 50-200 is overall a better lens and work fine also with the TC. The E-3 further improved with the latest 1.4 firmware, but yes, I also don't venture over 800 iso and not over 400 in normal situations.

Giulio

[Roger Clark]

Roger
Nothing is impossible. :) Olympus most likely will come up with technology that will improve ISO performance in their four thirds sensors though will always fall short of the performance offered from 35mm full frame sensor cameras.

I'm not arguing with your point. You are offering very sound advice taking into account what is available at the moment. If all I wanted to do was bird photography and had the funds available, I would be shooting with Nikon or Canon.

Richard,
Actually some things are impossible, at lest when it comes to our current understanding of the laws of physics. ;) Digital cameras have become so good that the noise we see in our images is almost entirely due to noise from light itself, so represents a fundamental physical limit. So manufacturers can improve electronics all they want but the physics of collecting photons (light) will not change. What can still be improved, however, is quantum efficiency, which is the fraction of light that actually gets captured and goes to make the image. Quantum efficiencies of current consumer digital cameras is on the order of 35 to 40%, so a factor of 2 to 2.5x improvement is possible. But one would expect when the breakthrough comes, it will be applied to all sensors, not just 4/3.

The largest factor in high iso performance is pixel size. Imagine a bucket put out in a rain storm. A larger bucket collects more water. Same with pixels. The light coming through the lens acts like a "photon rain." So we must make our choices on weight, bulk, and cost for better performance versus smaller, lighter and less performance. As pixel size drops, for a given sized sensor you have more pixels (e.g. Canon 50D versus 30D), and that mitigates the smaller pixels to some degree, and when you have enough light helps give more image detail.

What it boils down to are a lot of compromises, but for those making new purchase decisions, it is nice to know what the real factors are. So if you want lowest light capability, get the largest pixels. If weight is more of a factor (after all if you don't carry the camera you get no image), one can choose a smaller camera and to work when the light is good enough for the technology.

More info on pixel size:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

[Richard Lovison]

Roger,

Thanks for taking the time to offer an informative explanation on sensor size and noise.