Official Olympus Gear Thread

[Nick D]

Ok, hpefully i can end this here with final explanation

I honestly feel that either my posts were worded wrong  or miscomrehended. I never put down Olympus' quality in any of my posts. As a matter of fact this all started not because I thought oly glass overpriced, but Anthony's claim that 12-60 was overpriced. I actually was defending the cost of that lens. Given it sharpness, speed and unique range, 24-120mm, i tink it is a one of a kind lens. And now it is over $200 lees new than a year ago!!!

However, you could sell your 54mm and get the 12-60mm.
The 60mm is fast, but I don't think the cost difference justifies the increase in speed.

I think the 50-200 swd focus much faster, but the 12-60 is fast, but I don't feel the difference justifies the price difference from the 14-54mm.

It started going downhill after this comment, wich I felt needed an answer:

nick,

I think you should dump your oly and buy Alice's extra 40D.  you don't seem content with the oly system as a whole.

Sorry Anthony, I must admit that coment it upset me a little, especially since I was defending my oly gear, and stating that I have been hapy with it  taking some nice pics of late. Not that I am holding a grudge or anything, but as I stated, i felt it needed an answer.

For this:

Nick,
Let's see your work!!  Use the gear that you have - you have a GREAT camera and lenses.  John Isaac (famous photographer) uses Olympus to make fantastic images.  He even uses my "lowly" E510!!  The images I've seen of his in person took my breath away.

I give you this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shutterbug224/

Lee, i never said Olympus isn't good equipment. I have also posted images on our forum from time to time. Also, Read what Scot wrote here:

Unfortunately for Nick, it seems the Olympus system doesn't work for his style of shooting and his preferences for photography, and it seems like he is 'stuck' in the Olympus system now due to financial reasons.    If the Nikon or Canon systems pleases his photography needs more, hopefully he'll be able to switch in the future so he can enjoy his photography more.   It doesn't matter the specifications, facts, or fallacies - if you don't like using the system and believe you purchased into the wrong system, no explanation is going to change that.  I know 4/3rds shooters who don't like the ergonomics of the E-3 and still prefer the E-1
   

I took liberty to highlight(Red print) what I want to focus on. It is my opinion, and only my opinion, through my research and use of other equipment, not any documented fact by any organization that leads mre to believe this. Moreso, Scot it is not that that I feel that Olympus doesn't meet my need now, but limits my ability to expand due to what I perceive to be limited and overpriced gear, especially lenses. Any camera in the "right hands" will yield stunning results. Currently, and this may never change, but may, I do see myself as a good, or experienced photographer. Give me a D3, D300, 1D, 50D, A900 etc. and my pictures will probably not look any better today than with my E3.

Scot I also somewhat disagree with the perceived weakness of ol being lack of primes. I think there zooms are so good wide open you really don't need too many more primes. Perhaps a couple more primes and few more longer telephoto lenses would do the trick. I like nature and for some of it you can never have "enough length". But if I want that length I need to buy some real expensive glass with maybe a 2x converter, example 300mm f2.8 and 2x converter would give you 1200mm at 5.6 thats impressive, but again expensive. i would love some oly glass in the 300mm and over range in HG.

well I hope this clears a few things up. If not, then I am terribbly inept at conveying my thoughts

Nick

Now on a bit of a humorful mote;

[Nick D]

Oops!! I forgot.

Now on a bit of a humorful mote;

Scot you offering me only $750 for E3 shows how overpriced oly is 

I'll give you $750 for the E-3 right now, but the price is dropping every week and will be much lower come February.   

[Yammer77]

Nick,
My comment wasn't a jab, because I don't follow what Alice does with her gear so I wasn't aware she sold it.
I know people here think I will defend Oly and that its system needs defending more than anything else, but if you look on other forums, many people have issues with each system.  Its the ignorance, i.e. Olympus can't do sports that gets me going.
I have always stated each system has its pluses and minuses. 
Do I like Canon, no, but it has its place.
Do I like Nikon, yes, but I like the E3 and its feature set.
I prefer Oly colors.
I bet you if I gave someone who shoots Nikon/ Canon full time they can get better results then me.

For a long time you were saying you seemed as if Dan's talked you into the Oly System.  I know you were one of the unlucky ones with the 12-60.

On a side note, if the E-3 with the 25-100mm f2.8 can capture a 125mph tennis ball, then surely Oly can do sports.

[Nick D]

Nick,
My comment wasn't a jab, because I don't follow what Alice does with her gear so I wasn't aware she sold it.
I know people here think I will defend Oly and that its system needs defending more than anything else, but if you look on other forums, many people have issues with each system.  Its the ignorance, i.e. Olympus can't do sports that gets me going.
I have always stated each system has its pluses and minuses. 
Do I like Canon, no, but it has its place.
Do I like Nikon, yes, but I like the E3 and its feature set.
I prefer Oly colors.
I bet you if I gave someone who shoots Nikon/ Canon full time they can get better results then me.

