"Ack!" The hater of Olympus and 4/3rds joins Dpreview!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Waterproof case for A570IS or Waterproof Camera
Next: Dpreview. Strapped for real news, or in sales pitch mode?
From: mith on 23 Jan 2010 20:06 >> > > 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? :)
From: David J Taylor on 24 Jan 2010 04:40 "mith" wrote in message news:0192941e$0$11138$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > 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
From: David J Taylor on 24 Jan 2010 04:52 "mith" wrote in message news:00c28350$0$10719$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> >> >> 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. [] It's not just nit-picking, at least for me. I have found that one secret to travelling light (and I am no expert) is to save small amounts /everywhere/, as well as making any major savings. The larger aperture Olympus lenses total 52.8oz, versus the Nikon ones at 43.4oz. Making similar savings throughout your kit makes quite a difference if your carrying it round all day, on foot, without the benefit of a car for transport. Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 24 Jan 2010 07:09 On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:40:28 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >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). At ISO 100, there is little or no practical difference in image quality between Olympus and Nikon sensors. But there is a difference in the optical quality of the lenses. And that difference favours the Olympus products. The optical quality of Nikon consumer-grade glass has never been anything to write home about, whereas even the cheaper Olympus lenses have excellent optics thanks to their near-telecentric design. The pro grade Digital Zuiko lenses have outstanding optics. Overall image quality is a combination of optical performance and sensor performance (plus accurate focusing and a stable platform). At ISO 100, all other things being equal, the Olympus DSLR will shine thanks to its superior optics. At much higher ISOs, the Nikon will shine thanks to its lower noise sensor. So the result of the comparison is nowhere near as conclusive in favour of the Nikon as you would like (us) to think.
From: David J Taylor on 24 Jan 2010 08:31
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6bdol51982b87bme8tl9psokaljijr8evi(a)4ax.com... [] > At ISO 100, there is little or no practical difference in image > quality between Olympus and Nikon sensors. > > But there is a difference in the optical quality of the lenses. And > that difference favours the Olympus products. The optical quality of > Nikon consumer-grade glass has never been anything to write home > about, whereas even the cheaper Olympus lenses have excellent optics > thanks to their near-telecentric design. > > The pro grade Digital Zuiko lenses have outstanding optics. > > Overall image quality is a combination of optical performance and > sensor performance (plus accurate focusing and a stable platform). At > ISO 100, all other things being equal, the Olympus DSLR will shine > thanks to its superior optics. At much higher ISOs, the Nikon will > shine thanks to its lower noise sensor. > > So the result of the comparison is nowhere near as conclusive in > favour of the Nikon as you would like (us) to think. At ISO 100, almost any sensor (including the ones in some compact cameras) may give adequate image quality. As someone who likes smaller aperture lenses, the high ISO performance is what matters more to me. I can quite happily use ISO 3200. And the point is /not/ about image quality, but the lack of comparable compact and lightweight Olympus lenses to the Nikon range, which has been adequately demonstrated. If you insist on a Nikon/Olympus comparison, for me the lack of in-lens image stabilisation would be a major factor. You sound as if you keep your camera set to ISO 100 on a tripod, I don't, so it's not surprising that we will have different best-buys. Cheers, David |