OLY E510 as a "Landscape" DSLR

[simonkit]

I'm just considering purchasing the OLY E510 & would like others opinions. I take 95% Landscape Photgraphy shots, do you think the 4/3rds system is ideally suited to landscapes or would a 3/2 system be better ?

thanks

simon

 

[brummie]

510 IMO is an excellent choice

I have the 500 and it produces some great results.
Oly make some of the best lenses in the world though you do pay a bit extra for them but they are definately worth it. The 4/3 system will be ideally suited for your needs.

Be prepared the the forum flood now of Nikon and Canon users telling you how they are better

 

[dazzajl]

4/3 is a nice format to work with but in many ways, so are all the others. It really depends on what you like personally.

The only real down side of choosing olympus over the more common makes is availability and cost of lenses and accesories. Being that there are just less of them out there, there is less competition keeping prices down.

 

[brummie]

4/3 is a nice format to work with but in many ways, so are all the others. It really depends on what you like personally.

The only real down side of choosing olympus over the more common makes is availability and cost of lenses and accesories. Being that there are just less of them out there, there is less competition keeping prices down.

Could always buy sigma if price is an issue though. They are the same price as other formats.

 

[dazzajl]

cool, I didn't know you could get sigma in Oly fit. that certainly takes care of the price issue, if not the availabilty one.

I still like the idea of the Olympus system, if for no other reason than individuality.

 

[apodo]

Personally I think the 3:2 ratio is better for landscapes than 4:3. Though with either you would probably have to crop if printing due to all the weird standard print sizes so it is not something to take too seriously.

But the smaller sensor size, while giving greater depth of field, means it is less suited to ultra wide angle shots than something like a Pentax. The smaller focal lengths required needed for the same field of view makes the lenses much more expensive and with a greater risk of rectilinear distortion. And needing a wider thread would make filters more expensive too.

Michael.

 

[King_Boru]

Great choice. The E510 looks to be a superb camera.

 

[dazzajl]

I have no idea about the chip sizes in the oly bodies. Is it that much smaller than the 1.5 and 1.6 crop nikon and canon cameras?

If so, then that would be a good reason to possibly choose something else. If the pixels are significantly more packed than in canon/nikon etc sensors then you could well loose noticable amounts of image quality using 3rd party lenses like the sigmas.

 

[brummie]

Here's a site that explain all about 4/3's

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/index.html

 

[dazzajl]

Thanks Brummie.

That is alot of pixies to pack into quite a small sensor and will be very demanding on lens sharpness. Probably not so much with any oly lenses that have been specifically designed to work with that chip but the sigmas may well struggle. Although some of that will be offset but only using the centre/best section of the glass.

 

[brummie]

Thanks Brummie.

That is alot of pixies to pack into quite a small sensor and will be very demanding on lens sharpness. Probably not so much with any oly lenses that have been specifically designed to work with that chip but the sigmas may well struggle. Although some of that will be offset but only using the centre/best section of the glass.

Sigma dont struggle at all. Some people rave about them and their 4/3 are really quite good

 

[brummie]

these guys can help you much better than i can.
http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/index.php

They know their technical stuff much better than any other site i have visited.

 

[apodo]

I have no idea about the chip sizes in the oly bodies. Is it that much smaller than the 1.5 and 1.6 crop nikon and canon cameras?

The factor is 2x, so for wide angles the following would give the same field of view:

10mm on Canon 1Ds and 5D
13mm on Canon 1D
15mm on Nikon, Fuji, Sony, and Pentax
16mm on Other Canon
17mm on Sigma
20mm on Olympus and Panasonic

If the pixels are significantly more packed than in canon/nikon etc sensors then you could well loose noticable amounts of image quality using 3rd party lenses like the sigmas.

I would look at how well the camera performs in the real world than worrying other details like that. There is more to quality than just the density of the pixels and there is probably not much difference between an Olympus and an APS-C body than there is between an 8mp and 10mp model from the same manufacturer.

I also think you are being a bit unfair to Sigma who make some very good and very sharp lenses.

Michael.

 

[dazzajl]

I also think you are being a bit unfair to Sigma how make some very good and very sharp lenses

I can see how it comes over that way but it's not an anti Sigma comment.

What I do have an issue with is lenses that are designed for one thing being adapted for different (read more demanding) uses.

I personally think that canon L glass (some more than others) has now fallen well behind the demands that modern chips place on it.

We all become very used to the quality our kit produces but I know that after shooting for a while with just my Leaf back and mamiya or schneider lenses, the results from my canon lenses onto the 1d II is pretty poor. And at 8Mp, that's a small camera these days.

Nearly all the lenses we use have thier design roots in 35mm film, while the cameras themselves are collecting detail that rivals 6x7 meduim format. This kinda moves off into another area here but the lens limits are why I'd far rather see the camera compainies give us true 16bit capture in digiSLR's than raise the pixel count every two minutes.