For a long time you were saying you seemed as if Dan's talked you into the Oly System.  I know you were one of the unlucky ones with the 12-60.

On a side note, if the E-3 with the 25-100mm f2.8 can capture a 125mph tennis ball, then surely Oly can do sports.

No problem. Sorry if I took i the wrong way. Sometimes our written words can be misinterpreted. that's why these forums can get so hot and heavy and argumentative. Anthony, are you sure about those lens spec? The one I am familiar with is the 35-100 f2. Are we speaking of the same lens or is there one out there I missed?

As for Dan's, yeah they kind of talked me into it, but perhaps the kind of shooting I described i did at the time led them to feel that was best fit for me. i have rethought a lot about what I have said in past. ultimately, the decision was mine, and i really did not know enough about what I could/would like to shoot and was very impulsive in my purchase.

[RacingHistorian]

LOL - Not at all.   If you had a D50 I'd only offer you $250.       

Oops!! I forgot.

Now on a bit of a humorful mote;

Scot you offering me only $750 for E3 shows how overpriced oly is 

I'll give you $750 for the E-3 right now, but the price is dropping every week and will be much lower come February.   

[Yammer77]

Alice - I never edited your post.

[RacingHistorian]

That being said, I had to take the 35-100mm lens back to Dan's since my rental period was over.  I was very impressed with it and would recommend it to anyone.  Nice mid range lens.  I was shooting soccer under the lights tonight and really missed that extra f stop over my 50-200.

I also played with the 150mm (also a 2.0) at the pdn show and I am putting this on my list to watch for used (can't afford any of these new).  Too bad all these beautiful low light lenses also have a hefty price tag.  I was trying to press the Olympus guy if there would be any specials coming up soon, but he told me they never know until they are announced to the public.

The 150mm f2 is a sweet lens.. I loved it when I got to try it.    However, with the majority of my shooting at races - I never know what kind of access I'm going to have, depending on the event.   The historic races at Watkins I usually have very good access to 95% of the areas, so it's not a big deal.  But at larger events, such as Grand-Am, I may need the 50-200mm with the EC-14 for the length.   So I really need the telephotos more than the fast primes for my type of shooting because It's not always easy to just move around to compose with a prime.   The 50-200mm is probably as long as I need to go for my purposes as if I'm further away than requires almost 600mm - I'm going to have issues anyways.   

The 90-250mm f2.8 is really the "perfect" lens for almost all the shooting I do at the races. 

I'm still limited by talent so I haven't been in a rush to upgrade to the E-3 yet, even though I plan to do so in the spring.   But I'd love to find a way to get the 90-250mm in my inventory. 

 

[Yammer77]

Alice,

maybe I hit modify instead of respond? I dunno but can we call a truce?

[Yammer77]

Geez Alice and Anthony - you guys don't take a hint.  Take it off line!

What are exactly trying to tell us Judy? 

[RacingHistorian]

Scott - I agree with you about the 50-200.  When I have good light, like a daytime soccer game, I like it because it seems to have the perfect range.  But it just doesn't cut it for under the lights.  I think I am going to rent the 35-100 again when basketball season starts up to see how it handles indoors.

When I was talking with the guy from Olympus, he told me that I was best focusing my cash on the lenses and getting the camera later.  But I can't help wanting it all!!

My wish list gets longer by the day.       

I've shot the 50-200mm with the EC-14 on overcast/rainy days without any problem using ISO 200, maybe 400 - but I have not shot any 'action' shots under the lights or in doors so I don't have any experience with that.   I have used the 50-200mm in lower light situations on the lower end of the zoom without problems though. 

I think my next lens purchase is going to be the 50mm Macro because I have a few things I want to try - but I'm not going to buy it until I get the tripod I have my eye on.   (Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 Tripod (Carbon-Fiber))

[Nick D]

Judy,

Like I said I am finished with the past issue. Now for other topics:

I agree with you about the 35-100. I used it, unfortunately sparingly, and really liked the results. Even in low light at 1600 iso on E3 with a +0.3 exposure comp. the images where surprisingly clean and sharp. You still had the oly noise, but was fixable, for the most part. That lens is extremely sharp and yields some nice bokeh. If I were given an E3 and $4000 for glass, I would probably buy the 12-60, 35-100, 50-200, and 35 f3.5 macro (50 f2 if total package came in under $4000. I would say spend extra couple of hundred for 50 f2, but that is not the premise here)

I used the 7-14 and 90-250 this weekend. The 7-14 is real tricky at 7mm, but a fun sturdy lens. You really need to be aware of your camera being level and what you are focusing on.  The 90-250 is a beast and definitely needs to be used with a mount. But both lenses very sharp. Then again sharpness is Oly/Zuiko  strong point, even wide open their lenses are quite sharp. 

