Question for Olympus users?

[Baaaark]

Everyone talks about the lack of shallow depth of field for the 4/3rds system, but I wanted to ask someone who actually uses it if they feel it is limiting.

I will say that I'm interested in portraiture. But is an f/2.8 really that much worse than an f/1.8? Does it really limit you a lot?

 

[Baaaark]

Anyone?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

We have an E3 and E520 at my store, the E3 is OK, the 520 is a peice of junk.

A 50mm f/1.4 lens on film or full frame with similar framing is going to act completely different then the same 50mm composed accordingly on 4/3rds. Worse yet, to get the same angle of view as that 50mm, you need a 25mm wide angle.

The thing about olympus is that they tote about how they're lenses can be smaller and lighter while still offering the same angle of view. They're 35-100 f/2 is friggin enormous, about double the size of my 80-200, wont' work on full frame, is rediculously expensive, and at similar working distances, doesn't have anywhere near the seperation I get with my 80-200.

If your main schtick is portraits, I can't reccomend the olympus system. The good lenses are usually more expensive then nikon's or canon's, the viewfinders are like tunnel vision, the sensors are a quarter of the size of film, thus incredibly noisy, it's a lose-lose unless you need the fastest AF system in the world.

On photozone they have a preview of the E620, ISO 400 looks like 1600 on my D700, and 3200 looks worst then 25600. Even the D40 blows it away.



In short unless you plan on shooting at ISO 100 all the time, need the fastest AF system ever, or actually like the 4/3rds square (yuck), then by all means shoot olympus. otherwise, there are much better, less expensive alternatives. especially for portraiture. All the people who have come into my store who own olympus wish they got someting else, the main reason they get them is because the kits are so cheap.

 

[Baaaark]

We have an E3 and E520 at my store, the E3 is OK, the 520 is a peice of junk.

A 50mm f/1.4 lens on film or full frame with similar framing is going to act completely different then the same 50mm composed accordingly on 4/3rds. Worse yet, to get the same angle of view as that 50mm, you need a 25mm wide angle.

The thing about olympus is that they tote about how they're lenses can be smaller and lighter while still offering the same angle of view. They're 35-100 f/2 is friggin enormous, about double the size of my 80-200, wont' work on full frame, is rediculously expensive, and at similar working distances, doesn't have anywhere near the seperation I get with my 80-200.

If your main schtick is portraits, I can't reccomend the olympus system. The good lenses are usually more expensive then nikon's or canon's, the viewfinders are like tunnel vision, the sensors are a quarter of the size of film, thus incredibly noisy, it's a lose-lose unless you need the fastest AF system in the world.

On photozone they have a preview of the E620, ISO 400 looks like 1600 on my D700, and 3200 looks worst then 25600. Even the D40 blows it away.



In short unless you plan on shooting at ISO 100 all the time, need the fastest AF system ever, or actually like the 4/3rds square (yuck), then by all means shoot olympus. otherwise, there are much better, less expensive alternatives. especially for portraiture. All the people who have come into my store who own olympus wish they got someting else, the main reason they get them is because the kits are so cheap.

Ouch. What would you recommend? A Canon XS with a 50mm 1.8?

 

[Don Kondra]

Click on my TPF gallery, exif is intact...

There are a couple of problems with Olympus, the first is everyone will pick on you, he, he..

The second is you will be hard pressed to find a salesperson who knows the system :lmao:

Cheers, Don

 

[Sw1tchFX]

We have an E3 and E520 at my store, the E3 is OK, the 520 is a peice of junk.

A 50mm f/1.4 lens on film or full frame with similar framing is going to act completely different then the same 50mm composed accordingly on 4/3rds. Worse yet, to get the same angle of view as that 50mm, you need a 25mm wide angle.

The thing about olympus is that they tote about how they're lenses can be smaller and lighter while still offering the same angle of view. They're 35-100 f/2 is friggin enormous, about double the size of my 80-200, wont' work on full frame, is rediculously expensive, and at similar working distances, doesn't have anywhere near the seperation I get with my 80-200.

If your main schtick is portraits, I can't reccomend the olympus system. The good lenses are usually more expensive then nikon's or canon's, the viewfinders are like tunnel vision, the sensors are a quarter of the size of film, thus incredibly noisy, it's a lose-lose unless you need the fastest AF system in the world.

On photozone they have a preview of the E620, ISO 400 looks like 1600 on my D700, and 3200 looks worst then 25600. Even the D40 blows it away.



In short unless you plan on shooting at ISO 100 all the time, need the fastest AF system ever, or actually like the 4/3rds square (yuck), then by all means shoot olympus. otherwise, there are much better, less expensive alternatives. especially for portraiture. All the people who have come into my store who own olympus wish they got someting else, the main reason they get them is because the kits are so cheap.

Ouch. What would you recommend? A Canon XS with a 50mm 1.8?

That's a good start.

 

[DScience]

Switch, thanks for the great info! Will you explain a little about the fast AF system employed by olympus? I'm just curious about that.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I don't know the particulars about the system, but i've never seen any lens rack in and out so fast as the 12-60 on an E3. My jaw just dropped, if something is moving, it's not going to be the camera's fault, that's for sure.

It's like Nikon's AF-S and Canon's USM on steroids, just stupid fast.

 

[Baaaark]

I still think the Olympus looks good...

Is there anywhere I can see some portrait shots done by Olympus cameras? To see how thin the dof really is? I found a calculator, but you just can't really tell unless you see it, you know?

 

[Don Kondra]

This is just one page I found with google... actually there is 9 pages of samples..

Cheers, Don

 

[Baaaark]

Thank you, Mr. Kondra! You are awesome, and I think you are the ONLY Oly user on here!

I'm really wanting to see how thin of a depth of field these cameras can achieve. But I guess it's impossible to tell until you get out there.

 

[Don Kondra]

If you want thin DOF, buy yourself a OM 50mm f1.4 or f1.8. THAT is razor thin

And can be had for less than $100 for the lens and 4/3 adaptor...this is a 35mm film lens but works fine on a digital camera in full manual.

The Zuiko Digital 50mm which is a good portrait lens is a f2, if you haven't already, check out the whole line up of digital lenses.

Cheers, Don

PS. There are a few more Oly shooters here but they are Very Quiet

 

[Sw1tchFX]

This is just one page I found with google... actually there is 9 pages of samples..

Cheers, Don

That picture is underexposed by probably about a stop and a half, and doesn't really show any extra-ordinary qualities.


Just go on flickr, and look up portraits done with 85mm f/1.4's or 1.2's on full frame bodies. The results out of those are impossible with quarter-film cameras.