"Ack!" The hater of Olympus and 4/3rds joins Dpreview!

On 2009-12-13 18:37:04 +0000, Bruce said:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:38:46 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:02*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:05:38 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09...3000review.asp

Barney Britton wrote some good and very fair reviews while at "Amateur
Photographer". *He was not a particularly entertaining read but I
don't recall any hint of bias.

You obviously didn't read any of his Olympus reviews.


I think I read more than one, and there was no hint of bias.

The problem is that Olympus DSLRs are now a long way behind Canon and
Nikon DSLRs in several important areas. Pointing that out in a review
is being objective, not showing bias.


Are they? in which areas?

On 2010-01-22 21:00:02 +0000, Bruce said:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:59 +0000, mith wrote:
On 2009-12-13 18:37:04 +0000, Bruce said:

The problem is that Olympus DSLRs are now a long way behind Canon and
Nikon DSLRs in several important areas. Pointing that out in a review
is being objective, not showing bias.


Are they? in which areas?


You really don't know?

Then I'm sure you will be happy with an Olympus. ;-)

Did you lately use an Olympus E-30 or even an E-3? of corse you can't
compare them to a Canon or Nikon full frame, but they are not expensive
as one. E-3 still has one of the fastest auto focus you can find. The
system 4/3 has pretty great lenses (and its a system that was
completely designed to be used by digital cameras), and when you buy
4/3 lenses you pay less then the correspondent lenses to a Canon or
Nikon camera.

I know Canon has better cameras and all, but we are not talking about
full frame, so i would like to know in which areas is Canon better. All
the kit lenses that Canon puts on any camera on the same price range of
an Olympus is usually worst, you usually on Olympus have more buttons
to directly access things like ISO, WB, Autofocus mode, image
stabilization mode and so on (i used Nikon for some time d40, d60 and a
d90).

When talking about the same price range as an Olympus E-30, what can
you get better from Canon or Nikon?

And please talk about what you know, not about you heard. I didn't use
Canon for a long time but i used Nikon, and i must say that Olympus 4/3
systems and it's cameras are quite good and again when talking about
lenses you get lenses of great quality at a very affordable price.

"mith" wrote in message ...
On 2010-01-22 21:00:02 +0000, Bruce said:
[]
Did you lately use an Olympus E-30 or even an E-3? of corse you can't
compare them to a Canon or Nikon full frame, but they are not expensive
as one. E-3 still has one of the fastest auto focus you can find. The
system 4/3 has pretty great lenses (and its a system that was completely
designed to be used by digital cameras), and when you buy 4/3 lenses you
pay less then the correspondent lenses to a Canon or Nikon camera.

Except that you can't get the equivalent lenses. Leaving aside that the
superior in-lens image stabilisation is not available from Olympus,
consider my two favourite lenses - the lightweight and compact 16-85mm and
70-300mm Nikon VR for DX cameras. Where are the Olympus 12.2-65mm and
53-228mm lenses? Not available.

The nearest lightweight lenses seem to be 14-42mm and a 40-150mm, so a
much reduced total zoom range of 10.7:1 versus Nikon's 18.7:1. If you
accept the reduced zoom range, Nikon (and Canon) would offer 18-55mm and
55-200mm - an 11.1:1 range (including image stabilisation).

Warehouse Express prices:

Olympus:
14-42mm GBP 219
40-150mm GBP 244

Nikon:
18-55mm GBP 147 (127 without VR)
55-200mm GBP 239 (181 without VR)

so you pay quite a lot more for Olympus, and lose in-lens image
stabilisation as well.

David

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
Try searching for:

Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens

Outstanding, top quality glass.

But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's check
the cost, though, for interest:

Nikon:
16-85mm VR - GBP 440
70-300mm VR - GBP 492

Olympus:
12-60mm - GBP 843
50-200mm - GBP 1000

As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and you
have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
Try searching for:

Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens

Outstanding, top quality glass.

But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's
check the cost, though, for interest:

Nikon:
16-85mm VR - GBP 440
70-300mm VR - GBP 492

Olympus:
12-60mm - GBP 843
50-200mm - GBP 1000

As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.

Olympus may be outsmarting themselves. While there's certainly room in the
market for an f/2.0 35-100 on 4/3, it seems like a strange place to start
out on a system one of whose major benefits is supposed to be its
compactness.

On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
Try searching for:

Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens

Outstanding, top quality glass.

But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's
check the cost, though, for interest:

Nikon:
16-85mm VR - GBP 440
70-300mm VR - GBP 492

Olympus:
12-60mm - GBP 843
50-200mm - GBP 1000

As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.

Cheers,
David

You are indeed right about that. On this case to get equivalent lenses
i pay more, but there is a catch, as you can see now:

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR -
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-.../dp/B0013A1XDE
Olympus

Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD -
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-12-60m.../dp/B000X1N56W

Nikon

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR -
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm.../dp/B000HJPK2C
Olympus

Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD -
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200.../dp/B000X1P5RE

So

my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how
much you would pay? same question for the other lense?

So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal lenght,
the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think its a fair
comparison.

Sorry for my bad english.

On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:

As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.

When i had read your message i didn't read that phrase properly, but i
still think they are worth the difference you pay

On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
Try searching for:

Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens

Outstanding, top quality glass.

But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's
check the cost, though, for interest:

Nikon:
16-85mm VR - GBP 440
70-300mm VR - GBP 492

Olympus:
12-60mm - GBP 843
50-200mm - GBP 1000

As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.

Cheers,
David

You are indeed right about that. On this case to get equivalent lenses
i pay more, but there is a catch, as you can see now:

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR -
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-.../dp/B0013A1XDE
Olympus

Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD -
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-12-60m.../dp/B000X1N56W

Nikon

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR -
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm.../dp/B000HJPK2C
Olympus

Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD -
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200.../dp/B000X1P5RE

So

my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how
much you would pay? same question for the other lense?

So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal
lenght, the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think
its a fair comparison.

Sorry for my bad english.

The point you are missing is that the Nikon lenses are physically smaller
and less obtrusive.

The point you are missing is that the Nikon lenses are physically smaller
and less obtrusive.

So it's 0,3x0,5 on the 1st lense and 0,3x0,5 inches more on the other a
really big burden for a lense with a much better aperture?

Anyway, this is just nickpicking... these differences are not big in
terms of size or weight and in both cases the Olympus lenses have
better performance compared to the Nikon ones.

Once again we are comparing apples and oranges. I would like to hear
about the comparable lenses you can get from Nikon: are they lighter,
smaller and cheaper?

"mith" wrote in message ...
On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:
[]
So
my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how
much you would pay? same question for the other lense?

So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal lenght,
the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think its a fair
comparison.

Sorry for my bad english.

Whilst I am very interested in and very keen on photography, I am very
unlikely to pay GBP 1000 for an Olympus lens, particularly when that lens
is heavier and bigger than then the Nikon equivalent. Being heavier and
bulkier means it is more likely to be left at home than be used on a trip
or holiday. Having bigger and heavier lenses offsets any size or weight
advantages of the 4/3 camera in the first place.

I do appreciate that other people will have different views, and may have
the cash and not mind the extra size and weight. BTW: when I first got a
DSLR I had disposed of all my previous cameras and lenses, so I was brand
neutral, and looked at Canon, Nikon and Olympus. The Nikon felt better in
my hands than the Canon, and the Olympus was simply too expensive (and of
not such good image quality).

Cheers,
David