I'm still limited by talent so I haven't been in a rush to upgrade to the E-3 yet, even though I plan to do so in the spring.   But I'd love to find a way to get the 90-250mm in my inventory.

Doesn't every Oly user!

.....the tripod I have my eye on.   (Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 Tripod (Carbon-Fiber))

Scot, that seems like a real nice tripod, but it max height is only 66.9". But it is nice that it lowers to 4.5". I kind of like my tripods to get a little higher to accomidate my towering posture , ..................er.......or should I say when I stand on a chair to see over people's heads.

[Nick D]

Nick - You may want to check out Ebay for the 50mm.  You can typically get a "demo" or gently used lens for around $350.

I have been struggling with the whole tripod thing.  I have been trying to decide if the lightweight technology is worth the extra money.  So I looked at a couple of things at PDA.  What I found is that I really liked the Slik 700DX (legs only - the head it comes with is a "pass").  The new 700DX with AMT technology gives you the strength of Aluminum without the weight.  Something between standard legs and CF technology.  Comes in at $90-$100 for legs only.  Includes leg covers.

A parcel of people must have agreed with me because Adorama is out of stock on the legs after PDN.

Now if I was a studio photographer, I would probably go with a Gitzo.  And if I had an unlimited budget, I would definitely go with Gitzo.  But I don't use/need a tripod that often and I think the Slik is going to be a good bargain.  I can manage the couple of extra pounds (compared to that lens Nick, it might be light!  .

Judy,

This is the same tripod I have. It is very sturdy and can hold I believe up to 15 lbs. The only downside is it is a fixed head. I was able to make a modification to mount my ball head on it, but that may be something to look at. For your sports stuff having a panning ball head is nice, Their head always semmed a litle confusing to me, but the rest of it is wonderful, imho.

Nick

[RacingHistorian]

For sports you want a monopod.  Tripods are basically useless because they just take up too much space!  Monopods are more compact, less likely hood of being run over, and actually allowed into sporting venues!

Definitely.  But to be honest, I don't even use my monopod that much.   I have a Bogen / Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Deluxe with a Bogen / Manfrotto 3265 Grip Action Ballhead (Quick Release) - and I pretty much stopped taking it with me as I rarely used it.   Even using my 50-200mm at 560mm (With the EC-14), I found that for a majority of the time I was shooting at a such a short shutter speed that it wasn't really beneficial and hindered my movement, even when I wasn't panning.   There are specific times here and there where I like to have it, but overall I really don't use it all that much.   

Same thing can be said for the tripod.  I have some specific purposes I plan to use it for, and as the saying goes - there is no such thing as a good, cheap tripod.   You can have one or the other - so I figure I'll spend the pennies on a higher quality one and hopefully be happy with the purchase.  But if I do have to take one with me, I want it to be as light and sturdy as possible.   

Nick - I hope I don't have any situations where I need the tripod to go over 5 and 1/2 feed.   The one situation where I do need something is going back to the monopod.  I purchased a step ladder I use to get over fences that are too high (Think Lehigh Valley Zoo) and if I'm not really comfortable with the footing and my balance, I'll pull the monopod out as that thing can go really high.   

[Nick D]

I know what you are talking about Nick - but you can get the Slik with legs only and mount whatever head you want.  Glad to hear you like yours (except for the head).

Judy,

Yes, I did not know at the time what I wanted so th B&H guy recommended the fixed head. Here is the B&H link to see just the legs.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/168060-REG/Slik_615_900_700DX_Pro_Tripod_Leg.html

Some people think it is a little heavy at a little under 5lb. I walk around with a 20-25 lb pouch of tools strapped over my shoulder at work, so the 4.85 lbs is negligible to me. Other people have commented to me that it appears to be a good tripod. The price at B&H is $100 ($99.95 to be exact) so that is the range you are looking for. It also has some reach, extends to 70" and I like that. I see that a little differently than Scot. When I shot at the falls, I mounted my tripod almost all the way up, used the E3 swivel screen to compose in live view and shot. It helped to eliminate the railing in those pics. Other times in nature, I was standing on a rock but needed to place my tripod lower so the extra length came in handy.

If you want to check it out I always have it with me. The next time we meet, I show you the tripod.

Nick

[Nick D]

Judy,

As far as B&H vs. Adorama, I only dealt with B&H, but I can tell you whatever I bought there I got 2 days later. Another thing was I had a problem with my new SB600 flash (yes I had Nikon too) And they exchanged it supplied me the return shipping slip and FedEx'ed the replacement.

As far as matching color, do you have or have you tried a monitor/ printer color calibrator?

Nick