Professional Web Applications Themes

and while everyone looks at Canon... - Photography

.... those new Olympus lenses look *very* promising. Now, any chances of a decent midrange SLR from them? A body something like a smaller E20 with improved 8mp sensor would be most welcome......

  1. #1

    Default and while everyone looks at Canon...

    .... those new Olympus lenses look *very* promising.

    Now, any chances of a decent midrange SLR from them? A body something like a
    smaller E20 with improved 8mp sensor would be most welcome...


    Martin Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    Martin Francis wrote: 

    Wouldn't that be the E-200/EVOLT?

    Clyde
    Clyde Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...


    "Martin Francis" <com> wrote in message
    news:cv50u8$4rl$svr.pol.co.uk... 

    How much are they?


    Dave Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...


    "Clyde" <comedy> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > Wouldn't that be the E-200/EVOLT?
    >
    > Clyde[/ref]

    More of a 300D/DRebel competitor than a midrange body. The E1 seems to have
    been their pro body. Something in between would be nice.


    Martin Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    In article <q6pRd.7371$sonic.net>,
    com says... 
    >
    > How much are they?[/ref]

    Basically that's what it comes down to.

    The other Oly lenses haven't really delivered on the whole "4/3rds is a
    lot cheaper" promise.
    Brian Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    Guess we have just found out one of the MAJOR advantages of the 4/3 system.

    There are people on the web forums that are putting the use of f2.0 down,
    due to the fact they say that the Canon/Nikon et al have at least 1 stop
    better noise performance, so you have lost all benefit of the extra stop of
    light of the Olympus. Apart from the fact that noise performance will only
    ever increase with time (not that I'm too fussed by noise), but the f2 will
    give all the better ability to stop the action (on my Canon D30, the noise
    at ISO1600 is woeful, yet a stopped action shot at ISO1600 is much better
    than a blurred photo at ISO800 or even 400, IMHO)


    "Martin Francis" <com> wrote in message
    news:cv50u8$4rl$svr.pol.co.uk... 



    PlaneGuy Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    Brian Baird wrote:
     
    >>
    >> How much are they?[/ref]
    >
    > Basically that's what it comes down to.
    >
    > The other Oly lenses haven't really delivered on the whole "4/3rds is a
    > lot cheaper" promise.[/ref]


    So how much is the canon 600mm f2.8?

    Or their 300mm F2?

    How many F2 zooms are the other guys making?

    :-)
    --

    Stacey
    Stacey Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    In article <verizon.net>,
    Brian Baird <right> wrote:
     

    Well why don't you get a beautiful 17-55DX-Nikkor then for just $1400,
    or maybe you prefer the Canon option, which consists of $100 worth of
    optics and $500 worth of IS, all in a handy plastic f/5.6 package? Tough
    choice... Suddenly a f/2.8-3.5 14-54mm Zuiko for $500 doesn't sound that
    bad.

    Reality-check: the Olympus accessories may be expensive, but the lenses
    are simply great value.

    ;-)
    Lourens
    Lourens Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    In article <net>, com says... [/ref]
     

    Who cares? You can get 600mm on a full-frame Canon for about the same
    price than you can get the 300mm from Oly. AND you get image
    stabilization.

    Or you could buy the 300mm f/2.8 IS and a 2x teleconverter and come out
    even further ahead.

    Field of view, field of schmew. A 300mm f/2.8 lens shouldn't be priced
    any more than any other 300mm f/2.8 lens. So, if it was about $2,500
    I'd say: "Way to go, Oly!"
     
     

    Again, who cares?
    Brian Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    "Stacey" <com> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >>
    >> Basically that's what it comes down to.
    >>
    >> The other Oly lenses haven't really delivered on the whole "4/3rds is a
    >> lot cheaper" promise.[/ref]
    >
    >
    > So how much is the canon 600mm f2.8?
    >
    > Or their 300mm F2?
    >
    > How many F2 zooms are the other guys making?
    >
    > :-)
    > --
    >
    > Stacey[/ref]

    You don't need a 600 f2.8 (if such existed) on a 20D to equal the 300 f2.8
    Oly, just a 400 f2.8L, which not only exists, but costs less than the Oly,
    $6499.99 for the Canon vs. $6999.99 for the Oly and the Canon includes IS, a
    feature the Oly can't provide at any price. The Canon 200mm f2.8L is
    $659.99, vs. $2,219.95 for the Oly 150mm f2.0, a premium of $1560 for 1/3 of
    a stop. Wow, Stace, you got me there... And I can buy a 500mm f4L IS and
    600mm f5.6L IS, lenses not available for the Oly, not to mention a 16-35
    f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, , 85mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2, 100 f2, 135mm f2.0L plus all of
    those other IS lenses Canon produces. Any IS on any of the Oly lenses?
    C'mon, can't you leave well enough alone?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


    Skip Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: and while everyone looks at Canon...

    "PlaneGuy" <com> writes:
     

    They have a smaller sensor. This is an advantage for making fast
    lenses -- you should see what's available for 16mm movie cameras, or
    even scarier for Super 8 back when it was an important format. 12x
    f1.4 lenses that focused down to contact with the front element were
    the *norm* for serious Super 8 cameras.
     

    And that's at least partly the other half of the same story, the
    higher noise from the smaller sensor.
     

    I hear two stories. How much of the noise really can be reduced?
    Aren't we dealing largely with quantum noise at this point? You can
    tell I don't understand the physics of these sensors in detail;
    problem is, I have trouble telling who *does*, so it's hard to know
    who to believe.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens
    By Siddhartha in forum Photography
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: February 5th, 11:43 PM
  2. Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon
    By Siddhartha in forum Photography
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 16th, 04:35 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 01:56 PM
  4. Canon 10D - Canon i850 mismatch?
    By Stephen C. Smith in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 10th, 02:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139