 

[brummie]

4/3 is a new design and based on digital only. Nowt to do with film, and is also one of the reasons their lenses are a bit more expensive.

 

[dazzajl]

This thread is turning a great distraction from the painting I should be doing.

4/3 as a format (which is where we started of course) has been around since god was in short trousers and with just about all digibacks being 4/3 the meduim format market for 645 cameras is still producing new models.

your point about the oly lenses being designed specifically around the chip characteristics is exaclty what I was trying to get at when I was saying they may well be far better than 3rd party versions, which are only adapted.

 

[apodo]

We all become very used to the quality our kit produces but I know that after shooting for a while with just my Leaf back and mamiya or schneider lenses, the results from my canon lenses onto the 1d II is pretty poor. And at 8Mp, that's a small camera these days.

I will bow to your experience on that as I would have thought that is was the sensor and not the lens that is the poorer element in the relationship. Certainly I am not surprised that medium format gives better results than a DSLR.

4/3 as a format (which is where we started of course) has been around since god was in short trousers

What Brummie means is not the 4:3 ratio but the four-thirds system. It was created by Olympus and Kodak as a standard for digital SLR cameras so that any manufacturer could make compatible equipment. It is about communications and mounts and all the other technical stuff. A number of other companies have joined the Four Thirds consortium with Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica having made bodies, and Olympus, Sigma, and Leica having made lenses.

your point about the oly lenses being designed specifically around the chip characteristics is exaclty what I was trying to get at when I was saying they may well be far better than 3rd party versions, which are only adapted.

Lenses are not designed around specific chips or sensors though, otherwise you would need to separate ones for every camera as the technology is constantly changing. For example, recent Olympus four-thirds cameras have twice the number of pixels as when they first launched the system.

Similarly Sigma are not a third-party manufacturer for the four-thirds system. They are a member of the consortium just like Olympus, and all manufacturers create their lenses for all compatible bodies and vice versa.

Michael.

 

[simonkit]

Lots of useful feedback to consider, thanks everyone.

The lenses are one reason that OLY catches my eye - their wide angle selection seems highly rated, even the kit lenses.

I was wondering if the 4:3 ratio would be quite as effective for a good landscape scenery shot - being "squarer" than 3:2 would mean a lesser panoramic effect I assume ?

OLY noise levels are not even a concern for me, I currently use a Prosumer so any DSLR will provide improved shadow detail/ less shadow noise. A tripod & the IS are also ways around high iso anyway.

simon

 

[brummie]

4:3 is fine you can always crop slightly if you really had to.

Oly noise levels arent that bad. And they have a noise reduction which canon have switched on by default.

 

[RobertP]

I still get emails from a Yahoo group I joined back when I used an Olympus C5050. It is now mostly about Oly DSLRs. They have a web site with a lot of galleries - including a landscape section.

http://myolympus.org/

I wanted a Canon DSLR but the Oly was tempting at the time. In the end I saw an offer on the 20D and went for it.At full price I might have been an Oly user too!

In the end for all but specialist applications what you point the camera at is more important than who made it.

 

[King_Boru]

I will second that the Oly lenses are very sharp. See below charts from photozone.de with the entry level Oly Digital ket lens. Compared to the more common brands, it blows them out of the water.

King

 

[apodo]

The lenses are one reason that OLY catches my eye - their wide angle selection seems highly rated, even the kit lenses.

They should be! The Olympus 7-14mm lens is over £1,000 for a similar angle of view (it is slightly wider) as the Sigma 10-20mm provides on other bodies for less than a third of the cost.

I was wondering if the 4:3 ratio would be quite as effective for a good landscape scenery shot - being "squarer" than 3:2 would mean a lesser panoramic effect I assume ?

True, but if you wanted to make an 8x10" print it would not be square enough, and you would have to crop off more with a 3:2 image than one from the Olympus.

I would only really consider it a relevant distinction if you cannot decide between two different systems. If you know you want the Olympus then it should not put you off.

In the end for all but specialist applications what you point the camera at is more important than who made it.

That is true. Unless there is something you specifically need, which a particular brand does not offer, then you will be happy with whatever you chose because ultimately it is you that takes and makes the picture, not the gear.

Michael.

 

[MrEd]

also panasonic and sigma are bringing out 4/3rds camera bodies aswell as are antoher company i cant remember so lens availability shouldnt be an issue.
i got a sigma for my oly and its very sharp. i say go for oly....

 

[simonkit]

Thanks everyone for the helpful comments

Although I do like the sound of the E510 I'm still quite open-minded. My main wish is to but the DSLR best suited to my type of photography - 95% Landscape work.
The Canon 5D comes highly rated, although it's slightly beyond my budget

simon